[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 546-581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27519]
[[Page 545]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 3
January 5, 2022
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Panama City Crayfish and Designation
of Critical Habitat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 546]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0061 and FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137; FF09E2100
FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BC14; 1018-BD50
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Panama City Crayfish and Designation
of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the
Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae), a terrestrial crayfish
species native to Bay County, Florida, as a threatened species with a
rule issued under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended. We also designate critical habitat for the species
under the Act. In total, approximately 4,138 acres (1,675 hectares
(ha)) in Bay County, Florida, fall within eight units of critical
habitat. This rule extends the Act's protections to the species and its
designated critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective February 4, 2022.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos.
FWS-R4-ES-2017-0061 and FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the decision file for this critical habitat
designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137 and at the Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, below). The critical
habitat shapefile is available on the Service's Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS) portal at https://www.ecos.fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and
Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone 904-731-3134. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we
determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species
promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the Panama
City crayfish meets the definition of a threatened species; therefore,
we are listing it as such and finalizing a designation of its critical
habitat. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and
designation of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a
rule.
What this document does. This rule lists the Panama City crayfish
(Procambarus econfinae) as a threatened species with a rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'') and designates critical
habitat in eight units totaling approximately 4,138 acres (1,675 ha) in
Bay County, Florida.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that habitat loss and
fragmentation from development (Factor A) is the primary threat to the
Panama City crayfish.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we prepared an economic analysis of the impacts of designating critical
habitat. On April 15, 2021, we published an announcement of, and
solicited public comments on, the draft economic analysis (86 FR
19838). We received general comments that the designation would harm
the local economy, but we received no specific or substantial
information that would require altering the draft economic analysis.
Therefore, we have adopted the draft economic analysis as final. As
noted below in Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, we revised the
critical habitat designation and removed 3,039 acres (1,230 hectares
(ha)) from the proposed designation. Accordingly, the estimated costs
presented in the draft economic analysis will likely be reduced as a
result of a smaller final designation of critical habitat.
Peer review and public comment. Prior to our development of our
January 3, 2018, and April 15, 2021, proposed rules (83 FR 330 and 86
FR 19838, respectively), we received peer reviews of the Species Status
Assessment (SSA) report from eight experts, which informed our
assessment that we used for this rulemaking. We also considered all
comments and information we received from the public during the two
public comment periods for the proposed rules.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the Panama City crayfish proposed listing rule (83
FR 330) published on January 3, 2018, and the reopening of the comment
period for the proposed listing rule with a proposed 4(d) rule and
critical habitat designation (86 FR 19838) published on April 15, 2021,
for detailed descriptions of previous Federal actions concerning this
species.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Panama City crayfish. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a
[[Page 547]]
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates several changes to our proposed 4(d)
rule and critical habitat designation (86 FR 19838; April 15, 2021).
For the 4(d) rule, we removed the incidental take exception for
conservation and restoration efforts by the Service or State wildlife
agencies because the provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(b), which amount to the
same or similar allowances, apply to the Panama City crayfish. In
addition, based on comments we received, we clarified the incidental
take exception for maintenance activities associated with rights-of-way
to include mowing, use of herbicides, and mechanical side trimming, and
we added the replacement of critical structural components, such as
crossarms, insulators, conductors, etc., to this take exception in the
4(d) rule.
For the critical habitat designation, we made changes based on
updated aerial photography, new information about permitted
developments, and more recent information about Panama City crayfish
habitat use in secondary soils. By using 2020 aerial photography (Bay
County Property Appraiser 2020, unpaginated), we removed unsuitable or
developed parcels, resulting in removal of approximately 473 acres (191
ha) from the critical habitat designation. The new aerial photography
also revealed an additional 1.9 acres (0.8 ha) of habitat, confirmed by
the occurrence of hydric soils, suitable grasses, and a high
concentration of Panama City crayfish, which we added to Unit 1 (19th
Street). We also revised our critical habitat delineation protocol
based on new information with respect to how Panama City crayfish uses
secondary soils. In the April 15, 2021, proposed rule, we used a 100-
meter (m) (328-foot) buffer from the core soils into the secondary
soils, but our more recent analysis uses a 15-m (50-foot) buffer from
the core soils into the secondary soils, capturing 71 percent of all
Panama City crayfish occurrences, and reducing the amount of designated
critical habitat by 2,566 acres (1,038 ha). We have determined that the
50-foot buffer provides a better method to focus protection on lands
that are likely occupied more consistently than those that may be
occupied only during seasons or years with high rainfall events.
Therefore, in this rule, we use the refined 50-foot buffer boundary to
capture lands likely used by the Panama City crayfish all of the time
versus land used only during a shorter portion of the crayfish's life
cycle when rainfall is high. This approach better represents the
habitat containing the primary biological features and supporting the
Panama City crayfish a majority of the time. Given current information,
Panama City crayfish are not likely to persist during drought years.
Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency that
may affect areas occupied by the species for part of its life cycle
will still be subject to section 7 of the Act. As a result of these
modifications, the final amount of designated critical habitat is 4,138
acres (1,675 ha), a decrease of 3,039 acres (1,230 ha) from the
proposed designation.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Panama City crayfish is presented in the SSA report, version 2.0
(Service 2019). The full SSA report can be found on the Service's
Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) portal at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8915 and at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0061 and FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137.
Species Description
The Panama City crayfish is a small, semi-terrestrial crayfish that
grows to about 2 inches (in) (50.8 millimeters (mm)) in length (minus
claws), and is found in south-central Bay County, Florida. The species'
color pattern consists of a medium dark-brown background color, lighter
brown mid-dorsal stripe, and darker brown dorsolateral stripes (Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2016, p. 1). The Panama
City crayfish was first described by Hobbs in 1942, from Bay County,
Panama City, Florida. The Panama City crayfish is classified in the
family Cambaridae and is a recognized taxon by the scientific community
(Taylor et al. 2007; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2017).
The life history of the Panama City crayfish specifically is not
well known. Cambarid crayfish may live about 2.5 to 3 years (Hobbs
2001, p. 977), with a generation period of 2 years. For this family of
crayfish, the majority breed more than once, with mating among mature
yearlings frequent; however, many individuals do not become sexually
active until late summer or fall. Females may produce between 30 and
160 eggs and have been found with eggs and/or young from March through
September. Juveniles are most frequently found in the summer and have
been observed through December, so juveniles appear to be produced from
at least March through December. Juveniles can be carried overland by
moving water during rainy periods, which aids in dispersal (Keppner and
Keppner 2002, p. 11).
Eight crayfish species occur within the range of the Panama City
crayfish, although only the hatchet crayfish and the jackknife crayfish
are found in the same habitat as the Panama City crayfish and may co-
occur with it (FWC 2017, p. 1). The Panama City crayfish is not known
to hybridize with other species of crayfish.
Historically, the species inhabited natural and often temporary
bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods and wet
prairie-marsh communities. However, most of these communities have been
cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with
slash pine plantations. The Panama City crayfish currently inhabits the
waters of grassy, gently sloped ditches and swales, slash pine
plantations, utility rights-of-way, and a few remnant parcels protected
under wetland and private easements (FWC 2016, p. 2).
The highest densities of Panama City crayfish have been recorded in
areas with little to no shrub or tree cover (FWC 2016, p. 2). Suitable
habitat is normally dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Lowest
population densities have occurred in small, open sites where shrubs or
trees were present, or in the furrows between bedding rows in some pine
plantations (Keppner and Keppner 2005). When encountered in dense titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora and Cliftonia monophylla) swamps, the species was
associated with temporarily inundated areas open to the sun with some
herbaceous vegetation. Such sites may be considered secondary or
suboptimal habitat for the species. On sites where mixed habitat
features are present (e.g., partially wooded sites or sites with
permanent, deep-water ponds), the Panama City crayfish appears to
select favorable areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, with shallow
or fluctuating water levels (FWC 2016, p. 3; Keppner and Keppner 2005,
p. 2).
The Panama City crayfish relies on particular soil types for burrow
construction and supporting herbaceous vegetation; these soil types are
categorized as core or secondary soils.
[[Page 548]]
Core soils, or those that sustain long hydropattern wetlands, provide
the best substrate to support the species; secondary soils, or those
that support short hydropattern wetlands, are less ideal but still used
(Service 2019, p. 23). Because they must have wet conditions for
survival, Panama City crayfish rely on the dynamics of the flow of
water and wetness of the soils for dispersal. These habitat
restrictions and limited dispersal ability make the crayfish have low
adaptive ability. The core and secondary soil types that support Panama
City crayfish within the species' known range are described in more
detail in the SSA report (Service 2019, pp. 23-24).
Panama City crayfish build burrows for shelter, which are normally
in or adjacent to surface water when it is present in the hydric soils
they inhabit (Hobbs 1981, entire). They construct burrows that contact
the water table as the surface water of their habitat recedes, and they
occupy burrows when surface water is absent or during periods of
extreme water temperatures. They emerge from the burrows when surface
water is present again or water temperatures are favorable. It appears
that they can survive significant periods of drought in their burrows
when they can maintain contact with the water table. During these dry
periods, the Panama City crayfish excavates and lives in unbranched
burrows up to 3 feet long that extend down to the water table, thereby
enabling the species to remain adequately hydrated to survive (FWC
2016, p. 3).
Little is known about the specific feeding habits of the Panama
City crayfish. Observations of Panama City crayfish that were held in
aquaria spanning 1.5 plus years (Keppner and Keppner 2014, entire)
indicate that they are detritivores and herbivores. Specimens were
offered dead animal material, but they avoided it in favor of
processing the substrate for particles of prepared fish food and the
fresh aquatic vegetation that were provided as primary food sources.
Herbaceous vegetation likely serves as a food source for the Panama
City crayfish.
The Panama City crayfish historically ranged throughout south-
central Bay County, Florida, within a 56-square-mile area (14,504 ha;
see figure, below). The historical range likely created one population
connected by core and secondary soils. As urban growth came to Panama
City, the range of the Panama City crayfish became fragmented into
isolated patches. Today, the species has 12 localized (i.e., isolated)
populations that can be divided into two groups, based on patterns in
fragmentation from urban development: The western group and eastern
group, using Transmitter Road as the primary division. Localized
populations were delineated using a landscape genetic analysis based on
a pattern of isolation-by-distance, where increasing geographic
separation tends to reflect increasing genetic differentiation (Duncan
et al. 2017, entire). A genetic analysis describes eight localized
populations occurring in a western grouping and four localized
populations occurring in an eastern grouping (Duncan et al. 2017,
entire). The 12 populations are described in more detail in the SSA
report (Service 2019, pp. 32-52), and are referred to as 19th Street,
Old Airport, 390 West, Talkington, Minnesota, Edwards, Transmitter
West, College Point, Deer Point, High Point, Star, and Transmitter
East. Three of the populations are considered functionally extirpated
(Old Airport, Minnesota, and College Point).
[[Page 549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA22.000
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
[[Page 550]]
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
January 3, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 330) described ``foreseeable
future'' for the Panama City crayfish as 20 to 30 years, which
encompasses 10 to 15 generations, which we stated in that proposal is
more than sufficient time to determine the species' response to
stressors. On August 27, 2019, the Service published a final rule (84
FR 45020) codifying its understanding of ``foreseeable future'' at 50
CFR 424.11(d). Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set
forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis. The term ``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into
the future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future
threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In
other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we
can make reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain'';
it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
The regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) did not significantly modify
the Service's interpretation; rather, they codified a framework that
sets forth how the Service will determine what constitutes the
foreseeable future based on our long-standing practice. Accordingly,
although the regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) do not apply to this final
rule for the Panama City crayfish because the crayfish's listing was
proposed prior to the effective date of the August 27, 2019, final
rule, application of the regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) would not
change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future for the Panama
City crayfish as contained in our January 3, 2018, proposed rule and in
this final rule.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by
the Service on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. It does, however, provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of
the key results and conclusions from the SSA report.
To assess Panama City crayfish viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
The Panama City crayfish needs freshwater wetlands that support
herbaceous vegetation, which is important to the Panama City crayfish
for food, shelter, and detritus formation. The species needs core or
secondary soils to provide the proper sediment structure for burrow
construction and to support the herbaceous vegetation. The Panama City
crayfish needs access to groundwater (through burrowing) or surface
water to prevent desiccation of individuals and populations. The
species needs both adequate water quality and quantity to fulfill its
life history.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Panama City
crayfish, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the
species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For the Panama
City crayfish to maintain viability, its populations or some portion
thereof must be adequately resilient. To assess resiliency, we analyzed
data related to two population factors (inbreeding rate and isolation)
and three habitat factors (urbanization, protection/management, and
suitable area) (see Table 1, below). Population condition rankings and
habitat condition rankings were determined by combining these five
factors, and then overall condition rankings were
[[Page 551]]
categorized as high, medium, or low condition. High condition equates
to a healthy condition with a high likelihood of persistence in the
near term, low is declining condition with a low likelihood of
persistence in the near term, and moderate condition is in between high
and low (Service 2019, p. 60).
Table 1--Population and Habitat Factors for Panama City Crayfish (PCC)
[Service 2019, p. 60]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population factors Habitat factors
PCC condition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rankings Inbreeding Population Protection and
rate \1\ isolation Urbanization \2\ management \3\ Suitable area \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High........... 1,000 acres.
multiple sub- unsuitable. rights-of-way
populations and (ROWs) with >15
shares a border acres in
with another suitable habitat.
habitat unit.
Moderate....... 0-0.1 Small or 33-66% developed Easements or ROWs 100-1,000 acres.
moderately sized and unsuitable. with <=15 acres
site that shares in suitable
a border with habitat.
another habitat
unit.
Low............ >0.1 Small or >66% developed and No habitat <100 acres.
moderately sized unsuitable. protections.
site that is not
connected to
another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Inbreeding Rate'' refers to outbreeding and random mating result in a FIS coefficient less than or equal
to 0; a high rate of inbreeding is generally thought to be FIS > 0.1.
