23644 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION commercial data available concerning CONTACT by July 8, 2019. the status of the species, including the and Wildlife Service ADDRESSES: You may submit comments impacts of past, present, and future by one of the following methods: factors (both negative and beneficial) 50 CFR Part 17 (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal affecting each species. Both SSA reports [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092; eRulemaking Portal: http:// underwent independent peer review by 4500030113] www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, scientists with expertise in fish or enter FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092, which is biology, habitat RIN 1018–BC28 the docket number for this rulemaking. management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document species. The SSA reports and other and Plants; Threatened Species Status materials relating to this proposal can be With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Type heading, check the Proposed Rules box to locate this document. You may found on the Southeast Region website Waterdog and Endangered Species at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and Status for Carolina and submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ at http://www.regulations.gov under Proposed Designations of Critical Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092. Habitat (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Executive Summary AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2018– Interior. 0092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Why we need to publish a rule. Under MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls the Act, if we determine that a species ACTION: Proposed rule. may be an endangered or threatened Church, VA 22041–3803. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and We request that you send comments species throughout all or a significant Wildlife Service (Service), announce a only by the methods described above. portion of its range, we are required to 12-month finding on a petition to list We will post all comments on http:// promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and make a two North Carolina species, the Neuse www.regulations.gov. This generally determination on our proposal within 1 River waterdog ( lewisi) and means that we will post any personal year. To the maximum extent prudent the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), information you provide us (see Public and determinable, we must designate as endangered or threatened under the Comments, below, for more critical habitat for any species that we Endangered Species Act of 1973, as information). determine to be an endangered or amended (Act). The Neuse River Availability of supporting materials: threatened species under the Act. waterdog is an aquatic . The For the critical habitat designation, the Listing a species as an endangered or Carolina madtom is a freshwater fish. coordinates or plot points or both from threatened species and designation of After review of the best available which the maps are generated are critical habitat can only be completed scientific and commercial information, included in the administrative record by issuing a rule. we find that listing both species is and are available at https:// What this document does. We warranted. Accordingly, we propose to www.fws.gov/southeast/, at http:// propose the listing of the Neuse River list the Neuse River waterdog as a www.regulations.gov under Docket No. waterdog as a threatened species with a threatened species with a rule issued FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092, and at the rule under section 4(d) of the Act and under section 4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office the Carolina madtom as an endangered rule’’) and the Carolina madtom as an (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). species under the Act, and we propose endangered species under the Act. If we Any additional tools or supporting the designation of critical habitat for finalize this rule as proposed, it would information that we may develop for the both species. add these species to the List of critical habitat designation will also be The basis for our action. Under the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife available at the Service website and Act, we may determine that a species is and extend the Act’s protections to both Field Office set out above, and may also an endangered or threatened species species. We also propose to designate be included in the preamble and/or at based on any of five factors: (A) The critical habitat for both species under http://www.regulations.gov. present or threatened destruction, the Act. In total, approximately 738 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete modification, or curtailment of its river miles (1,188 river kilometers) in 16 Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish habitat or range; (B) overutilization for units in North Carolina fall within the and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological commercial, recreational, scientific, or boundaries of the proposed critical Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, educational purposes; (C) disease or habitat designation for the Neuse River Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919–856– ; (D) the inadequacy of waterdog. Approximately 257 river 4520; or facsimile 919–856–4556. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) miles (414 river kilometers) in 7 units in Persons who use a telecommunications other natural or manmade factors North Carolina are being proposed as device for the deaf (TDD) may call the affecting its continued existence. We critical habitat for the Carolina madtom. Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. have determined that habitat Finally, we announce the availability of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: degradation (Factor A), resulting from a draft economic analysis of the the cumulative impacts of land use proposed critical habitat designations. Supporting Documents change and associated watershed-level DATES: We will accept comments A species status assessment (SSA) effects on water quality, water quantity, received or postmarked on or before July team prepared SSA reports for the habitat connectivity, and instream 22, 2019. Comments submitted Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina habitat suitability, poses the largest risk electronically using the Federal madtom. The SSA team was composed to future viability of both species. This eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, of Service and North Carolina Wildlife stressor is primarily related to habitat below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Resources Commission biologists, in changes: The buildup of fine sediments, Eastern Time on the closing date. We consultation with other species experts. the loss of flowing water, instream must receive requests for public The SSA reports represent a habitat fragmentation, and impairment hearings, in writing, at the address compilation of the best scientific and of water quality, and it is exacerbated by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23645

the effects of climate change (Factor E). habitat requirements for feeding, needed in critical habitat areas we are There are no existing regulatory breeding, and sheltering; proposing, including managing for the mechanisms that are adequate to reduce (b) Genetics and ; potential effects of climate change; and these threats so that the species does not (c) Historical and current range, (d) What areas not occupied at the warrant listing (Factor D). including distribution patterns; time of listing are essential for the Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the (d) Historical and current population conservation of the species and why. Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to levels, and current and projected trends; (8) Land use designations and current designate critical habitat concurrent and or planned activities in the subject areas with listing to the extent prudent and (e) Past and ongoing conservation and their possible impacts on proposed determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act measures for these species, their critical habitat. states that the Secretary will make the habitats, or both. (9) Any probable economic, national designation on the basis of the best (2) Factors that may affect the security, or other relevant impacts of available scientific data after taking into continued existence of the species, designating any area that may be consideration the economic impact, the which may include habitat modification included in the final designation, and impact on national security, and any or destruction, overutilization, disease, the benefits of including or excluding other relevant impact of specifying any predation, the inadequacy of existing areas that may be impacted. particular area as critical habitat. regulatory mechanisms, or other natural (10) Information on the extent to Section 3(5) of the Act defines critical or manmade factors. which the description of probable habitat as (i) the specific areas within (3) Biological, commercial trade, or economic impacts in the draft economic the geographical area occupied by the other relevant data concerning any analysis is a reasonable estimate of the species, at the time it is listed, on which threats (or lack thereof) to these species likely economic impacts. are found those physical or biological and existing regulations that may be (11) Whether any specific areas we are features (I) essential to the conservation addressing those threats. proposing for critical habitat of the species and (II) which may (4) Additional information concerning designation should be considered for require special management the historical and current status, range, exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the considerations or protection; and (ii) distribution, and population size of Act, and whether the benefits of specific areas outside the geographical these species, including the locations of potentially excluding any specific area area occupied by the species at the time any additional populations of either outweigh the benefits of including that it is listed if such areas are essential to species. area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. (12) Whether we could improve or the conservation of the species. (5) Information on activities that are Peer Review. In accordance with our necessary and advisable for the modify our approach to designating joint policy on peer review published in conservation of the Neuse River critical habitat in any way to provide for the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 waterdog to include in a 4(d) rule for the greater public participation and FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, species. The Service is proposing such understanding, or to better memorandum updating and clarifying measures that are necessary and accommodate public concerns and the role of peer review of listing actions advisable for the conservation of the comments. Please include sufficient information under the Act, we sought the expert species, and will evaluate ideas with your submission (such as scientific opinions of 13 appropriate specialists provided by the public in considering journal articles or other publications) to regarding the SSA reports, which the prohibitions we should include in allow us to verify any scientific or informed this proposed rule. The the 4(d) rule. (a) Additional provisions the Service commercial information you include. purpose of peer review is to ensure that may wish to consider for a 4(d) rule in Please note that submissions merely the science behind our listing order to conserve, recover, and manage stating support for, or opposition to, the determinations, the critical habitat the Neuse River waterdog, such as the action under consideration without designations, and 4(d) rule are based on best management practices used in providing supporting information, scientifically sound data, assumptions, agriculture. although noted, will not be considered and analyses. The peer reviewers have (6) The reasons why we should or in making a determination, as section expertise in the biology, habitat, and should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that stressors to the species. habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act determinations as to whether any Information Requested including whether there are threats to species is an endangered or a threatened the species from human activity, the species must be made ‘‘solely on the Public Comments degree of which can be expected to basis of the best scientific and We intend that any final action increase due to the designation, and commercial data available.’’ resulting from this proposed rule will be whether that increase in threat You may submit your comments and based on the best scientific and outweighs the benefit of designation materials concerning this proposed rule commercial data available and be as such that the designation of critical by one of the methods listed in accurate and as effective as possible. habitat may not be prudent. ADDRESSES. We request that you send Therefore, we request comments or (7) Specific information on: comments only by the methods information from other concerned (a) The amount and distribution of described in ADDRESSES. governmental agencies, Native Neuse River waterdog or Carolina If you submit information via http:// American tribes, the scientific madtom habitat; www.regulations.gov, your entire community, industry, or any other (b) What areas, that were occupied at submission—including any personal interested parties concerning this the time of listing and that contain the identifying information—will be posted proposed rule. We particularly seek physical or biological features essential on the website. If your submission is comments concerning: to the conservation of the species, made via a hardcopy that includes (1) The species’ biology, range, and should be included in the designation personal identifying information, you population trends, including: and why; may request at the top of your document (a) Biological or ecological (c) Special management that we withhold this information from requirements of these species, including considerations or protection that may be public review. However, we cannot

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23646 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

guarantee that we will be able to do so. genus Necturus, one of three species of instream habitats are described as We will post all hardcopy submissions Necturus in North Carolina. riffles, runs, and pools with current, and on http://www.regulations.gov. Neuse River waterdogs have a reddish during the warm months the Comments and materials we receive, brown skin with black spots, reaching are found in or near swift current at as well as supporting documentation we up to 9 inches (in) in length as adults. depths of 1 to 3 feet (.3 to .9 meters). used in preparing this proposed rule, Their underside is brownish grey, and Stream bottom substrate composition is will be available for public inspection they have external bushy dark red gills. important for benthic Carolina on http://www.regulations.gov, or by They eat large aquatic arthropods, any madtoms; leaf litter, sand, gravel, and appointment, during normal business aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and small cobble are all common substrates hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife even some vertebrates like small fish. associated with the species, although it Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Like most waterdogs, they are is most often found over sand mixed Field Office (see FOR FURTHER opportunistic feeders who lie in wait for with pea-sized gravel and leaf litter. INFORMATION CONTACT). a small organism to swim or float by. All During the breeding season, Carolina prey are ingested whole, and larger madtoms shift to areas of moderate to Public Hearing items are sometimes regurgitated and slow flow with abundant cover used for Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for then re-swallowed. nesting. one or more public hearings on this Neuse River waterdogs are found in The nesting season extends from streams ranging from larger headwater proposal, if requested. Requests must be about mid-May to late July. Nest sites streams in the Piedmont to coastal received by the date specified above in are often found under or in relic streams up to the point of saltwater DATES. Such requests must be sent to the freshwater mussel shells, under large intrusion. None have been found in address shown in FOR FURTHER pieces of water-logged tree bark, or in lakes or ponds. They are usually found INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule discarded beverage bottles and cans in streams wider than 15 meters (m), public hearings on this proposal, if any partially buried on the stream bottom. deeper than 100 centimeters (cm), and are requested, and announce the dates, The female produces about 80 to 300 with a main channel flow rate greater times, and places of those hearings, as , and the male guards the nest until than 10cm/second. Further, they need well as how to obtain reasonable the eggs hatch. Clutch sizes average 152 clean, flowing water characterized by accommodations, in the Federal larvae, and life expectancy for these fish high dissolved oxygen concentrations. is at least 4 years. Register and local newspapers at least The preferred habitats vary with the 15 days before the hearing. The Carolina madtom is a bottom- season, temperature, dissolved oxygen dwelling insectivore that feeds Previous Federal Actions content, flow rate and precipitation; primarily during the night, with peaks however, the waterdogs maintain home at dawn and dusk. More than 95 percent On April 20, 2010, we received a retreat areas under rocks, in burrows, or petition from Center for Biological of the food organisms in the Carolina under substantial cover in backwater or madtom stomachs were larval midges, Diversity and others to list 404 aquatic eddy areas. species in the southeastern United , , dragonflies, and Longevity of Neuse River waterdogs is larvae (Burr et al. 1989, p. 78). States, including the Neuse River not known; however, their close relative waterdog and the Carolina madtom. In N. maculosus may live for 30+ years. Summary of Biological Status and response to the petition, we completed Like many long-lived , breeding Threats a partial 90-day finding on September is delayed until a minimum body size Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we is reached and they tend to grow slowly. and its implementing regulations in title stated that the petition contained Generation time for Neuse River 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations substantial information that listing may waterdogs is 10–15 years. They breed (50 CFR part 424) set forth the be warranted for both species. We once per year, with mating in the fall or procedures for determining whether a conducted a status review for each winter and spawning in the spring. species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a species. This proposed listing rule also Females lay a clutch of about 25–90 eggs ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines constitutes our 12-month petition under large rocks with sand and gravel an endangered species as a species that findings for the two species. beneath them and then guard the is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout I. Proposed Listing Determination rudimentary nest. all or a significant portion of its range,’’ and a threatened species as a species Background Carolina Madtom that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered Neuse River Waterdog A thorough review of the taxonomy, species within the foreseeable future life history, and ecology of the Carolina throughout all or a significant portion of A thorough review of the taxonomy, madtom (Noturus furiosus) is presented its range.’’ The Act requires that we life history, and ecology of the Neuse in the SSA Report. determine whether any species is an River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) is The Carolina madtom is a moderate- ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened presented in the SSA Report Version sized with a short, chunky body species’’ because of any of the following 1.1. and a distinct color pattern of three dark factors: The Neuse River waterdog is a saddles and a wide black stripe along its (A) The present or threatened permanently aquatic salamander species side. Furiosus means ‘‘mad’’ or destruction, modification, or endemic to the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse ‘‘raging,’’ as the Carolina madtom is the curtailment of its habitat or range; River drainages in North Carolina. The most strongly armed of the North (B) Overutilization for commercial, species occurs in riffles, runs, and pools American with stinging spines recreational, scientific, or educational in medium to large streams and rivers containing a potent poison in their purposes; with moderate gradient in both the pectoral fins. They are found in medium (C) Disease or predation; Piedmont and Coastal Plain to large flowing streams of moderate (D) The inadequacy of existing physiographic regions. Neuse River gradient in both the Piedmont and regulatory mechanisms; or waterdogs are from an ancient lineage of Coastal Plain physiographic regions in (E) Other natural or manmade factors permanently aquatic in the the Neuse and Tar River basins. Suitable affecting its continued existence.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23647

These factors represent broad assessment of the potential stressors to and negative environmental and categories of natural or human-caused the species. They do not represent a anthropogenic influences. This process actions or conditions that could have an decision by the Service on whether the used the best available information to effect on a species’ continued existence. species should be proposed for listing as characterize viability as the ability of a In evaluating these actions and an endangered or threatened species species to sustain populations in the conditions, we look for those that may under the Act. They do, however, wild over time. We utilize this have a negative effect on individuals of provide the scientific basis that informs information to inform our regulatory the species, as well as other actions or our regulatory decisions, which decision. conditions that may ameliorate any involves the further application of Neuse River Waterdog negative effects or may have positive standards within the Act and its effects. implementing regulations and policies. To evaluate the current and future We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in The following is a summary of the key viability of the Neuse River waterdog, general to actions or conditions that are results and conclusions from the SSA we assessed a range of conditions to known to or are reasonably likely to reports; the full SSA reports can be allow us to consider the species’ negatively affect individuals of a found on the Southeast Region website resiliency, representation, and species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and redundancy. For the purposes of this actions or conditions that have a direct at http://www.regulations.gov under assessment, populations were impact on individuals (direct impacts), Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092. delineated using the three river basins as well as those that affect individuals that Neuse River waterdogs have Summary of Analysis through alteration of their habitat or historically occupied (i.e., Tar-Pamlico, required resources (stressors). The term To assess Neuse River waterdog and Neuse, and Trent River basins). Because ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either Carolina madtom viability, we used the the river basin level is at a very coarse together or separately—the source of the three conservation biology principles of scale, populations were further action or condition or the action or resiliency, representation, and delineated using Management Units condition itself. redundancy (together, the 3 Rs) (Shaffer (MUs). MUs were defined as one or However, the mere identification of and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, more HUC10 (hydrologic unit code) any threat(s) does not necessarily mean resiliency supports the ability of the watersheds that species experts that the species meets the statutory species to withstand environmental and identified as most appropriate for definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or demographic stochasticity (for example, assessing population-level resiliency. a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining wet or dry, warm or cold years); To assess resiliency, we analyzed MU whether a species meets either representation supports the ability of occupancy over time and site occupancy definition, we must evaluate all the species to adapt over time to long- over time (‘‘population factors’’) as well identified threats by considering the term changes in the environment (for as four habitat elements that were expected response by the species, and example, climate changes); and determined in our analysis of the the effects of the threats—in light of redundancy supports the ability of the species’ needs to have the most those actions and conditions that will species to withstand catastrophic events influence on the species: Water quality, ameliorate the threats—on an (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In water quantity, substrate, and habitat individual, population, and species general, the more redundant and connectivity (‘‘habitat elements’’). We level. We evaluate each threat and its resilient a species is and the more then assessed the overall condition of expected effects on the species, then representation it has, the more likely it each population. Overall population analyze the cumulative effect of all of is to sustain populations over time, even condition rankings were determined by the threats on the species as a whole. under changing environmental combining the two population factors We also consider the cumulative effect conditions. Using these principles, we and four habitat elements. For a more of the threats in light of those actions identified the species’ ecological detailed explanation of the condition and conditions that will have positive requirements for survival and categories, see Table 1, below. effects on the species—such as any reproduction at the individual, Representation for the Neuse River existing regulatory mechanisms or population, and species levels, and waterdog can be described in terms of conservation efforts. The Secretary described the beneficial and risk factors the size and range of the river systems determines whether the species meets influencing the species’ viability. it inhabits (medium streams to large the definition of an ‘‘endangered The SSA process can be categorized rivers in three river basins), and species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only into three sequential stages. During the physiographic variability (Piedmont and after conducting this cumulative first stage, we used the 3Rs to evaluate Coastal Plain). High redundancy for analysis and describing the expected individual species’ life-history needs. Neuse River waterdog is defined as effect on the species now and in the The next stage involved an assessment multiple resilient populations (inclusive foreseeable future. of the historical and current condition of multiple, resilient MUs) distributed In our determination, we correlate the of the species’ demographics and habitat throughout the species’ historical range. threats acting on the species to the characteristics, including an That is, highly resilient populations, factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The explanation of how the species arrived coupled with a relatively broad SSA reports document the results of our at its current condition. The final stage distribution, have a positive comprehensive biological status review of the SSA involved making predictions relationship to species-level for each species, including an about the species’ responses to positive redundancy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23648 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—POPULATION AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS USED TO CREATE CONDITION CATEGORIES FOR RESILIENCY ASSESSMENT FOR NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG [MU = Management Unit; HUC10 = hydrologic unit code; ARA = active river area]

