[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45839-45861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15347]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BC28
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered
Status for Carolina Madtom and Designations of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the comment period on our May 22, 2019, proposed rule to
list the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) as an endangered species
and the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) as a threatened species
with a section 4(d) rule, and to designate critical habitat for both
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In
this document, we present revisions to the section 4(d) rule language
and to the critical habitat designation we proposed for the Neuse River
waterdog on May 22, 2019. We now propose to designate a total of 779
miles (1,254 kilometers) as critical habitat for the Neuse River
waterdog across 18 units within portions of 18 counties in North
Carolina. This amounts to an increase of 41 miles (66 kilometers) in
the proposed critical habitat designation for that species. We are
reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties the
opportunity to comment on the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as well as
the revisions described in this document. Comments previously submitted
need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published May 22, 2019,
at 84 FR 23644, is reopened. So that we can fully consider your
comments in our final determination, submit them on or before August
31, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the May 22,
2019, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at http://
[[Page 45840]]
www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092 or by mail
from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit your comments by U.S. mail to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office,
551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our May 22, 2019, proposed listing
determination and designation of critical habitat for the Carolina
madtom and proposed listing determination with section 4(d) rule and
designation of critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (84 FR
23644), the revisions to the section 4(d) rule and proposed critical
habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog that are described in
this document, and our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
critical habitat designations for both species. We will consider
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The Carolina madtom's and Neuse River waterdog's biology,
range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their
habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of the species,
including the locations of any additional populations of the species.
(5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog to include in
a 4(d) rule for the species. In particular, information concerning the
extent to which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in
the 4(d) rule or whether any other forms of take should be excepted
from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether
that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that
the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Carolina madtom or Neuse River
waterdog habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the relevant species, should be included in the
designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding areas
that may be impacted.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely
economic impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments. Please include sufficient information with your submission
(such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us
to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
If you submitted comments or information on the May 22, 2019,
proposed rule or DEA during the comment period that was open from May
22, 2019, to July 22, 2019, please do not resubmit them. Any such
comments are already part of the public record of this rulemaking
proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our
final determination. Our final determination will take into
consideration all written comments and any additional information we
receive during both comment periods. The final decision may differ from
the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as revised by the proposals described
in this document, based on our review of all information
[[Page 45841]]
we receive during this rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the May 22,
2019, proposed rule, this document, or the DEA by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the
methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal
identifying information--will be posted on the website. We will post
all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you
submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the May 22, 2019, proposed rule,
this document, and the DEA, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the May 22,
2019, proposed rule, this document, and the DEA on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, or by
mail from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 15 days after
the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register
(see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that a species is
threatened instead of endangered (or vice versa), or we may conclude
that a species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species
or a threatened species. Such final decisions would: (1) Be based on
the best scientific and commercial data available after considering all
of the relevant factors; (2) rely only on factors authorized by
statute; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our
conclusion.
Background
The purpose of this document is to discuss only those topics
directly relevant to the revised proposed section 4(d) rule language
and the designation of critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog.
For more information on the Carolina madtom and the Neuse River
waterdog, their habitats, and previous Federal actions concerning
either species, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644).
In our May 22, 2019, proposed rule, we proposed to list the Neuse
River waterdog as a threatened species with a section 4(d) rule,
including exceptions for species restoration efforts by State wildlife
agencies, channel restoration projects, bank stabilization projects,
and silvicultural practices and forest management activities. That rule
also proposed to designate critical habitat in 16 units encompassing
approximately 738 stream miles (1,188 kilometers) in the Tar and Neuse
river basins in North Carolina. In addition, we announced the
availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation. We
accepted comments on the proposal and DEA for 60 days, ending July 22,
2019.
Based on information we received during the public comment period,
we propose to revise the section 4(d) rule and critical habitat
designation for Neuse River waterdog, and we are therefore reopening
the comment period for 30 days to allow the public additional time to
submit comments on both the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as well as the
revisions described in this document.
New Information and Revisions to Previously Proposed Section 4(d) Rule
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to [the Act] are no longer necessary.'' The second sentence of section
4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary ``may by regulation prohibit
with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section
9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the
case of plants.'' Thus, section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide
latitude of discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations
tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species.