\2\ ``Urbanization'' is the percentage of developed and unsuitable acres within the area supporting each
population.
\3\ ``Protection and Management'' considers whether the site has had any easements or rights-of-way (ROWs) in
suitable habitat that are protected against development, and then the easements and ROWs are ranked by size.
\4\ ``Suitable Area'' means the acres of undeveloped core and secondary soils within the habitat unit.
We described representation for the Panama City crayfish in terms
of a single meta-population with low adaptive ability that was once
connected through core and secondary soils but is currently inhabiting
``islands'' of habitat due to fragmentation of habitat from
urbanization, resulting in limited dispersal and low adaptive ability.
We assessed Panama City crayfish redundancy in the context of the
species' historical range compared to its current range, and the
relative risk of the distribution throughout the range to catastrophic
events.
Factors Influencing Panama City Crayfish Viability
Freshwater aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and
anthropogenic threats and stressors (Neves et al. 1997, p. 44). The FWC
has identified multiple factors that have impacts on Panama City
crayfish populations and habitats, most of which are related to human
activities (FWC 2016, entire). Due to its persistence within a rapidly
urbanizing landscape, the Panama City crayfish has adapted and is
presently found in or near habitats that have been altered to varying
degrees, which are no longer considered natural or wild. These include
roadside ditches, rights-of-way, clearings in silvicultural land, and
residential property. Potential threats to Panama City crayfish include
further habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and
isolation. Other possible factors affecting survival include direct
mortality related to construction activities, incompatible applications
of chemicals or spills, off-road vehicle use, illegal harvest, and
direct competition with indigenous and/or nonindigenous species.
Generally, these factors can fall into two categories: population-
scale (localized) threats and rangewide stressors or systematic
changes. Current and potential future effects, along with current
distribution and abundance, help inform viability and, therefore,
vulnerability to extinction. Below, we describe the primary stressors
to the Panama City crayfish, which are habitat degradation, loss, and
fragmentation; water quality; bait collection; climate change; and sea
level rise. Other factors, such as direct mortality, disease,
predation, competition, or impacts from off-road vehicle use, were not
considered to have species-level impacts (see 83 FR 330, January 3,
2018), and therefore are not discussed further here.
Threats and Environmental Stressors
Habitat Degradation, Loss, and Fragmentation: Development projects
and land conversion can result in direct loss of habitat, leading to
fragmentation and isolation of populations. Historically, the Panama
City crayfish inhabited natural and often temporary bodies of shallow
fresh water within open pine flatwoods and wet prairie-marsh
communities. The Panama City crayfish's natural habitat (wet pine
flatwoods) has been lost or degraded through residential, commercial,
and industrial development, as well as conversion to intensive pine
silviculture, and for ranching and farming uses. No unaltered natural
pine flatwoods remain within the Panama City crayfish's current range.
Most known Panama City crayfish current occurrences are in human-
altered habitats and are vulnerable to further loss or alteration.
Although artificial habitats such as roadside ditches and rights-of-way
have allowed the Panama City crayfish to survive in areas from which
they would otherwise likely have been extirpated, human activities can
alter the hydrology and configuration of these sites, making them
unsuitable for long-term Panama City crayfish survival. For example,
roadside ditch maintenance and construction activities have resulted in
the destruction of several crayfish sites.
Infrastructure development has impacted, or is anticipated to
impact, several known crayfish sites. For example, several road
construction or expansion projects, such as the widening of Star Avenue
and Kern Avenue and the widening and hardening of Tram Road, may impact
Panama City crayfish habitat in the future. Infrastructure development
can eliminate suitable Panama City crayfish habitat by removing the
required herbaceous vegetation and digging up the surrounding soils.
Silvicultural practices such as ditching and bedding, roller
chopping, installing fire breaks, and constructing roads can alter the
hydrology of Panama City crayfish sites, create physical barriers to
crayfish movement, and destroy underground burrows. These activities
may contribute to the isolation of Panama City crayfish populations.
Fire suppression and high tree density on silvicultural sites can
reduce herbaceous groundcover necessary for suitable crayfish habitat.
Similarly, removal of tree canopy cover, changes in ground cover
vegetation, and associated changes in water quality and surface water
availability are all possible changes associated with the effects of
conversion to farming and ranching practices, such as cattle grazing.
These activities reduce the
[[Page 552]]
suitability of the habitat for the Panama City crayfish. Although
minimal changes to habitat in the future are expected to occur from
farming and ranching practices, conversion from silviculture to grazing
use has historically occurred on lands adjacent the crayfish's range.
Ditching and draining urban areas is a common practice in efforts
to control local flooding events and reduce mosquito outbreaks but
could have accidental impacts, especially to populations with small
amounts of available habitat, by artificially draining or decreasing
the amount of time that surface waters are available. The majority of
known Panama City crayfish occurrences, particularly in the western
part of the range, are in roadside ditches and swales and thus are
vulnerable to impacts from ditching and draining activities.
Additionally, nearly all populations are isolated from other Panama
City crayfish populations by roads and development. Fragmentation and
isolation can increase vulnerability to local extirpation due to
adverse genetic, demographic, and environmental events. Further, when
Panama City crayfish are extirpated from an area, lack of habitat
connections between sites can prevent Panama City crayfish from
recolonizing (FWC 2016, p. 10). Recent genetic work indicates the
isolation throughout the range has resulted in inbreeding and drift
(Duncan et al. 2017, p. 17).
Water Quality: Freshwater crayfish may be sensitive to declines in
water quality, and these water quality declines have been identified as
a threat to the Panama City crayfish. Water quality declines can range
from oxygen-deficient conditions resulting from algal blooms or sewage
spills to pollution originating from roadway runoff, pesticide
applications, or chemical spills. Given the level of development
throughout the range of the Panama City crayfish and the occurrences of
Panama City crayfish adjacent to private properties, runoff from roads
or incompatible application of chemicals, such as pesticides or
fertilizers, negatively impacts water quality and has direct impacts on
the species.
Mosquitocides are used within the range of the Panama City crayfish
to treat both larval and adult mosquitos. The mosquitocides registered
for use within the range of the Panama City crayfish do not pose known
threats to water quality if applied per label directions (FWC 2016, p.
10). If incorrectly applied, however, the consequences to the Panama
City crayfish can be fatal. Similarly, fertilizers, insecticides, and
herbicides may pose a risk to Panama City crayfish if applied
inappropriately. Many substances commonly used around the home or
business can be toxic to Panama City crayfish and other wildlife if
used or disposed of improperly. Since Panama City crayfish often
inhabit ditches and swales close or adjacent to private properties,
they are at risk if landowners do not ensure that fertilizers,
insecticides, and herbicides are applied and disposed of properly per
label directions. Potentially toxic substances such as petroleum
products and paint should be properly disposed of at hazardous waste
disposal facilities. Accidental spills of large volumes of toxic
substances such as petroleum products and acids occasionally occur in
urban areas. If spills overflow into ditches, swales, or other areas
inhabited by Panama City crayfish, substantial localized impacts to the
population are possible.
Bait Collection: Collecting Panama City crayfish for fish bait or
other uses may have long-term effects on populations if large numbers
of adults are taken from a population. Several lines of evidence
indicate that current occupied sites are used as sources for catching
crayfish for fish bait. Although this activity is occurring, the
magnitude of the impact of recreational harvest on the Panama City
crayfish is unknown (Keppner and Keppner 2001, p. 14; Keppner and
Keppner 2005, p. 11).
Systematic Changes
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: The Panama City crayfish was
included in a Statewide vulnerability assessment for approximately
1,000 species in Florida (Reece et al. 2013, entire; Hocter et al.
2014, entire) using a Standardized Index of Vulnerability and Value
Assessment (SIVVA; Reece and Noss 2014, entire). Based on the data used
in this assessment, little suitable habitat for Panama City crayfish
will be affected by sea level rise under the A1B scenario (Hocter et
al. 2014, p. 10). To further evaluate potential impacts from sea level
rise, we used two products to map predicted future changes due to sea
level rise in 2025, 2050, and 2075 under a low scenario (0.5 meter) and
high scenario (2.0 meters) (Service 2019, pp. 71-74). We used the
University of Florida digital elevation sea level rise model to predict
habitat loss (Hocter et al. 2014, entire). This model predicts
inundation changes based on elevation. We also used the Sea Level Rise
Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) to predict changes in sea level rise
that would affect habitat suitability inland from inundated areas
(Clough et al. 2010, entire). Using a 5-30 meter pixel size, SLAMM
simulates the dominant process involved in wetland conversions and
shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise. We assumed
these vegetation changes would adequately represent the water quality
changes from saltwater intrusion that would affect crayfish survival in
affected areas. We looked at overall changes in habitat rangewide as
well as within the suitable habitat supporting each individual
population.
Overall, little suitable habitat for Panama City crayfish will be
directly affected by sea level rise, which confirms prior analyses
(Hocter et al. 2014, p. 10). By the year 2075, suitable habitat (in
terms of suitable acres of core and secondary soils) within the range
of the Panama City crayfish is predicted to be reduced by 1.28 acres
(0.01 percent) with 0.5-meter sea level rise and by 40.2 acres (0.26
percent) with 2.0-meter sea level rise (see table 4.1 in Service 2019,
p. 73). However, two populations were affected by sea level rise, Deer
Point and Old Airport, which respectively sustained loss of 21.02 and
5.89 acres of suitable habitat by the year 2075 with 2.0-meter sea
level rise. Indirect effects of sea level rise on Panama City crayfish
could be substantial, however. Saltwater intrusion into freshwater
habitats will occur far beyond areas that are completely inundated,
potentially changing the hydrology and vegetation in Panama City
crayfish habitats that are outside the predicted direct sea level rise
impact areas. Crayfish spend their entire life in fresh water. Research
on crayfish report some levels of saltwater tolerance, but it is
believed that their abilities to colonize in the estuarine environment
may be restricted to areas of low salinity due to adverse effects of
sea water on egg development and hatching (Susanto and Charmantier,
2000, in Yildiz et al. 2004, p. 1271).
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
Synergistic interactions are possible between the effects of
climate change and the effects of other potential threats, such as
development. Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation are
likely to affect water quality and vegetation, and the Panama City
crayfish needs good water quality to survive and is closely associated
with the presence of herbaceous vegetation. However, it is difficult to
project how climate change will affect herbaceous vegetation because
certain plant species may increase in cover, while other species may
decrease. Uncertainty about how different plant species will respond to
climate change, combined with uncertainty about how changes in plant
species composition would affect
[[Page 553]]
suitability of Panama City crayfish habitat, make projecting possible
synergistic effects of climate change on the Panama City crayfish
highly speculative.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Strategy
We developed a conservation strategy for Panama City crayfish to
identify critical conservation needs (Service 2017b, entire). In this
conservation strategy, we rely on the known survival over time of small
populations and a published meta-analysis (Traill 2007, entire) to
estimate the amount of habitat needed to support population viability.
The results of the analysis indicate that a minimum viable population
size (MVP) for Panama City crayfish of 5,137 individuals and 2,200
acres of actively managed habitat across the range that is permanently
protected and managed across at least seven population units should
ensure the Panama City crayfish maintains viability for the foreseeable
future. Currently, we have estimated population sizes at three sites
(19th Street, Transmitter West, Talkington). Abundance ranges from 34
to 623 Panama City crayfish and 3 to 232 acres (1.2 to 93.9 ha) of
suitable habitat, yielding 3 to 9 crayfish per acre. Applying these
density values across the currently occupied range yields a rangewide
population of 6,600 to 19,800 Panama City crayfish.
The Panama City crayfish needs multiple, adequately resilient
populations spread across its range to avoid extinction. We currently
estimate that 2,200 acres (890 ha) of permanently protected Panama City
crayfish habitat would sustain the viability of multiple (two to four)
populations depending on habitat quality. We estimate that protecting 3
to 4 large core habitat units with between 200 and 800 acres (81 and
324 ha), in addition to 3 smaller habitat units (less than 200 acres
(81 ha) in size), to be managed with fire or mowing every 2 to 3 years,
along with a plan to restore existing conservation easements that have
suitable soils for the crayfish will sustain the crayfish into the
future (Service 2017b, entire). We determined the conservation goal of
2,200 acres (890 ha) secured with conservation easements or under
public ownership would support Panama City crayfish for the foreseeable
future. However, at this time, agreements are not in place to ensure
the necessary protections.
Current Conditions of the Panama City Crayfish
The Panama City crayfish historically ranged throughout south-
central Bay County, Florida, as one population connected by core and
secondary soils. Today, the species has 12 localized populations
divided into a western group with 8 populations and an eastern group
with 4 populations. While the Panama City crayfish continues to occur
within its historical range, only 42 percent of core soils and 43
percent of secondary soils remain undeveloped from historical levels,
indicating a loss of 57 percent of historical habitat (Service 2019, p.
58). Population resiliency was estimated as high for 2 populations,
moderate for 2 populations, low for 5 populations, and functionally
extirpated for three populations (see Table 2).
Table 2--Summary of Current Resiliency Condition for 12 Populations of Panama City Crayfish
[Service 2019, p. 61]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall current
Habitat area Inbreeding rate Population Urbanization Habitat protection Suitable habitat resiliency
condition isolation area condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19th Street.................. Low................ Low................ Moderate........... Moderate.......... Low............... Low.
Old Airport.................. Low................ Low................ Moderate........... Moderate.......... Low............... Extirpated.
390 West..................... Low................ Low................ Low................ Moderate.......... Low............... Low.
Talkington................... Low................ Low................ Moderate........... Moderate.......... Low............... Low.
Minnesota.................... Low................ Low................ High............... Moderate.......... Low............... Extirpated.
Edwards...................... Low................ Low................ Low................ Low............... Low............... Low.
Transmitter West............. Low................ Low................ High............... High.............. Moderate.......... Moderate.
College Point................ Low................ Low................ Low................ Low............... Low............... Extirpated.