Population factors Habitat elements Condition category Instream habitat MU occupancy Site occupancy Water quality Water quantity Connectivity (substrate)

High ...... <10% decline or a <10% decline in Very few (if any) known impairment Optimal flowing water conditions to Very little (if any) Predominantly nat- positive increase site occupancy or contaminant problems (<5 miles remove fine sediments, allow for known habitat ural (>70% for- in occupied over time. impaired streams; no major dis- food delivery, and maximize repro- fragmentation ested) ARA; HUC10s over charges, <10 non-major dis- duction; no known flow issues; iso- issues (<10 <6% impervious time. charges). lated low flow/drought periods; not dams per MU; surfaces in flashy flow regime. avg # of Road HUC10 water- Crossings <300 shed. per MU). Moderate ...... 11–30% decline in 11–30% decline in Impairment or contaminants known to Water flow not sufficient to consist- Some habitat frag- 20–70% forested occupied site occupancy be an issue, but not at a level to ently remove fine sediments, drying mentation issues ARA; 6–15% im- HUC10s over over time. put population at risk of being elimi- conditions which could impact both (10–30 dams pervious sur- time. nated (5–50 miles impaired food delivery and successful repro- per MU; Avg # faces in HUC10 streams; 1–3 major discharges; duction; moderate flow issues, in- of Road Cross- watershed. 10–25 non-major discharges. cluding 3 to 4 years of consecutive ings 300–500 drought or moderately flashy flows. per MU). Low ...... 31–70% decline in 31–70% decline in Impairment or contaminants at levels Water not flowing—either inundated Habitat severely <20% forested occupied site occupancy high enough to put the population or dry; severe flow issues; more fragmented (30+ ARA; >15% im- HUC10s over over time. at risk of being eliminated (>50 than 4 consecutive years of dams in MU; pervious sur- time. miles impaired streams; >4 major drought; flashy flow regime. 500+ Avg Road faces in HUC10 discharges; 25+ non-major dis- Crossings per watershed. charges). MU). Very Low ...... >70% decline in >70% decline in Impairment or contaminant at levels Flow conditions do no support spe- Habitat extremely Instream habitat occupied site occupancy that cannot support species sur- cies survival. fragmented and unable to sup- HUC10s over over time. vival. unable to sup- port species sur- time. port species sur- vival. vival. Total Loss ...... Total Loss ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A.

Current Condition of Neuse River nearly half of the MUs losing species waterdog, populations were further Waterdog occurrence. Of the 16 historically delineated using MUs, again defined as The historical range of the Neuse occupied Piedmont HUC10s, 7 are no one or more HUC10 watersheds that River waterdog included 3rd and 4th longer occupied, and 9 have species experts identified as the most order streams and rivers in the Tar, experienced loss. appropriate unit for assessing Neuse, and Trent drainages (basins), The range of the Neuse River population-level resiliency. Resiliency with documented historical distribution waterdog has always been very narrow, is characterized, and overall population in 40 HUC10s in 9 MUs across the 3 limited to the Tar, Trent, and Neuse condition rankings and habitat populations. Currently, the Neuse River River drainages. Within the identified condition rankings were determined, in waterdog is extant in all nine identified representation areas (i.e., river basins), the same way as for the waterdog. MUs; however, within those MUs, it is the species retains redundancy in terms Representation for the Carolina presumed extirpated from 35 percent of occupied HUC10s within the Tar madtom can be described in terms of (14/40) of the historically occupied River population (82%) and the Neuse River Basin Variability (Tar, Trent, and HUC10s, and another 25 percent of the River population (70%), although 67 Neuse River basins) and Physiographic streams are in low or very low percent of redundancy has been lost in Variability (eastern Piedmont and condition. Of the nine occupied MUs, the Trent River population. Overall, the Coastal Plain). We assessed Carolina two (22%) are estimated to have high species has lost 27 percent (11 out of 40 madtom redundancy by first evaluating resiliency, three (33%) moderate historically occupied HUC10s) of its occupancy within each of the resiliency, and four (45%) low redundancy across its narrow, endemic hydrologic units (i.e., HUC10s) that resiliency. At the population level, one range. constitute MUs, and then we evaluated occupancy at the MU and ultimately the of three populations (Tar) is estimated Carolina Madtom to have moderate resiliency, and two population level. To evaluate the current and future (Neuse and Trent) are estimated to have Current Condition of Carolina Madtom low resiliency. viability of the Carolina madtom, we We estimated that the Neuse River assessed a similar range of conditions as The historical range of the Carolina waterdog currently has moderate described above for Neuse River madtom included three populations, adaptive potential, primarily due to waterdog to allow us to consider the one in each of the same three river ecological representation in three river species’ resiliency, representation, and basins in North Carolina as the Neuse basins and two physiographic regions. redundancy. We assessed resiliency for River waterdog. The results of surveys The species retains nearly all of its the Carolina madtom using population conducted from 2011 to 2016 suggest known River Basin variability; however, factors (MU occupancy over time, that the currently occupied range of the the variability within the basins is approximate abundance, and Carolina madtom includes four MUs reduced compared to historical recruitment) and habitat elements from two populations, corresponding to distribution. In addition, compared to (water quality, water quantity, habitat the Tar and Neuse River basins; historical occupancy, the species connectivity, and instream substrate). however, only one population (Tar) has currently retains moderate Populations were delineated using the multiple documented occurrences Physiographic Variability in the Coastal same three river basins that Carolina within the past 5 years. The species has Plain (87%) and in the Piedmont (67%). madtoms have historically occupied, been extirpated from the southern However, the Piedmont has experienced namely the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and portion of its range, including a large significant declines in occupancy, with Trent River basins. As with the portion of the Neuse River basin and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23649

entire Trent River basin. The Carolina Environmental Stressors or because the culvert ends up being madtom currently occupies 8 of the 31 perched, so that aquatic organisms such Development and Pollution historically occupied HUC10s (with as these species cannot pass through ‘‘currently’’ defined as the observation Development refers to urbanization of them. of at least one specimen from 2011 to the landscape, including (but not Carolina madtoms prefer clean water 2016), 7 of which are in the Tar River limited to) land conversion for urban with permanent flow and are not and commercial use, infrastructure Basin and 1 in the Neuse River Basin. tolerant of siltation and turbidity. (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban At the population level, the overall Benthic fish, such as the madtom, have water uses (water supply reservoirs, disproportionate rates of imperilment current condition (= resiliency) was wastewater treatment, etc.). The effects and extirpation due to pollution because estimated to be moderate for the Tar of urbanization may include alterations stream bottoms are often the first population, very low for the Neuse to water quality, water quantity, and habitats affected. Furthermore, the population, and likely extirpated for the habitat (both in-stream and stream-side) Carolina madtom is classified as an Trent population. (Service 2018, p. 40). ‘‘intolerant’’ species according to the NC We estimated that the Carolina Urbanization increases the amount of Division of Water Resources, meaning madtom currently has low adaptive impervious surfaces. ‘‘Impervious the species is most affected by potential due to limited representation surface’’ refers to all hard surfaces like environmental perturbations (NCDWR in two river basins and two paved roads, parking lots, roofs, and 2013, p. 19). physiographic regions. The species even highly compacted soils like sports All three of the river basins within the retains 33 percent of its known River fields. Impervious surfaces prevent the range of the Carolina madtom are natural soaking of rainwater into the Basin variability, considering greatly affected by development, from an ground and slow seepage into streams. reduced variability observed in the average of 7 percent in the Tar River Instead, the rainwater accumulates and Basin to an average of 13 percent in the Neuse River population. In addition, flows rapidly into storm drains, which Neuse River Basin (based on the 2011 compared to historical occupancy, the drain as runoff to local streams. This National Land Cover Data). For species currently retains very limited degrades stream habitat in three ways: example, the Neuse River Basin physiographic variability in the Coastal Water quantity (high flow during contains one-sixth of the entire State’s Plain (14%) and moderate variability in storms), water quality (pollutants human population, indicating heavy the Piedmont (56%). washing into streams), and increased development pressure on the watershed. The range of the Carolina madtom has water temperatures due to the surfaces The Middle Neuse MU contains 182 always been very narrow, limited to the heating the water. impaired stream miles, 9 major Tar, Trent, and Neuse River drainages. Concentrations of contaminants, discharges, 272 minor discharges, and Within the identified representation including nitrogen, phosphorus, nearly 4,000 road crossings, all affecting areas, the species retains redundancy chloride, insecticides, polycyclic the quality of the habitat for both aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal within the Tar River population (3 MUs species. The Middle Neuse is also 31 care products, increase with urban currently extant); however, it has no percent developed, with nearly 8 development (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2; redundancy (only 1 MU extant in the percent impervious surface, which Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1,311). Water changes natural streamflow, reduces Neuse River population and no infrastructure development, including appropriate stream habitat, and redundancy (extirpated) in the Trent water supply, reclamation, and decreases water quality throughout the River population. Overall, the species wastewater treatment, results in several MU. For complete data on all of the has lost 64 percent of its redundancy pollution point discharges to streams. populations, refer to appendices A and across its narrow, endemic range. A major result of urbanization is road D of the SSA reports. development. By its nature, road Risk Factors for Neuse River Waterdog Agricultural Practices: The main development increases impervious and Carolina Madtom impacts to the Neuse River waterdog surfaces as well as land clearing and and Carolina madtom from agricultural A multitude of natural and habitat fragmentation. Roads are practices, not following best anthropogenic factors may impact the generally associated with negative management practices (BMPs) for status of species within aquatic systems. effects on the biotic integrity of aquatic conservation, are caused by nutrient and Generally, these factors can be ecosystems, including changes in chemical pollution and by water categorized as either environmental surface water temperatures and patterns pumping for irrigation. Fertilizers and of runoff; sedimentation; and adding stressors (e.g., development, agriculture manure, which are both rich in heavy metals (especially lead), salts, practices, or forest management) or nitrogen and phosphorus, are the organics, ozone, and nutrients to stream primary sources of nutrient pollution systematic changes (e.g., climate change, systems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, from agricultural sources. Excess invasive species, dams or other p. 18). These changes affect stream- nutrients impact water quality when it barriers). The largest threats to the dwelling organisms such as the Carolina rains or when water and soil containing future viability of the Neuse River madtom and Neuse River waterdog by nitrogen and phosphorus wash into waterdog and Carolina madtom involve displacing them from once-preferred nearby waters or leach into the water habitat degradation from stressors habitats, as well as increasing exposure table or groundwater. Confined animal influencing the four habitat elements: and assimilation of pollutants that can feeding operations and feedlots can Water quality, water quantity, instream result in growth defects, decreased cause degradation of aquatic habitat, and habitat connectivity. All of immune response, and even death. In ecosystems, primarily because of these factors are exacerbated by the addition, a possible major impact of manure management issues. Fertilized effects of climate change. A brief road development is improperly soils, manure, and livestock can be summary of these primary stressors is constructed culverts at stream crossings. significant sources of nitrogen-based presented below; for a full description These culverts act as barriers, either compounds like ammonia and nitrogen of these stressors, refer to chapter 4 of because flow through the culvert varies oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to the SSA report for each species. significantly from the rest of the stream aquatic life if large amounts are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23650 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

deposited to surface waters. For fish like show that the average implementation displace, or kill Neuse River waterdogs the Carolina madtom, excess ammonia rate is at 92 percent, so while improper and Carolina madtoms, as well as the can cause a number of problems, implementation is rare, it can have host species on which the latter depend. including alteration of metabolism, drastic negative effects on sensitive Invasive Species: There are many injury to gill tissue, and reduced growth aquatic species. Further, many forestry areas across North Carolina where rates. Extreme levels of ammonia can activities do not require a permit for invasive species have invaded aquatic cause death. wetland or stream fill. communities; are competing with native Excessive water withdrawal or water species for food, light, or breeding and withdrawal done illegally (without the Systematic Changes nesting areas; and are impacting necessary permit, during dry times of Climate Change: Aquatic systems are biodiversity. The flathead catfish is an year), may cause impacts to the amount encountering changes and shifts in invasive species that may have an of water available to downstream seasonal patterns of precipitation and impact on Neuse River waterdog and sensitive areas during low flow months, runoff as a result of climate change. Carolina madtom distribution. The resulting in dewatering of channels and While both of these species have flathead catfish is an apex predator, displacement of fish and aquatic evolved in habitats that experience known to influence native fish salamanders, leading in turn to seasonal fluctuations in discharge, populations, including predation on desiccation and death. According to the global weather patterns (e.g., El Nin˜ o or benthic , including madtoms, and 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of La Nin˜ a) can have an impact on the it occurs in both the Neuse and Tar the watersheds within the range of the normal regimes. Even during naturally River basins. It is not known whether or Carolina madtom and Neuse River occurring low flow events, not this fish also preys on waterdogs, waterdog are affected by agricultural and fish either become stressed because but it is speculated that Neuse River land uses, most with 25 percent or more they exert significant energy to move to waterdog inactivity during warmer of the watershed having been converted deeper waters or they may succumb to months is in part due to the avoidance for agricultural use. desiccation. Because low flows in late of large, predatory fishes (Braswell Forest Management: Silvicultural summer and early fall are stress- 2005, p. 870). activities, when performed according to inducing, droughts during this time of Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), an strict forest practices guidelines (FPGs) year result in an increase in stress and, invasive aquatic plant, alters stream or BMPs, can retain adequate conditions potentially, an increased rate of habitat, decreases flows, and contributes for aquatic ecosystems; however, when mortality. to sediment buildup in streams FPGs/BMPs are not followed, these Droughts have impacted all river (NCANSMPC 2015, p. 57). High practices can also contribute to the basins within the range of both species, sedimentation can cause suffocation and myriad of stressors facing aquatic from an ‘‘abnormally dry’’ ranking for reduce stream flow necessary for systems in the Southeast, including North Carolina in 2001 on the Southeast madtom survival. Hydrilla occurs in North Carolina. Both small- and large- Drought Monitor scale to the highest several watersheds where both species scale forestry activities have been ranking of ‘‘exceptionally dry’’ for the occur, and has been recently shown to have a significant impact upon entire range of both species in 2002 and documented from the Neuse system and the physical, chemical, and biological 2007. The 2015 drought data indicated the Tar River. While there are no data characteristics of adjacent small streams that the entire Southeast was under to indicate that hydrilla currently has (Service 2018, p. 41). The clearing of conditions ranging from ‘‘abnormally population-level effects on these two large areas of forested wetlands and dry’’ to ‘‘moderate drought’’ or ‘‘severe species, its spread is expected to riparian systems can eliminate shade drought.’’ These data are from the first increase in the future. provided by forest canopies, exposing week in September, which as noted Dams and Barriers: Extinction of streams to more sunlight and increasing above is a very sensitive time for some North American freshwater fish the in-stream water temperature. The drought to be affecting both species. The can be traced to impoundment and increase in stream temperature and light Middle Neuse tributaries of the Neuse inundation of riffle habitats in all major after deforestation alters the River basin had consecutive drought river basins of the central and eastern macroinvertebrate and other aquatic years in the period 2005–2012, United States. Upstream of dams, the species richness and abundance indicating sustained stress on the change from flowing to impounded composition in streams. As stated species over a long period of time. waters, increased depths, increased above, both the Neuse River waterdog Amphibians and fish have limited buildup of sediments, decreased and Carolina madtom are sensitive to refugia from disturbances such as dissolved oxygen, and the drastic changes in temperature, and sustained droughts and floods, and they are alteration in resident fish populations temperature increases will stress and completely dependent on specific water can threaten the survival of fish and possibly lead to mortality for these temperatures to complete their aquatic salamanders and their overall species. physiological requirements. Changes in reproductive success. Downstream of Forestry activities often include the water temperature lead to stress, dams, fluctuations in flow regimes, construction of logging roads through increased mortality, and also increase minimal releases and scouring flows, the riparian zone, and this can directly the likelihood of extinction for both seasonal dissolved oxygen depletion, degrade nearby stream environments. species. Increases in the frequency and reduced or increased water Roads can cause point-source pollution strength of storm events, which are temperatures, and changes in fish and sedimentation, as well as caused by climate change, alter stream assemblages can also threaten the sedimentation traveling downstream habitat, either directly via survival and reproduction of many into more sensitive habitats. These channelization or clearing of riparian aquatic species. Dams have also been effects lead to stress and mortality for areas or indirectly via high streamflows identified as causing genetic segregation both species, as discussed in that reshape the channel and cause or isolation in river systems—resident ‘‘Development,’’ above. While BMPs are sediment erosion. The large volumes fish can no longer move freely through widely adhered to, they were not always and velocity of water, combined with different habitats and may become common practice. The most recent the extra debris and sediment entering genetically isolated from other fish surveys of Southeastern U.S. States streams following a storm, stress, populations throughout the river. Even

