[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59487-59511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19095]
[[Page 59487]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD12
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for
Atlantic Pigtoe
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 October 11, 2018, proposed rule
to list the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) as a threatened species
with a section 4(d) rule, and to designate critical habitat for the
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 species on
October 11, 2018. As a result of the critical habitat revisions, we now
propose to designate a total of 566 miles (910 kilometers) as critical
habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe across 18 units within portions of 14
counties in Virginia and 17 counties in North Carolina. This amounts to
an increase of 24 miles (38 kilometers) in our proposed critical
habitat designation for the species. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties the opportunity to comment on
the October 11, 2018, 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 October 11,
2018, at 83 FR 51570 is reopened. So that we can fully consider your
comments in our final determination, submit them on or before October
22, 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 October 11,
2018, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046 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-2018-0046,
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-2018-0046, 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 Public Comments, 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:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our October 11, 2018, proposed listing
determination with section 4(d) rule and designation of critical
habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe (83 FR 51570), the revisions to the
section 4(d) rule and proposed critical habitat designation that are
described in this document, and our draft economic assessment (DEA) of
the proposed critical habitat designation. We will consider information
and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly
interested in comments concerning:
(1) The Atlantic pigtoe'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, its
habitat, 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 this 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 this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable for
the conservation of the Atlantic pigtoe to include in a section 4(d)
rule for the species. In particular, we request 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 Atlantic pigtoe 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 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.
[[Page 59488]]
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the 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 and the description of the environmental impacts in
the draft environmental assessment is complete and accurate.
(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.
If you submitted comments or information on the October 11, 2018,
proposed rule or DEA during the comment period that was open from
October 11, 2018, to December 10, 2018, 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 this revised proposed rule, based on our review of all
information we receive during this rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and materials 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 proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046, 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 proposed rule and the DEA on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046, or by
mail from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics
directly relevant to the revised proposed section 4(d) rule and
designation of critical habitat. For more information on the species,
its habitat, and previous Federal actions concerning the Atlantic
pigtoe, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2018 (83 FR 51570).
In our October 11, 2018, proposed rule, we proposed to list the
Atlantic pigtoe 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 542 stream miles (872 kilometers) in Craig, Botetourt,
Fluvanna, Buckingham, Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie,
Greensville, Mecklenburg, and Halifax Counties in Virginia, and in
Rockingham, Granville, Vance, Franklin, Nash, Halifax, Warren,
Edgecombe, Pitt, Person, Durham, Orange, Wake, Johnston, Wilson,
Randolph, and Montgomery Counties in North Carolina. In addition, we
announced the availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat
designation. We accepted comments on the proposed rule and DEA for 60
days, ending December 10, 2018. Based on information we received during
the public comment period, we propose to revise the proposed section
4(d) rule and critical habitat designation, and are therefore reopening
the comment period to allow the public additional time to submit
comments on both the October 11, 2018, proposed rule, as well as the
revisions described in this document.
New Information and Revisions to Proposed Section 4(d) Rule
Section 4(d) of the Act 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 very similar statutory language 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.'' Additionally,
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, regulations promulgated under
section 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select appropriate provisions tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the threatened species. The statute 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 approved rules
developed under section 4(d) that include a taking prohibition for
threatened wildlife, or include 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 approved 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a
species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir.
1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially
enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has
an almost infinite number of options available to 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).
Although the 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 is
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Atlantic
pigtoe. The Service proposed a species-specific 4(d) rule that is
designed to address the Atlantic pigtoe's specific threats and
[[Page 59489]]
conservation needs. It would promote conservation of the Atlantic
pigtoe by encouraging management of the landscape in ways that meet
both land management considerations and meeting the conservation needs
of the Atlantic pigtoe. It would be one of many tools that the Service
would use to promote the conservation of the Atlantic pigtoe. It would
apply only if and when the Service makes final the listing of the
Atlantic pigtoe as a threatened species.