High Point................... Low................ Low................ High............... Moderate.......... Low............... Low.
Deer Point................... Low................ Low................ High............... High.............. Moderate.......... Moderate.
Star......................... Low................ High............... High............... High.............. High.............. High.
Transmitter East............. Low................ High............... High............... High.............. High.............. High.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The representation, or adaptive capacity, of the Panama City
crayfish has been diminished. Historically, it was one population and
now has been fragmented and genetically isolated into 9 extant
localized populations (and 3 functionally extirpated populations). The
genetic differences across the range correspond to patterns in
fragmentation from urban development, resulting in small crayfish
population sizes and poor dispersal ability. Consequently, genetic
variation is low, gene flow is limited, and inbreeding is high across
the range. Additionally, genetic isolation coupled with presumably low
abundance poses risk of further reductions in genetic diversity through
genetic drift (random chance by removing rare genotypes completely when
some individuals die without reproducing). Without intervention, the
combined effects of prolonged inbreeding and genetic drift can consign
a population to a genetic ``extinction vortex,'' in which lethal
mutations and infertility occur in a positive feedback loop,
potentially resulting in localized extirpation regardless of other
factors.
[[Page 554]]
Redundancy for the Panama City crayfish is low. The current
fragmented landscape poses a vulnerability to potential catastrophic
hurricanes, sea level rise, salt water intrusion, and large-scale
droughts. Panama City crayfish populations are now isolated; thus,
recolonization or demographic rescue is unlikely following population-
level disturbances. Additionally, the Panama City crayfish occupies an
increasing smaller area, thereby increasing the risk of a single event,
or series of events, affecting a large portion of extant populations.
Future Conditions of Panama City Crayfish
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the
ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time.
This discussion explains how the stressors associated with habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation from residential and commercial
development will influence resiliency, redundancy, and representation
for the Panama City crayfish throughout its current known range using a
series of plausible scenarios out to 2030, 2050, and 2070. We predicted
both future population factors (inbreeding and population isolation)
and habitat factors (urbanization, protections from development, and
suitable habitat) and evaluated these to inform our future conditions.
To predict potential future changes related to urban growth, we
used layers from the Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP, from
the Biodiversity and Spatial Analysis Center at North Carolina State
University; 60m resolution), a modification of the SLEUTH Projected
Urban Growth model (Jantz et al. 2010, entire; Terando et al. 2014,
entire). SERAP identifies the parameters in global and regional models
that are most likely to affect the Southeast region's climate and local
landscape dynamics, with the goal of providing decision makers with
information about low-probability, high-impact climate extremes through
downscaled models and threats analysis. This tool helps inform where
the biggest threats from climate change will be on the landscape and,
accordingly, identifies high-risk areas for conservation lands and
development. We then used these products to map future predicted
changes in urbanization in 2030, 2050, and 2070. The uncertainty
associated with the SLEUTH model increases over time, and as a result,
the species' response to the dynamic nature of the variables becomes
less predictive. There is a greater confidence in predicting potential
development and the species' response to changes in the landscape in
the near future rather than the distant future.
To adequately capture uncertainty associated with the degree and
extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on species'
requisites, resiliency, redundancy, and representation were assessed
using three scenarios: Status quo development (i.e., minimum degree of
urbanization that has a high probability of occurring), intermediate
development (i.e., moderate degree of urbanization that has a low
probability of occurring), and high development (i.e., high degree of
urbanization that has a very low probability of occurring). The
scenarios included projecting possible future development using the
SERAP model (Jantz et al. 2010, entire; Terando et al. 2014, entire).
They also describe the predicted effects of the development on loss and
fragmentation of suitable habitat rangewide and on each of 12 known
populations, and draw inferences about population health (Duncan et al.
2017, entire). We excluded three populations (College Point, Old
Airport, and Minnesota) from our scenario analysis because Panama City
crayfish are currently extirpated at these sites and they will not be
able to maintain viability in these locations in the future without
deliberate introduction or translocation efforts. Although we provide
all three scenarios, initial changes in patterns of development
following Hurricane Michael (2018) indicate that the high development
scenario is more likely than we previously thought because of the
housing damage and subsequent shortage caused by this Category 5 storm.
Please refer to the SSA report for the full analysis of the future
scenarios (Service 2019, pp. 79-92).
Under the range of plausible future development scenarios, habitat
loss ranges from 1,401 to 6,130 acres of habitat rangewide as developed
land increases from 20,221 to 28,899 acres between 2030 and 2070. Under
all three scenarios, the loss and degradation (fragmentation) of
habitat reduce the number of sufficiently resilient populations in high
or moderate condition from four to three by 2030. This loss of
resiliency comes from both a reduction in habitat elements as well as
the effects of isolation and genetic drift for all 12 populations.
Under each of the three future scenarios, all western populations are
categorized as low condition by 2030 (see Table 3, below), resulting in
a near total loss of redundancy and representation. In the eastern
group, three of four populations are projected to maintain moderate or
high resiliency through 2070.
Table 3--Future Condition Summary of Panama City Crayfish
[Populations above the double line are in the western group; populations below the double line are in the eastern group.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate
Population name Current Year Status quo development High development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19th Street....................... Low..................... 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
Old Airport....................... Extirpated.............. 2030 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2050 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2070 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
390 West.......................... Low..................... 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
Talkington........................ Low..................... 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
Minnesota......................... Extirpated.............. 2030 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2050 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2070 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
Edwards........................... Low..................... 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
[[Page 555]]
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
Transmitter West.................. Moderate................ 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
College Point..................... Extirpated.............. 2030 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2050 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
2070 Extirpated.............. Extirpated............. Extirpated.
High Point........................ Low..................... 2030 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2050 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
2070 Low..................... Low.................... Low.
Deer Point........................ Moderate................ 2030 Moderate................ Moderate............... Moderate.
2050 Moderate................ Moderate............... Moderate.
2070 Moderate................ Moderate............... Moderate.
Star.............................. High.................... 2030 High.................... High................... High.
2050 High.................... High................... High.
2070 High.................... High................... High.
Transmitter East.................. High.................... 2030 High.................... High................... High.
2050 High.................... High................... High.
2070 High.................... High................... High.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also evaluated a ``conservation scenario,'' which is based on a
conservation strategy that includes permanent protection and management
of approximately 2,200 acres (890 ha) of habitat across seven
populations (Service 2017b, entire). The predicted outcomes of the
conservation scenario are straightforward, with populations with higher
resiliency continuing to maintain or have improved resiliency in the
future as land management efforts improve. Although anticipated habitat
protection and habitat management will not immediately change any of
the overall current condition ranks, it should, when coupled with the
population management measures agreed to by FWC and the Service, ensure
that populations with high resiliency will remain so regardless of
future development, which is the primary threat to the Panama City
crayfish. Additionally, population management measures (e.g.,
translocation) detailed in this scenario should improve the genetic
health and population size of several managed populations. Finally,
improved monitoring and applied research agreed to by the Service and
FWC should also improve our knowledge of the status of each population
to better adjust management actions as needed in the future. However,
at this time, agreements are not in place to ensure the necessary
protections, and we do not have certainty about whether and where, or
in what configuration, those protections may occur on the landscape.
All plausible future scenarios had similar outcomes for the
species. Our overall estimate of the Panama City crayfish's current
viability is low across the majority of its geographic range,
particularly in the urbanized western portion. Ongoing and future
development will likely result in low resiliency across 70 percent of
the species' range by as soon as 2030. If the remainder (30 percent) of
its range is protected from development and conservation efforts are
focused in this less developed area, we project the species will
maintain resiliency in three populations for the foreseeable future.
As Panama City crayfish are endemic to a small area with limited
variation in local conditions prior to modern urbanization, a large-
scale disturbance will impact all habitats and populations similarly,
putting the species at risk of extinction due to a single event larger
than the 10 linear miles its range covers. As such, its redundancy will
never be high relative to more widely distributed species. Historical
trends in the area have further reduced redundancy for Panama City
crayfish, as its geographic extent and habitat area have both been
shrunk by development, further decreasing the likelihood that a single
population of Panama City crayfish will find refuge during a
catastrophe and survive.
Due to small, isolated populations with low genetic diversity and
high rates of inbreeding, we estimate that the Panama City crayfish
currently has low adaptive potential across its small range. As
inbreeding can drive a population to extinction regardless of other
variables, we should consider the possibility that some Panama City
crayfish populations are already in an extinction vortex due to an
ongoing loss of genetic diversity.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the January 3, 2018, and April 15, 2021, proposed rules (83 FR
330 and 86 FR 19838, respectively), we requested that all interested
parties submit written comments. We also contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rules.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
legal notice section of The News Herald on December 31, 2017, and April
24, 2021. On February 22, 2018, we held a public meeting for the
proposed listing, and on May 4, 2021, we held a virtual public
informational meeting and public hearing for the reopening of the
comment period on the January 3, 2018, proposed listing, as well as the
proposed 4(d) rule and critical habitat designation. All substantive
information received during both comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought review from nine experts
regarding version 1.1 of the SSA report, and four experts regarding
version 2.0 of
[[Page 556]]
the SSA report. We received responses from four experts for each
version (total of eight peer reviews).
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the information
contained in the SSA report. The peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions, and they provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA report.
Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and were
incorporated into the SSA report as appropriate.
(1) Comment: Peer reviewers of version 1.1 of the SSA report
recommended modifications to the habitat ranking analysis, suggested
dropping the use of crayfish counts as a proxy for relative abundance,
and suggested adding genetics information.
Our response: Version 2.0 of the SSA report reflects changes
suggested by peer reviewers (summarized in Appendix IV of the SSA
report (Service 2019, p. 112)). We replaced abundance as a population
factor with a principal components analysis (i.e., an exploratory data
analysis used for making predictive models) from the genetics study
(Duncan et al. 2017, entire; Service 2019, p. 63).
Comments From States
(2) Comment: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) provided several comments, suggesting revisions to version 1.0 of
the SSA report. Specifically, similar to the peer review comment about
crayfish counts as proxy for relative abundance, FWC emphasized that
the surveys conducted by FWC were intended to determine Panama City
crayfish presence at a site and not a population size, and suggested
that catch per unit of survey effort would yield better comparative
information between populations. In addition, FWC recommended the
Service clarify that, with the exception of the infiltration into a
small portion of the Panama City crayfish's range by the hatchet
crayfish (Procambarus kilbyi) and the jackknife crayfish (P. hubbelli),
the most frequent crayfish species found co-occurring in the same
habitat (and within the water column) with the Panama City crayfish is
the stud crayfish (P. pycnogonopodus). FWC also pointed out some minor
errors regarding generation time calculations and suggested edits to
the presentation of the 2030 scenario in Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5
(Service 2017a, pp. 87-94).
Our response: The SSA report was revised (Service 2019, version
2.0) to reflect these suggested changes. We did not intend to confuse
population presence with that of relative abundance but believed that
abundance numbers could be used as an indicator of the resiliency of
populations. In the revised SSA report (Service 2019, version 2.0), we
removed abundance as a criterion used to rank resiliency of the
crayfish populations. Further, using the Act's section 6 funds and a
staff position provided by FWC, we have attempted to gather mark-
recapture data in the field to estimate population size and the factors
that affect detection probability. We continue to work with FWC
biologists to develop a monitoring plan that accurately assesses
population trends or estimates.
(3) Comment: FWC staff concurred with the proposed take exceptions
described in our proposed 4(d) rule, but they also recommended that we
consider an exception to the take prohibitions for emergency actions to
relieve flooding.
Our response: The 4(d) rule for the Panama City crayfish that we
are adopting in this final rule excepts incidental take associated with
ditch mowing and maintenance actions that may be necessary to relieve
flooding when following best management practices (BMPs) that have been
coordinated with the Service.
Public Comments
(4) Comment: Several commenters state that listing the Panama City
crayfish will hurt the local economy by delaying the growth and
development of infrastructure that is needed for the community. These
commenters are therefore opposed to listing the Panama City crayfish.
They stated we have not adequately addressed the economic impacts of
listing the Panama City crayfish as required by Florida law.
Our response: Determinations of whether a species is placed on the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants are based
on whether the species meets the definition of ``endangered species''
or of ``threatened species'' in the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
Act directs the Service to make these determinations solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore,
we may not consider economic impacts when determining the status of a
species. We do consider economic impacts when designating critical
habitat (see Consideration of Economic Impacts, below).
Additionally, infrastructure and growth are not prohibited by this
rule. The Service developed a 4(d) rule for the Panama City crayfish to
streamline the permitting process by excepting certain actions from the
take prohibitions. For example, residents who want to install sheds,
driveways, or pools likely will not need a permit from the Service. The
4(d) rule allows streamlining of project reviews to focus on those
activities that are expected to have the most potential impact to the
Panama City crayfish or its habitat, thus reducing staff workload by
eliminating the need to review de minimus impact projects and enabling
more focus on targeted conservation efforts that are expected to have
the most benefit to the species.
(5) Comment: One commenter suggested that protecting and managing
2,200 acres in perpetuity, with 3-year rotational prescribed burns and
other management activities, will cost approximately $20 million and is
not feasible. They questioned the overall conservation strategy and
expressed concern about whether perpetual maintenance would be required
in conservation areas and how that maintenance would be funded.
Our response: The conservation strategy identifies goals that may
need to be met in order to ensure recovery of the Panama City crayfish
and states that a minimum viable population size (MVP) for Panama City
crayfish of 5,137 individuals and 2,200 acres of actively managed
habitat across the range that is permanently protected and managed
across at least seven population units should ensure the Panama City
crayfish maintains viability for the future. In order to accomplish
this goal, Bay County staff worked with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) to place optimal lands on the Florida
Forever Land acquisition list. Placement on the Florida Forever list
will allow future expenditures of State funds to purchase lands
important for the protection of the Panama City crayfish when funds and
ranking priorities are aligned, and will place them in permanent
conservation or into State of Florida ownership to enable perpetual
maintenance for the species. Federal grants are also available via the
Recovery and Land Acquisition grants program. Lastly, minimization and
mitigation through the Act's section 7 process provide another
mechanism to achieve conservation actions such as habitat protection.