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23651

improperly constructed culverts at regimes downstream of hydropower impacts due to disease or predation stream crossings can act as significant dams, and can affect other riverine (Factor C). barriers, and have some similar effects processes, such as sediment transport, Conservation Actions as dams on stream systems. Fluctuating nutrient cycling, and woody debris flows through the culvert can vary transport. The Service and State wildlife significantly from the rest of the stream, Potential impacts to both species from agencies are working with numerous preventing fish passage and scouring oil and gas extraction are numerous; partners to provide technical guidance downstream habitats. If a culvert ends they include water quality and water and offering conservation tools to meet up being perched above the stream bed, quantity impacts, riparian habitat both species and habitat needs in aquatic organisms cannot pass through fragmentation and conversion, increased aquatic systems in North Carolina. Land it. All of the MUs containing Neuse sand mining (used in oil and gas trusts are targeting key parcels for River waterdogs and Carolina madtom extraction), and increased road and acquisition; Federal, State, and populations have been impacted by utility corridors. While oil and gas university biologists are surveying and dams, with as few as 11 dams in the extraction currently does not, and likely monitoring species occurrences; and Contentnea Creek MU to 287 dams in will not, occur in the Tar River Basin recently there has been increased the Middle Neuse MU. due to lack of subsurface shale deposits, interest in efforts to consider captive Energy Production and Mining: The impacts from shale gas extraction could propagation and species population Neuse River waterdog and its habitat occur in the Neuse River Basin (Service restoration via augmentation, face impacts from oil and gas 2018, p. 46). Future impacts from oil expansion, and reintroduction efforts. production, coal power, hydropower, and gas exploration and production are However, some of these programs are in and the use of biofuels. Coal mined from certain, as North Carolina has recently their infancy, and none covers enough other States is used for energy begun to allow fracking operations to area to provide species-level protection production in North Carolina. Damage drill for natural gas State-wide. at a scale such that the species would to fish and wildlife from exposure to not warrant listing under the Act. Synergistic Effects coal ash slurry ranges from Future Scenarios physiological, developmental, and In addition to individually impacting behavioral toxicity to major population- the species, it is likely that several of the For the purpose of this assessment, and community-level changes. Coal- above summarized risk factors are acting we define viability as the ability of the combustion residue contamination of synergistically or additively on both species to sustain populations in the aquatic habitats can result in the species. The combined impact of wild over time. To address uncertainty accumulation of metals and trace multiple stressors is likely more harmful associated with the degree and extent of elements in larval amphibians, than a single stressor acting alone. For potential future stressors and their including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, example, in the Middle Neuse MU, impacts on species’ requisites, the 3Rs copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and there are 182 miles of impaired streams. were assessed using four plausible vanadium, potentially leading to They have low benthic- future scenarios. These scenarios were developmental, behavioral, and macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved based, in part, on the results of physiological effects (Rowe et al. 2002, oxygen, low pH, and contain urbanization and climate models that entire). As recently as October 2016, Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli). predict changes in habitat used by the Neuse River waterdogs in the Neuse There are 9 major and 272 minor Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina River were exposed to coal ash slurry discharges within this MU, along with madtom. We devised scenarios by when Hurricane Matthew caused 287 dams, almost 4,000 road crossings, eliciting expert information on the inundation of coal ash storage ponds. and droughts recorded for 3 consecutive primary stressors, urbanization and Coal-fired power plants pump large years in 2008–2010. For example, if a climate change. The models that were volumes of water to produce electricity small but improperly installed culvert at used to forecast both of these factors and aquatic organisms such as larval a road crossing prevents fish from projected 50 years into the future. Using waterdogs can be pulled in and killed moving up or downstream, the fish the best available data to forecast unless measures are sufficient to keep would not be able to escape to deeper plausible future scenarios allows the organisms from being impacted. After areas of the stream during droughts. Service to determine if a species may water is used for electricity production, Similarly, a discharge into a stream has become an endangered species in the it is returned to surface waters, but the more impact on aquatic species if there foreseeable future. Relatively long life temperature can be considerably higher are no precipitation events immediately spans, well-developed downscaled than the temperature of the stream, following to help flush the system. climate models specific to the region, reducing the ability of the species to These combinations of stressors on the and good growth data available for the spawn. sensitive aquatic species in this habitat Southeast region provide some Hydropower as a domestic energy likely impact both species more severely confidence in the range of outcomes source is becoming more prevalent in in combination than any one factor predicted over 50 years. Beyond that North Carolina, including areas where alone. timeframe, there is too much the Neuse River waterdog occurs. Like In our analysis of the factors affecting uncertainty in threats that will be other impoundments, streams and rivers both of these species, we found that occurring on the landscape and how the impounded by hydropower dams are there are no existing regulatory species may respond to those threats. changed from lotic systems to lentic mechanisms that adequately address For more detailed information on these systems, fragmenting habitats and threats to both species such that they do models and their projections, please see disrupting movements and migrations of not warrant listing under the Act (Factor the SSA reports (Service, 2017). fish and other aquatic organisms like the D). We found no evidence of In scenario one, the ‘‘Status Quo’’ Neuse River waterdog. Downstream population- or species-level impacts scenario, factors that influence current water quality can also suffer from low from overutilization for commercial, populations of the Neuse River dissolved oxygen levels and altered recreational, scientific, or educational waterdog and the Carolina madtom were temperatures. In addition, hydropower purposes (Factor B). Nor was there any assumed to follow current trends over generation can significantly change flow evidence to support that there are the 50-year time horizon. Climate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23652 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

models predict that, if emissions riparian areas is a potential conservation and future decreases in resiliency, continue at current rates, the Southeast activity that could benefit these species, populations become more vulnerable to will experience an increase in low flow and current efforts are considered extirpation from stochastic events, in (drought) events (IPCC 2013, p. 7). successful as part of the Optimistic turn, resulting in concurrent losses in Likewise, this scenario assumed the Scenario. representation and redundancy. The ‘business as usual’ pattern of urban In scenario four, the ‘‘Opportunistic’’ range of plausible future scenarios of growth, which predicts that scenario, those landscape-level factors Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions urbanization will continue to increase (e.g., development and climate change) and population factors suggest reduced rapidly (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1). This that are influencing populations of the viability into the future. Under Scenario continued growth in development Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina 1, the ‘‘Status Quo’’ option, a loss of means increases in impervious surfaces, madtom get moderately worse, resiliency, representation, and increased variability in streamflow, reflecting Climate Change Model RCP4.5 redundancy is expected. Under this channelization of streams or clearing of (Wayne 2013, p. 11) and SLEUTH BAU scenario, we predicted that no MUs riparian areas, and other negative effects (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5–1). Effects would remain in high condition, two in explained above under ‘‘Development.’’ of climate change are expected to be moderate condition, four in low The ‘‘Status Quo’’ scenario also moderate, resulting in some increased condition, and three MUs would be assumed that current conservation impacts from heat, storms, and droughts likely extirpated. Redundancy would be efforts would remain in place but that (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Urbanization in this reduced to four MUs in the Tar no new actions would be taken. scenario reflects the moderate BAU Population and two in the Neuse In scenario two, the ‘‘Pessimistic’’ SLEUTH levels, indicating Population. Representation would also scenario, factors that negatively approximately double the amount of be reduced, primarily with reduced influence Neuse River waterdog and the developed area compared to current variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Carolina madtom populations get worse; levels. Overall, it is expected that the Plain. reflecting Climate Model RCP8.5 synergistic impacts of changes in water Under scenario two, the ‘‘Pessimistic’’ (Wayne 2013, p. 11), effects of climate quality, flow, and habitat connectivity option, we predicted substantial losses change are expected to be magnified will negatively affect both species, of resiliency, representation, and beyond what is experienced in the although current land conservation redundancy. Redundancy would be ‘‘Status Quo’’ scenario. These predicted efforts will benefit the species in some reduced to four MUs in one population, effects include extreme heat, more watersheds. and the resiliency of that population is storms and flooding, and exacerbated expected to be low. Several (5) MUs drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Determination were predicted to be extirpated, and, of Based on the results of the SLEUTH Neuse River Waterdog the remaining four MUs, all would be in BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, entire), low condition. All measures of urbanization in the relevant watersheds The historical range of the Neuse representation are predicted to decline could expand to triple the amount of River Waterdog likely included all 3rd under this scenario, leaving remaining developed area, resulting in large and 4th order streams and rivers Neuse River waterdog populations increases of impervious surface cover throughout the Tar, Neuse, and Trent underrepresented in river basin and and, potentially, consumptive water drainages, with documented historical physiographic variability. use. Increased urbanization and climate distribution in nine MUs within three Under scenario three, the change effects are likely to result in populations. Of those nine occupied ‘‘Optimistic’’ option, we predicted increased impacts to water quality, MUs, two (22%) are estimated to have slightly higher levels of resiliency, water flow, and habitat connectivity, high resiliency, two (22%) moderate representation, and redundancy than and we predict that there is limited resiliency, and five (56%) low was estimated under the Status Quo or capacity for species restoration under resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to Pessimistic options. Three MUs would this scenario. the population level, one of three be in high condition, one in moderate Scenario three is labeled the populations (the Tar population) was condition, and the remaining five would ‘‘Optimistic’’ scenario, and factors that estimated to have moderate resiliency, be in low condition. Despite predictions influence population and habitat and two (the Neuse and Trent of population persistence in the Neuse conditions of the Neuse River waterdog populations) were characterized by low and Trent River Basins, these and the Carolina madtom are expected resiliency. In short, 60 percent of populations are expected to retain only to be somewhat improved. Reflecting streams that were once part of the low levels of resiliency, thus levels of Climate Model RCP2.6 (Wayne 2013, p. species’ range are estimated to be in low representation are also predicted to 11), climate change effects are predicted condition or likely extirpated. The decline under this scenario. to be minimal under this scenario and species is known to occupy streams in Finally, under scenario four, the would not include increased two physiographic regions, but it has ‘‘Opportunistic’’ option, we predicted temperatures, and storms or droughts lost physiographic representation with reduced levels of resiliency, are as set forth in the ‘‘Status Quo’’ and an estimated 43 percent loss in representation, and redundancy. One ‘‘Pessimistic’’ scenario predictions. Piedmont watersheds and an estimated MU would be in high condition, three Urbanization is also predicted to have 13 percent loss in Coastal Plain would be in moderate condition, three less impact in this scenario, as reflected watersheds. in low condition, and two would be by effects that are slightly lower than The Neuse River waterdog faces likely extirpated. Redundancy would be BAU model predictions (Terando et al. threats from declines in water quality, reduced with the loss of the Trent 2014; Table 5–1). Because water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and population. Under the Opportunistic water flow, and habitat impacts are instream fragmentation, and scenario, representation is predicted to predicted to be less severe in this deterioration of instream habitats be reduced with 67 percent of formerly scenario as compared to others, it is (Factor A). These threats are expected to occupied river basins remaining expected that the species will maintain be exacerbated by continued occupied and with reduced variability or have a slightly positive response. urbanization (Factor A) and effects of in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Targeted permanent protection of climate change (Factor E). Given current Physiographic Regions. Both the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23653

optimistic and opportunistic scenarios resiliency is low in most of the reduction in both the number and were determined to be ‘‘unlikely’’ in the remaining populations, many distribution of resilient populations is analysis, while the most likely scenarios populations are likely extirpated so that likely to make the species vulnerable to were status quo and pessimistic. Under redundancy and representation are catastrophic disturbance. either of these more likely scenarios, significantly reduced. This expected

TABLE 2—PREDICTED NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER EACH OF FOUR PLAUSIBLE SCENARIOS

Future scenarios of population conditions Populations: Management units #1 #2 #3 #4 Current Status quo Pessimistic Optimistic Opportunistic

Tar: Upper Tar ...... Low ...... Likely Extir- Likely Extir- Low ...... Likely Extirpated. pated. pated. Tar: Middle Tar ...... Moderate ...... Low ...... Low ...... High ...... Moderate. Tar: Lower Tar ...... High ...... Moderate ...... Low ...... High ...... Moderate. Tar: Sandy-Swift ...... High ...... Moderate ...... Low ...... High ...... High. Tar: Fishing Ck ...... Low ...... Low ...... Low ...... Moderate ...... Moderate. Neuse: Upper Neuse ...... Low ...... Likely Extir- Likely Extir- Low ...... Low. pated. pated. Neuse: Middle Neuse ...... Low ...... Low ...... Likely Extir- Low ...... Low. pated. Trent ...... Low ...... Likely Extir- Likely Extir- Low ...... Likely Extirpated. pated. pated.

Carolina Madtom be exacerbated by continued majority (65 percent) of the species’ The historical range of the Carolina urbanization (Factor A) and climate historical range. The Neuse River madtom included 3rd and 4th order change (Factor E). Given current rates of waterdog still exhibits representation streams and rivers in the Tar, Neuse, resiliency, populations are vulnerable to across both physiographic regions, and and Trent drainages, with documented extirpation from stochastic events, in extant populations remain across the historical distribution in 11 MUs within turn, resulting in concurrent losses in range. In short, while the primary 3 former populations, the Tar, Neuse, representation and redundancy. threats are currently acting on the and Trent. The Carolina madtom is The Act defines an endangered species and many of those threats are presumed extirpated from 64 percent (7) species as any species that is ‘‘in danger expected to continue into the future, we of the historically occupied MUs. Of the of extinction throughout all or a did not find that the species is currently four MUs that remain occupied, one is significant portion of its range’’ and a in danger of extinction throughout all of estimated to have high resiliency, one threatened species as any species ‘‘that its range. However, according to our with moderate resiliency, one with low is likely to become endangered assessment of plausible future scenarios, resiliency, and one with very low throughout all or a significant portion of the species is likely to become an resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to its range within the foreseeable future.’’ endangered species in the foreseeable the population level, the Tar population We considered whether the Neuse River future throughout all of its range. Fifty is estimated to have moderate waterdog and the Carolina madtom meet years was considered ‘‘foreseeable’’ in resiliency, the Neuse population is either of these definitions, and find that this case because it included projections characterized by very low resiliency, Neuse River waterdog meets the from both available models, and Neuse and the Trent population is presumed to definition of a threatened species, and River waterdogs are a long-lived and be extirpated. Of streams that were once Carolina madtom meets the definition of slow-growing species. We can part of the species’ range, 82 percent are an endangered species. reasonably rely on the future of 50 years estimated to be in low condition or Neuse River waterdog. Our analysis of as presented in the models of predicted likely extirpated. Once known to the species’ current and future urbanization and climate change, and occupy streams in two physiographic conditions, as well as the conservation predict how those threats will affect the regions, the species has also lost efforts discussed above, show that the status of the species over that substantial physiographic population and habitat factors used to timeframe. representation with an estimated 44 determine the resiliency, representation, As discussed above, the range of percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and redundancy for Neuse River plausible future scenarios of Neuse and an estimated 86 percent loss in waterdog will continue to decline so it River waterdog habitat conditions and Coastal Plain watersheds. is likely to become in danger of population factors suggest reduced Estimates of current resiliency for extinction throughout all or a significant viability into the future. Both the Carolina madtom are low, as are portion of the range within the optimistic and opportunistic scenarios estimates for representation and foreseeable future. were determined to be ‘‘unlikely’’ in the redundancy. The Carolina madtom faces First, we considered whether the analysis, while the most likely scenarios a variety of ongoing threats from Neuse River waterdog is presently in were status quo and pessimistic. Under declines in water quality, loss of stream danger of extinction and determined either of these more likely scenarios, flow, riparian and instream that proposing endangered status is not resiliency is low in most of the fragmentation, and deterioration of appropriate. The current conditions as remaining populations, and many instream habitats (Factor A). This assessed in the Neuse River waterdog populations are likely extirpated so that species also faces the threat of predation SSA report show that the species exists redundancy and representation are from the invasive flathead catfish in nine MUs over three different significantly reduced. This expected (Factor C). These threats are expected to populations (river systems) over a reduction in both the number and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23654 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

distribution of resilient populations is currently and are expected to continue recovery of these listed species, so that likely to make the species vulnerable to or worsen into the future. Because the they no longer need the protective catastrophic disturbance. species is already in danger of measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of Under the Act and our implementing extinction throughout its range, a the Act calls for the Service to develop regulations, a species may warrant threatened status is not appropriate. and implement recovery plans for the listing if it is endangered or threatened Under the Act and our implementing conservation of endangered and throughout all or a significant portion of regulations, a species may warrant threatened species. The recovery its range. Because we have determined listing if it is endangered or threatened planning process involves the that the Neuse River waterdog is likely throughout all or a significant portion of identification of actions that are to become an endangered species within its range. Because we have determined necessary to halt or reverse the species’ the foreseeable future throughout its that the Carolina madtom is in danger decline by addressing the threats to its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed of extinction throughout its range, we survival and recovery. The goal of this to an evaluation of potentially find it unnecessary to proceed to an process is to restore listed species to a significant portions of the range. Where evaluation of potentially significant point where they are secure, self- the best available information allows the portions of the range. Where the best sustaining, and functioning components Services to determine a status for the available information allows the of their ecosystems. species rangewide, that determination Services to determine a status for the Recovery planning includes the should be given conclusive weight species rangewide, that determination development of a recovery outline because a rangewide determination of should be given conclusive weight shortly after a species is listed and status more accurately reflects the because a rangewide determination of preparation of a draft and final recovery species’ degree of imperilment and status more accurately reflects the plan. The recovery outline guides the better promotes the purposes of the species’ degree of imperilment and immediate implementation of urgent statute. Under this reading, we should better promotes the purposes of the recovery actions and describes the first consider whether listing is statute. Under this reading, we should process to be used to develop a recovery appropriate based on a rangewide first consider whether listing is plan. Revisions of the plan may be done analysis and proceed to conduct a appropriate based on a rangewide to address continuing or new threats to ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ analysis and proceed to conduct a the species, as new substantive analysis if, and only if, a species does ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ information becomes available. The not qualify for listing as either analysis if, and only if, a species does recovery plan also identifies recovery endangered or threatened according to not qualify for listing as either criteria for review of when a species the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the endangered or threatened according to may be ready for reclassification from court in Desert Survivors v. Department the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the endangered to threatened of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, court in Desert Survivors v. Department (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from the List 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2018), did not address this issue, and 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, or Plants (‘‘delisting’’), and methods for our conclusion is therefore consistent 2018), did not address this issue, and monitoring recovery progress. Recovery with the opinion in that case. our conclusion is therefore consistent plans also establish a framework for Therefore, on the basis of the best with the opinion in that case. agencies to coordinate their recovery available scientific and commercial Therefore, on the basis of the best efforts and provide estimates of the cost information, we are proposing to list the available scientific and commercial of implementing recovery tasks. Neuse River waterdog as a threatened information, we propose to list the Recovery teams (composed of species species across its entire range in Carolina madtom as an endangered experts, Federal and State agencies, accordance with sections 3 and 4(a)(1) species across its entire range in nongovernmental organizations, and of the Act. accordance with sections 3 and 4(a)(1) stakeholders) are often established to Carolina madtom. The current of the Act. develop recovery plans. When conditions as assessed in the Carolina completed, the recovery outlines, draft Available Conservation Measures madtom SSA report show that 64 recovery plans, and the final recovery percent of the management units over Conservation measures provided to plans will be available on our website three populations (river systems) are species listed as endangered or (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or presumed extirpated. The Carolina threatened species under the Act from our Raleigh Ecological Services madtom currently has two of three include recognition, recovery actions, Field Office (see FOR FURTHER remaining populations, but one of those requirements for Federal protection, and INFORMATION CONTACT). populations (Neuse) is characterized by prohibitions against certain practices. Implementation of recovery actions ‘‘very low’’ resiliency. Once known to Recognition through listing results in generally requires the participation of a occupy streams in two physiographic public awareness and conservation by broad range of partners, including other regions, the species has also lost Federal, State, Tribal, and local Federal agencies, States, Tribes, substantial physiographic agencies; private organizations; and nongovernmental organizations, representation with an estimated 44 individuals. The Act encourages businesses, and private landowners. percent loss in Piedmont watersheds cooperation with the States and other Examples of recovery actions include and an estimated 86 percent loss in countries, and calls for recovery actions habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of Coastal Plain watersheds. Resiliency, to be carried out for listed species. The native vegetation), research, captive redundancy, and representation are all protection required by Federal agencies propagation and reintroduction, and at levels that put the species at risk of and the prohibitions against certain outreach and education. The recovery of extinction throughout its range now. We activities are discussed, in part, below. many listed species cannot be conclude that the species is currently in The primary purpose of the Act is the accomplished solely on Federal lands danger of extinction throughout all of its conservation of endangered and because their range may occur primarily range. We find that a threatened species threatened species and the ecosystems or solely on non-Federal lands. To status is not appropriate for the Carolina upon which they depend. The ultimate achieve recovery of these species madtom because the threats are ongoing goal of such conservation efforts is the requires cooperative conservation efforts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23655