The second sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service
when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or included a
limited taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not
address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v.
Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
Exercising its authority under section 4(d), the Service has
developed a species-specific proposed rule that is designed to address
the Neuse River waterdog's specific threats and conservation needs.
Although the
[[Page 45842]]
statute does not require the Service to make a ``necessary and
advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole
satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Neuse River waterdog. The proposed 4(d) rule would
promote conservation of the Neuse River waterdog by encouraging
management of the landscape in ways that meet both land management
considerations and the conservation needs of the Neuse River waterdog.
It would be one of the tools that the Service would use to promote the
conservation of the Neuse River waterdog. It would apply only if and
when the Service makes final the listing of the Neuse River waterdog as
a threatened species.
As discussed under the May 22, 2019, proposed rule's Summary of
Biological Status and Threats (84 FR 23644, pp. 84 FR 23646-23652),
declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream
fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats are affecting the
status of the Neuse River waterdog. These threats, which are expected
to be exacerbated by continued urbanization and the effects of climate
change, were central to our assessment of the future viability of the
Neuse River waterdog. Therefore, we propose to prohibit actions that
result in the incidental take of Neuse River waterdog by altering or
degrading the habitat. Regulating incidental take resulting from these
activities would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow
its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from
other stressors.
This 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the Neuse
River waterdog by prohibiting the following activities, except as
otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take;
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
incidental and/or intentional take would help preserve the species'
remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other stressors. Therefore, we
proposed to prohibit intentional take of the Neuse River waterdog,
including, but not limited to, capturing, handling, trapping,
collecting, or other activities. In this document, we propose to change
the way in which the provisions of the 4(d) rule for the Neuse River
waterdog would appear in 50 CFR 17.43, and we would no longer refer to
the prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31(a). Instead, we detail the
prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.21, which apply to endangered
species. However, the substance of the prohibitions, and exceptions to
those prohibitions, in the proposed 4(d) rule for the Neuse River
waterdog have not changed. As we stated in the May 22, 2019, proposed
rule, the species needs active conservation to improve the quality of
its habitat. By excepting some of the general prohibitions of 50 CFR
17.21, these excepted actions can encourage cooperation by landowners
and other affected parties in implementing conservation measures. This
would allow use of the land while at the same time ensuring the
protection of suitable habitat and minimizing impact on the species.
During the comment period on the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, we
received numerous comments from the public on several of the exceptions
to the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule. As a result of these
comments, we retain the four exceptions, and propose to revise three of
them. Below, we describe the four exceptions, the comments we received,
and their proposed revisions, if any.
The first exception, for incidental take resulting from species
restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of
broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive
propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and
unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species, remains
unchanged from what we proposed on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644, see pp.
84 FR 23655, 23670).
The second exception, for incidental take resulting from channel
restoration projects, retains all of the language from the May 22,
2019, proposed rule for creation of natural, physically stable,
ecologically functioning streams that are reconnected with their
groundwater aquifer (84 FR 23644, see pp. 84 FR 23655, 23670). However,
we propose to add language that would require surveys for and
relocation of Neuse River waterdogs observed prior to commencement of
restoration action.
The third exception, for incidental take resulting from bank
stabilization projects, remains largely unchanged from what we proposed
on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644, see pp. 84 FR 23655, 23671), except that
we propose to add a requirement that appropriate ``native'' vegetation,
including woody species appropriate for the region and habitat, be used
for stabilization.
