76196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065; 

FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH46 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Kentucky Creekshell and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Kentucky creekshell (Leaunio 

ortmanni [=Villosa ortmanni]), a 

freshwater mussel species from 

Kentucky and Tennessee, as an 

endangered species and designate 

critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

This determination also serves as our 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Kentucky creekshell. After a review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

Kentucky creekshell as an endangered 

species under the Act. Finalizing this 

rule as proposed would add this species 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to the species. We also 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

the Kentucky creekshell under the Act. 

In total, approximately 545 river miles 

(877 river kilometers) in Kentucky and 

Tennessee fall within the boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. We also announce the 

availability of an economic analysis of 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Kentucky creekshell. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 18, 2024. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for a 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by November 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available on the Service’s website at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8209, 

at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services Kentucky Field Office, 330 

West Broadway, Room 265, Frankfort, 

KY 40601; telephone 502–653–0571. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the Kentucky creekshell 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species; therefore, we are proposing to 

list it as such and proposing a 

designation of its critical habitat. Both 

listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and making a critical 

habitat designation can be completed 

only by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Kentucky creekshell 

as an endangered species under the Act, 

and we propose designation of 

approximately 545 stream miles (877 

river kilometers) in Kentucky and 

Tennessee as critical habitat for the 

species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that Kentucky 

creekshell is endangered due to the 

following threats: Habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation (Factor 

A) resulting from stressors, including 

dams and other instream barriers, and 

degraded water quality from 

development, agriculture, and instream 

gravel mining. Changes in climate 

conditions and small population size 

exacerbate the effects of habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation (Factor 

E). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, concurrently with listing 

designate critical habitat for the species. 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as (i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76197 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the species, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species. 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this species. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

species. 

(4) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Kentucky creekshell habitat; 

(b) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the species that 

should be included in the designation 

because they (i) are occupied at the time 

of listing and contain the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, or (ii) are 

unoccupied at the time of listing and are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(d) Whether areas not occupied at the 

time of listing qualify as habitat for the 

species and are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(5) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(6) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts and any additional 

information regarding probable 

economic impacts that we should 

consider. 

(7) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area. If you think we should exclude 

any additional areas, please provide 

information supporting a benefit of 

exclusion. 

(8) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and section 

4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the 

Secretary shall designate critical habitat 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

species is threatened instead of 

endangered or we may conclude that the 

species does not warrant listing as either 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species. For critical habitat, our final 

designation may not include all areas 

proposed, may include some additional 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, or may exclude some areas if we 

find the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76198 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, the Kentucky 

creekshell was included in a listing 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) and others (CBD 2010, 

entire) requesting that the Service list 

404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 

species as endangered or threatened 

under the Act. In 2011, the Service 

found that this petition presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for 374 species, including 

the Kentucky creekshell (76 FR 59836, 

September 27, 2011). Based on that 

finding, we conducted a species status 

assessment (SSA) for the Kentucky 

creekshell to compile the best scientific 

and commercial data available regarding 

the species’ biology and any factors 

influencing its viability. This document 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

April 20, 2010, petition to list the 

Kentucky creekshell under the Act. 

Peer Review 

An SSA team prepared an SSA report 

for the Kentucky creekshell. The SSA 

team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act, we solicited independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the Kentucky creekshell 

SSA report. We sent the SSA report to 

two independent peer reviewers and 

received one response. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov. In 

preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of the review, 

as appropriate, into the SSA report, 

which is the foundation for this 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from one peer 

reviewer on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewer for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewer provided 

additional information and clarification 

regarding the propagation of Kentucky 

creekshell. Otherwise, no substantive 

changes to our analysis and conclusions 

within the SSA report were deemed 

necessary, and the peer reviewer’s 

comments are addressed in version 1.0 

of the SSA report. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

The Kentucky creekshell (Leaunio 

ortmanni [=Villosa ortmanni]) is a 

member of the Class Bivalvia, Order 

Unionodia, and Family Unionidae (ITIS 

2023). It was described by Walker (1925) 