As discussed under the October 11, 2018, proposed rule's Summary of
Biological Status and Threats (83 FR 51570, pp. 83 FR 51572-51577),
declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream
fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats are affecting the
status of the Atlantic pigtoe. 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
Atlantic pigtoe. Therefore, we prohibit actions that result in the
incidental take of Atlantic pigtoe 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 Atlantic
pigtoe 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 Atlantic pigtoe,
including, but not limited to, capturing, handling, trapping,
collecting, or other activities. In this proposed revision, we would
change the way in which the provisions of the 4(d) rule for the
Atlantic pigtoe would appear in 50 CFR 17.45, and we would no longer
refer to the prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31(a). Instead, we
propose to refer to 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 Atlantic pigtoe have not changed. As we stated in the
October 11, 2018, 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.
We are retaining the exceptions to the prohibitions proposed in the
October 11, 2018, section 4(d) rule. We believe that those actions and
activities, while they may have some minimal level of disturbance to
the Atlantic pigtoe, are unlikely to negatively impact the species'
conservation and recovery efforts. The proposed exceptions to these
prohibitions include (1) species restoration efforts by State wildlife
agencies, (2) channel restoration projects, (3) bank stabilization
projects, and (4) silvicultural practices and forest management
activities.
During the comment period on the October 11, 2018, proposed rule,
we received numerous comments from the public and peer reviewers on
several of the exceptions to the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d)
rule. As a result, we retain the four exceptions but propose to revise
some of them. Below, we describe the four exceptions and their proposed
revisions, if any.
The first exception for species restoration efforts by State
wildlife agencies remains unchanged from what we proposed on October
11, 2018 (83 FR 51570, p. 83 FR 51593), and includes 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. The
Service recognizes our special and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 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 Atlantic
pigtoe that may result in otherwise prohibited take for wildlife
without additional authorization.
We propose revisions to the second exception for channel
restoration projects based on public comments received. This exception
retains most of the language from the October 11, 2018, proposed rule
for creation of natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning
streams that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifer (83 FR
51570, p. 83 FR 51593). Second- to third-order, headwater streams
reconstructed in this way would offer suitable habitats for the
Atlantic pigtoe and contain stable channel features, such as pools,
glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species and its
host fish for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other
normal behaviors. In this document, we propose to add language that
would require surveys and relocation for Atlantic pigtoes observed
prior to commencement of restoration action.
The third exception for bank stabilization projects remains largely
unchanged from what we proposed on October 11, 2018, except that we
propose to include a requirement that appropriate ``native''
vegetation, including woody species appropriate for the region and
habitat, should be used for stabilization. We propose this revision
based on comments we received.
During the public comment period, the Service received several
comments on the fourth exception for silvicultural practices and forest
management activities, including seeking further clarification of the
meaning of ``highest standard'' best management practices (BMPs). As a
result, we propose to revise the 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 Atlantic
pigtoe. Specifically concerning streamside management zones (SMZs), the
proposed 4(d) rule has been revised to provide details about SMZ widths
that
[[Page 59490]]
would be most 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
both Virginia and North Carolina State forestry programs (North
Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) 2006, entire; Virginia Department of
Forestry (VADF) 2011, entire). SMZs for waterbodies that are occupied
by the Atlantic pigtoe are intended to be similar to the trout water
SMZs, as described in the Virginia BMP Technical Manual (VADF 2011, p.
37), the North Carolina Forestry BMP Manual to Protect Water Quality
(NCFS 2006, pp. 21, 30-31), and life-history requirements as documented
in the species status assessment (SSA) for the Atlantic pigtoe (USFWS
2019, pp. 5-11). In waterbodies that support listed freshwater mussel
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 2019, p. 55). Freshwater mussels require cool,
well-oxygenated water, and a clean stream bottom (USFWS 2019, p. 11). A
lack of these features limits the number of freshwater mussels 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). Silted stream bottoms suffocate filter-feeding
animals and decrease the stream's insect population, an important
source of food for host fish (VADF 2011, p. 37). Siltation also makes
mussel and host fish reproduction difficult (USFWS 2019, pp. 29, 41,
47, 57). Transformed juvenile mussels require clean gravel/coarse sand
substrates with oxygenated water to successfully become adults (USFWS
2019, p. 11). Lastly, a silted bottom substrate can result in mortality
(USFWS 2019, pp. 29, 59).