During the public comment period, the Service received several
comments on the fourth exception for incidental take resulting from
silvicultural practices and forest management activities (84 FR 23644,
see pp. 84 FR 23655-23656, 23671), including seeking further
clarification of the meaning of ``highest standard'' best management
practices (BMPs). Therefore, to address any uncertainty regarding which
silvicultural and forest management BMPs will satisfy this exception
for incidental take resulting from silvicultural practices and forest
management activities, we propose to revise our section 4(d) language
to clarify that the BMPs must result in protection of the habitat
features that provide for the breeding, feeding, sheltering, and
dispersal needs of the Neuse River waterdog. Specifically concerning
streamside management zones (SMZs), we propose to revise the proposed
4(d) rule to provide details about SMZ widths that would be protective
of the habitat for the species, similar to those more substantial BMPs
considered for ``special/sensitive'' streams that are designated
``trout waters'' and already implemented by the North Carolina forestry
program in the Neuse and Tar River basins (North Carolina Forest
Service (NCFS) 2006, p. 42). SMZs for waterbodies that are occupied by
the Neuse River waterdog are intended to be similar to trout water
buffers, as described by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality's Environmental Management Commission (North Carolina General
Statutes 113A-57), and to protect the species' life-history
requirements, as documented in the species status assessment (SSA) for
the Neuse River waterdog (USFWS 2019, pp. 5-11). In waterbodies that
support listed aquatic species, a wider SMZ is more effective at
reducing sedimentation, maintaining lower water temperatures through
shading, and introducing food (such as leaves and insects) into the
food chain (VADF 2011, p. 37). Ninety percent of the food in forested
streams comes from bordering vegetation (NCWRC 2002, p. 6; USFWS 2006,
p. 6; Stewart et al. 2000, p. 210; USFWS 2018, p. 10). Neuse River
waterdogs require cool,
[[Page 45843]]
well-oxygenated water, and a clean stream bottom (USFWS 2018, p. 10). A
lack of these features limits the number of waterdogs a stream can
support. Aquatic habitat and suitable water temperature can be
maintained even during logging operations when streamside vegetation is
left intact (VADF 2011, p. 37).
In addition, we propose to revise the 4(d) rule to provide details
on how access roads, skid trails, and crossings can be used in a way
that would be most protective of the habitat by reducing sedimentation
(NCFS 2018, entire). Highly turbid, silted stream water can clog the
external gills of waterdogs, and can also decrease the stream's insect
population, an important source of food (USFWS 2018, p. 8).
Accordingly, we have clarified the intent of the fourth exception, for
incidental take resulting from silviculture practices and forest
management activities, to those practices and activities that implement
State-approved best management practices (BMPs), which include the
following specifications for streamside management zones (SMZs), stream
crossings, and access roads:
1. A two-zoned SMZ is established and maintained along each side of
the margins of intermittent streams, perennial streams, and perennial
waterbodies (see table for example of current specifications based on
slope similar to trout waters (VADF 2011, p. 15)). The SMZ is measured
from bankfull (i.e., the top of the stream bank on both sides), and is
expected to confine visible sediment resulting from accelerated
erosion.
Table 1--Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) for Waterbodies Occupied by Neuse River Waterdog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 2
Zone 1 (no (selective Total SMZ
touch/no harvest width
Percent slope of adjacent lands (%) harvest; allowed; (measured in
measured in measured in feet)
feet) feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-10............................................................ 50 16 66
11-20........................................................... 50 25 75
21-45........................................................... 50 50 100
46+............................................................. 50 70 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Access roads and skid trails that cross an intermittent stream,
a perennial stream, or a perennial waterbody are installed using
properly designed and constructed structures installed at right angles
to the stream. Structures do not impede fish passage or stream flow,
and minimize the amount of visible sediment that enters that stream or
waterbody. Number of crossings is minimized, and stable sites for
crossings are chosen. These crossings are installed so that:
a. Stream flow is not obstructed or impeded;
b. No intermittent stream channel, perennial stream channel, or
perennial waterbody is used as an access road or skid trail;
c. Crossings are provided with effective structures or native
ground cover to protect the stream banks and stream channel from
accelerated erosion;
d. Crossings have sufficient water control devices to collect and
divert surface flow from the access road or skid trail into undisturbed
areas or other control structures to restrain accelerated erosion and
prevent visible sediment from entering intermittent streams, perennial
streams, and perennial waterbodies; and
e. Native ground cover, or best management practices, that prevents
visible sediment from entering intermittent streams, perennial streams,
and perennial waterbodies is provided within 10 working days of initial
disturbance and is maintained until the site is permanently stabilized.
3. All access roads and skid trails are located outside of SMZs
unless no other alternative exists.