from specimens collected from the 

Green River at Mammoth Cave, 

Edmonson County, Kentucky, and from 

Sulphur Fork of Russell Creek, Adair 

County, Kentucky. The Kentucky 

creekshell was previously placed in the 

genus Villosa, which was a loose 

amalgam of species generally defined by 

rayed and elongated shells with weak 

hinged teeth. None of these 

characteristics were unique to Villosa, 

and not all species possessed all the 

characteristics (Watters 2018, p. 4). As 

a result, the genus was broken into 

multiple new genera with true Villosa 

being limited to the extreme Southeast 

with additional nominal taxa being 

placed into Paetulunio, Cambarunio, 

Leaunio, and Sagittunio (Watters 2018, 

entire). 

While the 2010 CBD petition referred 

to Kentucky creekshell (Villosa 

ortmanni), the species’ taxonomy, 

common name, and scientific name as 

Leaunio ortmanni have been accepted 

by the scientific community, as 

evidenced by the species’ inclusion in A 

Revised List of the Freshwater Mussels 

(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the 

United States and Canada (Williams et 

al. 2017, p. 45), as well as its inclusion 

in the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation 

Society Names Subcommittee list 

(FMCS 2021). Therefore, this 

rulemaking action proposes to list the 

Kentucky creekshell (Leaunio 

ortmanni). A thorough review of the 

taxonomy, life history, and ecology of 

the Kentucky creekshell is presented in 

the SSA report (Version 1.0; Service 

2023, pp. 1–63). 

Kentucky creekshell adult shells are 

2–3 inches in length with a greenishyellow to tan color with numerous, fine 

green rays, mostly located on the 

posterior end of the shell (Watters 2018, 

p. 42). The species is considered 

relatively fast-growing and short-lived 

compared to other mussel species. It 

occurs in medium-sized rivers to small 

streams and spring runs. The species 

can be found in riffles comprised of 

sand and gravel or found in adjacent 

depositional areas near shore (Haag and 

Cicerello 2016, p. 261). Kentucky 

creekshell most often occurs in suitable 

habitat influenced by nearby springs 

due to the preferred habitat of its 

obligate host fish, the banded sculpin 

(Cottus carolinae). 

The Kentucky creekshell is endemic 

to the Green River basin. Historically, 

the species occurred in the Clifty Creek– 

Rough River, Ugly Creek–Green River, 

Lower Nolin River, Bays Fork–Barren 

River, Skaggs Creek, Little Muddy 

Creek–Barren River, Middle Nolin 

River, Upper Nolin River, Russell Creek, 

East Fork Barren River–Barren River, 

Trammel Creek, Drakes Creek, and 

Gasper River basins (figure 1). The 

Kentucky creekshell is presumed 

extirpated from the historically 

occupied Lower Nolin River, Bays Fork– 

Barren River, Skaggs Creek, and Little 

Muddy Creek–Barren River basins, with 

no observations of the species since 

1973 (a 50-year absence). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76199 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

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. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.000</GPH>

Kentucky Legend 

Tennessee 

0 5 10 2ot.i11tei. 

I I I 

I I I I I 

0 10 20 40 KIiometers 

Figure 1. Kentucky creekshell range map, distributed across the Green River basin. The 

species is known from 13 analytical units. 

N 

A 
76200 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the Service and NMFS (hereafter, the 

Services) can make reasonably reliable 

predictions about the threats to the 

species and the species’ responses to 

those threats. We need not identify the 

foreseeable future in terms of a specific 

period of time. We will describe the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis, using the best available data and 

taking into account considerations such 

as the species’ life-history 

characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

To assess the Kentucky creekshell’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events); and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, 

pathogens). In general, species viability 

will increase with increases in 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time, which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065 

on https://www.regulations.gov and at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8209. 

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. 