Accordingly, we have clarified the intent of the fourth exception
for silviculture practices and forest management activities to those
that implement State-approved best management practices (BMPs), which
include the following specifications for streamside management zones
(SMZ), 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 the top of the stream bank, and is expected to confine visible
sediment resulting from accelerated erosion.
Table 1--Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) for Waterbodies Occupied by Atlantic Pigtoe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1 (no touch/no Zone 2 (selective
Percent slope of adjacent lands (%) harvest; measured in harvest allowed; Total SMZ width
feet) measured in feet) (measured in 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 prevent
visible sediment from entering intermittent streams, perennial streams,
and perennial waterbodies are provided within 10 working days of
initial disturbance and are maintained until the site is permanently
stabilized.
3. All access roads and skid trails are located outside of SMZs
unless no other alternative exists.
State-approved forestry BMPs are upheld by North Carolina's Forest
Practice Guidelines (FPGs) related to water quality standards, the
Virginia Department of Forestry, 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 websites for these
organizations, as follows:
https://www.stateforesters.org/bmps/
https://www.ncforestservice.gov/publications/Forestry%20Leaflets/WQ01.pdf
http://www.dof.virginia.gov/infopubs/BMP-Technical-Guide_pub.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 Atlantic pigtoe, but are not expected to
negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts.
Rather, 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,
[[Page 59491]]
creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species.
Further, 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.
The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 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 Atlantic
pigtoe that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional
authorization.
Finally, the proposed 4(d) rule would allow take of the Atlantic
pigtoe without a permit by any employee or agent of the Service or a
State conservation agency designated by his 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 Atlantic
pigtoe 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 Atlantic pigtoe. However, interagency cooperation may
be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for
the species between Federal agencies and the Service. Anyone
undertaking activities that are not covered by the provisions and that
may result in take would need to ensure, in consultation with the
Service, that those activities are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species where the entity is a Federal agency
or there is a Federal nexus, or consider applying for a permit before
proceeding with the activity (if there is no Federal nexus).
New Information and Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat
During the public comment period, we received 12 comment letters
containing over 80 comments on the proposed critical habitat
designation. Some of the comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) provided information that recommended
shortening proposed units to better match the Natural Heritage Program
element occurrences. The NCWRC also provided new observation data
collected since the first version of the SSA report, which was
finalized in December 2016, including updated 2017 and 2018 survey
records in Little Grassy Creek (Dan River Basin, Granville County,
North Carolina), the Dan River (Rockingham County, North Carolina), and
the Tar River (Nash County, North Carolina), and an updated 2015 survey
location in Sturgeon Creek (Nottoway River Basin, Dinwiddie County,
Virginia). We also determined we had accidentally omitted observations
from 2011 in Sappony Creek (Nottoway River Basin, Dinwiddie County,
Virginia) and the Nottoway River (in Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and
Greensville Counties, Virginia) in the October 11, 2018, proposed rule
(83 FR 51570). We also noted an error in the critical habitat table,
where the measurement for the New Hope Creek unit is 4 river miles (6.4
kilometers (km)), not 6 river miles (9.7 km). This information had been
included in the SSA report but not in the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Therefore, in this document, we propose certain revisions to the
critical habitat designation we proposed for the Atlantic pigtoe on
October 11, 2018 (83 FR 51570). Because of these revisions, the
numbering for most of the critical habitat units has changed from the
October 11, 2018, proposed rule, although the names and descriptions
remain the same. All revised changes to unit numbers are described
below and listed in Table 2. Specifically, we propose to add two units
based on updated observations of the species in locations previously
considered historical; the new Unit 4 is 4 miles (6.6 km) of Sappony
Creek in the Chowan River Basin in Dinwiddie County, Virginia (J.