(6) Comment: On commenter expressed concerns that all known
techniques to measure Panama City crayfish populations are harmful to
the crayfish and will invariably lead to population extirpations.
Another commenter stated that the crayfish
[[Page 557]]
cannot be positively identified without a postmortem examination.
Our response: The FWC and Service biologists regularly collect
samples of the Panama City crayfish to confirm presence and for genetic
testing. We conduct crayfish captures by use of a dip net or by
placement of funnel traps. Each time, crayfish are captured, they are
counted, measured, and released alive. Rarely are they injured, and
more rarely are they killed with either trapping method used. Crayfish
can easily be identified by trained biologists from their physical
characteristics and location of collection. At newly discovered sites,
a voucher specimen of a male in breeding phase is confirmed by a
species expert and preserved for future reference.
(7) Comment: One commenter requested that any final rule
promulgated by the Service clarify that the total habitat available to
the Panama City crayfish is the 56 square-mile area identified in
Figure 1 of the January 3, 2018, proposed rule (see 83 FR 333) and that
Callaway Creek and Bayou George Creek form an absolute barrier to any
eastward expansion by the crayfish.
Our response: The Service has taken the range description from the
SSA report and used it in this final rule. We, with assistance from the
FWC, have projected boundaries based on existing survey data. To our
knowledge, Callaway Creek and Bayou George Creek form barriers and
restrict access by the Panama City crayfish on opposite creek or stream
banks. However, the northeastern portion of the species' range is not
bordered by any well-defined water body, and the current delineator is
only defined by the locations of the Panama City crayfish identified
during surveys where access was allowed by the landowner. Thus, some
uncertainty remains with respect to the boundaries in the northeastern-
most habitats. Accordingly, we cannot state Callaway Creek and Bayou
George are absolute barriers to eastward expansion.
(8) Comment: One commenter claimed that the eastern side of the
Panama City crayfish's range has been surveyed more than the western
side of the range. Another commenter stated that we have insufficient
data regarding the Panama City crayfish to prove a decline in the
species. Both commenters encouraged the Service to conduct more surveys
within the western portion of the range.
Our response: Survey effort varies across the species' range.
Survey access is limited by landowner permission, so the majority of
surveys occur only where we received landowner permission to access
their land or along public rights-of-way. We agree that additional
surveys within the western range of the species would assist with our
understanding of the species' distribution. As access is allowed, we
will continue to fill in survey gaps. Despite these potential survey
gaps, the Act requires us to make a listing determination based on the
best available information. Using current data and our knowledge of the
Panama City crayfish's habitat use, we are able to define where
populations of the species may occur. Overlaying these areas with land
use layers, we used Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping to
refine areas that remain suitable for the species and compared it to
past habitat availability. From this analysis, we found that
approximately 50 percent of the remaining habitat is potentially
suitable for the species. Because of the known relationship between the
crayfish and its habitat, we can make inferences that declines of the
crayfish have occurred based on loss of habitat to development.
(9) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service may
allow destruction of mature hardwood swamp vegetation and mature
baygall communities as a method to create new habitat for the Panama
City crayfish.
Our response: On lands that may be secured for Panama City crayfish
protection, we do not intend to alter natural communities such as
mature hardwood swamps or baygall communities to benefit the Panama
City crayfish. Fire historically sculpted the ecosystem boundaries of
the species, but with limitations in developing city boundaries on
where prescribed fires may be implemented, the ecotones between
differing habitat types may not be as clear as they were historically
when wildfires burned unimpeded. There are often differing viewpoints
among ecologists on what habitat type a specific area historically was
intended to function as; however, we consult with habitat experts and
review literature before removal of certain plant species to encourage
growth of other plant species.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that it has yet to be determined
whether Panama City crayfish is a native species.
Our response: Based on the best available data, the species is
considered to be a valid species native to Bay County, Florida (Taylor
et al. 2007; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2017; Service
2019, p. 12).
(11) Comment: One commenter questioned whether critical habitat
should be extended to the remaining 30 percent of the lands that do not
contain the preferred hydric soils, because there is evidence that
juvenile crayfish are transported overland by sheet flow rains. Any
alteration in the upland landscape (driveway, building) could create an
impediment to this sheet flow and therefore create an impediment to
crayfish survival.
Our response: We agree that crayfish are likely dispersed via sheet
flow during heavy rain events. However, because these areas are not
used consistently either on a per-event basis or by a specific
lifestage, and do not provide features (such as core, hydric soils)
that are essential to the species' conservation, we have not included
these soil types in our critical habitat designation. Connectivity of
conservation parcels that have been designated as critical habitat and
are consistent with our conservation strategy will further allow for
natural dispersal events via sheet flow.
(12) Comment: Commenters noted that the Panama City crayfish is
already protected by the State of Florida and expressed concern about
the potential for unnecessary regulatory duplication should the Service
finalize the listing of the Panama City crayfish. They requested that
entities only need to coordinate with one agency.
Our response: We have determined that the Panama City crayfish
warrants listing as a threatened species, despite existing State
protections. With the intent to streamline the regulatory process, in
January 2020, FDEP assumed permitting authority under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) for dredge and fill
activities throughout Florida, including within the range of the Panama
City crayfish. FDEP is required to coordinate with us prior to
authorizing permits for species listed under the Act, species proposed
for listing under the Act, candidate species, and species petitioned
for listing under the Act. We support minimizing the regulatory burden
on the public, while also ensuring the conservation of the species.
Through the FDEP assumption of permitting authorities, entities will
deal directly with one process that will cover all permits, thereby
simplifying the consultation process for applicants.
(13) Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the continuing
status quo for development projects that do not require Federal
permits, citing that State and local protections for the species are
inadequate as demonstrated by the species' continuing decline.
Our response: Our 4(d) rule extends the prohibitions of section 9
of the Act to the Panama City crayfish, with certain exceptions.
Projects or actions
[[Page 558]]
that are likely to cause take of the Panama City crayfish but that are
not subject to section 7 review under the Act will require a permit and
habitat conservation plan (HCP) under section 10 of the Act, unless
they otherwise qualify for an exception in the 4(d) rule.
(14) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that spraying for
mosquitos will be prohibited to prevent pesticide drift into protected
habitat, and, therefore, Panama City crayfish will be prioritized over
the health of Bay County residents with respect to mosquito-borne
illnesses.
Our response: We encourage the use of mosquito control methods that
do not result in take of the species. Mosquito control often uses
pyrethroid insecticide, which has been shown to be toxic to aquatic
wildlife (Paul and Simonin 2006, p. 614). There are alternative methods
to control mosquitos other than through the use of aerial pesticide
applications, such as donut blocks placed directly into neighborhood
ditches that prevent the larvae from maturing to adult mosquitos. We
encourage alternative applications that are not detrimental to the
Panama City crayfish.
(15) Comment: One commenter noted that Panama City crayfish habitat
will create additional mosquito breeding areas.
Our response: We do not agree; protecting habitat for the Panama
City crayfish will not alter the amount of standing water that exists
in the environment today. Restoration actions may reduce the amount of
water standing in furrowed habitats and normalize the water table. The
Panama City crayfish prefers ephemeral pools of water less than a foot
deep. The Panama City crayfish feeds mostly on decaying vegetation, but
as generalist feeders, they are likely to feed on mosquito larvae, too.
(16) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service list the
Panama City crayfish as endangered instead of threatened. They cite
endangered ranks from the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) and the American Fisheries Society (AFS).
Our response: The definitions, criteria, and analyses under the Act
are not equivalent to those used by IUCN and other organizations. The
Act defines ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' and
mandates five factors for consideration when determining a species'
status under the Act. The definitions and analysis conducted under the
Act do not necessarily equate with those used by other organizations
who have different ranking systems, and, accordingly, a species' status
may vary depending on the source. As noted, we are required to apply
the definitions of the Act and consider the factors the Act identifies.
We have determined that endangered species status under the Act is not
appropriate for the Panama City crayfish because the species maintains
multiple, moderate or high resiliency populations across its historical
range, with low risk of significantly declining in the near term.
Further, given its distribution and health of populations, the Panama
City crayfish has sufficient redundancy and representation to withstand
catastrophic events and novel changes in its environment in the near
term. For these reasons, Panama City crayfish is not currently in
danger of extinction. See Determination of Panama City Crayfish's
Status, below.
(17) Comment: Several commenters had questions about the buffer
width used to delineate critical habitat. One commenter questioned the
percentage of Panama City crayfish documented on core soils. One
commenter asserted existing forestry BMPs in Florida and biodiversity
standards in forest certification programs are effective for protecting
at-risk species, regardless of buffer width.
Our Response: As described in the Summary of Changes from the
Proposed Rule and the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
sections of this rule, we have modified the buffer width based on
additional analysis of Panama City crayfish occupancy of secondary
soils. We reduced the buffer to 50 feet rather than the proposed 328
feet. Our original analysis conducted for the April 15, 2021, proposed
rule (86 FR 19838) used a 328-foot buffer from core soils into
secondary soils, which captured 96 percent of known occurrence records.
Later in 2021, we looked at varying scales relative to presence points.
Using a 50-foot buffer from the core soils' boundary line into
secondary soils, we capture close to 71 percent of known occurrence
records. Based on our knowledge of how the crayfish moves across the
landscape, it is likely that the additional occurrence records may have
been from points in time where there was high rainfall, however we lack
recorded rainfall amounts or ground water levels to confirm this
assumption. We have determined that the 50-foot buffer provides a
better method to focus protection on lands that are likely occupied
more consistently, rather than those that may only be temporarily
occupied during months or years with high rainfall events. Therefore,
this final rule includes the refined 50-foot buffer boundary to capture
lands used most consistently versus lands that may be used only during
a small portion of the crayfish's life cycle when there is high
rainfall. We include an exception for forestry BMPs in secondary soils
as part of our 4(d) rule because forestry practices that follow BMPs in
secondary soils will have de minimus impacts on the species.
(18) Comment: Several commenters focused on concerns that private
landowners will need to hire consultants and pay for mitigation for
activities on their properties. Concerns were expressed over the
potential loss of use or value of their property, and these commenters
requested that all landowners in the proposed critical habitat units be
notified about the proposed listing and critical habitat rule.
Our response: As described under Takings--Executive Order 12630,
below, the Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands as a result of critical habitat designation.
Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or
establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the
designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does
not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Accordingly, any
potential impact to land value results from perceptions and is expected
to be small.
We placed notifications in the local newspaper informing the public
of the proposed rule, and we held two public informational meetings and
one public hearing. In general, a 4(d) rule allows the Service to
target the take prohibitions to those that provide conservation
benefits for a threatened species; we may choose to except take for
certain activities (i.e., allow incidental take without a permit for
certain activities) if we conclude the exceptions are necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. For this
species' 4(d) rule, one exception removes permit requirements with
respect to the following activities for individual homeowners:
Maintenance of existing structures and construction or reconstruction
activities that occur within the existing footprint of previously
developed areas; construction of new structures that occur within 100
feet of existing structures on an individual private landowner's
property and with a new footprint less than 1,000 square feet (ft\2\),
such as a pool or shed associated
[[Page 559]]
with an existing house; and culvert installations for individual
landowners not associated with larger developments. Therefore, small
(i.e., individual home) landowners will not need to hire consultants or
pay for mitigation for activities on their properties.
(19) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that only occupied
habitat is included in the critical habitat designation and indicated
that more areas are needed in the designation to meet the resilience,
redundancy, and representation under which the Service evaluates
requirements of the Act.
Our response: It appears that the commenter may be confusing our
use of the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation (i.e., the 3Rs) in the SSA report and how we
identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A) of the Act. We are designating more than 4,000 acres of
land, all considered occupied, as critical habitat. In addition, our
analysis of land needed to recover the species is a subset of the
currently occupied habitat rather than all, as reflected in this final
designation. We did not find that unoccupied habitat should be
designated, as no other habitat was deemed essential to the
conservation of the species. Based on occupied critical habitat, the
species maintains multiple, adequately resilient populations across its
historical range, with low risk of significantly declining in the near
term. Further, given its distribution and the health of its
populations, the Panama City crayfish has sufficient redundancy and
representation to withstand catastrophic events and novel changes in
its environment in the near term. Accordingly, we determined occupied
critical habitat is sufficient to conserve the species.
(20) Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns with proposing a
4(d) rule that would allow activities, such as sustainable
silvicultural practices, that do not have positive effects on the
Panama City crayfish.
Our response: Section 4(d) of the Act provides the Secretary with
wide latitude of discretion to select and promulgate appropriate
regulations tailored to the specific conservation needs of a threatened
species. Under section 4(d) of the Act, we may extend some or all of
the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act to threatened wildlife
species. In considering whether to extend the section 9(a)(1)
prohibitions, we may consider whether the benefits of allowing certain
activities, including habitat management activities and some
silvicultural practices when implemented with conservation measures to
reduce impacts, are expected to have overall de minimus impacts or be
beneficial to the species such that prohibiting those activities or
take associated with those activities may be unnecessary. One example
is reduced bedding depths used during silvicultural activities.
Silvicultural row thinning increases groundcover that is beneficial to
the Panama City crayfish. The 4(d) rule exceptions will allow us to
streamline routine actions that have minimal impacts or benefits to the
crayfish, especially when implemented with conservation measures, by
excepting the take associated with them.
(21) Comment: One commenter stated that they are unaware of any
ranching or farming uses that have resulted in the loss or degradation
of the Panama City crayfish's natural habitat. They disagreed with the
statement, ``conversion from silviculture to grazing use has occurred
on lands adjacent the crayfish's range.'' They are also unaware of any
plans to convert any land to ranching or farming uses in the crayfish's
range. The commenter stated that land conversion to ranching and or
farming is simply not an issue, and that these activities may provide
an overall benefit to the crayfish through the creation of artificial
habitat. The commenter, therefore, requested that the Service remove
the statements associated with the potential for ranching and farming
uses to impact the Panama City crayfish's habitat. This commenter also
supported use of the 4(d) rule for all activities, such as agriculture,
if water quality BMPs are followed.