These State-approved forestry BMPs are upheld by North Carolina's
Forest Practice Guidelines (FPGs) related to water quality standards
and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship Council/
American Tree Farm System certification standards for both forest
management and responsible fiber sourcing, and are publicly available
on the websites for these organizations, as follows:
https://www.stateforesters.org/bmps/
https://www.ncforestservice.gov/publications/Forestry%20Leaflets/WQ01.pdf
https://www.sfiprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2015_2019StandardsandRulesSection2Oct2015.pdf
https://us.fsc.org/download.fsc-us-forest-management-standard-v1-0.95.htm
https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-standards
We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some
minimal level of take of the Neuse River waterdog, but are unlikely to
negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. To
the contrary, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the
species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been
degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance.
The activities in the proposed 4(d) rule would correct some of these
problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species.
As we already stated in the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, the
proposed 4(d) rule would allow the issuance of permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above,
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections
9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service recognizes State natural resource agencies as essential
partners in the conservation of listed species. State agencies often
possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of
wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and
their close working relationships with local governments and
landowners, are in a unique position to assist the Services in
implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the
Act provides
[[Page 45844]]
that the Services shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable
with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act.
Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation
agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or
her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities
designed to conserve the Neuse River waterdog that may result in
otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
Finally, the proposed 4(d) rule would allow take of the Neuse River
waterdog without a permit by any employee or agent of the Service or a
State conservation agency who is designated by his/her agency for such
purposes and when acting in the course of his official duties if such
action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; to
dispose of a dead specimen; or to salvage a dead specimen which may be
useful for scientific study. In addition, Federal and State law
enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a
Neuse River waterdog taken in violation of the Act as necessary.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the Neuse River waterdog. However, interagency
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service,
where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State agencies and
other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d)
rule, to provide comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance
and methods that the Service could provide or use, respectively, to
streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see
Information Requested, above).
New Information and Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat for Neuse
River Waterdog
During the public comment period, we received 83 letters containing
26 comments on the proposed critical habitat designation, with 7
substantive comments specific to the proposed designation for Neuse
River waterdog. The comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and one private consultant provided new observation
data collected since the November 2018 version of the SSA report,
including updated 2018 and 2019 survey records in Middle Creek (Neuse
River Basin, Johnston County, North Carolina), Tuckahoe Swamp (Trent
River Basin, Jones County, North Carolina), Tar River (Tar River Basin,
Franklin and Granville Counties, North Carolina), Fishing Creek (Tar
River Basin, Nash County, North Carolina), and Bens Creek (Fishing
Creek Subbasin, Warren County, North Carolina).
Based on the new data, we propose certain revisions to the critical
habitat designation we proposed on May 22, 2019, for the Neuse River
waterdog. Specifically, we propose to add two units based on new
observation data of the species provided by NCWRC in locations within
the historical range; new Unit 3 is 2 miles (3.2 km) of Bens Creek in
the Tar River Basin in Warren County, North Carolina, and new Unit 18
is 2 miles (3.2 km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in the Trent River Basin in Jones
County, North Carolina. We also propose to revise Unit 1 to add 3.7
river miles (6 km) of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018 observation
provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. We propose to revise Unit 4
(previously Unit 3) to add 20 miles (32.3 km) of Fishing Creek based on
a 2019 observation provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. We
propose to revise Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) to add 11 miles (17.8 km)
of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019 observation by a
permitted private consultant of Neuse River waterdog. We propose to
revise Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) to add 23.2 miles (37.4 km) of
Middle Creek based on two 2018 observations provided by NCWRC of Neuse
River waterdog. We propose to revise the downstream portion of Unit 17
(previously Unit 16) to remove 1.1 miles (2 km) of the Trent River that
borders the U.S. Department of Defense's Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field (OLF) based on the Neuse
River waterdog being included in the Station's integrated natural
resources management plan.
All of the additional stream miles are currently occupied, contain
most or all of the physical or biological features to support life-
history functions essential to the conservation of the Neuse River
waterdog, and may require special management considerations or
protection from threats as described in the May 22, 2019, proposed rule
(84 FR 23644). Because of these revisions, the numbering for most of
the critical habitat units has changed from the May 22, 2019, proposed
rule, although the names and descriptions remain the same.