Species Needs 

We assessed the best available 

information to identify the physical and 

biological needs to support individual 

fitness at all life stages for the Kentucky 

creekshell. Full descriptions of all needs 

are available in chapter 2 of the SSA 

report (Service 2023, pp. 6–13), which 

can be found in docket number FWS– 

R4–ES–2024–0065 on https://

www.regulations.gov, and on our 

internet site https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ 

species/8209/. We have determined that 

the resource and demographic needs for 

the Kentucky creekshell include biotic 

and abiotic habitat characteristics as 

described below. 

(1) Kentucky creekshell individuals of 

all life stages require habitat conditions 

characterized by clean, flowing water 

with appropriate water quality and 

temperature conditions and an absence 

of contaminants and fine sediments, as 

well as natural flow regimes that vary 

with respect to timing, magnitude, 

durations, and frequency of river 

discharge events. The species occurs in 

stable sand, cobble, and gravel 

substrates in riffles and runs that are 

predominantly silt-free. 

(2) As filter feeders, Kentucky 

creekshells require adequate nutrition 

for survival and growth of juveniles and 

adults that includes suspended food and 

nutrients including (but not limited to) 

phytoplankton, zooplankton, rotifers, 

protozoans, detritus, and dissolved 

organic matter from the water column or 

sediments. 

(3) The Kentucky creekshell requires 

host fish to complete its life cycle. 

Kentucky creekshell use the banded 

sculpin as a host fish (Haag and 

Cicerello 2016, p. 261); it is the only 

sculpin known to occur in the Kentucky 

creekshell range. The Kentucky 

creekshell requires sufficient host fish 

numbers to provide nutrition to and 

dispersal of glochidia. The presence of 

life history requirements for the banded 

sculpin influence Kentucky creekshell 

viability through host fish contribution 

to mussel recruitment. Suitable habitat 

for the banded sculpin is characterized 

as spring-fed and spring-influenced 

streams with riffle and pool areas with 

gravel and rubble substrate, adjacent 

riparian cover, and sufficient food 

items, including macroinvertebrates and 

small fish such as darters. The banded 

sculpin is susceptible to impacts from 

habitat fragmentation due to its small 

size and lower ability to swim the 

distance between suitable habitat 

patches compared to larger fishes 

(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 387). 

Additionally, even small vertical drops 

(2–3 inches) created by culverts can be 

a significant barrier to the banded 

sculpin’s upstream movement. Being a 

benthic species, the banded sculpin is 

particularly sensitive to silt and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76201 

sedimentation (Greenberg and Holtzman 

1987, entire). 

(4) Connectivity among Kentucky 

creekshell populations is also important 

for species viability. Although the 

species’ capability to disperse is evident 

through its historical occurrence in a 

wide range of rivers and streams, 

instream barriers have fragmented 

Kentucky creekshell populations and 

suitable habitat, resulting in the 

isolation of populations, loss of access 

to quality habitat for one or more life 

stages, and prevention of host fish 

movement, which in turn, influences 

Kentucky creekshell distribution. 

Barriers to movement can cause 

isolation or patchy distributions of 

Kentucky creekshells, which may limit 

both genetic exchange and 

recolonization. Genetic exchange occurs 

between and among Kentucky 

creekshell beds via sperm drift, host fish 

movement, and movement of Kentucky 

creekshells during high flow events. For 

genetic exchange to occur, connectivity 

must be maintained, and proximity of 

males and females is essential. 

(5) Most freshwater mussels, 

including the Kentucky creekshell, are 

found in mussel beds with other species 

that vary in size and density. The 

Kentucky creekshell occurs very 

sporadically within these beds, which 

are often separated by stream reaches in 

which the species is absent or rare. 

Because the Kentucky creekshell is 

often a component of these healthy 

mussel assemblages within optimal 

mussel habitats, maintaining the beds 

and connectivity between these 

populations is necessary for the species 

to maintain resiliency over time. 

Threats 

The following discussions include the 

evaluations of threats and associated 

stressors that are affecting the Kentucky 

creekshell and its habitats: (1) Habitat 

loss and degradation, including water 

quality degradation; (2) changing 

climate conditions; and (3) nonnative 

invasive species (Service 2023, chapter 

3). We also considered the effects of 

small population size and enigmatic 

population declines in mussels. Full 

descriptions of each of the threats and 

their sources are available in chapter 3 

of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 16– 

27). 