on private, State, and Tribal lands. If or highways by the Federal Highway following actions would not be these species are listed, funding for Administration. prohibited: recovery actions will be available from (1) Species restoration efforts by State II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section a variety of sources, including Federal wildlife agencies, including collection 4(d) of the Act for the Neuse River budgets, State programs, and cost share of broodstock, tissue collection for Waterdog grants for non-Federal landowners, the genetic analysis, captive propagation, academic community, and Background and subsequent stocking into currently nongovernmental organizations. In The Act and its implementing occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species. addition, pursuant to section 6 of the regulations set forth a series of general (2) Channel restoration projects that Act, the State of North Carolina would prohibitions and exceptions that apply be eligible for Federal funds to create natural, physically stable, to threatened wildlife. Under section ecologically functioning streams (or implement management actions that 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary has the promote the protection or recovery of stream and wetland systems) that are discretion to issue such regulations as reconnected with their groundwater the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina he deems necessary and advisable to madtom. Information on our grant aquifers. These projects can be provide for the conservation of accomplished using a variety of programs that are available to aid threatened species. The Secretary also species recovery can be found at: http:// methods, but the desired outcome is a has the discretion to prohibit, by www.fws.gov/grants. natural channel with low shear stress regulation with respect to any Although the Neuse River waterdog (force of water moving against the and Carolina madtom are only proposed threatened species of fish or wildlife, channel); bank heights that enable for listing under the Act at this time, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) reconnection to the floodplain; a please let us know if you are interested of the Act. The same prohibitions of reconnection of surface and in participating in recovery efforts for section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 groundwater systems, resulting in these species. Additionally, we invite CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person perennial flows in the channel; riffles you to submit any new information on subject to the jurisdiction of the United and pools composed of existing soil, these species whenever it becomes States to take (which includes harass, rock, and wood instead of large available and any information you may harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, imported materials; low compaction of have for recovery planning purposes trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt soils within adjacent riparian areas; and (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). any of these) threatened wildlife within inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- Section 7(a) of the Act requires the United States or on the high seas. In to third-order, headwater streams Federal agencies to evaluate their addition, it is unlawful to import; reconstructed in this way would offer actions with respect to any species that export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, suitable habitats for the Neuse River is proposed or listed as an endangered or ship in interstate or foreign waterdog and contain stable channel or threatened species and with respect commerce in the course of commercial features, such as pools, glides, runs, and to its critical habitat, if any is activity; or sell or offer for sale in riffles, which could be used by the designated. Regulations implementing interstate or foreign commerce any species for spawning, rearing, growth, this interagency cooperation provision listed species. It is also illegal to feeding, migration, and other normal of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or behaviors. 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires ship any such wildlife that has been (3) Bank stabilization projects that use Federal agencies to confer with the taken illegally. bioengineering methods to replace pre- Service on any action that is likely to In accordance with section 4(d) of the existing, bare, eroding stream banks jeopardize the continued existence of a Act, the regulations implementing the with vegetated, stable stream banks, species proposed for listing or result in Act include a provision that generally thereby reducing bank erosion and destruction or adverse modification of applies to threatened wildlife the same instream sedimentation and improving proposed critical habitat. If a species is prohibitions and exceptions that apply habitat conditions for the species. listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of to endangered wildlife (50 CFR 17.31(a), Following these bioengineering the Act requires Federal agencies to 17.32). However, for any threatened methods, stream banks may be ensure that activities they authorize, species, the Service may instead stabilized using live stakes (live, fund, or carry out are not likely to develop a protective regulation that is vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped jeopardize the continued existence of specific to the conservation needs of into the ground in a manner that allows the species or destroy or adversely that species. Such a regulation would the stake to take root and grow), live modify its critical habitat. If a Federal contain all of the protections applicable fascines (live branch cuttings, usually action may affect a listed species or its to that species (50 CFR 17.31(c)); this willows, bound together into long, cigar- critical habitat, the responsible Federal may include some of the general shaped bundles), or brush layering agency must enter into consultation prohibitions and exceptions under 50 (cuttings or branches of easily rooted with the Service. CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but would also tree species layered between successive Federal agency actions within the include species-specific protections that lifts of soil fill). These methods would species’ habitat that may require may be more or less restrictive than the not include the sole use of quarried rock conference or consultation or both as general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. For (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or described in the preceding paragraph the reasons discussed below, the Service gabion structures. may include, but are not limited to, has determined to develop a specific (4) Silviculture practices and forest management and any other landscape- rule under section 4(d) for the Neuse management activities that: altering activities on Federal lands River waterdog. (a) Implement highest standard best administered by the Service, U.S. Forest management practices (BMPs), Proposed 4(d) Rule Service, and National Park Service; particularly for Streamside Management issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act Under this proposed 4(d) rule, all Zones, stream crossings, and forest (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the prohibitions and provisions of section roads; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 9(a)(1) of the Act would apply to the (b) Comply with forest practice construction and maintenance of roads Neuse River waterdog, except that the guidelines related to water quality

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23656 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

standards, or comply with Sustainable It is our policy, as published in the Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR define the geographical area occupied Council/American Tree Farm System 34272), to identify to the maximum by the species as: An area that may certification standards for both forest extent practicable at the time a species generally be delineated around species’ management and responsible fiber is listed, those activities that would or occurrences, as determined by the sourcing. would not constitute a violation of Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may These BMPs are publicly available on section 9 of the Act. The intent of this include those areas used throughout all websites for these organizations, and policy is to increase public awareness of or part of the species’ life cycle, even if can currently be found below: the effect of a proposed listing on not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, http://www.ncasi.org/Downloads/ proposed and ongoing activities within and habitats used periodically, but not Download.ashx?id=10204 the range of the species proposed for listing. solely by vagrant individuals). http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ Based on the best available Conservation, as defined under https://us.fsc.org/download.fsc-us- information, the following activities section 3 of the Act, means to use and forest-management-standard-v1- may potentially result in a violation of the use of all methods and procedures 0.95.htm section 9 of the Act for Carolina that are necessary to bring an https://www.treefarmsystem.org/ madtoms and the proposed 4(d) rule endangered or threatened species to the certification-american-tree-farm- above for Neuse River waterdog; this list point at which the measures provided standards is not comprehensive: pursuant to the Act are no longer These actions and activities may have (1) Unauthorized handling or necessary. Such methods and some minimal level of mortality, harm, collecting of the species; procedures include, but are not limited or disturbance to the Neuse River (2) Destruction or alteration of the to, all activities associated with waterdog, but are not expected to species’ habitat by discharge of fill scientific resources management such as adversely affect the species’ material, dredging, snagging, research, census, law enforcement, conservation and recovery efforts. In impounding, channelization, or habitat acquisition and maintenance, fact, we expect they would have a net modification of stream channels or propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the beneficial effect on the species. Across banks; (3) Destruction of riparian habitat extraordinary case where population the species’ range, instream habitats directly adjacent to stream channels that pressures within a given ecosystem have been degraded physically by causes significant increases in cannot be otherwise relieved, may sedimentation and by direct channel sedimentation and destruction of include regulated taking. disturbance. The activities exempted natural stream banks or channels; Critical habitat receives protection from prohibition in this rule will correct (4) Discharge of pollutants into a under section 7 of the Act through the some of these problems, creating more stream or into areas hydrologically requirement that Federal agencies favorable habitat conditions for the connected to a stream occupied by the ensure, in consultation with the Service, species. These provisions are necessary species; that any action they authorize, fund, or because, absent protections, the species (5) Diversion or alteration of surface carry out is not likely to result in the is likely to become in danger of or ground water flow; and destruction or adverse modification of extinction in the foreseeable future. (6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in critical habitat. The designation of Additionally, these provisions are violation of label restrictions. critical habitat does not affect land advisable because the species needs Questions regarding whether specific ownership or establish a refuge, active conservation to improve the activities would constitute a violation of wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other quality of its habitat. By exempting section 9 of the Act should be directed conservation area. Such designation some of the general prohibitions of to the Raleigh Ecological Services Field does not allow the government or public section 9(a)(1), these provisions can Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION to access private lands. Such encourage cooperation by landowners CONTACT). designation does not require and other affected parties in implementation of restoration, recovery, implementing conservation measures. III. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation or enhancement measures by non- This will allow for use of the land while Federal landowners. Where a landowner at the same time ensuring the Background requests Federal agency funding or preservation of suitable habitat and Critical habitat is defined in section 3 authorization for an action that may minimizing impact on the species. of the Act as: affect a listed species or critical habitat, We may issue permits to carry out (1) The specific areas within the the consultation requirements of section otherwise prohibited activities geographical area occupied by the 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even involving threatened wildlife under species, at the time it is listed in in the event of a destruction or adverse certain circumstances. Regulations accordance with the Act, on which are modification finding, the obligation of governing permits are codified at 50 found those physical or biological the Federal action agency and the CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened features landowner is not to restore or recover wildlife, a permit may be issued for the (a) Essential to the conservation of the the species, but to implement following purposes: For scientific species, and reasonable and prudent alternatives to purposes, to enhance propagation or (b) Which may require special avoid destruction or adverse survival, for economic hardship, for management considerations or modification of critical habitat. zoological exhibition, for educational protection; and Under the first prong of the Act’s purposes, for incidental taking, or for (2) Specific areas outside the definition of critical habitat, areas special purposes consistent with the geographical area occupied by the within the geographical area occupied purposes of the Act. There are also species at the time it is listed, upon a by the species at the time it was listed certain statutory exemptions from the determination that such areas are are included in a critical habitat prohibitions, which are found in essential for the conservation of the designation if they contain physical or sections 9 and 10 of the Act. species. biological features (1) which are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23657

essential to the conservation of the establish procedures, and provide efforts if new information available at species and (2) which may require guidance to ensure that our decisions the time of these planning efforts calls special management considerations or are based on the best scientific data for a different outcome. protection. For these areas, critical available. They require our biologists, to Prudency Determination habitat designations identify, to the the extent consistent with the Act and extent known using the best scientific with the use of the best scientific data Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as and commercial data available, those available, to use primary and original amended, and implementing regulations physical or biological features that are sources of information as the basis for (50 CFR 424.12), require that the essential to the conservation of the recommendations to designate critical Secretary shall designate critical habitat species (such as space, food, cover, and habitat. at the time the species is determined to protected habitat). In identifying those When we are determining which areas be an endangered or threatened species physical or biological features within an should be designated as critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and area, we focus on the specific features our primary source of information is determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR that support the life-history needs of the generally the information from the SSA 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation species, including but not limited to, report and information developed of critical habitat is not prudent when water characteristics, soil type, during the listing process for the one or both of the following situations geological features, prey, vegetation, species. Additional information sources exist: symbiotic species, or other features. A may include any generalized feature may be a single habitat conservation strategy, criteria, or outline (1) The species is threatened by taking characteristic, or a more complex that may have been developed for the or other human activity, and combination of habitat characteristics. species; the recovery plan for the identification of critical habitat can be Features may include habitat species; articles in peer-reviewed expected to increase the degree of threat characteristics that support ephemeral journals; conservation plans developed to the species, or or dynamic habitat conditions. Features by States and counties; scientific status (2) Such designation of critical habitat may also be expressed in terms relating surveys and studies; biological would not be beneficial to the species. to principles of conservation biology, assessments; other unpublished In determining whether a designation such as patch size, distribution materials; or experts’ opinions or would not be beneficial, the factors the distances, and connectivity. personal knowledge. Service may consider include but are Under the second prong of the Act’s Habitat is dynamic, and species may not limited to: Whether the present or definition of critical habitat, we can move from one area to another over threatened destruction, modification, or designate critical habitat in areas time. We recognize that critical habitat curtailment of a species’ habitat or range outside the geographical area occupied designated at a particular point in time is not a threat to the species, or whether by the species at the time it is listed, may not include all of the habitat areas any areas meet the definition of ‘‘critical upon a determination that such areas that we may later determine are habitat.’’ are essential for the conservation of the necessary for the recovery of the As discussed above, we did not species. We will determine whether species. For these reasons, a critical identify any imminent threat of take unoccupied areas are essential for the habitat designation does not signal that attributed to collection or vandalism for conservation of the species by habitat outside the designated area is either the Neuse River waterdog or the unimportant or may not be needed for considering the life-history, status, and Carolina madtom, and there is no recovery of the species. Areas that are conservation needs of the species. This indication that identification and important to the conservation of the will be further informed by any mapping of critical habitat is likely to species, both inside and outside the generalized conservation strategy, initiate any such threats. Therefore, in critical habitat designation, will criteria, or outline that may have been the absence of finding that the continue to be subject to: (1) developed for the species to provide a designation of critical habitat would Conservation actions implemented substantive foundation for identifying increase threats to the species, if there which features and specific areas are under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) are benefits to the species from a critical essential to the conservation of the regulatory protections afforded by the habitat designation, a finding that species and, as a result, the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act designation is prudent is appropriate. development of the critical habitat for Federal agencies to ensure their designation. For example, an area actions are not likely to jeopardize the The potential benefits of designation currently occupied by the species but continued existence of any endangered may include: (1) Triggering consultation that was not occupied at the time of or threatened species; and (3) section 9 under section 7 of the Act, in new areas listing may be essential to the of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any for actions in which there may be a conservation of the species and may be individual of the species, including Federal nexus where it would not included in the critical habitat taking caused by actions that affect otherwise occur because, for example, it designation. habitat. Federally funded or permitted is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation Section 4 of the Act requires that we projects affecting listed species outside activities on the most essential features designate critical habitat on the basis of their designated critical habitat areas and areas; (3) providing educational the best scientific data available. may still result in jeopardy findings in benefits to State or county governments Further, our Policy on Information some cases. These protections and or private entities; and (4) preventing Standards under the Endangered conservation tools will continue to people from causing inadvertent harm Species Act (published in the Federal contribute to recovery of this species. to the protected species. Because Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), Similarly, critical habitat designations designation of critical habitat would not the Information Quality Act (section 515 made on the basis of the best available likely increase the degree of threat to of the Treasury and General information at the time of designation these species and may provide some Government Appropriations Act for will not control the direction and measure of benefit, designation of Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. substance of future recovery plans, critical habitat is prudent for both the 5658)), and our associated Information habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or Neuse River waterdog and Carolina Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, other species conservation planning madtom.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23658 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Critical Habitat Determinability that the designation of critical habitat is historical, geographical, and ecological Having determined that designation is determinable for the Neuse River distributions of a species. prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act waterdog and Carolina madtom. The features may also be we must find whether critical habitat for Physical or Biological Features combinations of habitat characteristics both species is determinable. Our and may encompass the relationship regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) between characteristics or the necessary that critical habitat is not determinable of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR amount of a characteristic needed to when one or both of the following 424.12(b), in determining which areas support the life history of the species. In situations exist: within the geographical area occupied considering whether features are (i) Data sufficient to perform required by the species at the time of listing to essential to the conservation of the analyses are lacking, or designate as critical habitat, we consider species, the Service may consider an (ii) The biological needs of the species the physical or biological features that appropriate quality, quantity, and are not sufficiently well known to are essential to the conservation of the spatial and temporal arrangement of identify any area that meets the species and which may require special habitat characteristics in the context of definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ management considerations or the life-history needs, condition, and When critical habitat is not protection. These include, but are not status of the species. determinable, the Act allows the Service limited to: We derive the specific physical or an additional year to publish a critical (1) Space for individual and biological features essential for Neuse habitat designation (16 U.S.C. population growth and for normal River waterdog and Carolina madtom 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). behavior; from studies of both species’ habitat, We reviewed the available (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or ecology, and life history. The primary information pertaining to the biological other nutritional or physiological habitat elements that influence needs of both species and habitat requirements; resiliency of both species include water characteristics where the species are (3) Cover or shelter; quality, water quantity, substrate, and located. We find that this information is (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or habitat connectivity. A full description sufficient for us to conduct both the rearing (or development) of offspring; of the needs of individuals, populations, biological and economic analyses and and the species is available from the required for the critical habitat (5) Habitats that are protected from SSA reports; the individuals’ needs are determination. Therefore, we conclude disturbance or are representative of the summarized below in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3—LIFE HISTORY AND RESOURCE NEEDS OF THE NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG

Resource Life stage Resources and/or circumstances needed for INDIVIDUALS to function Information source complete each life stage (BFSD *)

Egg/Embryo—May–June ...... • Clean, flowing water with moderate current (∼10–50 cm/sec) B —Pudney et al. 1985, p. 54. • Sexually mature males and females (∼6 years old) —Cooper and Ashton 1985, p. • Appropriate spawning temperatures (8–22 °C) 5. • Nest sites (large flat rocks with gravel bottoms) —Braswell and Ashton 1985, • Adequate flow for oxygenation (7–9 ppm DO) ...... p. 21. — Ashton 1985, p. 95. Hatchling—late summer ...... • Clean, non-turbid, flowing water (∼10–50 cm/sec) ...... B, S —Cooper and Ashton 1985, p. • Adequate food availability 5. Post-hatchling Larvae—1–2 • Clean, flowing water (∼10–50 cm/sec) ...... F, S —Ashton 1985, p. 95. inches long. • Adequate food availability (opportunistic feeding; primarily in- vertebrates) Juveniles—Up to 5.5–6.5 years; • Clean, flowing water (∼10–50 cm/sec) ...... F, S —Ashton 1985, p. 95. 2–4 inches long. • Adequate food availability (primarily invertebrates) —Braswell 2005, p. 867. • Cover (large rocks/boulders, outcrops, burrows) for retreat areas Adults—6–30+ years—5–9 • Clean, flowing water deeper than 100 cm with flows 10–50 F, S, D —Braswell and Ashton 1985, inches long. cm/sec. pp. 13, 22, 28. • Streams >15m wide —Ashton 1985, p. 95 • High dissolved oxygen (7–9 ppm) —Braswell 2005, p. 868. • Appropriate substrate (hard clay bottom with leaf litter, grav- el, cobble) • Little to no siltation • Adequate food availability (aquatic and terrestrial inverte- brates) • Cover (large rocks/boulders, outcrops, burrows) for retreat areas *B = Breeding, F = Feeding, S = Sheltering, D = Dispersal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23659

TABLE 4—LIFE HISTORY AND RESOURCE NEEDS OF THE CAROLINA MADTOM

Resource Life stage Resources and/or circumstances needed for INDIVIDUALS to function Information source complete each life stage (BFSD *)

Egg/Embryo—May–July ...... • Clear, flowing water ...... B —Burr et al. 1989, p. 75. • Sexually mature males and females • Appropriate spawning temperatures • Nest sites (rocks, bottles, shells, cobble) • Adequate flow for oxygenation Hatchling—late summer ...... • Clear, flowing water B, S —Burr et al. 1989, p. 78. • Cohesive schooling behavior to avoid predation Juveniles—2–3 years; >2.5 • Clear, flowing water F, S —Burr et al. 1989, p. 78. inches long. • Adequate food availability (midges, caddisflies, mayflies, etc.) • Cover (shells, bottles, cans, tires, woody debris, etc.) Adults—3+ years—>4 inches • Clear, flowing water 1 to 3 feet deep F, S, D —Burr et al. 1989, p. 63 long. • Appropriate substrate (leaf litter, sand, gravel, cobble) —Midway et al. 2010, p. 326. • Adequate food availability (midges, caddisflies, mayflies, etc.) • Cover (shells, bottles, cans, tires, woody debris, etc.) * B = breeding; F = feeding; S = sheltering; D = dispersal.

Summary of Essential Physical or heavy metals, and chemical nutrients and sediment for maintenance Biological Features constituents) necessary to sustain of the fish’s habitat, food availability, In summary, we derive the specific natural physiological processes for and ample oxygenated flow for physical or biological features essential normal behavior, growth, and viability spawning and nesting habitat. to the conservation of Neuse River of all life stages. (3) Water quality (including, but not waterdog from studies of this species’ (4) Invertebrate and fish prey items, limited to, conductivity, hardness, habitat, ecology, and life history as which are typically hellgrammites, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, described above. Additional information crayfish, mayflies, , snails, heavy metals, and chemical can be found in the SSA Report (Service , , , and small constituents) necessary to sustain 2018) available on http:// fish. natural physiological processes for www.regulations.gov under Docket No. We derive the specific physical or normal behavior, growth, and viability FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092. We have biological features essential to the of all life stages. determined that the following physical conservation of Carolina madtom from (4) Aquatic macroinvertebrate prey or biological features are essential to the studies of this species’ habitat, ecology, items, which are typically dominated by conservation of Neuse River waterdog: and life history as described above. larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, (1) Suitable substrates and connected Additional information can be found in dragonflies, and beetle larvae. instream habitats, characterized by the SSA Report (Service 2018) available on http://www.regulations.gov under Special Management Considerations or geomorphically stable stream channels Protection and banks (i.e., channels that maintain Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092. lateral dimensions, longitudinal We have determined that the following When designating critical habitat, we profiles, and sinuosity patterns over physical or biological features are assess whether the specific areas within time without an aggrading or degrading essential to the conservation of Carolina the geographical area occupied by the bed elevation) with habitats that support madtom: species at the time of listing contain a diversity of native aquatic fauna (such (1) Suitable substrates and connected features that are essential to the as, stable riffle-run-pool habitats that instream habitats, characterized by conservation of the species and which provide flow refuges consisting of silt- geomorphically stable stream channels may require special management free gravel, small cobble, coarse sand, and banks (i.e., channels that maintain considerations or protection. The and leaf litter substrates) as well as lateral dimensions, longitudinal features essential to the conservation of abundant cover and burrows used for profiles, and sinuosity patterns over the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina nesting. time without an aggrading or degrading madtom may require special (2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic bed elevation) with habitats that support management considerations or flow regime (which includes the a diversity of native fish (such as stable protections to reduce the following severity, frequency, duration, and riffle-run-pool habitats that provide flow threats: (1) Urbanization of the seasonality of discharge over time), refuges consisting of silt-free gravel, landscape, including (but not limited to) necessary to maintain instream habitats small cobble, coarse sand, and leaf litter land conversion for urban and where the species is found and to substrates) as well as abundant cover commercial use, infrastructure (roads, maintain connectivity of streams with used for nesting. bridges, utilities), and urban water uses the floodplain, allowing the exchange of (2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic (water supply reservoirs, wastewater nutrients and sediment for maintenance flow regime (which includes the treatment, etc.); (2) nutrient pollution of the waterdog’s habitat, food severity, frequency, duration, and from agricultural activities that impact availability, and ample oxygenated flow seasonality of discharge over time), water quantity and quality; (3) for spawning and nesting habitat. necessary to maintain instream habitats significant alteration of water quality; (3) Water quality (including, but not where the species is found and to (4) improper forest management or limited to, conductivity, hardness, maintain connectivity of streams with silviculture activities that remove large turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, the floodplain, allowing the exchange of areas of forested wetlands and riparian

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23660 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

systems; (5) dams, culverts, and utility University, the NC Wildlife Resources the species from 2010 to the present. pipe installation that creates barriers to Commission, and the NC Natural Due to the breadth and intensity of movement; (6) impacts from invasive Heritage Program and numerous survey survey effort done for freshwater fish species; (7) changes and shifts in reports on streams throughout the throughout the known range of the seasonal precipitation patterns as a species’ range (see SSA report). We have species, it is reasonable to assume that result of climate change; and (8) other also reviewed available information that streams with no positive surveys since watershed and floodplain disturbances pertains to the habitat requirements of 2010 should not be considered occupied that release sediments or nutrients into this species. Sources of information on for the purpose of our analysis. the water. habitat requirements include studies Specific habitat areas were delineated Management activities that could conducted at occupied sites and based on Natural Heritage Element ameliorate these threats include, but are published in peer-reviewed articles, Occurrences (EOs) following not limited to: Use of BMPs designed to agency reports, and data collected NatureServe’s occurrence delineation reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank during monitoring efforts (Service protocol for freshwater fish side destruction; protection of riparian 2018). (NatureServe 2018). These EOs provide corridors and leaving sufficient canopy habitat for Carolina madtom cover along banks; moderation of Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing subpopulations and are large enough to surface and ground water withdrawals Neuse River Waterdog be self-sustaining over time, despite to maintain natural flow regimes; fluctuations in local conditions. The We identified stream channels that increased use of stormwater EOs contain stream reaches with management and reduction of currently support populations of Neuse interconnected waters so that fish can stormwater flows into the systems; and River waterdog. We defined ‘‘currently’’ move between areas, at least during reduction of other watershed and as stream channels with observations of certain flows or seasons. floodplain disturbances that release the species from 2010 to the present. We consider the following streams to sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into Due to the breadth and intensity of be occupied by the species at the time the water. survey effort done for amphibians of proposed listing: Upper Tar, Fishing throughout the known range of the Creek, Sandy-Swift Creek, and the Little Criteria Used To Identify Critical species, it is reasonable to assume that River (see Unit Descriptions, below). Habitat streams with no positive surveys since The proposed critical habitat As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 2010 should not be considered occupied designation does not include all streams Act, we use the best scientific data for the purpose of our analysis. known to have been occupied by the available to designate critical habitat. In Specific occupied habitat areas were species historically; instead, it includes accordance with the Act and our delineated based on Natural Heritage only the occupied streams within the implementing regulations at 50 CFR Element Occurrences (EOs) following historical range that have also retained 424.12(b), we review available NatureServe’s occurrence delineation the physical or biological features that information pertaining to the habitat protocol for freshwater fish will allow for the maintenance and requirements of the species and identify (NatureServe 2018). These EOs provide expansion of existing populations. specific areas within the geographical habitat for Neuse River waterdog area occupied by the species at the time subpopulations and are large enough to Areas Outside the Geographic Area of listing and any specific areas outside be self-sustaining over time, despite Occupied at the Time of Listing the geographical area occupied by the fluctuations in local conditions. The We are not proposing to designate any species to be considered for designation EOs contain stream reaches with areas outside the geographical area as critical habitat. interconnected waters so that waterdogs currently occupied by the Neuse River The current distribution of both can move between areas, at least during waterdog because we did not find any species is much reduced from their certain flows or seasons. unoccupied areas that were essential for historical distributions. We anticipate Based on this information, we the conservation of the species. The that recovery will require continued consider the following subbasins to be protection of the nine currently protection of existing populations and currently occupied by the species at the occupied management units across the habitat, as well as ensuring there are time of proposed listing: Upper, Middle, physiographic representation of the adequate numbers of Neuse River and Lower Tar River subbasins, Sandy- range would sufficiently reduce the risk waterdogs and Carolina madtoms in Swift Creek, Fishing Creek subbasin, of extinction, by improving the stable populations and that these Upper, Middle, and Lower Neuse River resiliency of populations in these populations occur over a wide subbasins, and the Trent River (see Unit currently occupied streams to increase geographic area. This strategy will help Descriptions, below). The proposed viability to the point that the protections to ensure that catastrophic events, such critical habitat designation does not of the Act are no longer necessary. as the effects of hurricanes (e.g., include all streams known to have been We are proposing three currently flooding that causes excessive occupied by the species historically; unoccupied units for the Carolina sedimentation, nutrients, and debris to instead, it includes only the occupied madtom that we determined to be disrupt stream ecology), cannot streams within the historical range that essential for the conservation of the simultaneously affect all known have also retained the physical or species. Carolina madtoms have been populations. Rangewide recovery biological features that will allow for the completely extirpated from the Trent considerations, such as maintaining maintenance and expansion of existing River basin, four of the five Neuse River existing genetic diversity and striving populations. units, and two of the five Tar River for representation of all major portions basin management units. There is Carolina Madtom of the species’ current range, were currently only one occupied considered in formulating this proposed We identified stream channels that management unit currently remaining in critical habitat. currently support populations of the Neuse River basin, and that Sources of data for this proposed Carolina madtom. As with the Neuse population was found to be in ‘‘very critical habitat include multiple River waterdog, we defined ‘‘current’’ as low’’ condition in our resiliency databases maintained by NC State stream channels with observations of analysis. Having at least three resilient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23661

populations in both the Tar and Neuse When determining proposed critical km) in 16 units in North Carolina as River basins and at least one population habitat boundaries, we made every critical habitat for the Neuse River in the Trent River basin is essential for effort to avoid including developed waterdog. All of the units are currently the conservation of the Carolina areas such as lands covered by occupied by the species and contain madtom. Accordingly, we propose to buildings, pavement, and other some or all of the physical and designate one unoccupied unit in the structures because such lands lack biological features essential to the Trent River basin and two in the Neuse physical or biological features necessary conservation of the species. All units River basin. Because there are already for Neuse River waterdog or Carolina may require special management three populations in the Tar River basin, madtom. The scale of the maps we considerations or protection to address prepared under the parameters for we do not consider an unoccupied unit habitat degradation resulting from the publication within the Code of Federal in this basin to be essential for the cumulative impacts of land use change species’ conservation. Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any and associated watershed-level effects General Information on the Maps of the such lands inadvertently left inside on water quality, water quantity, habitat Proposed Critical Habitat Designation critical habitat boundaries shown on the connectivity, and instream habitat The proposed critical habitat maps of this proposed rule have been suitability. These stressors are primarily designation is defined by the map or excluded by text in the proposed rule related to habitat changes: The buildup maps, as modified by any accompanying and are not proposed for designation as of fine sediments, the loss of flowing regulatory text, presented at the end of critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical water, instream habitat fragmentation, this document under Proposed habitat is finalized as proposed, a and impairment of water quality; these Regulation Promulgation. We include Federal action involving these lands are all exacerbated by climate change. more detailed information on the would not trigger section 7 consultation Table 5 shows the name, land boundaries of the proposed critical under the Act with respect to critical ownership of the riparian areas habitat designation in the discussion of habitat and the requirement of no surrounding the units, and approximate individual units below. We will make adverse modification unless the specific river miles of the proposed designated the coordinates or plot points or both on action would affect the physical or units for the Neuse River waterdog. which each map is based available to biological features in the adjacent Because all streambeds are navigable the public on http:// critical habitat. waters, the actual critical habitat units www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation are all owned by the State of North FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092, and at the Carolina. field office responsible for the Neuse River Waterdog designation (see FOR FURTHER We are proposing to designate INFORMATION CONTACT, above). approximately 738 river mi (1,188 river

TABLE 5—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG

River miles Critical habitat unit Riparian ownership (kilometers)

Unit 1. TAR1–Upper Tar River ...... Private; Easements ...... 8.6 (13.8) Unit 2. TAR2–Upper Fishing Creek ...... Private; Easements ...... 10.5 (16.9) Unit 3. TAR3a–Fishing Creek Subbasin ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 62.8 (101) Unit 4. TAR3b–Sandy/Swift Creek ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 68.3 (110) Unit 5. TAR3c–Middle Tar River Subbasin ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 100 (161) Unit 6. TAR3d–Lower Tar River Subbasin ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 60.6 (97.5) Unit 7. NR1–Eno River ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 41.5 (66.8) Unit 8. NR2–Flat River ...... Private; Easements ...... 17.4 (28) Unit 9. NR3–Middle Creek ...... Private; Easements; Local ...... 7.6 (12.2) Unit 10. NR4–Swift Creek ...... Private ...... 23.4 (37.7) Unit 11. NR5a–Little River ...... Private; Easements ...... 89.6 (144) Unit 12. NR5b–Mill Creek ...... Private; Easements ...... 19 (30.6) Unit 13. NR5c–Middle Neuse River ...... Private; State; Easements ...... 40 (64.4) Unit 14. NR6–Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin Private; Easements ...... 117 (188.3) Unit 15. NR7–Swift Creek (Lower Neuse) ...... Private; Easements ...... 10 (16) Unit 16. TR1–Trent River ...... Private ...... 62 (100)