We also used a higher resolution National Hydrography Dataset GIS
data layer, which resulted in minor changes to the stream mileage
numbers. Most of the changes result in an increase or decrease of less
than 3 mi (4.8 km) to proposed critical habitat in any unit, with the
greatest change being an addition of 4.2 mi (6.8 km) to Unit 5
(previously Unit 4). The exception is Unit 17 (previously Unit 16),
which had an error in the proposed stream mileage; to correct that
error, in this document, we reduce the proposed critical habitat in
that unit by approximately 28.5 mi (45.6 km).
The DEA for the proposed critical habitat designation remains the
same; the counties containing the new units are included in the DEA's
analysis that uses the consultation efforts occurring in counties,
which overlap with the May 22, 2019, proposed designation for Neuse
River waterdog critical habitat, as the basis of determining
incremental costs.
Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
In total, we now propose to designate approximately 779 miles
(1,254 kilometers) in 18 units in North Carolina as critical habitat
for the Neuse River waterdog. The proposed critical habitat areas
described below constitute our best assessment, at this time, of areas
that meet the definition of critical habitat, and all units are
considered currently occupied by the species. Those 18 units are: (1)
Upper Tar River, (2) Upper Fishing Creek, (3) Bens Creek, (4) Fishing
Creek Subbasin, (5) Sandy/Swift Creek, (6) Middle Tar River Subbasin,
(7) Lower Tar River Subbasin, (8) Eno River, (9) Flat River, (10)
Middle Creek, (11) Swift Creek, (12) Little River, (13) Mill Creek,
(14) Middle Neuse River, (15) Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River
Subbasin, (16) Swift Creek (Lower Neuse), (17) Trent River, and (18)
Tuckahoe Swamp. Table 2 shows the name, land ownership of the riparian
areas surrounding the units, and approximate river miles of the
proposed designated units for the Neuse River waterdog. Where
appropriate, Table 2 also notes the previous number for units for which
the numbering has changed.
[[Page 45845]]
Table 2--Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Neuse River Waterdog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River miles Previous unit
Critical habitat unit Riparian ownership (kilometers) Proposed changes numbering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. TAR1--Upper Tar River... Private; Easements 12.3 (19.8)....... +3.7 mi (6 km).... Unit 1: TAR1.
Unit 2. TAR2--Upper Fishing Private; Easements 10.5 (17)......... none.............. Unit 2: TAR2.
Creek.
Unit 3. TAR3--Bens Creek........ Private........... 2 (3.2)........... New............... New Unit.
Unit 4. TAR4a--Fishing Creek Private; 82.8 (133.3)...... +20 mi (32.3 km).. Unit 3: TAR3a.
Subbasin. Easements; State.
Unit 5. TAR4b--Sandy/Swift Creek Private; 72.5 (116.8)...... none.............. Unit 4: TAR3b.
Easements; State.
Unit 6. TAR4c--Middle Tar River Private; 111 (179)......... +11 mi (17.8 km).. Unit 5: TAR3c.
Subbasin. Easements; State.
Unit 7. TAR4d--Lower Tar River Private; 59.9 (96.3)....... none.............. Unit 6: TAR3d.
Subbasin. Easements; State.
Unit 8. NR1--Eno River.......... Private; 43.9 (70.6)....... none.............. Unit 7: NR1.
Easements; State.
Unit 9. NR2--Flat River......... Private; Easements 15.2 (24.5)....... none.............. Unit 8: NR2.
Unit 10. NR3--Middle Creek...... Private; 30.8 (49.6)....... +23.2 mi (37.4 km) Unit 9: NR3.
Easements; Local.
Unit 11. NR4--Swift Creek....... Private........... 24 (38.6)......... none.............. Unit 10: NR4.
Unit 12. NR5a--Little River..... Private; Easements 90.8 (146.1)...... none.............. Unit 11: NR5a.
Unit 13. NR5b--Mill Creek....... Private; Easements 20.8 (33.5)....... none.............. Unit 12: NR5b.