Stanhope 2019, pers. comm.), and the new Unit 9 is 3 miles (4.8 km) of
Little Grassy Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in Granville County,
North Carolina (NCWRC 2018, p.6). We also propose to revise Unit 5
(previously Unit 4) to add 3.5 river miles (5.6 km) of Sturgeon Creek
based on a 2015 observation of Atlantic pigtoe not included in the
October 11, 2018, proposed rule, and 10.3 river miles (16.6 km) of
Nottoway River based on accidental omission of data in the October 11,
2018, proposed rule (J.Stanhope 2018, pers. comm.). We propose to
revise Unit 7 (previously Unit 6) to add 7 miles (11.3 km) of the Dan
River in Rockingham County, North Carolina, based on a 2017 observation
of Atlantic pigtoe (NCWRC 2018, p.6). We propose to revise Unit 10
(previously Unit 8) to remove two portions from this unit totaling 3.75
miles (3.4 miles (5.5 km) from unnamed tributary to Bear Swamp Creek
and 0.35 miles (0.6 km) from unnamed tributary to Cub Creek) to better
match the Natural Heritage Element Occurrence data, and add one portion
of 10 miles (16.1 km) to the Tar River in Nash County, North Carolina,
based on a 2016 observation of Atlantic pigtoe. We also propose to
revise Unit 11 (previously, Unit 9) to remove 8 miles (12.9 km) from
Sandy Creek to better match the Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
data in response to the public comments from the NCWRC. 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 Atlantic pigtoe, and may require
special management considerations or protection from threats as
described in the October 11, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 51570). For
clarity, we also propose to add short textual descriptions of each
proposed unit in the regulatory text of the critical habitat
designation.
The DEA for the proposed critical habitat designation has not been
revised. The counties containing the new units (Units 4 and 9) and the
revised units (Units 7, 10, and 11) are included in the DEA's analysis
that uses the consultation efforts occurring in counties, which overlap
with the October 11, 2018, proposed designation
[[Page 59492]]
for Atlantic pigtoe critical habitat, as the basis of determining
incremental costs. The revised Unit 5 (previously Unit 4) includes 0.99
river miles (1.6 km) in Sussex County, Virginia, which was not
considered in our DEA. However, given the small amount of habitat and
zero consultation efforts on co-occurring species (yellow lance and
Roanoke logperch) to date in this area of the Unit, we do not
anticipate an increase in the overall incremental costs of designating
critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe.
Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
In total, we now propose to designate approximately 566 miles (910
kilometers) in 18 units in Virginia and North Carolina as critical
habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe. 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)
Craig Creek, (2) Mill Creek, (3) Middle James River, (4) Sappony Creek,
(5) Nottoway River Subbasin, (6) Meherrin River, (7) Dan River, (8)
Aarons Creek, (9) Little Grassy Creek, (10) Upper/Middle Tar River
Subbasin, (11) Sandy/Swift Creek, (12) Fishing Creek Subbasin, (13)
Lower Tar River, (14) Upper Neuse River Subbasin, (15) Middle Neuse
River Subbasin, (16) New Hope Creek, (17) Deep River Subbasin, and (18)
Little River Subbasin. 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 Atlantic pigtoe. Where
appropriate, Table 2 also notes the previous number for units for which
the numbering has changed.
Table 2--Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Atlantic Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riparian River miles
Critical habitat unit ownership (kilometers) Proposed changes Previous unit numbering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. JR1--Craig Creek....... Private; Federal. 29 (46.7) None............. Unit 1: JR1
Unit 2. JR2--Mill Creek........ Federal.......... 1 (1.6) None............. Unit 2: JR2
Unit 3. JR3--Middle James River Private.......... 3 (4.8) None............. Unit 3: JR3
Unit 4. CR1--Sappony Creek..... Private.......... 4 (6.6) New Unit......... New Unit
Unit 5. CR2--Nottoway River Private; Federal. 64 (103) + 14 mi (22.5 km) Unit 4: CR1
Subbasin.
Unit 6. CR3--Meherrin River.... Private.......... 5 (8) None............. Unit 5: CR2
Unit 7. RR1--Dan River......... Private.......... 14 (22.5) +7 mi (11.2 km).. Unit 6: RR1
Unit 8. RR2--Aarons Creek...... Private.......... 12 (19.3) None............. Unit 7: RR2
Unit 9. RR3--Little Grassy Private.......... 3 (4.8) New Unit......... New Unit
Creek.