Habitat Loss and Degradation 

Land Cover 

Certain land cover types have been 

correlated with degrading aquatic 

systems including urbanization and 

development and agricultural uses 

including cultivated crops, hay/pasture 

land cover, and livestock operations. 

Urbanization or Development 

As a land cover type, the term 

‘‘development’’ refers to urbanization of 

the landscape, including (but not 

limited to) land conversion for 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

uses and the accompanying 

infrastructure. The effects of 

urbanization may include alterations to 

water quality, water quantity, and 

habitat (both in-stream and streamside) 

(EPA 2003, entire). Urban development 

can lead to increased variability in 

streamflow, typically increasing the 

extent and volume of water entering a 

stream after a storm and decreasing the 

time it takes for the water to travel over 

the land before entering the stream 

(Giddings et al. 2009, p. 1). Impervious 

surface refers to all hard surfaces like 

paved roads, parking lots, roofs, and 

even highly compacted soils like sports 

fields. Impervious surfaces prevent the 

natural soaking of rainwater into the 

ground and ultimately and gradually 

seeping into streams (Brabec et al. 2002, 

p. 499). Instead, rainwater accumulates 

and often flows into storm drains, 

which rapidly drain to local streams. 

This flow results in deleterious effects 

on streams in three important ways 

(USGS 2014, pp. 2–5): 

(1) Water quantity: Storm drains 

deliver large volumes of water to 

streams much faster than would 

naturally occur, often resulting in 

flooding and bank erosion that reshapes 

the channel and causes substrate 

instability. Increased high-velocity 

discharges can cause species living in 

streams (including mussels) to be 

stressed, displaced, or killed by fastmoving water and the debris and 

sediment carried in it. Displaced 

individuals may be left stranded out of 

the water once floodwaters recede or 

displaced into less suitable or 

unsuitable habitat. 

(2) Water quality: Pollutants (e.g., 

gasoline, oil, road salts) that accumulate 

on impervious surfaces may be washed 

directly into streams during storm 

events. Freshwater mussels, as a group, 

are particularly sensitive to changes in 

water quality parameters including, but 

not limited to, dissolved oxygen, 

salinity, ammonia, elevated 

temperature, excessive suspended 

solids, and other pollutants. 

(3) Water temperature: During warm 

and hot weather, the temperature of 

rainwater that falls on impervious 

surfaces rapidly warms to temperatures 

outside the species’ tolerance and can 

stress or kill freshwater species when it 

enters streams. 

Urbanization increases the quantity of 

impervious surfaces (Center for 

Watershed Protection 2003, p. 1). The 

resulting storm water runoff affects 

water quality parameters such as 

temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and 

salinity, which in turn alters the water 

chemistry such that it is less able to 

support aquatic biota, including 

mussels. The rapid runoff also reduces 

the amount of infiltration into the soil 

and into the water table, resulting in 

lower sustained streamflow, especially 

during droughts and dry periods 

(Giddings et al. 2009, p. 1). Within the 

Kentucky creekshell’s range, there is 

one major city, Bowling Green, 

Kentucky (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). 

Bowling Green has a population of 

approximately 75,000 people and is the 

third most populated city in Kentucky. 

Bowling Green is located on the 

mainstem Barren River between the 

Gasper River and Drakes Creek, which 

both have populations of Kentucky 

creekshell. This city, along with other, 

smaller towns, ultimately contribute to 

the degradation of the aquatic 

conditions of the nearby rivers and 

streams due to the relatively high 

amounts of impervious surfaces. 

Agricultural Land Cover 

Cultivated crops, hay/pasture land 

cover types, and large crop farming 

operations contribute to nutrient 

pollution when best management 

practices are not properly implemented 

(EPA 2016, entire). Fertilizers from 

these operations are both rich in 

nitrogen and phosphorus and are the 

primary sources of nutrient pollution 

from agricultural sources. If fertilizers 

are not applied according to best 

management practices, including the 

appropriate rate, timing, and application 

method, water quality in stream systems 

can be negatively affected by excess 

nutrients from fertilizers. 