Unit 14. NR5c--Middle Neuse Private; State; 43.2 (69.5)....... none.............. Unit 13: NR5c.
River. Easements.
Unit 15. NR6--Contentnea Creek/ Private; Easements 114.8 (184.8)..... none.............. Unit 14: NR6.
Lower Neuse River Subbasin.
Unit 16. NR7--Swift Creek (Lower Private; Easements 10.3 (16.5)....... none.............. Unit 15: NR7.
Neuse).
Unit 17. TR1--Trent River....... Private........... 32.5 (52.4)....... -1.1 mi (2 km).... Unit 16: TR1.
Unit 18. TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp.... Private........... 2 (3.2)........... New............... New Unit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .................. 779 (1,254)....... +41 mi (66 km)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Distances may not sum due to rounding.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the
map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented
at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. For
units that are unchanged from the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, please
refer to information at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092. We include more detailed information on the
boundaries of the revised proposed critical habitat designation in the
discussion of new and revised proposed individual units below.
Unit 1: TAR1--Upper Tar River
Revised Unit 1 consists of 12.3 river miles (19.8 river km) of the
Tar River in Granville County from approximately SR1004 (Old NC 75)
downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). We propose to revise Unit 1
to add 3.7 river miles (6 km) of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018
observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian
land adjacent to this unit is primarily privately owned (80 percent),
with several conservation parcels or easements (20 percent). The unit
currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the
species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
Unit 3: TAR3--Bens Creek
This is a new unit. Unit 3 consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km)
of Bens Creek in Warren County, North Carolina. The proposed designated
area begins approximately one mile upstream and ends approximately one
mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road). We propose the
addition of this unit based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River
waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian areas on either side of the
river are privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding,
feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
Unit 4: TAR4a--Fishing Creek Subbasin
Revised Unit 4 (previously Unit 3) consists of 82.8 river miles
(133.3 river km) of lower Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles
(2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the
confluence with Fishing Creek, and including the mainstem of Fishing
Creek from the Warren/Halifax County line to the confluence with the
Tar River in Halifax, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties. We propose to
revise Unit 4 (previously Unit 3) to add 20 miles (32.3 km) of Fishing
Creek based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by
NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to the unit includes private land (86
percent), several conservation parcels (6 percent), and State game
lands (8 percent). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding,
and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
[[Page 45846]]
Unit 6: TAR4c--Middle Tar River Subbasin
Revised Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) consists of 111 river miles (179
river km) of the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401
downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek
below SR1300 (Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with
the Tar River. This unit is located in Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe
Counties. We propose to revise Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) to add 11
miles (17.8 km) of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019
observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by a permitted private
consultant. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all
private lands (99 percent), with less than 1 percent conservation
parcels, local parks, and a research station. The unit currently
supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the
waters, causing too much growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. As
a result, there are six ``impaired'' stream reaches (as identified on
the State's Clean Water Act section 303d list) totaling approximately
32 miles in the unit. Expansion or addition of new wastewater
discharges are also a threat to habitat in this unit. Special
management focused on use of agricultural BMPs, implementation of
highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of
forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will
benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 10: NR3--Middle Creek
Revised Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) consists of 30.8 river miles
(49.6 river km) of Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream
to the confluence with Swift Creek in Johnston County, North Carolina.
We propose to revise Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) to add 23.2 miles
(37.4 km) of Middle Creek based on two 2018 observations of Neuse River
waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is
predominantly privately owned (91 percent) with a few conservation
parcels (9 percent). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding,
and sheltering needs for the species. Special management considerations
or protection may be required within this unit to address threats,
particularly from encroaching urbanization and pollution from
agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
Unit 17: TR1--Trent River
Revised Unit 17 (previously Unit 16) consists of 32.5 river miles
(52.4 river km) of Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the
confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence
with Poplar Branch downstream to the SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at
the Marine Corps Cherry Point property, in Jones County. This unit was
decreased to not include land owned by the Marine Corps at its Air
Station (MCAS) Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field. The
base's integrated natural resources management plan includes
implementing ecosystem management practices that support the
conservation and management of at-risk herpetofauna species, including
Neuse River waterdog, known to occur at MCAS Cherry Point (Tetra Tech
2012, p.C-10). The riparian land adjacent to this unit is privately
owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and
sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
Unit 18: TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp
This is a new unit. Unit 18 consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river
km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. The proposed
designated area begins upstream of SR1142 (Weyerhaeuser Road) to the
confluence with the Trent River. The riparian areas on either side of
the river are privately owned. The unit currently supports all
breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Raleigh
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended at 84 FR 23644 (May 22, 2019) as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.43 by adding a paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.43 Special rules--amphibians.