Unit 10. TR1--Upper/Middle Tar Private; 91 (146.5) +6 mi (9.7 km)... Unit 8: TR1
River Subbasin. Easements.
Unit 11. TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek Private; State; 50 (80.5) -8 mi (12.8 km).. Unit 9: TR2
Easements.
Unit 12. TR3--Fishing Creek Private; State; 85 (136.8) None............. Unit 10: TR3
Subbasin. Easements.
Unit 13. TR4--Lower Tar River.. Private; State; 30 (48.3) None............. Unit 11: TR4
Easements.
Unit 14. NR1--Upper Neuse River Private; Federal; 60 (95) None............. Unit 12: NR1
Subbasin. State; Easements.
Unit 15. NR2--Middle Neuse Private; State; 61 (98.2) None............. Unit 13: NR2
River Subbasin. County;
Easements.
Unit 16. CF1--New Hope Creek... Private; 4 (6.4) -2 mi (3.3 km)... Unit 14: CF1
Easements.
Unit 17. CF2--Deep River Private.......... 10 (16.1) None............. Unit 15: CF2
Subbasin.
Unit 18. YR1- Little River Private; 40 (64.4) None............. Unit 16: YR1
Subbasin. Easements.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... ................. 566 (910) +24 mi (38 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 where there is no change from the October 11, 2018, proposed
rule, please refer to information at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046. 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 4: CR1--Sappony Creek
This is a new unit. Unit 4 consists of 4 river miles (6.6 river km)
of Sappony Creek in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The proposed designated
area begins just upstream of the Seaboard Railroad crossing and ends
just downstream of the Shippings Road (SR 709) crossing. 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 5: CR2--Nottoway River Subbasin
Revised Unit 5 (previously Unit 4) consists of 64 river miles (103
river km) of the Nottoway River and a portion of Sturgeon Creek in
Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Greensville, and Sussex
Counties, Virginia. The proposed designation begins downstream of the
Nottoway River's confluence with Dickerson Creek and ends at Little
Mill Road, and includes Sturgeon Creek downstream of Old Stage Road. We
propose to revise this unit to add 3.5 river miles (5.6 km) of Sturgeon
Creek based on a 2015 observation of Atlantic pigtoe not included in
the October 11, 2018, proposed rule, and 10.3 river miles (16.6 km) of
Nottoway River based on accidental omission of data in that proposed
rule. Land bordering the river is primarily privately owned, except for
some land (14 miles) that is part of the Fort Pickett National Guard
Installation
[[Page 59493]]
and therefore is owned by the United States. The unit currently
supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address a variety of threats. In the past decade,
the Nottoway River suffered from several seasonal drought events, which
not only caused very low dissolved oxygen conditions but also decreased
food delivery because of minimal flows. In addition, these conditions
led to increased predation rates on potential host fishes that were
concentrated into low-flow refugia (e.g., pools). Urban stormwater and
nonpoint source pollution have been identified as contributing to water
quality issues in this unit; therefore, special management
considerations for riparian buffer restoration, reduced surface and
groundwater withdrawals, and stormwater retrofits will benefit the
habitat in this unit. Additional threats to this system include oil and
gas pipeline projects that propose to cross streams at locations where
the species occurs. Additional special management considerations or
protection may be required within this unit to address low water levels
as a result of water withdrawals and drought, as well as recommendation
of alternate routes for oil and gas pipelines, or directional bore for
those projects.
Unit 7: RR1--Dan River
Revised Unit 7 (previously Unit 6) consists of 14 river miles (22.5
river km) of the Dan River along the border of Virginia and North
Carolina from NC Highway 700 near Eden, North Carolina, into
Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and downstream to the confluence with
Williamson Creek in Rockingham County, North Carolina. We propose to
revise this unit to add 7 miles (11.3 km) in Rockingham County, North
Carolina, based on a 2017 observation of Atlantic pigtoe. The land on
either side of the proposed critical habitat 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
within this unit to address threats. For example, a Duke Energy coal
ash spill occurred upstream of this unit in February 2014; subsequent
actions related to mitigating the effects of the spill will ultimately
benefit the habitat in this unit, potentially allowing species
restoration efforts.