Total ...... 738 (1,188) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Tar Population with several conservation parcels or (94%) with several conservation parcels easements (14%). or easements (6%). Unit 1: TAR1–Upper Tar River Unit 2: TAR2–Upper Fishing Creek Unit 3: TAR3a–Fishing Creek Subbasin Unit 1 consists of 8.6 river mi (13.8 river km) of the Upper Tar River in Unit 2 consists of 10.5 river mi (16.9 Unit 3 consists of approximately 63 Granville County from approximately river km) of Upper Fishing Creek in river mi (101 river km) of lower Little SR1004 (Old NC 75) downstream to NC Warren County. This unit extends from Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles 96. The riparian land adjacent to this SR1118 (No Bottom Drive) downstream (2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 unit is primarily privately owned (86%), to NC58. The riparian land adjacent to (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the the unit is primarily privately owned confluence with Fishing Creek, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23662 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

including the mainstem of Fishing includes private lands (61%), State Park land (7%), and the Seymour Johnson Creek to the confluence with the Tar Lands (25%), local government Air Force Base (0.05%). The 2 miles of River in Halifax, Nash, and Edgecombe conservation parcels (12%), and State river segment located on the land Counties. The riparian land adjacent to Game Lands (2%). owned by the Air Force Base is exempt the unit includes private land (91%), from critical habitat under section Unit 8: NR2–Flat River several conservation parcels (6%), and 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions, State Game Lands (3%). Unit 8 is a 17.4-river-mi (28-river-km) below). segment of the Flat River from SR1739 Unit 4: TAR3b–Sandy/Swift Creek (Harris Mill Road) downstream to the Unit 14: NR6–Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin Unit 4 consists of an approximately inundated portion of Falls Lake, located 68-river-mi (110-river-km) segment of in Person and Durham Counties. The Unit 14 is an approximately 117-river- Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 riparian land adjacent to this unit mi (188.3-river-km) reach, including (Leonard Road) to the confluence with consists of some private land (49%) and Contentnea Creek from NC581 the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek extensive conservation parcels (51%), downstream to its confluence with the downstream of the Franklin/Nash including demonstration forest, Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the county line to the confluence with Swift recreation areas, and State Game Lands. Wayne/Greene County line to the Creek. This unit is located in Franklin, confluence with Contentnea Creek, and Nash, and Edgecombe Counties. The Unit 9: NR3–Middle Creek the Neuse River from the confluence riparian land adjacent to this unit Unit 9 is a 7.6-river-mi (12.2-river-km) with Contentnea Creek to the includes private lands (97%), stretch of Middle Creek from Southeast confluence with Pinetree Creek, located conservation parcels (1%), and State Regional Park downstream to the in Greene, Wilson, Wayne, Lenoir, Pitt, Game Lands (2%). Interstate 40 crossing, located in Wake and Craven Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all Unit 5: TAR3c–Middle Tar River and Johnston Counties. The riparian privately owned land (99%), with <1% Subbasin land adjacent to this unit is predominantly privately owned (92%) conservation parcels. Unit 5 consists of an approximately with a few conservation parcels (8%). 100-river-mi (161-river-km) segment of Unit 15: NR7–Swift Creek the Middle Tar River from the Unit 10: NR4–Swift Creek (Middle Unit 15 is a 10.13-river-mi (16.3-river- confluence with Cedar Creek Neuse) km) reach of Swift Creek from SR1931 downstream to the confluence with Unit 10 is a 23.35-river-mi (37.6-river- (Beaver Camp Rd) downstream to Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek km) stretch of Swift Creek from NC42 SR1440 (Streets Ferry Rd) located in below SR1300 (Boddies’ Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with the Craven County. The riparian land downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River, located in Johnston adjacent to this unit is nearly all Tar River. This unit is located in County. The riparian land adjacent to privately owned (99%) with some Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe this unit is entirely privately owned. conservation parcels (1%). Counties. The riparian land adjacent to Trent Population this unit is nearly all private lands Unit 11: NR5a–Little River (99%), with less than 1% conservation Unit 11 is an 89.6-river-mi (144.2- Unit 16: TR1–Trent River parcels, local parks, and a research river-km) segment of the Little River Unit 16 is a 62-river-mi (100-river-km) station. from near NC96 downstream to the reach that includes Beaver Creek from Unit 6: TAR3d–Lower Tar River confluence with the Neuse River, SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the Subbasin including Buffalo Creek from NC39 to confluence with the Trent River, and the confluence with Little River, located Trent River from the confluence with Unit 6 consists of approximately 60 in Franklin, Wake, Johnston, and Wayne Poplar Branch downstream to SR1121 river mi (96.6 river km) in the Lower Tar Counties. The riparian land adjacent to (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at the Marine River Subbasin from the confluence this unit is predominantly privately Corps Cherry Point property, in Jones with Fishing Creek downstream to the owned (90%) with some (10%) local County. The riparian land adjacent to confluence with Barber Creek near municipal conservation parcels (Little this unit is entirely privately owned. SR1533 (Port Terminal Road). This River Reservoir). includes portions of Town Creek below Carolina Madtom NC111 to the confluence with the Tar Unit 12: NR5b–Mill Creek We are proposing to designate River, Otter Creek below SR1251 to the Unit 12 is an 18.7-river-mi (30-river- approximately 257 river miles (414 river confluence with the Tar River, and km) segment of Mill Creek from kilometers) in 7 units in North Carolina Tyson Creek below SR1258 to the upstream of US701 downstream to the as critical habitat for the Carolina confluence with the Tar River. This unit confluence with the Neuse River located madtom. Four of the units are currently is located in Edgecombe and Pitt in Johnston and Wayne Counties. The occupied by the species and contain Counties. The riparian land adjacent to riparian land adjacent to this unit is some or all of the physical and this unit consists of private land (97%), predominantly privately owned (95%) biological features essential to the conservation parcels (2.5%), and State with some conservation parcels (5%). conservation of the species. Three of the Game Lands (0.5%). units are unoccupied but are essential to Unit 13: NR5c–Middle Neuse River Neuse Population the conservation of the species. All Unit 13 is a 39.8-river-mi (64-river- units proposed may require special Unit 7: NR1–Eno River km) segment of the Middle Neuse River management considerations or Unit 7 consists of approximately 41.5 from the confluence with Mill Creek protection to address habitat river mi (66.8 river km) of the Eno River downstream to the Wayne/Lenoir degradation resulting from the from NC86 downstream to the County line, located in Wayne County. cumulative impacts of land use change inundated portion of Falls Lake in The riparian land adjacent to this unit and associated watershed-level effects Orange and Durham Counties. The includes privately owned land (92%), on water quality, water quantity, habitat riparian land adjacent to this unit conservation parcels (0.95%), State Park connectivity, and instream habitat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23663

suitability. These stressors are primarily are all exacerbated by climate change. units for the Carolina madtom. Because related to habitat changes: the buildup Table 6 shows the name, land all streambeds are navigable waters, the of fine sediments, the loss of flowing ownership of the riparian areas actual critical habitat units are all water, instream habitat fragmentation, surrounding the units, and approximate owned by the State of North Carolina. and impairment of water quality; these river miles of the proposed designated

TABLE 6—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CAROLINA MADTOM

Length of Occupied unit in Critical habitat unit at the time of Riparian ownership river miles listing (kilometers)

Unit 1. TAR1–Upper Tar River ...... Yes ...... Private ...... 26 (42) Unit 2. TAR2–Sandy/Swift Creek ...... Yes ...... Private; Easements ...... 66 (106) Unit 3. TAR3–Fishing Creek Subbasin ...... Yes ...... Private; Easements; State ...... 86 (138) Unit 4. NR1–Upper Neuse River Subbasin (Eno River) ...... No ...... Easements; State; Private ...... 20 (32) Unit 5. NR2–Little River ...... Yes ...... Private; Easements ...... 28 (45) Unit 6. NR3–Contentnea Creek ...... No ...... Private ...... 15 (24) Unit 7. TR1–Trent River ...... No ...... Private ...... 15 (24)

Total ...... 257 (414) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Tar Population privately owned parcels (89%), State owned (99%) with some (1%) State Game Lands and State Park land (5%), Conservation ownership. Unit 1: TAR1–Upper Tar River and conservation parcels (6%). Unit 6: NR3–Contentnea Creek Unit 1 consists of 26 river mi (42 river Neuse River Population km) of the Upper Tar River, from the Unit 6 consists of approximately 15 confluence with Sand Creek to the Unit 4: NR1–Upper Neuse River river mi (24 river km) of Contentnea confluence with Sycamore Creek, in Subbasin (Eno River) Creek from Buckhorn Reservoir to Wiggins Mill Reservoir, located in Granville, Vance, and Franklin Unit 4 consists of approximately 20 Wilson County. This unit is not Counties. Unit 1 is occupied by the river mi (32 river km) of the Upper occupied by the species. The last known species and contains all of the physical Neuse River extending from Eno River documentation of the species was in and biological features essential to the State Park downstream of NC70 to the 2007. Although it is unoccupied, it does conservation of the species. The riparian confluence with Cabin Creek near Falls contain all of the physical and land adjacent to the river is entirely Lake impoundment, located in Orange biological features necessary for the privately owned. and Durham Counties. This unit is not conservation of the species. This unit occupied by the species. There is one Unit 2: TAR2–Sandy/Swift Creek itself is essential for the conservation of historical record of Carolina madtoms in the species because it will provide for Unit 2 consists of 66 river mi (106 this unit from 1961, but followup population expansion and resiliency in river km) of Sandy and Swift Creeks, surveys in 2011 were not able to find portions of known historical habitat that located downstream from NC561 to the any individuals. Although it is is necessary to increase the resiliency, confluence with the Tar River, in unoccupied, it does contain all of the redundancy, and representation to Edgecombe, Vance, Warren, Halifax, physical and biological features increase viability of the species. The Franklin, and Nash Counties. This unit necessary for the conservation of the riparian land adjacent to this unit is is occupied and contains all of the species. This unit is itself essential for entirely privately owned. physical and biological features the conservation of the species because necessary for the conservation of the it will provide for population expansion Trent Population species. The riparian land adjacent to and resiliency in portions of known Unit 7: TR1–Trent River this unit is predominantly privately historical habitat that is necessary to owned (96%), with conservation parcels increase the resiliency, redundancy, and Unit 7 consists of approximately 15 (2%) and State Game Lands (2%). representation to increase viability of river mi (24 river km) of the Trent River between the confluence with Cypress Unit 3: TAR3–Fishing Creek Subbasin the species. Riparian land adjacent to the unit is almost entirely (95%) within Creek and Beaver Creek, in Jones Unit 3 consists of approximately 86 State Park Lands, local government County. This unit is unoccupied by the river mi (138 river km), including conservation parcels, and State Game species. The last known documentation Fishing Creek from the confluence with Lands. of the species here was in 1986. Hogpen Branch to the confluence with Although it is unoccupied, it does the Tar River, and Little Fishing Creek Unit 5: NR2–Little River contain all of the physical and from Medoc Mountain Road (SR1002) to Unit 5 consists of 28 river mi (45 river biological features necessary for the the confluence with Fishing Creek, km) of the Upper and Lower Little River conservation of the species. This unit located in Edgecombe, Warren, Halifax, from NC42 to Johnston/Wayne County itself is essential for the conservation of Franklin, and Nash Counties. This unit line, located in Johnston County. This the species because it will provide for is occupied by the species and contains unit is occupied and contains all of the population expansion and resiliency in all of the physical and biological physical and biological features portions of known historical habitat that features necessary for the conservation necessary for the conservation of the is necessary to increase the resiliency, of the species. The riparian land species. The riparian land adjacent to redundancy, and representation to adjacent to the unit is divided between the unit is predominantly privately increase viability of the species. All of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23664 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the riparian land adjacent to this unit is that consists of Department of Defense Consideration of Impacts Under Section privately owned. lands with a completed, Service- 4(b)(2) of the Act Exemptions approved INRMP. The Seymour Johnson Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that Air Force Base (SJAFB) is located in the Secretary shall designate and make Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act Goldsboro, North Carolina, on 3,220 revisions to critical habitat on the basis The Sikes Act Improvement Act of acres. SJAFB is federally owned land of the best available scientific data after 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) that is managed by the Air Force and is taking into consideration the economic required each military installation that subject to all Federal laws and impact, national security impact, and includes land and water suitable for the regulations. The SJAFB INRMP covers any other relevant impact of specifying conservation and management of fiscal years 2015–2020, and serves as any particular area as critical habitat. natural resources to complete an the principal management plan The Secretary may exclude an area from integrated natural resources governing all natural resource activities critical habitat if he determines that the management plan (INRMP) by on the installation. Among the goals and benefits of such exclusion outweigh the November 17, 2001. An INRMP objectives listed in the INRMP is benefits of specifying such area as part integrates implementation of the prohibiting the introduction of exotic of the critical habitat, unless he military mission of the installation with species, the preparation of a fish and determines, based on the best scientific stewardship of the natural resources wildlife management plan, the data available, that the failure to found on the base. Each INRMP enforcement of game laws, the designate such area as critical habitat includes: conservation of wildlife and migratory will result in the extinction of the (1) An assessment of the ecological waterfowl, licenses and permits, species. In making that determination, needs on the installation, including the regulating the use of chemical toxicants the statute on its face, as well as the need to provide for the conservation of legislative history, are clear that the listed species; for controlling nuisance species, the protection of endangered and threatened Secretary has broad discretion regarding (2) A statement of goals and priorities; which factor(s) to use and how much (3) A detailed description of species, and allowing public access to military property. Management actions weight to give to any factor. management actions to be implemented As discussed below, we are not to provide for these ecological needs; that benefit the Neuse River waterdog proposing to exclude any areas from and include: Analyze the adequacy of critical habitat. However, the final (4) A monitoring and adaptive existing stormwater facilities and BMPs; decision on whether to exclude any management plan. collect effluent data from each drainage Among other things, each INRMP areas will be based on the best scientific basin within the context of an data available at the time of the final must, to the extent appropriate and ecosystem goal for surface and ground applicable, provide for fish and wildlife designation, including information water discharges from SJAFB to make it obtained during the comment period management; fish and wildlife habitat easier to evaluate the scientific, enhancement or modification; wetland and information about the economic ecological, and economic value of impact of designation. protection, enhancement, and current and proposed BMPs; collect restoration where necessary to support seasonal and annual data concerning Consideration of Economic Impacts fish and wildlife; and enforcement of stormwater runoff and nonpoint source applicable natural resource laws. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its The National Defense Authorization pollution to evaluate the contribution implementing regulations require that Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– and water quality of stormwater runoff we consider the economic impact that 136) amended the Act to limit areas from SJAFB to the surrounding may result from a designation of critical eligible for designation as critical watersheds; address watershed habitat. To assess the probable habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) protection and enhancement of water economic impacts of a designation, we of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) quality, and regulate the amounts of must first evaluate specific land uses or provides that: ‘‘The Secretary shall not water used in future landscaping and activities and projects that may occur in designate as critical habitat any lands or grounds maintenance activities, the area of the critical habitat. We then other geographical areas owned or including the use of herbicides, must evaluate whether a specific critical controlled by the Department of pesticides, and fertilizers; and the habitat designation may restrict or Defense, or designated for its use, that application of appropriate stormwater modify specific land uses or activities are subject to an integrated natural management practices. for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We resources management plan prepared Two miles (3.2 km) of Unit 13 (NR5c– under section 670a of this title [the then identify which conservation efforts Middle Neuse River) are located within may be the result of the species being Sikes Act; 16 U.S.C. 670a], if the the area covered by this INRMP. Based Secretary determines in writing that listed under the Act versus those on the above considerations, and in such plan provides a benefit to the attributed solely to the designation of accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of species for which critical habitat is critical habitat. The probable economic the Act, we have determined that the proposed for designation.’’ impact of a proposed critical habitat We consult with the military on the identified streams are subject to the designation is analyzed by comparing development and implementation of SJAFB INRMP and that conservation scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ INRMPs for installations with listed efforts identified in the INRMP will and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ The species. We analyze INRMPs developed provide a benefit to the Neuse River ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario by military installations located within waterdog. Therefore, streams within this represents the baseline for the analysis, the range of proposed critical habitat installation are exempt from critical which includes the existing regulatory designations to determine if they meet habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) and socioeconomic burden imposed on the criteria for exemption from critical of the Act. We are not including landowners, managers, or other resource habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. approximately 2 river mi (3.2 km) of users potentially affected by the We have identified one area within habitat in this proposed critical habitat designation of critical habitat (e.g., the proposed critical habitat designation designation because of this exemption. under the Federal listing as well as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23665

other Federal, State, and local Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and species, and (2) any actions that would regulations). The baseline, therefore, 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess result in sufficient harm or harassment represents the costs of all efforts the costs and benefits of available to constitute jeopardy to either species attributable to the listing of the species regulatory alternatives in quantitative would also likely adversely affect the under the Act (i.e., conservation of the (to the extent feasible) and qualitative essential physical or biological features species and its habitat incurred terms. Consistent with the E.O. of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our regardless of whether critical habitat is regulatory analysis requirements, our rationale concerning this limited designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ effects analysis under the Act may take distinction between baseline scenario describes the incremental into consideration impacts to both conservation efforts and incremental impacts associated specifically with the directly and indirectly affected entities, impacts of the designation of critical designation of critical habitat for the where practicable and reasonable. If habitat for the species. This evaluation species. The incremental conservation sufficient data are available, we assess of the incremental effects has been used efforts and associated impacts would to the extent practicable the probable as the basis to evaluate the probable not be expected without the designation impacts to both directly and indirectly incremental economic impacts of this of critical habitat for the species. In affected entities. As part of our proposed designation of critical habitat. other words, the incremental costs are screening analysis, we considered the The proposed critical habitat those attributable solely to the types of economic activities that are designation for the Neuse River designation of critical habitat, above and likely to occur within the areas likely waterdog totals approximately 738 river beyond the baseline costs. These are the affected by the proposed critical habitat miles (1,188 river km), all of which are costs we use when evaluating the designation. In our August 10, 2018, currently occupied by the species. In benefits of inclusion and exclusion of IEM, we first identified probable these areas, any actions that may affect particular areas from the final incremental economic impacts the species or its habitat would likely designation of critical habitat should we associated with each of the following also affect proposed critical habitat, and choose to conduct a discretionary categories of activities: (1) Federal lands it is unlikely that any additional 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. management (National Park Service, conservation efforts would be required to address the adverse modification For this proposed designation, we U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense); (2) agriculture; (3) forest standard over and above those developed an incremental effects recommended as necessary to avoid memorandum (IEM) for each species management/silviculture/timber; (4) development; (5) recreation; (6) jeopardizing the continued existence of considering the probable incremental the species. Therefore, the only economic impacts that may result from restoration activities; and (7) transportation. Additionally, we additional costs that are expected in all this proposed designation of critical of the proposed critical habitat habitat. The information contained in considered whether the activities have any Federal involvement. Critical designation are administrative costs, our IEMs was then used to develop a due to the fact that this additional screening analysis of the probable habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any analysis will require time and resources effects of the designation of critical by both the Federal action agency and habitat for both species (IEc, 2018, Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only the Service. entire). The purpose of the screening The proposed critical habitat affects activities conducted, funded, analysis is to filter out the geographic designation for the Carolina madtom permitted, or authorized by Federal areas in which the critical habitat totals approximately 257 river miles agencies. If we list the species as designation is unlikely to result in (414 river km), most of which is probable incremental economic impacts. proposed in the listing portion of this currently occupied by the species, but In particular, the screening analysis document, under section 7 of the Act, with three unoccupied units. In the considers baseline costs (i.e., absent Federal agencies would be required to occupied areas, any actions that may critical habitat designation) and consult with the Service on activities affect the species or its habitat would includes probable economic impacts they fund, permit, or implement that likely also affect proposed critical where land and water use may be may affect the species. habitat, and it is unlikely that any subject to conservation plans, land In our IEM, we attempted to clarify additional conservation efforts would be management plans, best management the distinction between the effects that required to address the adverse practices, or regulations that protect the would result from the species being modification standard over and above habitat area as a result of the Federal listed and those attributable to the those recommended as necessary to listing status of the species. The critical habitat designation (i.e., avoid jeopardizing the continued screening analysis filters out particular difference between the jeopardy and existence of the species. Therefore, the areas of critical habitat that are already adverse modification standards) for the only additional costs that are expected subject to such protections and are, Carolina madtom and Neuse River in the occupied proposed critical habitat therefore, unlikely to incur incremental waterdog. Because the designation of designation are administrative costs, economic impacts. Ultimately, the critical habitat is being proposed due to the fact that this additional screening analysis allows us to focus concurrently with the listing, it has been analysis will require time and resources our analysis on evaluating the specific our experience that it is more difficult by both the Federal action agency and areas or sectors that may incur probable to discern which conservation efforts the Service. Three of the proposed incremental economic impacts as a are attributable to the species being Carolina madtom critical habitat units result of the designation. This screening listed and those which would result (NR1, NR3, and TR1) are unoccupied. analysis, combined with the information solely from the designation of critical Two of these units (NR1 and NR3) contained in our IEM, constitutes our habitat. However, the following specific overlap entirely with river miles draft economic analysis (DEA) of the circumstances in this case help to proposed as critical habitat for Neuse proposed critical habitat designations inform our evaluation: (1) The essential River waterdog. The third unoccupied for the Carolina madtom and Neuse physical or biological features identified unit (TR1) overlaps partially with River waterdog, and is summarized in for critical habitat are the same features proposed Neuse River waterdog critical the narrative below. essential for the life requisites of the habitat, but includes approximately 7