Our response: On the few individual family farms and ranches that
occur within the range of the crayfish, little habitat remains that is
suitable for the crayfish. These properties lack sufficient herbaceous
vegetation and have muddied and compacted soils. The 4(d) rule includes
an incidental take exception for agricultural maintenance activities in
pasture and rangelands (including cattle operations) that were
established prior to January 3, 2018, and that implement State and
Federal BMPs for existing farms and ranches if they have no indirect
impacts to adjacent Panama City crayfish habitat. The Service agrees
that no corporate-scale ranching or farming of lands currently occurs
within the Panama City crayfish's range. We clarify that currently the
closest large-scale ranching is more than 5 miles from the eastern
border of the species' range. However, we have concerns with future
corporate-scale ranching or farming of lands that might occur within
the range of the Panama City crayfish. Current practices for these
operations often include conversion of the groundcover to a nonnative
grass cover, which is not suitable for the crayfish.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) rule should
include exceptions for take associated with conservation management
practices for a suite of activities that occur in Panama City crayfish
habitat, including maintenance of ditches, roads, and utility and
transmission line rights-of-way, and an exception for entities using
water quality BMPs for silviculture and agriculture.
Our response: As described under Provisions of the 4(d) Rule,
below, we provide exceptions for take associated with certain
development practices, select land management activities, and some
utility actions that are expected to have negligible impacts to the
Panama City crayfish and its habitat.
(23) Comment: One commenter requested revising the 4(d) rule to
remove the limitation of excepting take only if it is associated with
forestry activities ``located in secondary soils.''
Our response: Because of the close association of the Panama City
crayfish to core soils, and the species' need for intact, unaltered
core soils, we are not excepting take associated with forestry
practices in core soils. As indicated in the SSA report, silvicultural
practices such as ditching and bedding, roller chopping, installing
fire breaks, and constructing roads can alter the hydrology of Panama
City crayfish sites, create physical barriers to Panama City crayfish
movement, and destroy underground burrows (Service 2019, p. 67). Fire
suppression and high tree-density on silvicultural sites reduce or
eliminate herbaceous groundcover necessary for suitable crayfish
habitat (Service 2019, p. 67). For these reasons, we are not excepting
incidental take associated with activities employing forestry BMPs on
core soils; however, we do provide the exception for incidental take
associated with these activities on secondary soils because the soils
are less hydric, so ditching and bedding is greatly reduced thereby
likely reducing the effects to a de minimus level for the Panama City
crayfish.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated that any level of take allowed
by the 4(d) rule will lead to the extinction of the Panama City
crayfish and requested that all incidental take exceptions be removed
from the 4(d) rule.
Our response: Small, isolated pockets of Panama City crayfish
occurrences located within individual homeowners' backyards do not
contribute
[[Page 560]]
significantly to the overall recovery of the species, therefore
incidental take for specified activities in these small pockets of
habitat is warranted. The exceptions detailed in the 4(d) rule target
activities that will have minimal impacts on populations of Panama City
crayfish and the species' recovery; therefore, we found that the
exceptions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
crayfish.
Determination of Panama City Crayfish's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered
species or threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or
predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Panama City crayfish. Our analysis of this information indicates
that, at the species level, habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation due to human development (Factor A) is the primary factor
affecting the Panama City crayfish now and into the future. There may
be additional infrastructure projects (e.g., roads and ditches) that
affect the hydrology within the range of the Panama City crayfish as a
result of forest clearing for permanent rights-of-way or silviculture.
Additionally, the current level of habitat fragmentation (Factor A)
further isolates populations, which reduces gene flow and limits the
potential for the species to disperse. The existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) do not address these threats to the level that
the species is not warranted for listing. We have no evidence that off-
road vehicle use (Factor A), overutilization (Factor B), or disease
(Factor C) are affecting populations of Panama City crayfish.
We find that an endangered species status is not appropriate for
the Panama City crayfish because despite its narrow and isolated
distribution making it susceptible to catastrophic events and having
low adaptive ability, the species maintains multiple resilient
populations across its historical range and the risk of extinction is
low in the near term. While only 43 percent of the original lands
historically available to the Panama City crayfish remain suitable for
use by the Panama City crayfish, the species currently has four highly
or moderately resilient populations. Further, despite changes to the
crayfish's natural habitat of wet pine flatwoods, the species currently
uses artificial habitats such as roadside ditches and rights-of-way,
although these sites may become unsuitable in the long term due to
anthropogenic activities that can alter their hydrology or
configuration. Therefore, we conclude that the current risk of
extinction of the Panama City crayfish is sufficiently low that it does
not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species.
In determining whether Panama City crayfish is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future, we assessed the plausible
scenarios, including the scope and magnitude of threats and the
expected species' response to these changes. The foreseeable future is
the period of time for which we determined we could make reliable
predictions about the threats to the species and the species' response
to those threats. Based on the biology of the species and the threats
acting on it, the foreseeable future timeframe used in the
determination is approximately 30 years. The generation time for the
species is 2 years with a lifespan up to 3.5 years; the period to 30
years encompasses up to 15 generations, which is sufficient time to
determine the species' response to the stressors. During this
timeframe, we determined we can make reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' response to those threats.
Although the future scenarios extend through 2070, the uncertainty
regarding the species' response to the stressors becomes so great as to
render the scenarios too unreliable beyond 2050.
While the Panama City crayfish faces a variety of threats, only one
threat, habitat loss and degradation due to urban development causing
habitat fragmentation and subpopulation isolation, was considered an
important factor in our assessment of the future viability of the
Panama City crayfish. Based on our future scenarios for urban
development, we projected losses of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy for Panama City crayfish in the foreseeable future.
Especially problematic is the projected complete loss of resiliency and
redundancy in the western group of populations. Losses of western
Panama City crayfish populations substantially reduce the range and
genetic diversity of the species, as well as increasing vulnerability
to catastrophic events such as hurricanes. The current circumstances
are already precarious, and the loss of any more adequately resilient
populations would put the species in danger of extinction.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Panama City crayfish. Habitat loss from development is occurring
rangewide and has resulted in the fragmentation of the landscape. The
fragmentation of suitable habitat has caused the isolation of existing
populations, limiting them to ditches, swales, slash pine plantations,
and utility rights-of-way. The Panama City crayfish has been fragmented
into 12 smaller populations. In the future, two populations are
projected to maintain high resiliency, one moderate resiliency, and six
low resiliency, while three will be considered functionally extirpated.
Of the eight western populations, six populations are projected to
be in low condition and three are functionally extirpated in the
future. These three functionally extirpated populations represent 25
percent of the known populations overall and 38 percent of the western
group, and, although still in existence, they are not expected to
contribute to the future redundancy of Panama City crayfish because
they are already experiencing genetic drift and the habitat that
supports them is susceptible to future development.
All future scenarios project a similar negative impact on the
redundancy and representation of Panama City crayfish, with three
populations projected to be extirpated, and of the remaining nine
populations, six will be in low condition by 2030 under all scenarios.
The greatest loss of redundancy for the Panama City crayfish is
projected to occur in the western group. In this group, all of the
populations are predicted to be extirpated or in low condition by 2030,
including the Transmitter West population, which is the largest
population in this group. Loss of viability within this population is
significant for the species. In the eastern group, three populations
are
[[Page 561]]
projected to remain strongholds for Panama City crayfish. These three
eastern populations will maintain resiliency and constitute only 33
percent of the remaining populations.
The Panama City crayfish currently has low adaptive potential
across its range, and all of the future scenarios project an impact on
the species' representation during the 30-year foreseeable future time
horizon. The species has very low resiliency in the western portion of
its range, with only one of the eight populations currently in moderate
condition. None of the western populations are projected to maintain
adequate resiliency in the future; thus, adaptive capacity is projected
to be completely lost in the western portion. Furthermore, a population
(High Point) in the eastern portion contains unique genetic diversity
not found in other populations (Duncan et al. 2017a, p. 19), but it is
expected to remain in low condition and thus has a low likelihood of
persistence, thereby further reducing the species' ability to adapt to
changes in its environment.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, and based on
analysis of the species' current and future conditions, we conclude
that the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the Panama City
crayfish will continue to decline such that it is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout its
range.
Panama City Crayfish's Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Service
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the Panama City crayfish,
we choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered.
For the Panama City crayfish, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats:
Habitat loss and degradation from development, including cumulative
effects. The threat from development and future urbanization of the
landscape in Bay County, Florida, affects the species throughout its
entire narrow range. The species is a narrow endemic that historically
functioned as a single population occurring in a very small area, and
has since been fragmented into multiple small populations divided into
western and eastern groupings based on a road. While we can separate
the species' range into western and eastern portions, the threats that
the species faces, particularly development and subsequent isolation
and lack of connectivity, affect the species throughout its entire
narrow range. Therefore, there is no concentration of threats in any
portion of the Panama City crayfish's range at a biologically
meaningful scale, and accordingly, there are no portions of the
species' range where the species is likely to have a different status
from its rangewide status. Thus, no portion of the species' range
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that
the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This is consistent with
the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959
(D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Panama City crayfish meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the
Panama City crayfish as a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened
[[Page 562]]
(``downlisting'') or removal from protected status (``delisting''), and
methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and
provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery
teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established
to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our
ECOS portal (https://www.fws.gov/ecos), or from our Florida Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Following publication of this final rule, funding for recovery
actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants, for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida
will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of the Panama City crayfish.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Panama City crayfish. Additionally, we invite
you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed
species. The discussion below regarding protective regulations under
section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.
II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she 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. Additionally, 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, the combination of the two
sentences of 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 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 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 initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him [or her] with regard to the permitted activities for those
species. He [or she] may, for example, permit taking, but not
importation of such species, or he [or she] 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 the authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
rule that is designed to address the Panama City crayfish's specific
threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not require
us 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 Panama City crayfish. As discussed above under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the
Panama City crayfish is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and degradation,
habitat fragmentation, and subpopulation isolation due to development.
The provisions of this 4(d) rule will promote conservation of the
Panama City crayfish by encouraging management of the landscape in ways
that meet the conservation needs of the
[[Page 563]]
Panama City crayfish and are consistent with land management
considerations. The provisions of this rule are one of many tools that
the Service will use to promote the conservation of the Panama City
crayfish.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule
This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the Panama City
crayfish 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.
Multiple factors are affecting the status of the Panama City
crayfish, with the primary threats resulting in habitat loss and
degradation, habitat fragmentation, and population isolation. A range
of activities have the potential to affect these species, including
farming and grazing practices, some silvicultural practices, creation
and maintenance of roadside ditches and rights-of-way, development of
residential or commercial properties, and collection for bait (Service
2019, pp. 65-66). These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated
by continued development along with the effects of climate change, were
central to our assessment of the future viability of the Panama City
crayfish. As a result, we are prohibiting take associated with these
threats to conserve the species unless they are managed in such a way
that results in minor take. Further, import or export, sale, and
possession are all activities that could be associated with bait
collection and, therefore, are prohibited.
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 intentional take will help preserve the species'
remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other stressors. Therefore, we
prohibit intentional and incidental take of the Panama City crayfish,
except that take associated with those actions and activities discussed
below is specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
We may issue 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
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. The statute
also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found
in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species
by allowing exceptions to actions and activities that, while they may
have some minimal level of disturbance or take to the Panama City
crayfish, are not expected to rise to the level that would negatively
impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. The exceptions
to these prohibitions include conservation efforts by the Service or
State wildlife agencies; certain other general exceptions allowed for
take of endangered wildlife as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 (see the rule
portion of this document); and certain development practices, select
land management activities, and some utility actions (described below)
that are expected to have negligible impacts to the Panama City
crayfish and its habitat.
The first exception is for take associated with certain development
activities that will have negligible or beneficial effects on the
Panama City crayfish and its habitat, including: Maintenance of
existing structures and construction or reconstruction activities that
occur within the existing footprint of previously developed areas;
construction of new structures that occur within 100 feet of existing
structures on an individual private landowner's property and have a new
footprint less than 1,000 square feet (ft\2\), such as a pool or shed
associated with an existing house; installation of culverts for
individual landowners not associated with larger developments;
installation of platforms or boardwalks for recreational purposes on
conservation lands that allow sunlight of sufficient levels to maintain
herbaceous groundcover; and construction of paths used for nonmotorized
activities as long as the project footprint, including construction
impacts, impacts no more than 5 percent of the acreage in core or
secondary soils within properties under a conservation easement.
The second exception is for take associated with select land
management activities related to silvicultural (forestry) activities
and invasive species control that help maintain habitat for the Panama
City crayfish and to agricultural maintenance activities, and that have
de minimus effects. Silviculture activities within secondary soils
including tree thinning, harvest (including clearcutting), site
preparation, planting, and replanting following State BMPs (Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) 2008, entire)
are excepted as the species has remained viable in lands under timber
management where native groundcover species recolonize naturally. As a
practice, ditching and bedding from forestry occurs less often in
secondary soils than in primary soils, and therefore is considered to
have de minimus effects. Take associated with prescribed burning and
wildfire control efforts is excepted when following all State BMPs,
guidelines, or permit conditions, and take associated with herbicide
applications targeting exotic plants or shrub species is excepted when
following all other State and Federal BMPs, guidelines, or permit
conditions, associated with these actions. Finally, take associated
with agricultural maintenance activities in pasture and rangelands
(including cattle operations) that were established prior to
publication of the proposed listing rule (January 3, 2018) and that
implement State and Federal BMPs will be excepted.