Unit 9: RR3--Little Grassy Creek
This is a new unit. Unit 9 consists of 3 river miles (4.8 river km)
of Little Grassy Creek in Granville County, North Carolina. The
proposed designated area begins at the Davis Chapel Road crossing and
ends at the confluence with Grassy Creek. 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 10: TR1--Upper/Middle Tar River Subbasin
This revised unit (previously Unit 8) consists of 91 miles (146.5
km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as well as
several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Fox Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub
Creek, and Shelton Creek), in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash
Counties, North Carolina. The portion of Cub Creek starts near Hobgood
Road and continues to the confluence with the Tar River; the Tar River
portion starts just upstream of the NC 158 bridge and goes downstream
to the NC 581 crossing; the Shelton Creek portion starts upstream of NC
158 downstream to the confluence with the Tar River; the Bear Swamp
Creek portion begins upstream of Dyking Road downstream to the
confluence with the Tar River (and includes an unnamed tributary
upstream of Beasley Road); the Fox Creek portion begins downstream of
NC 561 to the confluence with the Tar River; and the Crooked Creek
portion begins upstream of NC 98 crossing downstream to confluence with
Tar River. We propose revisions to remove two portions from this unit
(3.4 miles (5.5 km) from unnamed tributary to Bear Swamp Creek and 0.35
miles (0.6 km) from unnamed tributary to Cub Creek) based on Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence data, and to add 10 miles (16.1 km) to the
Tar River in Nash County, North Carolina, based on a 2016 observation
of Atlantic pigtoe. Land bordering the river and creeks is mostly (79
mi (119 km)) privately owned, except for some areas (12 mi (17 km)) in
public ownership or easements. 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 agricultural BMPs, implementing 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 11: TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek
This revised unit (previously Unit 9) consists of a 50-mile (80.5-
km) segment of Sandy/Swift Creek beginning at Southerland Mill Road
downstream to NC 301 in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties,
North Carolina. We propose to revise this unit to remove 8 miles (12.9
km) from the upstream limit of Sandy Creek based on Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence data in response to comments from the NCWRC. Land
bordering the river and creeks is mostly (50 mi (80 km)) privately
owned, with some areas (8 mi (13 km)) covered by protective easements
held by a local land trust and the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services. 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 excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen;
there is one ``impaired'' stream reach totaling approximately 5 miles
(8 km) in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural BMPs,
maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian
corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
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
[[Page 59494]]
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 83 FR 51570 (October 11, 2018) 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. Add Sec. 17.45 to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.45 Special rules--snails and clams.
(a) Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted 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)(3) and (c)(4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts, as set 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. Prior to
restoration action, surveys to determine presence of Atlantic pigtoe
must be performed, and if located, mussels 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 vegetation
includes woody species appropriate for the region and habitat
conditions. These methods must 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
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 must
be installed using properly designed and constructed structures
installed at right angles to the stream, must not impede fish passage
or stream flow, and must minimize the amount of visible sediment that
enters that stream or waterbody. The number of crossings must be
minimized, stable sites for crossings must be chosen, and access roads
and skid trails must be located outside of SMZs unless no other
alternative exists.