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23666 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

river miles that do not overlap designation based on impacts on indirect alteration that appreciably (representing approximately three national security. diminishes the value of critical habitat percent of the Carolina madtom critical for the conservation of a listed species. Exclusions Based on Other Relevant habitat). However, these river miles are Such alterations may include, but are Impacts located in a remote area where future not limited to, those that alter the section 7 consultations are not Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we physical or biological features essential anticipated. consider any other relevant impacts, in to the conservation of a species or that It is believed that, in most addition to economic impacts and preclude or significantly delay circumstances, these costs would not impacts on national security. We development of such features. reach the threshold of ‘‘significant’’ consider a number of factors, including If a Federal action may affect a listed under E.O. 12866. For the critical whether there are permitted species or its critical habitat, the habitat designations for both species, we conservation plans covering the species responsible Federal agency (action anticipate a maximum of 115 section 7 in the area such as Habitat Conservation agency) must enter into consultation consultations annually at a total Plans (HCPs), safe harbor agreements, or with us. Examples of actions that are incremental cost of approximately candidate conservation agreements with subject to the section 7 consultation $270,000 per year. assurances, or whether there are non- process are actions on State, Tribal, permitted conservation agreements and local, or private lands that require a As we stated earlier, we are soliciting partnerships that would be encouraged data and comments from the public on Federal permit or that involve some by designation of, or exclusion from, other Federal action. Federal agency the DEA, as well as all aspects of the critical habitat. In addition, we look at proposed rule and our required actions within the species’ habitat that the existence of Tribal conservation may require conference or consultation determinations. See ADDRESSES, above, plans and partnerships and consider the or both include management and any for information on where to send government-to-government relationship comments. other landscape-altering activities on of the United States with Tribal entities. Federal lands administered by the Army Exclusions We also consider any social impacts that National Guard; issuance of section 404 might occur because of the designation. Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) In preparing this proposal, we have permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we determined that there are currently no Engineers; and construction and consider the economic impacts of HCPs or other management plans for the maintenance of roads or highways by specifying any particular area as critical Carolina madtom or Neuse River the Federal Highway Administration. habitat. As discussed above, we waterdog, and the proposed designation Federal actions not affecting listed prepared an analysis of the probable does not include any Tribal lands or species or critical habitat, and actions economic impacts of the proposed trust resources. Accordingly, the on State, Tribal, local, or private lands critical habitat designation and related Secretary does not propose to exercise that are not federally funded or factors. Based on the draft analysis, the his discretion to exclude any areas from authorized, do not require section 7 Secretary does not propose to exercise the final designation based on other consultation. his discretion to exclude any areas from relevant impacts. As a result of section 7 consultation, the final designation based on economic Effects of Critical Habitat Designation we document compliance with the impacts. However, during the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through development of a final designation, we Section 7 Consultation our issuance of: will consider any additional economic Section 7(a) of the Act requires (1) A concurrence letter for Federal impact information we receive during Federal agencies to evaluate their actions that may affect, but are not the public comment period, which may actions with respect to any species that likely to adversely affect, listed species result in areas being excluded from the is proposed or listed as an endangered or critical habitat; or final critical habitat designation under or threatened species and with respect (2) A biological opinion for Federal section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our to its critical habitat, if any is actions that may affect, and are likely to implementing regulations at 50 CFR designated. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act adversely affect, listed species or critical 424.19. requires Federal agencies, including the habitat. Exclusions Based on National Security Service, to ensure that any action they When we issue a biological opinion Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely concluding that a project is likely to to jeopardize the continued existence of jeopardize the continued existence of a Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we any endangered species or threatened listed species and/or destroy or consider whether there are lands owned species or result in the destruction or adversely modify critical habitat, we or managed by the Department of adverse modification of designated provide reasonable and prudent Defense or Department of Homeland critical habitat of such species. In alternatives to the project, if any are Security where a national security addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act identifiable, that would avoid the impact might exist. In preparing this requires Federal agencies to confer with likelihood of jeopardy and/or proposal, we have determined that the the Service on any agency action that is destruction or adverse modification of lands within the proposed designation likely to jeopardize the continued critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable of critical habitat for both species are existence of any species proposed to be and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR not owned or managed by the listed under the Act or result in the 402.02) as alternative actions identified Department of Defense or Department of destruction or adverse modification of during consultation that: Homeland Security, and, therefore, we proposed critical habitat. (1) Can be implemented in a manner anticipate no impact on national We published a final regulation with consistent with the intended purpose of security (but see Exemptions, above). a new definition of destruction or the action, Consequently, the Secretary does not adverse modification on February 11, (2) Can be implemented consistent propose to exercise his discretion to 2016 (81 FR 7214). Destruction or with the scope of the Federal agency’s exclude any areas from the final adverse modification means a direct or legal authority and jurisdiction,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23667

(3) Are economically and designation. Activities that may affect impoundment, road and bridge technologically feasible, and critical habitat, when carried out, construction, mining, dredging, and (4) Would, in the Service Director’s funded, or authorized by a Federal destruction of riparian vegetation. These opinion, avoid the likelihood of agency, should result in consultation for activities may lead to changes in water jeopardizing the continued existence of the Carolina madtom or Neuse River flows and levels that would degrade or the listed species and/or avoid the waterdog. These activities include, but eliminate the two species and/or their likelihood of destroying or adversely are not limited to: habitats. These actions can also lead to modifying critical habitat. (1) Actions that would alter the increased sedimentation and Reasonable and prudent alternatives minimum flow or the existing flow degradation in water quality to levels can vary from slight project regime. Such activities could include, that are beyond the tolerances of the modifications to extensive redesign or but are not limited to, impoundment, species. relocation of the project. Costs channelization, water diversion, water (6) Actions that result in the associated with implementing a withdrawal, and hydropower introduction, spread, or augmentation of reasonable and prudent alternative are generation. These activities could nonnative aquatic species in occupied similarly variable. eliminate or reduce the habitat stream segments, or in stream segments Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require necessary for the growth and Federal agencies to reinitiate that are hydrologically connected to reproduction of the species by occupied stream segments, even if those consultation on previously reviewed decreasing or altering flows to levels segments are occasionally intermittent, actions in instances where we have that would adversely affect their ability or introduction of other species that listed a new species or subsequently to complete their life cycles. designated critical habitat that may be (2) Actions that would significantly compete with or prey on either species. affected and the Federal agency has alter water chemistry or temperature. Possible actions could include, but are retained discretionary involvement or Such activities could include, but are not limited to, stocking of nonnative control over the action (or the agency’s not limited to, release of chemicals fishes, stocking of sport fish, or other discretionary involvement or control is (including pharmaceuticals, metals, and related actions. These activities can authorized by law). Consequently, salts), biological pollutants, or heated introduce parasites or disease, and can Federal agencies sometimes may need to effluents into the surface water or result in direct predation, or affect the request reinitiation of consultation with connected groundwater at a point growth, reproduction, and survival, of us on actions for which formal source or by dispersed release (non- both species. consultation has been completed, if point source). These activities could Required Determinations those actions with discretionary alter water conditions to levels that are involvement or control may affect beyond the tolerances of the species and Clarity of the Rule subsequently listed species or result in direct or cumulative adverse We are required by Executive Orders designated critical habitat. effects to these individuals and their life 12866 and 12988 and by the Application of the ‘‘Adverse cycles. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, (3) Actions that would significantly Modification’’ Standard 1998, to write all rules in plain increase sediment deposition within the language. This means that each rule we The key factor related to the adverse stream channel. Such activities could publish must: modification determination is whether, include, but are not limited to, excessive with implementation of the proposed sedimentation from livestock grazing, (1) Be logically organized; Federal action, the affected critical road construction, channel alteration, (2) Use the active voice to address habitat would continue to serve its timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and readers directly; intended conservation role for the other watershed and floodplain (3) Use clear language rather than species. Activities that may destroy or disturbances. These activities could jargon; adversely modify critical habitat are eliminate or reduce the habitat (4) Be divided into short sections and those that result in a direct or indirect necessary for the growth and sentences; and alteration that appreciably diminishes reproduction of both species by (5) Use lists and tables wherever the value of critical habitat for the increasing the sediment deposition to possible. conservation of the Carolina madtom or levels that would adversely affect their Neuse River waterdog. Such alterations ability to complete their life cycles. If you feel that we have not met these may include, but are not limited to, (4) Actions that would significantly requirements, send us comments by one those that alter the physical or increase the filamentous algal of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To biological features essential to the community within the stream channel. better help us revise the rule, your conservation of the species or that Such activities could include, but are comments should be as specific as preclude or significantly delay not limited to, release of nutrients into possible. For example, you should tell development of such features. As the surface water or connected us the numbers of the sections or discussed above, the role of critical groundwater at a point source or by paragraphs that are unclearly written, habitat is to support physical or dispersed release (non-point source). which sections or sentences are too biological features essential to the These activities can result in excessive long, the sections where you feel lists or conservation of a listed species and filamentous algae filling streams and tables would be useful, etc. provide for the conservation of the reducing habitat for both species, Executive Order 13771 species. degrading water quality during their Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us decay, and decreasing oxygen levels at This proposed rule is not an to briefly evaluate and describe, in any night from their respiration to levels Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 proposed or final regulation that below the tolerances of the species. (‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling designates critical habitat, activities (5) Actions that would significantly Regulatory Costs’’) (82 FR 9339, involving a Federal action that may alter channel morphology or geometry. February 3, 2017) regulatory action destroy or adversely modify such Such activities could include, but are because this rule is not significant under habitat, or that may be affected by such not limited to, channelization, E.O. 12866.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23668 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Planning and Review employees, wholesale trade entities significant economic impact on a (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) with fewer than 100 employees, retail substantial number of small business Executive Order 12866 provides that and service businesses with less than $5 entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory the Office of Information and Regulatory million in annual sales, general and flexibility analysis is not required. heavy construction businesses with less Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— than $27.5 million in annual business, Management and Budget will review all Executive Order 13211 significant rules. OIRA has determined special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and Executive Order 13211 (Actions that this rule is not significant. Concerning Regulations That Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine Significantly Affect Energy Supply, principles of E.O. 12866 while calling Distribution, or Use) requires agencies for improvements in the nation’s if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we to prepare Statements of Energy Effects regulatory system to promote considered the types of activities that when undertaking certain actions. In predictability, to reduce uncertainty, might trigger regulatory impacts under our economic analysis, we did not find and to use the best, most innovative, this designation as well as types of that the designation of this proposed and least burdensome tools for project modifications that may result. In critical habitat will significantly affect achieving regulatory ends. The general, the term ‘‘significant economic energy supplies, distribution, or use. executive order directs agencies to impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical Therefore, this action is not a significant consider regulatory approaches that small business firm’s business energy action, and no Statement of reduce burdens and maintain flexibility operations. Energy Effects is required. and freedom of choice for the public The Service’s current understanding where these approaches are relevant, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 of the requirements under the RFA, as U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) feasible, and consistent with regulatory amended, and following recent court objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes decisions, is that Federal agencies are In accordance with the Unfunded further that regulations must be based only required to evaluate the potential Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et on the best available science and that incremental impacts of rulemaking on seq.), we make the following findings: the rulemaking process must allow for those entities directly regulated by the (1) This proposed rule would not public participation and an open rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not produce a Federal mandate. In general, exchange of ideas. We have developed required to evaluate the potential a Federal mandate is a provision in this rule in a manner consistent with impacts to indirectly regulated entities. legislation, statute, or regulation that these requirements. The regulatory mechanism through would impose an enforceable duty upon which critical habitat protections are State, local, or tribal governments, or the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 private sector, and includes both et seq.) realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act consultation with the Service, to ensure and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended that any action authorized, funded, or These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. by the Small Business Regulatory carried out by the agency is not likely 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 to destroy or adversely modify critical mandate’’ includes a regulation that (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty whenever an agency is required to Federal action agencies are directly upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ publish a notice of rulemaking for any subject to the specific regulatory with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a proposed or final rule, it must prepare requirement (avoiding destruction and condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also and make available for public comment adverse modification) imposed by excludes ‘‘a duty arising from a regulatory flexibility analysis that critical habitat designation. participation in a voluntary Federal describes the effects of the rule on small Consequently, it is our position that program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates entities (i.e., small businesses, small only Federal action agencies would be to a then-existing Federal program organizations, and small government directly regulated if we adopt the under which $500,000,000 or more is jurisdictions). However, no regulatory proposed critical habitat designation. provided annually to State, local, and flexibility analysis is required if the There is no requirement under the RFA tribal governments under entitlement head of the agency certifies the rule will to evaluate the potential impacts to authority,’’ if the provision would not have a significant economic impact entities not directly regulated. ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of on a substantial number of small Moreover, Federal agencies are not assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA small entities. Therefore, because no otherwise decrease, the Federal to require Federal agencies to provide a small entities would be directly Government’s responsibility to provide certification statement of the factual regulated by this rulemaking, the funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal basis for certifying that the rule will not Service certifies that, if promulgated, governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust have a significant economic impact on the proposed critical habitat designation accordingly. At the time of enactment, a substantial number of small entities. will not have a significant economic these entitlement programs were: According to the Small Business impact on a substantial number of small Medicaid; Aid to Families with Administration, small entities include entities. Dependent Children work programs; small organizations such as In summary, we have considered Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social independent nonprofit organizations; whether the proposed designation Services Block Grants; Vocational small governmental jurisdictions, would result in a significant economic Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, including school boards and city and impact on a substantial number of small Adoption Assistance, and Independent town governments that serve fewer than entities. For the above reasons and Living; Family Support Welfare 50,000 residents; and small businesses based on currently available Services; and Child Support (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses information, we certify that, if Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector include manufacturing and mining promulgated, the proposed critical mandate’’ includes a regulation that concerns with fewer than 500 habitat designation will not have a ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23669

upon the private sector, except (i) a prohibited from carrying out, funding, Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a or authorizing actions that would 12988 duty arising from participation in a destroy or adversely modify critical voluntary Federal program.’’ habitat. A takings implications In accordance with Executive Order The designation of critical habitat assessment has been completed for both 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office does not impose a legally binding duty species and concludes that, if adopted, of the Solicitor has determined that the on non-Federal Government entities or this designation of critical habitat for rule does not unduly burden the judicial private parties. Under the Act, the only Neuse River waterdog and Carolina system and that it meets the regulatory effect is that Federal agencies madtom does not pose significant requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) must ensure that their actions do not takings implications for lands within or of the Order. We have proposed destroy or adversely modify critical affected by the designation. designating critical habitat in habitat under section 7. While non- accordance with the provisions of the Federalism—Executive Order 13132 Federal entities that receive Federal Act. To assist the public in funding, assistance, or permits, or that In accordance with E.O. 13132 understanding the habitat needs of the otherwise require approval or (Federalism), this proposed rule does species, this proposed rule identifies the authorization from a Federal agency for not have significant Federalism effects. elements of physical or biological an action, may be indirectly impacted A federalism summary impact statement features essential to the conservation of by the designation of critical habitat, the is not required. In keeping with the species. The proposed areas of legally binding duty to avoid Department of the Interior and designated critical habitat are presented destruction or adverse modification of Department of Commerce policy, we on maps, and the proposed rule critical habitat rests squarely on the requested information from, and provides several options for the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the coordinated development of this extent that non-Federal entities are interested public to obtain more proposed critical habitat designation detailed location information, if desired. indirectly impacted because they with, appropriate State resource receive Federal assistance or participate agencies. From a federalism perspective, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 in a voluntary Federal aid program, the the designation of critical habitat U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would directly affects only the responsibilities not apply, nor would critical habitat of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no This rule does not contain shift the costs of the large entitlement other duties with respect to critical information collection requirements, programs listed above onto State habitat, either for States and local and a submission to the Office of governments. governments, or for anyone else. As a Management and Budget (OMB) under (2) We do not believe that this result, the proposed rule does not have the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 proposed rule would significantly or substantial direct effects either on the (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. uniquely affect small governments States, or on the relationship between We may not conduct or sponsor and you because the lands being proposed for the national government and the States, are not required to respond to a critical habitat designation are owned or on the distribution of powers and collection of information unless it by the State of North Carolina. These responsibilities among the various displays a currently valid OMB control government entities do not fit the number. definition of ‘‘small governmental levels of government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small National Environmental Policy Act (42 these governments because the areas Government Agency Plan is not U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) required. that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more We have determined that Takings—Executive Order 12630 clearly defined, and the physical or environmental assessments and In accordance with E.O. 12630 biological features of the habitat environmental impact statements, as (Government Actions and Interference necessary to the conservation of the defined under the authority of the with Constitutionally Protected Private species are specifically identified. This National Environmental Policy Act Property Rights), we have analyzed the information does not alter where and (NEPA), need not be prepared in potential takings implications of what federally sponsored activities may connection with listing a species as an designating critical habitat for Neuse occur. However, it may assist State and endangered or threatened species under local governments in long-range River waterdog and Carolina madtom in the Act. We published a notice outlining planning because they no longer have to takings implications assessments. The our reasons for this determination in the wait for case-by-case section 7 Act does not authorize the Service to Federal Register on October 25, 1983 consultations to occur. regulate private actions on private lands (48 FR 49244). or confiscate private property as a result Where State and local governments of critical habitat designation. require approval or authorization from a It is our position that, outside the Designation of critical habitat does not Federal agency for actions that may jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals affect land ownership, or establish any affect critical habitat, consultation for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to closures or restrictions on use of or under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would prepare environmental analyses access to the designated areas. be required. While non-Federal entities pursuant to NEPA in connection with Furthermore, the designation of critical that receive Federal funding, assistance, designating critical habitat under the habitat does not affect landowner or permits, or that otherwise require Act. This determination is discussed in actions that do not require Federal approval or authorization from a Federal the October 1983 Federal Register funding or permits, nor does it preclude agency for an action, may be indirectly document just mentioned. This position development of habitat conservation impacted by the designation of critical was upheld by the U.S. Court of programs or issuance of incidental take habitat, the legally binding duty to Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas permits to permit actions that do require avoid destruction or adverse County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Federal funding or permits to go modification of critical habitat rests 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 forward. However, Federal agencies are squarely on the Federal agency. (1996)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23670 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Government-to-Government to make information available to tribes. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Relationship With Tribes As we have already discussed, there are no tribal lands in the proposed critical Accordingly, we propose to amend In accordance with the President’s part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title memorandum of April 29, 1994 habitat designation, or that will be 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (Government-to-Government Relations otherwise affected by the proposed as set forth below: with Native American Tribal listing. Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive References Cited PART 17—ENDANGERED AND Order 13175 (Consultation and A complete list of references cited in THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Coordination with Indian Tribal the SSA Report is available on the Governments), and the Department of internet at http://www.regulations.gov ■ the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 1. The authority citation for part 17 and upon request from the Raleigh readily acknowledge our responsibility continues to read as follows: Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR to communicate meaningfully with Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). recognized Federal Tribes on a 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise government-to-government basis. In Authors noted. accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 The primary authors of this proposed ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal rule are the staff members of the Fish for ‘‘Waterdog, Neuse River’’ in Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust and Wildlife Service’s Species alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS Responsibilities, and the Endangered Assessment Team and the Raleigh and ‘‘Madtom, Carolina’’ in alphabetical Species Act), we readily acknowledge Ecological Services Field Office. our responsibilities to work directly order under FISHES to read as follows: with tribes in developing programs for List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 § 17.11 Endangered and threatened healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Endangered and threatened species, wildlife. tribal lands are not subject to the same Exports, Imports, Reporting and controls as Federal public lands, to recordkeeping requirements, * * * * * remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Transportation. (h) * * *