The third exception is for take associated with some utility
actions that are expected to have minimal impacts to the Panama City
crayfish or its habitat. These include ditch mowing and maintenance
activities outside of critical habitat units, or ditch mowing and
maintenance within critical habitat units after development of BMPs in
coordination with the local Service office. Take associated with
culvert replacements or maintenance that do not adversely affect, but
improve or restore, the natural hydrology is excepted. In coordination
with the local Service office, take associated with the following
activities is also excepted: Maintenance associated with rights-of-way
(including mowing, use of herbicides, and mechanical side trimming);
powerline and pole placements and replacements; replacement of critical
structural components, such as crossarms, insulators, conductors, etc.;
and directional boring by utility owners.
We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some
minimal level of take of the Panama City crayfish, but any such take is
expected to be rare and
[[Page 564]]
insignificant, and is not expected to negatively impact the species'
conservation and recovery efforts. We expect the restoration activities
to have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species'
range, habitat has been degraded and fragmented by development and land
use changes. The habitat restoration activities in the 4(d) rule are
intended to improve habitat conditions for the species in the long
term.
We recognize 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,
will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the Panama City
crayfish that may result in otherwise prohibited take without
additional authorization. In addition, Federal and State wildlife law
enforcement officers, working in coordination with Service field office
personnel, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship Panama City
crayfish taken in violation of the Act as necessary.
Nothing in this 4(d) rule will 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
Panama City crayfish. However, interagency cooperation may be further
streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the species
between Federal agencies and the Service.
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency will be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine
[[Page 565]]
that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute
to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or
more of those physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance. These characteristics are described below for the
Panama City crayfish:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior: The Panama City crayfish naturally inhabits shallow,
ephemeral, freshwater wetlands that are associated with early
successional wet prairie-marsh and wet pine flatwoods and their
communities. These locations historically supported a native herbaceous
plant community dominated by native wetland grasses and sedges with an
accompanying overstory of no to low-density pines and were naturally
maintained by periodic wildfire.
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements: Native herbaceous vegetation is important
to the Panama City crayfish for food, detritus formation, and shelter.
Absence of vegetation increases exposure of this small crayfish to
predation and reduced availability of food. Although Panama City
crayfish are facultative air breathers, moisture is required to
facilitate the respiratory process. Burrowing to groundwater or access
to surface water are both important habitat features needed to prevent
desiccation of individuals and populations. The Panama City crayfish
cannot burrow much deeper than 3 feet below the surface and prefer
surface waters less than 1 foot deep (FWC 2006, p. 3).
(3) Cover or shelter: The Panama City crayfish relies mostly on
herbaceous vegetation that grow on core and secondary soils, which
allow them to burrow for shelter and to rear young. The ability to
burrow to the water table during times of drought is essential to the
persistence of the species. Core soils have depth to water tables that
meet the depth threshold that is important for long-term Panama City
crayfish
[[Page 566]]
population persistence. These core soils provide the sediment structure
needed for burrow construction to the water table and also support the
herbaceous vegetation upon which the species relies for food and
shelter. Young crayfish are often captured clinging to vegetation in
emergent, yet shallow, water bodies.
Secondary soil types are drier, and it is believed the species
cannot persist when only secondary soils are available with below-
average water tables. They are mentioned here because they may support
Panama City crayfish after recent rainfalls and longer periods of time
after above-average rainfall that influences water table depths, and
they may provide connectivity between two patches of core soils.
Seventy percent of known occurrences of Panama City crayfish occur
within either core soils or within secondary soils that are within 50
feet (15 m) of core soils. These secondary soils also provide the
sediment structure needed for burrow construction to the water table
and also support the herbaceous vegetation upon which the species
relies for food and shelter except during times of drought.
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring: Shelters, such as burrows, are an important resource for
crayfish as they provide for protection from predation and space for
mating and for rearing hatchlings. Burrows also help to maintain
hydration and preferred body temperatures. Surface waters provide
shelter for juveniles to grow prior to being large enough to burrow.
These surface water locations also provide for breeding and feeding
grounds. Surface water must be sufficiently deep, but usually less than
1 foot (0.3 meters) deep, to support the species but shallow enough to
sustain herbaceous vegetation. Waters greater than 1 foot (0.3 meters)
deep sustain other crayfish species that may outcompete the Panama City
crayfish.
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species: The Panama City crayfish's historical range
is estimated to cover a 56-square-mile area (Service 2019, entire).
Hardwood swamps fall within the core soil category but are not actually
suitable for the Panama City crayfish (except the transition edge
habitat). Land acreages within the Panama City crayfish's range total
35,658 acres, with a composition of the following soils: (1) Core with
14,880 acres (6,022 ha; 42 percent of the land area); (2) secondary
with 12,379 acres (5,010 ha; 35 percent of the land area); and (3)
unsuitable soils with 8,399 acres (3,399 ha; 23 percent of the land
area). We estimate that approximately 9,180 acres (3,715 ha) of core
and 5,647 acres (2,285 ha) of secondary soils remain undeveloped (using
2016 data) and are therefore suitable for the Panama City crayfish. We
estimate that 3,606 acres (1,459 ha) of the core (3,242 acres (1,312
ha, or 22 percent)) and secondary (364 acres (147 ha, or 3 percent))
soils are hardwood swamp, which are not directly used by the Panama
City crayfish but are included within acreage totals because they
provide transition habitat.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Panama City crayfish from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional
information can be found in the proposed listing rule published in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 330), and the Panama City
Crayfish SSA report (version 2.0; Service 2019, entire). We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of the Panama City crayfish:
(1) Undeveloped lands, including cropland, utilities rights-of-way,
timberlands, and grazing lands, that support open wet pine flatwoods
and wet prairie habitats that contain the following:
(a) Appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation;
(b) Permanent or temporary pools of shallow (usually less than 1
foot) freshwater locations; and
(c) Gently-sloped ground level swales with a 3:1 or shallower slope
ratio along ecotonal or transitional areas.
(2) Soil types within undeveloped lands that provide sediment
structure needed for burrow construction and that support mostly native
herbaceous vegetation needed for additional food and shelter, and where
the ground water is always within 3 feet of the ground surface and
surface waters occur on occasion. These soil types include:
(a) Core soils for Panama City crayfish, including (note: Prefix
numbers refer to map units in the Soil Survey for Bay County, Florida
(U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1984, entire)): (22) Pamlico-
Dorovan Complex, (29) Rutlege Sand, (32) Plummer Sand, (33) Pelham
Sand, (39) Pantego Sandy Loam, and (51) Rutledge-Pamlico Complex;
(b) Secondary soils within 50 feet (15 m) of core soils: (1) Albany
Sand, (12) Leefield Sand, (13) Leon Fine Sand, (31) Osier Fine Sand,
and (36) Alapaha Loamy Sand; and
(c) Soils that currently, or can eventually, support native
herbaceous vegetation such as, but not limited to, wiregrass (Aristida
beyrichiana), redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana), beakrushes
(Rhynchospora spp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera
spp.), butterworts (Pinguicula spp.), and lilies (Hymenocallis spp.).
(3) Undeveloped lands that contain surface and groundwater of
sufficient quality to support all life stages of the Panama City
crayfish and the herbaceous vegetation on which they rely, specifically
surface waters with:
(a) Oxygen levels that range between 2 and 9 milligrams per liter;
(b) pH levels between 4.1 and 9.2; and
(c) Temperatures between 42 and 94 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (5
and 34.4 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), although optimum temperatures are
thought to be in the range of 68 to 79 [deg]F (20 to 26 [deg]C) (Butler
et al. 2003).
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: Habitat loss and destruction due to residential
and commercial development, as well as habitat loss due to changes in
the natural disturbance and hydrological regimes that maintain the wet
prairie and flatwoods that Panama City crayfish originally inhabited.
Historically, the Panama City crayfish inhabited natural and often
temporary bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods and
prairie-marsh communities (as described in the SSA report (version 2.0;
Service 2019, p. 56)). However, most of these communities have been
cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with
slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Thus, the Panama City
crayfish currently is known to inhabit the waters of grassy, gently-
sloped ditches and swales; furrows within slash pine plantations; and
utility rights-of-way.
Special management considerations or protections are required
within critical habitat areas to address these habitat loss and
destruction threats. The occupied units we are designating as
[[Page 567]]
critical habitat for Panama City crayfish will require some level of
management to address the current and future threats to the physical or
biological features. Management activities that could ameliorate these
threats include (but are not limited to): (1) Protection of lands from
development through purchase, easement, or other conservation
agreements that will prevent permanent conversion of Panama City
crayfish habitat to other land uses; and (2) restoration and management
of habitat to maintain the appropriate vegetative and hydrological
characteristics for the Panama City crayfish.
These management activities will protect the physical or biological
features for the species by protecting currently suitable habitat from
being converted to other land uses and by promoting the appropriate
vegetative and hydrological characteristics that the Panama City
crayfish needs for survival. Additionally, management of habitat to
protect the physical or biological features on occupied critical
habitat will help achieve recovery of the Panama City crayfish.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. When designating critical habitat,
the Secretary will first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The
Secretary will only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a
critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. We are
not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat and because occupied areas are
sufficient to ensure the conservation of the species.
We reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species using information that was cited within
the SSA report (Service 2019, entire) and information presented in the
Service's conservation strategy for Panama City crayfish critical
conservation needs (Service 2017b, entire); sources of information on
habitat requirements include existing State management plans,
endangered species reports, studies conducted at occupied sites and
published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected
during monitoring efforts (Service 2019, entire). Based on known
occurrences and habitat requirements, critical habitat units were
mapped in ArcMap (ESRI, Inc.) using the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic Database
(USDA 2019, unpaginated). ArcGIS software was used to calculate the
acreage of core and secondary soils within the historical range of the
Panama City crayfish prior to anthropogenic habitat disturbances. Core
soil types (as described in Species Description in the proposed listing
rule (83 FR 330, January 3, 2018, pp. 332-333) and in Physical or
Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species,
above) were buffered by 50 feet (15 m). We used 50 feet as our buffer
because we found that more than 70 percent of known occurrences of
Panama City crayfish occur within 50 feet of core soils and this buffer
encompasses the majority of secondary soil types used by the species.
In geographic information systems (GIS) mapping, the buffered soils
were spatially processed by clipping to the population buffer of one-
quarter mile, and developed areas were excluded based on 2020 Bay
County Property Appraiser aerial imagery (Bay County Property Appraiser
2020, unpaginated).
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing and with sufficient availability of
land, we delineate critical habitat unit boundaries using the following
criteria:
(1) Suitable habitat surrounding each of eight known populations of
Panama City crayfish, delineated by polygons using one-quarter mile
(0.4 kilometer (km)) circles around sample points with known species
occurrences, based on the movement patterns of small crayfishes (note:
Habitat surrounding four populations was not included for critical
habitat designation, as explained below);
(2) Core and secondary soils within 50 feet (15 m) of core soils
that contain one or more of the physical or biological features to
support life-history functions essential for conservation of the Panama
City crayfish.
Hardwood swamps found within core soils are considered unsuitable
for the crayfish, and this habitat type was removed to the maximum
extent possible.
The total acreage calculated for critical habitat based upon the
above criteria amounted to 4,138 acres (1,675 ha). Accordingly, we
designate as critical habitat those areas that contain the physical and
biological features essential to the Panama City crayfish and that are
currently occupied by the species.
For the purposes of critical habitat designation, we determined a
unit to be occupied if it contains recent (i.e., observed since 2015)
observations of Panama City crayfish. We used 2015 as the cutoff
because those surveys were the most recent comprehensive, landscape-
scale surveys done, and successful crayfish reproduction was observed
during those efforts, indicating it is reasonable to assume the areas
are still occupied. The critical habitat designation does not include
all lands known to have been occupied by the species historically;
instead, it focuses on currently occupied lands that have retained the
necessary physical or biological features that will allow for the
maintenance and expansion of existing populations. The following
locations (i.e., populations as defined in the SSA report) meet the
criteria of areas occupied by the species at the time of listing and
that present sufficient availability of lands to support a population:
19th Street, Talkington, Minnesota, Transmitter West, Deer Point, High
Point, Star, and Transmitter East. College Point and Old Airport
populations were not consistently occupied, nor was there sufficient
suitable habitat within the one-quarter-mile (0.4-km) polygon to
support recovery, and these populations, therefore, are not included in
the final designation. We also do not include Edwards, a population
representing an original collection site from 1942, nor 390 West given
that the fragmentation of that population by the industrial park
resulted in too little remaining habitat to support population
viability over time. While both areas are still occupied by Panama City
crayfish, Edwards is surrounded by industrial buildings and bordered by
U.S. Route 231 on its west edge, and 390 West will soon be bisected by
a four-lane highway currently under construction. Potential habitat for
recovery in either of these locations is limited and potentially
fragmented. Long-term management will be challenging given proximity to
major roadways and industrial development. As mentioned above, we
exclude developed areas within the designation to the extent possible
in the mapping exercise and in the text of the rule, as explained
below. Designating critical
[[Page 568]]
habitat in these eight occupied areas of the Panama City crayfish will
sufficiently conserve the species, leading to its recovery.
We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species because we have not identified any unoccupied
areas that are essential to the conservation of the species. In
addition, based on our conservation strategy, the protection of the
eight occupied units (as further described below) are sufficient for
the conservation of the species.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings,
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or
biological features necessary for the Panama City crayfish. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
We designate as critical habitat areas that we have determined are
occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied), that
contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are
essential to support life-history processes of the species, and which
may require special management considerations or protections.
All units contain all of the identified physical or biological
features and support multiple life-history processes.
The 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 Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation
below. We will make the coordinates, plot points, or shapefiles on
which each map is based available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137, on our ECOS
portal site https://ecos.fws.gov, or at the Florida Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating eight units as critical habitat for the Panama
City crayfish. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish. In total, they comprise
4,138 acres (1,675 ha) of land, entirely within Bay County, Florida.
Table 4 below summarizes the approximate area and ownership of the
units, which are described in detail below.