Excess nutrients are transported to 

streams when it rains or when water 

and soil containing nitrogen and 

phosphorus wash into nearby waters or 

leach into groundwater. Excess nitrogen 

and phosphorus affect water quality and 

may cause lethal algal blooms in surface 

waters, which can reduce the dissolved 

oxygen to fatal levels for aquatic life 

(Carpenter et al. 1998, entire). Fertilized 

soils and livestock can also contribute 

significant sources of nitrogen-based 

compounds like ammonia and nitrogen 

oxides (Carpenter et al. 1998, entire). 

Ammonia is extremely toxic to 

freshwater mussels and other aquatic 

life and can be extremely detrimental if 

large amounts are deposited to surface 

waters (Augspurger et al. 2003, entire). 

Stream banks with unstable slopes from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

agricultural clearing with no vegetative 

riparian buffer or the lack of stable cover 

crops between rotations on farmed lands 

can increase the amount of nutrients 

that enter nearby streams by way of 

increased soil erosion. Conversely, 

cover crops and other vegetation will 

use excess nutrients and increase soil 

stability (Barling and Moore 1994, p. 

543). Livestock often use streams, which 

degrades water quality and stream bank 

stability and reduces water quantity 

available for mussels and other aquatic 

fauna that may occur downstream from 

these agricultural activities. 

Siltation/Sedimentation 

Excess siltation is a threat to mussel 

survival and can be a significant factor 

affecting mussel distribution when 

siltation prevents mussel life history 

needs from being met in habitat reaches 

(Dennis 1984, p. 150). Major sources of 

siltation and sedimentation (when silt 

and sediment particles accumulate on 

the stream bottom) are development and 

agriculture (Hasse and Lathrop 2003, p. 

159) and instream gravel mining (see 

Instream Gravel Mining below). Legacy 

sediment resulting from past landscape 

development persists in the Green River 

drainage, but much of the current 

siltation/sedimentation is caused by 

activities that directly destabilize stream 

channels and remove riparian 

vegetation (e.g., channelization, 

construction projects, land 

development). Stream bank erosion and 

stream scour are the primary generators 

of excess sediment in the Green River 

basin. According to the Kentucky 

Division of Water list of impaired 

streams that meet section 305(b) of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 

the most prevalent pollutant in 

impaired streams in the Green River 

drainage is sedimentation/siltation, 

affecting 18 percent of assessed stream 

miles (KDOW 2022). Based on these 

data, 134 of 222 stream segments with 

known causes of impairment in the 

Green River drainage are impaired due 

to siltation and sedimentation, and the 

leading sources of the impairment 

include agriculture, coal mining, 

channelization, and loss of riparian 

habitat. 

Sedimentation causes several negative 

effects on freshwater mussels, including 

reduced reproduction, reduced feeding, 

reduced respiration, and decreased 

survival (Goldsmith et al. 2021 pp. 104– 

105). The Kentucky creekshell relies on 

sight-feeding fishes as part of its life 

cycle; therefore, turbidity and high 

levels of suspended solids during 

critical reproductive periods may affect 

glochidial attachment to host fish and 

ultimately decrease recruitment in any 

given population (McLeod et al. 2017, p. 

348). Sedimentation affects mussel 

reproduction as elevated levels of 

suspended sediment may cause host 

fish to avoid such areas, thereby 

decreasing the likelihood of physical 

interaction between host fishes and 

gravid female mussels (Goldsmith et al. 

2021, p. 12). 

Elevated levels of suspended 

sediment affect the ability of freshwater 

mussels to filter sperm and food items 

from the water column. Suspended silt 

can interfere with mussel filtration and 

respiration and reduce mussel food 

consumption rates (Dennis 1984, p. 212; 

McMahon and Bogan 2001, p. 382). 

Stream beds can become inundated with 

fine sediment, which may lead to 

smothering of mussels (Goldsmith et al. 