(b) [Reserved]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(f), the entry proposed at 83 FR 51570 for
``Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)'', by revising paragraphs (5)
through (21) and by adding paragraphs (22) and (23), to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
* * * * *
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 59495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.000
(6) Unit 1: JR1--Craig Creek, Craig and Botetourt Counties,
Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of 29 river miles (46.7 river kilometers) of
Craig Creek near VA Route 616 west of New Castle downstream to just
below VA Route 817 crossing.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 (Craig Creek) follows:
[[Page 59496]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.001
(7) Unit 2: JR2--Mill Creek, Bath County, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) segment of Mill
Creek at the VA 39 (Mountain Valley Road) crossing.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 (Mill Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.002
[[Page 59497]]
(8) Unit 3: JR3--Middle James River, Fluvanna and Buckingham
Counties, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of a 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) segment of the
Middle James River downstream of its confluence with the Slate River,
under the crossing of VA Hwy 15 (James Madison Highway) along the
boundary of Fluvanna and Buckingham Counties, Virginia.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 (Middle James River) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.003
[[Page 59498]]
(9) Unit 4: CR1--Sappony Creek, Dinwiddie County, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of 4 river miles (6.6 river kilometers) of
Sappony Creek in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The designated area begins
just upstream of the Seaboard Railroad crossing and ends just
downstream of the Shippings Road (SR 709) crossing.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 (Sappony Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.004
[[Page 59499]]
(10) Unit 5: CR2--Nottoway River Subbasin, Nottoway, Lunenburg,
Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Greensville, and Sussex Counties, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of 64 river miles (103 river kilometers) of
the Nottoway River, and a portion of Sturgeon Creek. The designation
begins downstream of the Nottoway River's confluence with Dickerson
Creek and ends at Little Mill Road, and includes Sturgeon Creek
downstream of Old Stage Road.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 (Nottoway River Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.005
[[Page 59500]]
(11) Unit 6: CR3--Meherrin River, Brunswick County, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the Meherrin
River from approximately 1.5 river miles below the confluence with
Saddletree Creek under VA Hwy 46 (Christana Highway) to VA 715 (Iron
Bridge Road).
(ii) Map of Unit 6 (Meherrin River) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.006
[[Page 59501]]
(12) Unit 7: RR1--Dan River, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and
Rockingham County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 14 river miles (22.5 river kilometers) of
the Dan River along the border of Virginia and North Carolina from NC
Highway 700 near Eden, North Carolina, into Pittsylvania County,
Virginia, and downstream to the confluence with Williamson Creek in
Rockingham County, North Carolina.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 (Dan River) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.007
[[Page 59502]]
(13) Unit 8: RR2--Aarons Creek, Granville County, North Carolina,
and Mecklenburg and Halifax Counties, Virginia.
(i) This unit consists of 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) of Aarons
Creek, from NC 96 in Granville County, North Carolina, downstream
across the North Carolina-Virginia border to VA 602 (White House Road)
along the Mecklenburg County-Halifax County line in Virginia.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 (Aarons Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.008
[[Page 59503]]
(14) Unit 9: RR3--Little Grassy Creek, Granville County, North
Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 3 river miles (4.8 river kilometers) of
Little Grassy Creek in Granville County, North Carolina. The designated
area begins at the Davis Chapel Road crossing and ends at the
confluence with Grassy Creek.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 (Little Grassy Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.009
[[Page 59504]]
(15) Unit 10: TR1--Upper/Middle Tar River Subbasin, Granville,
Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 91 miles (146.5 kilometers) of the
mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as well as several
tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Fox Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and
Shelton Creek), all in North Carolina. The portion of Cub Creek starts
near Hobgood Road and continues to the confluence with the Tar River;
the Tar River portion starts just upstream of the NC 158 bridge and
goes downstream to the NC 581 crossing; the Shelton Creek portion
starts upstream of NC 158 downstream to the confluence with the Tar
River; the Bear Swamp Creek portion begins upstream of Dyking Road
downstream to the confluence with the Tar River (and includes an
unnamed tributary upstream of Beasley Road); the Fox Creek portion
begins downstream of NC 561 to the confluence with the Tar River; and
the Crooked Creek portion begins upstream of NC 98 crossing downstream
to confluence with Tar River.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 (Upper/Middle Tar River Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.010
[[Page 59505]]
(16) Unit 11: TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek, Warren, Franklin, and Nash
Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of a 50-mile (80.5-kilometer) segment of
Sandy/Swift Creek beginning at Vance/Warren county line downstream to
NC 301 in Franklin County.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 (Sandy/Swift Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.011
[[Page 59506]]
(17) Unit 12: TR3--Fishing Creek Subbasin, Warren, Halifax,
Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 85 miles (136.8 kilometers) in Fishing
Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and Maple Branch. The Shocco
Creek portion begins downstream of the NC 58 bridge and continues to
the confluence with Fishing Creek; the entirety of Maple Branch is
included, down to the confluence with Fishing Creek; Fishing Creek
begins at Axtell Ridgeway Road (SR 1112) downstream to I-95; and Little
Fishing Creek begins upstream of Briston Brown Road (SR 1532)
downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek.