Table 4--Critical Habitat Units for the Panama City Crayfish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Land ownership of final Final total Percent of
critical critical habitat (in acres) critical total critical
Group Unit Unit name Occupied habitat area -------------------------------- habitat area habitat
(in acres) Private State/local (in acres) designation (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western...................... 1 19th Street..... Yes........ 24.3 19.45 3.7 23.17 0.6
2 Talkington...... Yes........ 53.1 33.08 4.09 37.17 0.9
3 Minnesota....... Yes........ 65.0 19.07 29.96 49.02 1.2
4 Transmitter West Yes........ 248.4 179.61 2.21 181.82 4.4
Eastern...................... 5 Deer Point...... Yes........ 414.6 274.31 4.51 278.82 6.7
6 High Point...... Yes........ 38.4 36.28 0.51 36.79 0.9
7 Star............ Yes........ 2,761.4 1,417.8 6.49 1,424.29 34.4
8 Transmitter East Yes........ 3,571.5 2,057.47 49.92 2,107.38 50.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 7,176.8 4,037.07 101.40 4,138.47 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total....... 98% 2% 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries; area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
The eight units we are designating as critical habitat are broken
into two groups, based on the western (Units 1 through 4) and eastern
(Units 5 through 8) groups described in the SSA report (Service 2019,
pp. 37-52). These two groups are distinguished by east-west genetic
differentiation based on proximity to other populations and amounts of
fragmentation within a population polygon. Below we describe each unit,
and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the
Panama City crayfish.
Western Group
The western group is comprised of four units supporting
geographically isolated populations scattered throughout the species'
range primarily in the cities of Panama City and Lynn Haven in Bay
County, Florida. The Service designates 291.2 acres (117.8 ha) in total
for the western group. These populations have been isolated by
residential and commercial development, which resulted in habitat loss
and fragmentation. These populations are currently supported by an
average of 72.8 acres (29.5 ha) of habitat (range 23.2-181.8 acres
(9.4-73.4 ha)). However, the Transmitter West population is by far the
largest at 181.8 acres (73.4 ha), and this population may have
historically been a critical link both genetically and geographically
between the western and eastern representative groups. The remaining
three populations are supported by an average of 36.5 acres (14.8 ha)
(range 23.2-49.0 acres (9.4-19.8 ha)). Limited habitat area needed to
support each population and lack of habitat connectivity to other
populations in this group are the greatest management challenges.
Unit 1: 19th Street
The 19th Street unit includes the southwestern-most population
located off 19th Street in Panama City, Florida. It is located on both
sides of an active railroad track with habitat totaling 23.2 acres (9.4
ha). Land ownership is mostly private, but 3.7 acres (1.5 ha) is owned
by Bay County. Only secondary soils remain undeveloped, but the
elevated railroad track has artificially provided a water barrier,
often keeping the site ponded when all others have dried up.
Maintenance (i.e., mowing and woody vegetation removal) for the
railroad has kept the adjacent right-of-way covered in dense,
herbaceous vegetation that is ideal for the Panama City crayfish.
Adjacent unmanaged slash pine stands,
[[Page 569]]
where burrows have been documented, and a mowed grass field also
provide habitat.
Panama City crayfish occurrence and reproduction were documented as
recently as 2016-2018. All of the essential physical or biological
features are found within the unit. The essential features (e.g.,
appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation and permanent or
temporary pools of shallow fresh water) for this unit may require
special management, particularly with respect to mowing, to ensure
maintenance or improvement of the existing habitat.
Unit 2: Talkington
The Talkington unit is located off of Jenks Avenue in Panama City,
Florida, with habitat totaling 37.2 acres (15.1 ha). Land ownership is
entirely private, although 4.1 acres (1.7 ha) is under easement for
conservation. The Talkington Family Nature Preserve forms the
centerpiece of this population, with land ownership held by the Bay
County Conservancy (BCC), and the associated conservation easement held
by FDEP. The preserve is primarily pine flatwoods with a cluster of
pond pine trees in the center portion. The Service and FWC have a
management agreement in place with BCC that allows for mowing to manage
the habitat on a 2- to 3-year interval, to mimic the natural fire
regime and maintain ideal conditions for the Panama City crayfish. The
remaining 33.1 acres (13.4 ha) of core and secondary soils in the
vicinity provide opportunity for additional land protections and
management, although much of this area will require restoration of
vegetation.
Panama City crayfish occurrence was consistently documented since
2000, and most recently in 2016-2018. All essential physical and
biological features are found within the unit. The essential features,
especially appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation and permanent
or temporary pools of shallow fresh water, in this unit may require
special management; establishment of sloped swales and removal of dense
shrub thickets would improve conditions for the Panama City crayfish in
this unit.
Unit 3: Minnesota
The Minnesota unit is located off Minnesota Avenue in Lynn Haven,
Florida, with undeveloped habitat totaling 49.0 acres (19.8 ha). Land
ownership is a mix of private and public, and some area is under
easement for conservation. This site is largely hardwood-cypress swamp
with some possibilities for improving the habitat along 6 acres (2.4
ha) near and adjacent to the swamp ecotone. The City of Lynn Haven owns
30 acres (12.1 ha), which is under a conservation easement held by
FDEP.
The Service and FWC have a management agreement with the City of
Lynn Haven that allows the agencies to manage the property when funding
is available. Minimal actions have occurred to date to remove some of
the pine canopy layer. Other core and secondary soils surrounding the
easement consist of dense slash pine plantations. The property has deep
rutting from off-road vehicles, horses, and heavy equipment, which may
affect the hydrology of the habitat.
Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2015 and 2016.
All essential physical and biological features are found within the
unit. Achieving the right mosaic of water and grasses may require
special management such as improving the hydrological functions to
reduce flooding at depths not conducive to persistence of the Panama
City crayfish.
Unit 4: Transmitter West
The Transmitter West unit is located off Transmitter Road in Lynn
Haven and Panama City, Florida, with habitat totaling 181.8 acres (73.6
ha). Land ownership is a mix of private and public, with approximately
40 percent under easement for conservation. The FDEP holds multiple
conservation easements for private landowners with a total 100.5 acres
(40.7 ha) of pine flatwoods. The easements are managed as required by
permit with either mowing or burning, and are in good condition for the
Panama City crayfish. The remaining habitats, including the 2.2 acres
(0.9 ha) in public ownership owned by the City of Lynn Haven and Bay
County, are in mixed condition and in need of regular management (e.g.,
prescribed fire or mowing).
Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented most recently in
2016. All essential physical and biological features are found within
the unit, with grasses maintained by fire in the past and mowing more
recently. Different depths of water bodies occur that provide a mosaic
of water features with herbaceous grasses to make this a good area for
the Panama City crayfish. Management may be required to reduce
encroaching shrubs and to remove tree debris caused by Hurricane
Michael in October 2018.
Eastern Group
The eastern group is comprised of four units supporting populations
scattered throughout the species' range primarily in the unincorporated
portions of Bay County, Florida. The Service designates 3,847.3 acres
(1,556.9 ha) in total for the eastern group. These populations are
currently supported by an average of 961.8 acres (389.2 ha) of habitat
(range 36.8-2,107.4 acres (14.9-852.8 ha)). However, the Star and
Transmitter East populations are the largest at 1,424.3 and 2,107.4
acres (576.4 and 852.8 ha), respectively. These two populations
represent the largest connected blocks of core and secondary soils with
appropriate vegetation. Although the vegetation and hydrology have been
altered from native wet prairie and pine flatwoods habitats by
silvicultural and agricultural uses, the geographic extent of these two
populations forms the basis for the species' long-term resilience.
Unit 5: Deer Point
The Deer Point unit occurs on a peninsula located near Bay County
Road 2321 in Lynn Haven and Panama City, Florida, and is supported by
278.8 acres (112.8 ha) of habitat. The land is bordered by Willams
Bayou on the northeast, Mill Bayou on the southwest, and North Bay to
the north. Land ownership is almost entirely private, although some
areas are under easement for conservation. Only 0.9 acres (0.4 ha) is
in public ownership by Bay County.
Four privately owned easements lie within or are adjacent to areas
included in this unit. These easements protect 95.0 acres (38.4 ha) of
core and secondary soil habitat, although some of the secondary soil
habitats do not meet the criteria for inclusion within critical habitat
due to distance from core soils. The Trust for Public Lands holds 90.0
acres (36.4 ha) under easement, but that easement is to be transferred
to the City of Lynn Haven in the near future. FDEP holds three
easements totaling 35.0 acres (14.2 ha) that are still owned by a
private landowner (D&H Properties, LLC). The Service and FWC hold a
management agreement with D&H Properties, LLC, and have mowed and
burned 24.0 acres (9.7 ha) of this 35.0-acre (14.2-ha) property that
are held in easements by FDEP. The remaining habitat is on lands that
are heavily timbered and unmanaged, resulting in dense overgrowth of
titi and slash pine, and hydrology may be affected by these activities
as well as borrow pits and dirt roads that traverse the unit. Only the
portions of these easements that meet the criteria are included as
critical habitat. All need regular management, especially the lands
with dense vegetation, for the crayfish to thrive.
Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented on easement lands in
2012 and 2014-2018. All of the essential
[[Page 570]]
physical or biological features are found within the unit. Herbaceous
groundcover is spotty, and shallow pools of water are small and
unreliable, often caused by vehicle tracks, and too deep for Panama
City crayfish. Special management considerations may be required to
remove Hurricane Michael tree debris and to improve the hydrological
impacts from timber management, borrow pits, and roads.
Unit 6: High Point
The High Point unit includes the northern-most population and is
located off Bay County Road 2311 in Bay County, Florida. The population
is supported by habitat totaling 36.8 acres (14.9 ha), and land
ownership is almost entirely private, with some acreage under easement
for conservation. Only 0.5 acres (0.2 ha) is in public ownership by Bay
County. The 11-acre (4.5 hectare) Marjorie's Magical Marsh-Symone's
Sanctimonious Swamp conservation easement owned by BCC contains most of
the known Panama City crayfish population.
Panama City crayfish occupy 6.0 (2.4 ha) of the 11-acre (4.5
hectare) easement, which is in the process of being restored by the
Service and FWC under a management agreement with BCC. These 6 acres
are being restored to primarily herbaceous vegetation from a more
recent dense mixture of titi shrub thicket in the under- and mid-story
and slash pines in the overstory, which has lacked fire management. The
remaining core and secondary soil habitat surrounding the easement was
historically managed for timber but currently contains dense titi with
an intermittent slash pine overstory.
Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2010, 2012-2014,
and 2015-2017. All essential physical and biological features are found
within the unit. This population, albeit small, has herbaceous ground
cover vegetation, pools of shallow water, and appropriate slope ratios,
but the unit may require management to maintain the ground cover and
keep shrubs from encroaching.
Unit 7: Star
This unit consists of 1,424.3 acres (576.4 ha) of habitat for
Panama City crayfish. A portion of this unit is located north of the
intersection of Bay County Road 2321 and U.S. Highway 231 in Bay
County, Florida. Land ownership is a mix of private and public. There
are no conservation easements in place, but one 1.4-acre (0.6-hectare)
parcel is owned by the State of Florida and used by the Florida Highway
Patrol. Although the appropriate core and secondary soil habitat
exists, the lands that run parallel to the county road are mostly in
dense slash pine plantations for timber production with overgrown
ground cover. The plantations east of the county road have been
harvested recently. This management is sub-optimal for the Panama City
crayfish because of the dense overstory canopy, lack of herbaceous
ground cover, infrequent (>3 year) fire management, and bedding that
may additionally affect the hydrology of the unit.
The remainder of this habitat unit is adjacent and south of U.S.
Highway 231. It forms the farthest east-northeast boundary of the
species' geographic range in Bay County, Florida. The population is
bordered on the west by U.S. Highway 231, the north by Bayou George
Creek, and the south by an unnamed tributary of Mill Bayou. These lands
are mostly under timber management since the mid-1980s and in various
stages of management from recent harvest to dense slash pines with
dense titi shrub layers. The current timber management is sub-optimal
for Panama City crayfish because of the dense overstory canopy, lack of
herbaceous ground cover, infrequent (>3 year) fire management, and
bedding that may additionally affect the hydrology of the unit. Land
ownership is predominantly private, with approximately 5 acres (2 ha)
in public ownership by Bay County. Gulf Power Company manages rights-
of-way along 86 acres (34.8 ha). The Service and FWC have a management
agreement with Gulf Power Company incorporating best management
practices, primarily regular mowing, that have stimulated herbaceous
vegetation as the primary ground cover. Currently a two-lane road, Star
Avenue, bisects this population.
The population in the unit is supported by 1,424.3 acres (576.4
ha). Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented most recently in
2016. All essential physical and biological features are found within
the unit. Intermittent herbaceous groundcover vegetation and temporary
pools of shallow water with hardwood swamp ecotone areas do occur, but
special management may be required to maintain and improve these
biological features needed for increased or more connected populations.
Much tree debris remains throughout the unit as a result of Hurricane
Michael's 2018 impact to the landscape. It is assumed that some debris
will be removed from timber company land and on other small tracts of
land, but it is unknown at this time what impacts are likely to occur
to Panama City crayfish populations as lands are cleared at large-scale
levels.
Unit 8: Transmitter East
The Transmitter East unit forms the farthest south-southeast
boundary of the species' geographic range in Bay County, Florida. The
population is bordered on the west by Transmitter Road, the south by
U.S. Highway 98 and State Highway 22, the east by Callaway Creek, and
the north by an unnamed tributary of Mill Bayou. The population in this
unit is supported by 2,107.4 acres (852.8 ha) of habitat, which has
been primarily under timber management since the mid-1980s and in
various stages of management from recent harvest to dense slash pines
with dense titi shrub layers.