* * * * *
(f) Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to the Neuse River waterdog. Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and Sec. 17.4, it is
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this
species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set
[[Page 45847]]
forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Take incidental to the following activities:
(A) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies,
including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic
analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently
occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the
species.
(B) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically
stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland
systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These
projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the
desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of
water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable
reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and
groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel;
riffles and pools comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of
large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent
riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-
order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way would offer suitable
habitats for the Neuse River waterdog and contain stable channel
features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used
by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and
other normal behaviors. Prior to restoration action, surveys to
determine presence of Neuse River waterdog must be performed, and if
located, waterdogs must be relocated prior to project implementation.
(C) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to
replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable
stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation
and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these
bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native
species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into
the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow),
native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows,
bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or native species
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species
vegetation includes woody species appropriate for the region and
habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole use of
quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion
structures.
(D) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that
implement State-approved best management practices for sensitive areas,
including a two-zoned streamside management zone (SMZ) (Zone 1 width is
a 50-foot minimum with no harvest allowed; Zone 2 width is variable
depending on slope and includes selective harvest) established and
maintained along each side of the margins of intermittent streams,
perennial streams, and perennial waterbodies. The SMZ is measured from
bankfull (i.e., the top of the stream bank), and will confine visible
sediment resulting from accelerated erosion. Access roads and skid
trails that cross an intermittent stream, a perennial stream, or a
perennial waterbody will be installed using properly designed and
constructed structures installed at right angles to the stream, will
not impede fish passage or stream flow, and will minimize the amount of
visible sediment that enters that stream or waterbody. The number of
crossings will be minimized, stable sites for crossings will be chosen,
and access roads and skid trails will be located outside of SMZs unless
no other alternative exists.
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(d), in the entry proposed at 84 FR 23644 for
``Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi),'' by revising paragraphs (5)
through (16) and by adding paragraphs (17) and (18) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Neuse River Waterdog (Necurus lewisi)
* * * * *
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 45848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.009
(6) Unit 1: TAR1--Upper Tar River, Granville County, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 12.3 river miles (19.8 river kilometers)
of occupied habitat in the Upper Tar River from approximately SR1004
(Old NC 75) downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). Unit 1 includes
stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[[Page 45849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.010
(7) Unit 2: TAR2--Upper Fishing Creek, Warren County, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 10.5 river miles (17.0 river kilometers)
of habitat in Upper Fishing Creek from SR1118 (No Bottom Drive)
downstream to NC58. Unit 2 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 45850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.011
(8) Unit 3: TAR3--Bens Creek, Warren County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km) of Bens
Creek beginning approximately one mile upstream and ending
approximately one mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road).
Unit 3 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[[Page 45851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.012
(9) Unit 4: TAR4a--Fishing Creek Subbasin, Edgecombe, Halifax,
Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina; Unit 5: TAR4b--Sandy/Swift
Creek, Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina;
Unit 6: TAR4c--Middle Tar River Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, and Nash
Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 7: TAR4d--Lower Tar River Subbasin,
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, North Carolina.
(i) Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 include stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Unit 4 consists of 82.8 river miles (133.3 river km) of lower
Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 km) upstream of
SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek,
and including the mainstem of Fishing Creek from the Warren/Halifax
County line to the confluence with the Tar River in Halifax, Nash, and
Edgecombe Counties.
(iii) Unit 5 consists of 72.5 river miles (116.8 river kilometers)
of habitat in Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 (Leonard Road) to the
confluence with the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek downstream of
the Franklin/Nash county line to the confluence with Swift Creek.