(ii) Map of Unit 12 (Fishing Creek Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.012
[[Page 59507]]
(18) Unit 13: TR4--Lower Tar River, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties,
North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) of the Lower
Tar River, lower Swift Creek, and Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County,
North Carolina, from NC 97 near Leggett, North Carolina, to the
Edgecombe-Pitt County line near NC 33.
(ii) Map of Unit 13 (Lower Tar River) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.013
[[Page 59508]]
(19) Unit 14: NR1--Upper Neuse River Subbasin, Person, Durham, and
Orange Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 60 river miles (95 river kilometers) in
four reaches including Flat River, Little River, Eno River, and the
Upper Eno River. The Flat River reach consists of 19 river miles (30.6
river kilometers) in the Flat River Subbasin in Person and Durham
Counties, North Carolina, including the South Flat River downstream of
Dick Coleman Road, the North Flat River near Parsonage Road, and Deep
Creek near Helena-Moriah Road downstream where each river converges
into the Flat River downstream of State Forest Road. The Little River
Subbasin includes 18 river miles (29 river kilometers) of the North
Fork and South Fork Little Rivers in Orange and Durham Counties, North
Carolina. The Upper Eno River reach consists of 4 river miles (6.4
river kilometers) in Orange County, North Carolina, including the West
Fork Eno River upstream of Cedar Grove Road to the confluence with
McGowan Creek. The Eno River reach consists of 18 river miles (29 river
kilometers) in Orange and Durham Counties, North Carolina, from below
Eno Mountain Road to NC 15-501.
(ii) Map of Unit 14 (Upper Neuse River Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.014
(20) Unit 15: NR2--Middle Neuse River Subbasin, Wake, Johnston, and
Wilson Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 61 river miles (98.2 river kilometers) in
five reaches including Swift Creek, Middle Creek, Upper Little River,
Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek, all in North Carolina. The
Middle Creek reach is 19 river miles (30.6 river kilometers) below Old
Stage Road downstream to below Crantock Road, and the Swift Creek reach
is 25 river miles (40.2 river kilometers) from Lake Benson downstream
to confluence with the Neuse, both in Wake and Johnston Counties. The
Upper Little River reach includes 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) of the Upper
Little River from the confluence with Perry Creek to Fowler Road in
Wake County, North Carolina. The Middle Little River reach includes 11
river miles (17.7 river kilometers) from Atkinsons Mill downstream to
NC 301 in Johnston County, North Carolina. The Contentnea Creek reach
consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river kilometers) below Buckhorn
Reservoir to just below Sadie Road near NC 581 in Wilson County, North
Carolina.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 (Middle Neuse River Subbasin) follows:
[[Page 59509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.015
(21) Unit 16: CF1--New Hope Creek, Orange County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 4 mi (6.4 km) of habitat in the New Hope
Creek from NC 86 to Mimosa Road.
(ii) Map of Unit 16 (New Hope Creek) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.016
[[Page 59510]]
(22) Unit 17: CF2--Deep River Subbasin, Randolph County, North
Carolina.
(i) The Deep River Subbasin unit consists of 10 river miles (16.1
river kilometers), including the mainstem between Richland and Brush
Creeks as well as Richland Creek from Little Beane Store Road to the
confluence with the Deep River and Brush Creek from Brush Creek Road to
the confluence with the Deep River.
(ii) Map of Unit 17 (Deep River Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.017
[[Page 59511]]
(23) Unit 18: YR1--Little River Subbasin, Randolph and Montgomery
Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) of Little
River from SR 1114 downstream to Okeewemee Star Road, including the
West Fork Little River from NC 134 to the confluence with the Little
River.
(ii) Map of Unit 18 (Little River Subbasin) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE20.018
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-19095 Filed 9-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C