The current management regime is sub-optimal for Panama City
crayfish because of the dense overstory canopy, lack of herbaceous
ground cover, infrequent (>3 year) fire management, and bedding that
may additionally affect the hydrology of the unit. Land ownership is
predominantly private, with only 49.9 acres (20.2 ha) in public
ownership by the City of Springfield, Bay County, and the State of
Florida. Gulf Power Company manages rights-of-way along approximately
114 acres (46.1 ha) of land that is populated with the Panama City
crayfish. The Service and FWC have a management agreement with Gulf
Power incorporating best management practices, primarily regular
mowing, that have stimulated herbaceous vegetation as the primary
groundcover.
Two conservation easements, 11.3 and 7.3 acres (4.6 and 3.0 ha) in
size, are held by FDEP for two separate landowners. Currently, a two-
lane road, Star Avenue, bisects this population. Tram Road also bisects
the lower third of the area. It is currently a dirt road and there are
plans for converting it to a four-lane asphalt road.
Panama City crayfish occurrence was confirmed in surveys as recent
as 2016. All essential physical and biological features are found
within the unit. Much tree debris, which may require management,
remains throughout as a result of Hurricane Michael's 2018 impact to
the landscape. It is assumed that some debris will be removed from
timber company land and on other small tracts of land, but it is
unknown at this time what impacts are likely to occur on the Panama
City crayfish populations as lands are cleared at large-scale levels.
[[Page 571]]
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on Federal lands, on State,
Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as
a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do
not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions.
These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action.
In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request
reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify
some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on
specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species
or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a
description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter hydrological and soil
characteristics. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
those that result in wetland fill or draining or, conversely, provide
additional waters to the wetland. Activities drying the wetland (via
fill or draining) can result in changes in depth to water tables that
are less than the depth threshold that is important for long-term
Panama City crayfish population persistence. These activities can also
alter soils from those that provide the sediment structure needed to
allow for burrow construction down to the water table and also support
the herbaceous vegetation upon which the species relies for food and
shelter. Activities providing additional water can allow other crayfish
species that persist in deeper waters to outcompete the Panama City
crayfish.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter water quality parameters
including oxygen content, temperature, and chemical composition. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals,
excess nutrients, pesticides, and biological or other pollutants into
the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by
dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter
water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the
crayfish and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these
individuals and their life cycles.
(3) Actions that would significantly and permanently alter
vegetative characteristics. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, residential and commercial construction; road construction;
and draining, filling, or otherwise destroying or altering wetlands.
These activities may lead to changes in hydrology and soil
characteristics that prevent the appropriate vegetation from growing.
[[Page 572]]
These activities can result in an absence or reduced levels of
herbaceous vegetation that is important to the Panama City crayfish for
food, detritus formation, and shelter.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with a completed INRMP within the
final critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the plain language of the
statute, as well as the legislative history, make clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how
much weight to give to any factor.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts are not expected without
the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words,
the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation
of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the
costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of
particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should
we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening
analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat
for the Panama City crayfish (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2018).
We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation
of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors
that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose
of the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts
as a result of the designation. If the proposed critical habitat
designation contains any unoccupied units, the screening analysis
assesses whether those units require additional management or
conservation efforts that may incur incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM
constitute what we consider to be our draft economic analysis (DEA) of
the critical habitat designation for the Panama City crayfish. As
stated earlier in this document, during the comment period on the April
15, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 19838), we received general comments
that the designation would harm the local economy, but we received no
specific or substantial information that would require altering the
DEA. Therefore, we have adopted our DEA as our final economic analysis,
and we summarize it in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are
[[Page 573]]
likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical
habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental
economic impacts that may result from the designation of critical
habitat for the Panama City crayfish, first we identified, in the IEM
dated July 13, 2018, probable incremental economic impacts associated
with the following categories of activities: Agriculture, forest
management (silviculture, timber), development, recreation, restoration
and conservation management activities, transportation, and utilities.
We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Panama City
crayfish is present, Federal agencies will be required to consult with
the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit,
or implement that may affect the species. Consultation will ensure the
Federal action avoids the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Panama
City crayfish's critical habitat. Because the critical habitat for the
Panama City crayfish coincides with currently occupied areas by the
species, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any
actions that will adversely affect the essential physical or biological
features of critical habitat will also likely result in sufficient harm
or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Panama City crayfish. The
IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this designation of critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation for the Panama City crayfish
includes eight units, each of which contains one geographically and/or
genetically distinct population of the Panama City crayfish. All of
these units are in Bay County, Florida, and none occur on Federal
lands. For the purposes of our critical habitat designation, we
determined a unit to be occupied if it contains recent (i.e., observed
since 2015) observations of Panama City crayfish. All units are
occupied because they contain populations of Panama City crayfish at
the time of proposed listing, and each unit has features that are
essential to the conservation of the species. In total, we are
designating 4,138 acres (1,675 ha) as critical habitat for the Panama
City crayfish. In occupied areas, any actions that may affect the
critical habitat will also likely affect the species, and it is
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence
of the Panama City crayfish. Incremental costs of the critical habitat
designation for the Panama City crayfish are likely to be limited to
additional administrative costs to consider adverse modification in
consultations in all units. We anticipate that the consideration of
critical habitat for the species in occupied units may increase
consultation costs by 10 to 15 percent. The incremental administrative
burden resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the
Panama City crayfish is not anticipated to reach an annual effect of
$100 million (which is the economic threshold for a ``significant
regulatory action'' (see section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866))
based on the anticipated annual number of consultations (no more than
12) and associated consultation costs, which are not expected to exceed
$60,000 in any year. These estimates assume that consultations will
occur even in the absence of critical habitat due to the presence of
Panama City crayfish, and the amount of administrative effort needed to
address the crayfish critical habitat during this process is relatively
small. The designation is unlikely to trigger additional requirements
under State or local regulations and is not expected to have
perceptional effects.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security,
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat.
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have
reason to consider excluding those areas.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that the lands
within the designation of critical habitat for Panama City crayfish are
not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and we received no requests for
exclusions based on national security concerns by any agency
responsible for national security or homeland security. Therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national
security.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. Other relevant impacts may include, but are
not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local governments, public
health and safety, community interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management),
Federal lands, and conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To
identify other relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis,
we consider a number of factors, including whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances (CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may
[[Page 574]]
be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships,
Tribal resources, or government-to-government relationships of the
United States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation.
We also consider any State, local, public-health, community-interest,
environmental, or social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Panama City
crayfish, and the designation does not include any Tribal lands or
trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships,
or HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
the final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate only the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly
regulated by this critical habitat designation. There is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not
directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities.
Therefore, because no small entities will be directly regulated by this
rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final critical habitat
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the final designation will
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available
information, we certify that this final critical habitat designation
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the
designation of this critical habitat will significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use because these were not identified as
land use sectors within the critical habitat areas. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general,
a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates
[[Page 575]]
to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under
entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide
funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Small governments will be affected only to
the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely
affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan
is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Panama City crayfish in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the designation of critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish,
and it concludes that this designation of critical habitat does not
pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by
the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with,
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the final rule does not
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical
or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of
the species are specifically identified. This information does not
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However,
it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning
because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. We have designated critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final
rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The areas of designated
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the final rule provides
several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed
location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining
[[Page 576]]
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat for the Panama
City crayfish, so no Tribal lands will be affected by the designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, by adding an entry for ``Crayfish, Panama City'' in
alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Crustaceans
* * * * * * *
Crayfish, Panama City........... Procambarus Wherever found.... T 86 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
econfinae. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
1/5/22; 50 CFR
17.46(b);\4d\ 50 CFR
17.95(h).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.46 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.46 Special rules--crustaceans.
* * * * *
(b) Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae)--(1) Prohibitions.
The following prohibitions that apply to endangered wildlife also apply
to the Panama City crayfish. Except as provided under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, 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 a 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 (4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Development practices that:
(1) Maintain existing structures, and build or rebuild structures
that occur within the existing footprint of previously developed areas;
(2) Build new structures that occur within 100 feet of existing
structures on an individual private landowner's property and with a new
footprint less than 1,000 square feet, such as a pool or shed
associated with an existing house;
(3) Install culverts for individual landowners not associated with
housing developments on lands greater than one acre;
(4) Build platforms or boardwalks for recreational purposes on
conservation lands that allow sunlight of sufficient levels to maintain
herbaceous groundcover; and
(5) Build paths used for nonmotorized activities as long as the
project footprint, including construction impacts, alter no more than 5
percent of the acreage in core or secondary soils within lands under a
conservation easement.
(B) Certain land management activities, including:
(1) Silvicultural (forestry) activities located in secondary soils
that follow State best management practices (BMPs);
[[Page 577]]
(2) Prescribed burning and wildfire control efforts when following
State BMPs, guidelines, or permit conditions;
(3) Herbicide application activities targeting exotic plants or
shrub species when following all other State and Federal BMPs,
guidelines, or permit conditions; and
(4) Agricultural maintenance activities in pasture and rangelands
(including cattle operations) that were established prior to January 3,
2018, and that implement State and Federal BMPs for existing farms and
ranches if they have no indirect impacts to adjacent Panama City
crayfish habitat.
(C) Utility actions, including:
(1) Ditch mowing and maintenance outside of critical habitat units;
(2) Ditch mowing or maintenance within critical habitat units after
development of BMPs in coordination with the local Service office;
(3) Culvert replacements or maintenance on individual landowner
properties that do not adversely affect, but improve or restore, the
natural hydrology; and
(4) After coordination with the local Service office, the following
activities: Maintenance associated with rights-of-way (including
mowing, use of herbicides, and mechanical side trimming); powerline and
pole placements and replacements; replacement of critical structural
components, such as crossarms, insulators, conductors, etc.; and
directional boring by utility owners.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.95(h) by adding an entry for ``Panama City Crayfish
(Procambarus econfinae)'' immediately following the entry for ``Pecos
Amphipod (Gammarus pecos)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bay County, Florida, on
the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Panama City crayfish consist of the
following components:
(i) Undeveloped lands, including cropland, utilities rights-of-way,
timberlands, and grazing lands, that support open wet pine flatwoods
and wet prairie habitats that contain the following:
(A) Appropriate herbaceous ground cover vegetation;
(B) Permanent or temporary pools of shallow (usually less than 1
foot) freshwater locations; and
(C) Gently sloped ground-level swales with a 3:1 or shallower slope
ratio along ecotonal or transitional areas.
(ii) Soil types within undeveloped lands that provide sediment
structure needed for burrow construction and that support mostly native
herbaceous vegetation needed for additional food and shelter, and where
the ground water is always within 3 feet of the ground surface and
surface waters occur on occasion. These soil types include:
(A) Core soils for Panama City crayfish, including Pamlico-Dorovan
Complex, Rutlege Sand, Plummer Sand, Pelham Sand, Pantego Sandy Loam,
and Rutledge-Pamlico Complex;
(B) Secondary soils within 50 feet (15 meters) of core soils:
Albany Sand, Leefield Sand, Leon Fine Sand, Osier Fine Sand, and
Alapaha Loamy Sand; and
(C) Soils that currently, or can eventually, support native
herbaceous vegetation such as, but not limited to, wiregrass (Aristida
beyrichiana), redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana), beakrushes
(Rhynchospora spp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera
spp.), butterworts (Pinguicula spp.), and lilies (Hymenocallis spp.).
(iii) Undeveloped lands that contain surface and groundwater of
sufficient quality to support all life stages of the Panama City
crayfish and the herbaceous vegetation on which they rely, specifically
surface waters with:
(A) Oxygen levels that range between 2 and 9 milligrams per liter;
(B) pH levels between 4.1 and 9.2; and
(C) Temperatures between 42 and 94 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (5
and 34.4 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), although optimum temperatures are
thought to be in the range of 68 to 79 [deg]F (20 to 26 [deg]C).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
February 4, 2022.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created based on known
occurrences and habitat requirements. Critical habitat units were
mapped in ArcMap (ESRI, Inc.) using the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic Database
dataset. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137 and at the field office responsible for
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
[[Page 578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA22.002
(6) Unit 1: 19th Street, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 consists of 23.2 acres (9.4 ha) and is composed of lands
in State, county, or city ownership (3.7 ac (1.5 ha)), and private
ownership (19.5 ac (7.9 ha)).
(ii) Map of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 follows:
[[Page 579]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA22.003
(7) Unit 2: Talkington, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 consists of 37.2 acres (15.1 ha) and is composed of
lands in State, county, or city ownership (4.09 ac (1.7 ha)), and
private ownership (33.08 ac (13.4 ha)).
(ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: Minnesota, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 49.0 acres (19.8 ha) and is composed of
lands in State, county, or city ownership (30.0 ac (12.1 ha)), and
private ownership (19.1 ac (7.7 ha)).
(ii) Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(9) Unit 4: Transmitter West, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 181.8 acres (73.6 ha) and is composed of
lands in State, county, or city ownership (2.2 ac (0.9 ha)), and
private ownership (179.6 ac (72.7 ha)).
(ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Deer Point, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 278.8 ac (112.8 ha) and is composed of lands
in State, county, or city ownership (4.5 ac (1.8 ha)), and private
ownership (274.3 ac (111.0 ha)).
(ii) Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
[[Page 580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA22.004
(11) Unit 6: High Point, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 36.8 ac (14.9 ha) and is composed of lands
in State, county, or city ownership (0.5 ac (0.2 ha)), and private
ownership (36.3 ac (14.7 ha)).
(ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
(12) Unit 7: Star, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 7 consists of 1,424.3 ac (576.4 ha) and is composed of
lands in State, county, or city ownership (6.5 ac (2.6 ha)), and
private ownership (1,417.8 ac (573.8 ha)).
(ii) Map of Units 7 and 8 follows:
[[Page 581]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA22.005
(13) Unit 8: Transmitter East, Bay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 consists of 2,107.4 ac (852.8 ha) and is composed of
lands in State, county, or city ownership (49.9 ac (20.2 ha)), and
private ownership (2,057.5 ac (832.6 ha)).
(ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (12)(ii) of this entry.
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27519 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P