(iv) Unit 6 consists of 111 river miles (179 river kilometers) of
the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401 dowstream to the
confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek below SR1300
(Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with the Tar
River.
(v) Unit 7 consists of 59.9 river miles (96.3 river kilometers) in
the Lower Tar River Subbasin from the confluence with Fishing Creek
downstream to the confluence with Barber Creek near SR1533 (Port
Terminal Road). This unit includes portions of Town Creek below NC111
to the confluence with the Tar River, Otter Creek below SR1251 to the
confluence with the Tar River, and Tyson Creek below SR1258 to the
confluence with the Tar River.
(vi) Map of Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 follows:
[[Page 45852]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.013
(10) Unit 8: NR1--Eno River, Durham and Orange Counties, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 43.9 river miles (70.6 river kilometers)
of habitat in the Eno River from NC86 downstream to the inundated
portion of Falls Lake. Unit 7 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
[[Page 45853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.014
(11) Unit 9: NR2--Flat River, Durham and Person Counties, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 15.2 river miles (24.5 river kilometers)
of habitat in the Flat River from SR1739 (Harris Mill Road) downstream
to the inundated portion of Falls Lake. Unit 8 includes stream habitat
up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
[[Page 45854]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.015
(12) Unit 10: NR3--Middle Creek, Johnston and Wake Counties, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 30.8 river miles (49.6 river km) of
Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream to the confluence
with Swift Creek in Johnston County, North Carolina. Unit 10 includes
stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
[[Page 45855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.016
(13) Unit 11: NR4--Swift Creek, Johnston County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 24 river miles (38.6 river kilometers) of
occupied habitat in Swift Creek from NC42 downstream to the confluence
with the Neuse River. Unit 11 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
[[Page 45856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.017
(14) Unit 12: NR5a--Little River, Franklin, Johnston, Wake, and
Wayne Counties, North Carolina; Unit 13: NR5b--Mill Creek, Johnston and
Wayne Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 14: NR5c--Middle Neuse River,
Wayne County, North Carolina.
(i) Units 12, 13, and 14 include stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Unit 12 consists of 90.8 river miles (146.1 river kilometers)
of habitat in the Little River from near NC96 in Wake County downstream
to the confluence with the Neuse River, including Buffalo Creek from
NC39 to the confluence with the Little River.
(iii) Unit 13 consists of 20.8 river miles (33.5 river kilometers)
of Mill Creek from upstream of US701 downstream to the confluence with
the Neuse River.
(iv) Unit 14 consists of 43.2 river miles (69.5 river kilometers)
of the Middle Neuse River from the confluence with Mill Creek
downstream to the Wayne/Lenoir County line.
(v) Map of Units 12, 13, and 14 follows:
[[Page 45857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.018
(15) Unit 15: NR6--Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin,
Craven, Greene, Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 114.8 river miles (184.8 river
kilometers) of habitat in the Contentnea Creek from NC581 downstream to
its confluence with the Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the Wayne/
Greene County line to the confluence with Contentnea Creek, and the
Neuse River from the confluence with Contentnea Creek to the confluence
with Pinetree Creek. Unit 15 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
height.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:
[[Page 45858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.019
(16) Unit 16: NR7--Swift Creek, Craven County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 10.3 river miles (16.5 river kilometers)
of habitat in Swift Creek from SR1931 (Beaver Camp Rd) downstream to
SR1440 (Streets Ferry Rd). Unit 16 includes stream habitat up to
bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
[[Page 45859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.020
(17) Unit 17: TR1--Trent River, Jones County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 32.5 river miles (52.4 river kilometers)
of habitat in Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the
confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence
with Poplar Branch downstream to SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at the
Marine Corps Cherry Point property. Unit 17 includes stream habitat up
to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 17 follows:
[[Page 45860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.021
(18) Unit 18: TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp, Jones County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km) of Tuckahoe
Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. Unit 18 begins upstream of
SR1142 (Weyerhaeuser Road) to the confluence with the Trent River. Unit
18 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:
[[Page 45861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.022
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15347 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C