Listing citations and Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules

*******

Amphibians

******* Waterdog, Neuse River ... Necturus lewisi ...... Wherever found ...... T [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule] 50 CFR 17.43(f) 4d 50 CFR 17.95(d).CH

*******

Fishes

******* Madtom, Carolina ...... Noturus furiosus ...... Wherever found ...... E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule] 50 CFR 17.95(e).CH

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.43 by adding paragraph (i) Species restoration efforts by State channel); bank heights that enable (f) to read as follows: wildlife agencies, including collection reconnection to the floodplain; a of broodstock, tissue collection for reconnection of surface and § 17.43 Special rules—amphibians. genetic analysis, captive propagation, groundwater systems, resulting in * * * * * and subsequent stocking into currently perennial flows in the channel; riffles (f) Neuse River waterdog (Necturus occupied and unoccupied areas within and pools composed of existing soil, lewisi). the historical range of the species. rock, and wood instead of large (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in (ii) Channel restoration projects that imported materials; low compaction of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, all create natural, physically stable, soils within adjacent riparian areas; and prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31 ecologically functioning streams (or inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- and 17.32 apply to the Neuse River stream and wetland systems) that are to third-order, headwater streams waterdog. reconnected with their groundwater reconstructed in this way would offer (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. aquifers. These projects can be suitable habitats for the Neuse River Incidental take of the Neuse River accomplished using a variety of waterdog and contain stable channel waterdog will not be considered a methods, but the desired outcome is a features, such as pools, glides, runs, and violation of the Act if the take results natural channel with low shear stress riffles, which could be used by the from any of the following activities: (force of water moving against the species for spawning, rearing, growth,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:38 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23671

feeding, migration, and other normal § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. constituents) necessary to sustain behaviors. * * * * * natural physiological processes for (iii) Bank stabilization projects that (d) Amphibians. normal behavior, growth, and viability use bioengineering methods to replace * * * * * of all life stages. pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks (iv) Invertebrate and fish prey items, with vegetated, stable stream banks, Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus which are typically hellgrammites, thereby reducing bank erosion and lewisi) crayfish, mayflies, earthworms, snails, instream sedimentation and improving (1) Critical habitat units are depicted habitat conditions for the species. beetles, centipedes, slugs, and small for Craven, Durham, Edgecombe, fish. Following these bioengineering Franklin, Granville, Greene, Halifax, methods, stream banks may be Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Nash, Orange, (3) Critical habitat does not include stabilized using live stakes (live, Person, Pitt, Wake, Warren, Wayne, and manmade structures (such as buildings, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped Wilson Counties, North Carolina, on the aqueducts, runways, roads, and other into the ground in a manner that allows maps below. paved areas) and the land on which they the stake to take root and grow), live (2) Within these areas, the physical or are located existing within the legal fascines (live branch cuttings, usually biological features essential to the boundaries on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF willows, bound together into long, cigar- conservation of Neuse River waterdog THE FINAL RULE]. shaped bundles), or brush layering consist of the following components: (4) Critical habitat map units. Data (cuttings or branches of easily rooted (i) Suitable substrates and connected layers defining map units were created tree species layered between successive instream habitats, characterized by by overlaying Natural Heritage Element lifts of soil fill). These methods would geomorphically stable stream channels Occurrence data and U.S. Geological not include the sole use of quarried rock and banks (i.e., channels that maintain (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or Survey (USGS) hydrologic data for lateral dimensions, longitudinal stream reaches. The hydrologic data gabion structures. profiles, and sinuosity patterns over (iv) Silviculture practices and forest used in the critical habitat maps were time without an aggrading or degrading management activities that: extracted from the USGS 1:1M scale (A) Implement highest standard best bed elevation) with habitats that support nationwide hydrologic layer (https:// management practices, particularly for a diversity of native aquatic fauna (such nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/ Streamside Management Zones, stream as, stable riffle-run-pool habitats that 1nethyd.html) with a projection of crossings, and forest roads; and provide flow refuges consisting of silt- EPSG:4269—NAD83 Geographic. The (B) Comply with forest practice free gravel, small cobble, coarse sand, North Carolina Natural Heritage guidelines related to water quality and leaf litter substrates) as well as program’s species presence data were standards, or comply with Sustainable abundant cover and burrows used for used to select specific stream segments Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship nesting. for inclusion in the critical habitat layer. (ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic Council/American Tree Farm System The maps in this entry, as modified by flow regime (which includes the certification standards for both forest any accompanying regulatory text, severity, frequency, duration, and management and responsible fiber establish the boundaries of the critical seasonality of discharge over time), sourcing. habitat designation. The coordinates or ■ necessary to maintain instream habitats 4. Amend § 17.95 by: plot points or both on which each map ■ where the species is found and to a. Adding to paragraph (d) an entry for is based are available to the public at ‘‘Neuse River waterdog (Necturus maintain connectivity of streams with http://www.regulations.gov under lewisi)’’ in the same alphabetical order the floodplain, allowing the exchange of Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092 and as the species appears in the table in nutrients and sediment for maintenance at the field office responsible for this § 17.11(h), to read as set forth below; of the waterdog’s habitat, food designation. You may obtain field office and availability, and ample oxygenated flow ■ b. Adding to paragraph (e) an entry for for spawning and nesting habitat. location information by contacting one ‘‘Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus)’’ (iii) Water quality (including, but not of the Service regional offices, the in the same alphabetical order as the limited to, conductivity, hardness, addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR species appears in the table in turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, 2.2. § 17.11(h), to read as set forth below: heavy metals, and chemical (5) Note: Index map follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 23672 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(6) Unit 1: TAR1–Upper Tar River, habitat in the Upper Tar River from downstream to NC 96. Unit 1 includes Granville County, North Carolina. approximately SR1004 (Old NC 75) stream habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 8.6 river miles (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: (13.8 river kilometers) of occupied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.000 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23673

(7) Unit 2: TAR2–Upper Fishing in Upper Fishing Creek from SR1118 Unit 2 includes stream habitat up to Creek, Warren County, North Carolina. (No Bottom Drive) downstream to NC58. bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 10.5 river (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: miles (16.9 river kilometers) of habitat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.001 23674 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(8) Unit 3: TAR3a–Fishing Creek confluence with Fishing Creek, and below SR1300 (Boddies’ Millpond Rd), Subbasin, Edgecombe, Halifax, and including the mainstem of Fishing downstream to the confluence with the Nash Counties, North Carolina; Unit 4: Creek to the confluence with the Tar Tar River. TAR3b–Sandy/Swift Creek, Edgecombe, River. (iv) Unit 6 consists of approximately (ii) Unit 4 consists of 68 river miles Franklin, and Nash Counties, North 60 river miles (96.6 river kilometers) in (110 river kilometers) of habitat in Carolina; Unit 5: TAR3c–Middle Tar the Lower Tar River Subbasin from the Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 River Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, confluence with Fishing Creek and Nash Counties, North Carolina; and (Leonard Road) to the confluence with downstream to the confluence with Unit 6: TAR3d–Lower Tar River the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek Barber Creek near SR1533 (Port Subbasin, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, downstream of the Franklin/Nash Terminal Road). This unit includes North Carolina. Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 county line to the confluence with Swift portions of Town Creek below NC111 to include stream habitat up to bank full Creek. height. (iii) Unit 5 consists of approximately the confluence with the Tar River, Otter (i) Unit 3 consists of 63 river miles 100 river miles (161 river kilometers) of Creek below SR1251 to the confluence (101 river kilometers) of habitat in lower the Middle Tar River from the with the Tar River, and Tyson Creek Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 confluence with Cedar Creek below SR1258 to the confluence with miles (2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 downstream to the confluence with the Tar River. (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek (v) Map of Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.002 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23675

(9) Unit 7: NR1–Eno River, Durham of habitat in the Eno River from NC86 Falls Lake. Unit 7 includes stream and Orange Counties, North Carolina. downstream to the inundated portion of habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of approximately (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: 41.5 river miles (66.8 river kilometers)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.003 23676 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(10) Unit 8: NR2–Flat River, Durham the Flat River from SR1739 (Harris Mill portion of Falls Lake. Unit 8 includes and Person Counties, North Carolina. Road) downstream to the inundated stream habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 17.4 river (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: miles (28 river kilometers) of habitat in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.004 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23677

(11) Unit 9: NR3–Middle Creek, (i) This unit consists of 7.6 river miles crossing. Unit 9 includes stream habitat Johnston and Wake Counties, North (12.2 river kilometers) of habitat in the up to bank full height. Carolina. Middle Creek from Southeast Regional (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows: Park downstream to the Interstate 40

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.005 23678 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(12) Unit 10: NR4–Swift Creek, habitat in Swift Creek from NC42 Neuse River. Unit 10 includes stream Johnston County, North Carolina. downstream to the confluence with the habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 23.4 river (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows: miles (37.6 river kilometers) of occupied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.006 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23679

(13) Unit 11: NR5a–Little River, (i) Unit 11 consists of 89.6 river miles upstream of US701 downstream to the Franklin, Johnston, Wake, and Wayne (144.2 river kilometers) of habitat in the confluence with the Neuse River. Counties, North Carolina; Unit 12: Little River from near NC96 downstream (iii) Unit 13 consists of 39.8 river NR5b–Mill Creek, Johnston and Wayne to the confluence with the Neuse River, miles (64 river kilometers) of the Middle Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 13: including Buffalo Creek from NC39 to Neuse River from the confluence with NR5c–Middle Neuse River, Wayne the confluence with the Little River. Mill Creek downstream to the Wayne/ County, North Carolina. Units 11, 12, Lenoir County line. (ii) Unit 12 consists of 18.7 river miles and 13 include stream habitat up to (iv) Map of Units 11, 12, and 13 bank full height. (30 river kilometers) of Mill Creek from follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.007 23680 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(14) Unit 14: NR6–Contentnea Creek/ in the Contentnea Creek from NC581 with Contentnea Creek to the Lower Neuse River Subbasin, Craven, downstream to its confluence with the confluence with Pinetree Creek. Unit 14 Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the includes stream habitat up to bank full Counties, North Carolina. Wayne/Greene County line to the height. (i) This unit consists of 117 river confluence with Contentnea Creek, and (ii) Map of Unit 14 follows: miles (188.3 river kilometers) of habitat the Neuse River from the confluence

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.008 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23681

(15) Unit 15: NR7–Swift Creek, Swift Creek from SR1931 (Beaver Camp Ferry Rd). Unit 15 includes stream Craven County, North Carolina. Rd) downstream to SR1440 (Streets habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 10 river miles (ii) Map of Unit 15 follows: (16.3 river kilometers) of habitat in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.009 23682 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(16) Unit 16: TR1–Trent River, Jones Fork Rd) to the confluence with the crossing at the Marine Corps Cherry County, North Carolina. Trent River, and Trent River from the Point property. Unit 16 includes stream (i) This unit consists of 62 river miles confluence with Poplar Branch habitat up to bank full height. (100 river kilometers) of habitat in downstream to SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) (ii) Map of Unit 16 follows: Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.010 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23683

(e) Fishes. severity, frequency, duration, and by overlaying Natural Heritage Element * * * * * seasonality of discharge over time), Occurrence data and U.S. Geological necessary to maintain instream habitats Survey (USGS) hydrologic data for Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom ( ) where the species is found and to stream reaches. The hydrologic data (1) Critical habitat units are depicted maintain connectivity of streams with used in the critical habitat maps were for Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, the floodplain, allowing the exchange of extracted from the USGS 1:1M scale Granville, Halifax, Jones, Johnston, nutrients and sediment for maintenance nationwide hydrologic layer (https:// Nash, Orange, Vance, Warren, and of the fish’s habitat, food availability, nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/ Wilson Counties, North Carolina, on the and ample oxygenated flow for 1nethyd.html) with a projection of spawning and nesting habitat. maps below. EPSG:4269—NAD83 Geographic. The (2) Within these areas, the physical or (iii) Water quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, North Carolina Natural Heritage biological features essential to the turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, program’s species presence data were conservation of Carolina madtom heavy metals, and chemical used to select specific stream segments consist of the following components: constituents) necessary to sustain for inclusion in the critical habitat layer. (i) Suitable substrates and connected natural physiological processes for The maps in this entry, as modified by instream habitats, characterized by normal behavior, growth, and viability any accompanying regulatory text, geomorphically stable stream channels of all life stages. establish the boundaries of the critical and banks (i.e., channels that maintain (iv) Aquatic macroinvertebrate prey habitat designation. The coordinates or lateral dimensions, longitudinal items, which are typically dominated by plot points or both on which each map profiles, and sinuosity patterns over larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, is based are available to the public at time without an aggrading or degrading dragonflies, and beetle larvae. http://www.regulations.gov under bed elevation) with habitats that support (3) Critical habitat does not include Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0092 and a diversity of freshwater native fish manmade structures (such as buildings, at the field office responsible for this (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats aqueducts, runways, roads, and other that provide flow refuges consisting of designation. You may obtain field office paved areas) and the land on which they location information by contacting one silt-free gravel, small cobble, coarse are located existing within the legal of the Service regional offices, the sand, and leaf litter substrates) as well boundaries on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR as abundant cover used for nesting. THE FINAL RULE]. (ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic (4) Critical habitat map units. Data 2.2. flow regime (which includes the layers defining map units were created (5) Note: Index map follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.011 23684 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(6) Unit 1: TAR1–Upper Tar River, (i) This unit consists of 26 river miles Sycamore Creek. Unit 1 includes stream Franklin, Granville, and Vance (42 river kilometers) of habitat in the habitat up to bank full height. Counties, North Carolina. Upper Tar River from the confluence (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: with Sand Creek to the confluence with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.012 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23685

(7) Unit 2: TAR2–Sandy/Swift Creek, (i) This unit consists of 66 river miles confluence with the Tar River. Unit 2 Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, (106 river kilometers) of occupied includes stream habitat up to bank full Vance, and Warren Counties, North habitat in Sandy and Swift Creeks, height. Carolina. located downstream from NC561 to the (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.013 23686 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(8) Unit 3: TAR3–Fishing Creek (i) This unit consists of 86 river miles from Medoc Mountain Road (SR1002) to Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, (138 river kilometers) of habitat in the confluence with Fishing Creek. Unit Nash, and Warren Counties, North Fishing Creek from the confluence with 3 includes stream habitat up to bank full Carolina. Hogpen Branch to the confluence with height. the Tar River, and Little Fishing Creek (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.014 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23687

(9) Unit 4: NR1–Upper Neuse River Upper Neuse River extending from Eno includes stream habitat up to bank full Subbasin (Eno River), Durham and River State Park downstream of NC70 to height. Orange Counties, North Carolina. the confluence with Cabin Creek near (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: (i) This unit consists of 20 river miles Falls Lake impoundment. Unit 4 (32 river kilometers) of habitat in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.015 23688 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(10) Unit 5: NR2–Little River, Upper and Lower Little River from line. Unit 5 includes stream habitat up Johnston County, North Carolina. NC42 to the Johnston/Wayne County to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 28 river miles (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: (45 river kilometers) of habitat in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.016 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23689

(11) Unit 6: NR3–Contentnea Creek, Contentnea Creek from Buckhorn Unit 6 includes stream habitat up to Wilson County, North Carolina. Reservoir to Wiggins Mill Reservoir. bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 15 river miles (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: (24 river kilometers) of habitat in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.017 23690 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(12) Unit 7: TR1–Trent River, Jones habitat in the Trent River between the Beaver Creek. Unit 7 includes stream County, North Carolina. confluence with Cypress Creek and habitat up to bank full height. (i) This unit consists of 15 river miles (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: (24 river kilometers) of unoccupied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.018 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules 23691

* * * * * Dated: April 2, 2019. Margaret E. Everson, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2019–10379 Filed 5–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22MYP2.SGM 22MYP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22MY19.019