2021 p. 18). For example, one live 

Kentucky creekshell was found in the 

Upper Nolin River among stable 

substrates; however, the site was 

covered in shifting sands one year later 

and the individual was presumed dead 

(Compton 2023, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, silt hinders surface water 

infiltration into groundwater, and 

increased sedimentation can reduce or 

stop groundwater recharge, causing a 

decline in groundwater levels (Abdalla 

and Rawahi 2013, p. 1956; Rajendran et 

al. 2020, p. 1). The presence of 

groundwater and spring-fed streams are 

vitally important to the Kentucky 

creekshell as this is the preferred habitat 

of its host fish, the banded sculpin. In 

the future, siltation and sedimentation 

in rivers and streams are expected to 

increase due to associated human 

disturbance. 

Instream Gravel Mining 

Instream sand and alluvial gravel 

mining has been implicated in the 

destruction of mussel populations in the 

Southeast (Hartfield 1993, p. 138). 

Negative effects associated with gravel 

mining include stream channel 

modifications such as altered habitat, 

disrupted flow patterns, and sediment 

transport. Additionally, gravel mining 

degrades water quality, including 

increased turbidity, reduced light 

penetration, increased temperature, and 

increased sedimentation. This habitat 

and water quality degradation results in 

reductions in aquatic macroinvertebrate 

and fish populations, as well as 

negatively affects fish spawning and 

nursery habitats, causing cumulative 

food web disruptions (Kondolf 1997, p. 

541; Brown et al. 1998, p. 988). Instream 

gravel mining has negatively affected 

Kentucky creekshell habitat for many 

years. (Cicerello 2005, p. 14). 

Multiple instream gravel mining 

operations have been observed 

throughout the species’ range within the 

last 10 years. For example, in 2021, 

evidence of heavy machinery in the 

stream and severely altered streambed 

was noted at one gravel mine site 

immediately upstream of a known 

Kentucky creekshell population 

(Compton 2023, pers. comm.). This type 

of habitat alteration reduces the amount 

of suitable habitat and limits the ability 

of the species to move farther upstream. 

An additional gravel mining operation 

occurs in a stream valley immediately 

adjacent to a known Kentucky 

creekshell population. The Kentucky 

creekshell has not been observed in the 

mined stream valley; however, based on 

proximity to known populations and 

habitat conditions, the species very 

likely occurred there historically 

(Dinkins 2023, pers. comm.). 

Consequently, instream mining may be 

linked to the loss of the species from 

areas where it was historically present. 

Impoundment Effects 

The negative effects of impoundments 

and barriers on aquatic habitats and 

freshwater mussels are welldocumented (Watters 2000, p. 261). 

Extinction/extirpation of North 

American freshwater mussels can be 

traced to impoundment and inundation 

of riffle habitats in all major river basins 

of the central and eastern United States 

(Haag 2009, p. 107; North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission 2015, p. 

109). Dams, either natural (by beavers or 

aggregations of woody debris) or 

manmade, can have various effects on 

stream ecosystems, many of them 

negative. Reductions in the diversity 

and abundance of mussels are primarily 

attributed to habitat loss caused by 

human-made impoundments (Neves et 

al. 1987, p. 63). 

The Kentucky creekshell requires 

rivers and streams with natural flow 

regimes because the species requires a 

lotic (flowing water) environment. 

Perturbations that disrupt natural water 

flow patterns (e.g., dams) thus have a 

negative influence on the Kentucky 

creekshell and its host fish species, the 

banded sculpin. Effects from instream 

barriers include population isolation, 

hydrological instability, high shear 

stress, scour, and cold-water releases, all 

of which suppress mussel recruitment 

(Hardison and Layzer 2001, p. 79; Smith 

and Meyer 2010, p. 543; Hubbs 2012, p. 

8). Consequently, the construction and 

continued operation of dams has 

resulted in the likely extirpation of the 

Kentucky creekshell in many portions of 

its historical range including the decline 

of the species in the Green River which 

can be partly attributed to long-term 

altered flows from the Green River Lake 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76203 

Dam (Konrad et al. 2011, entire; Haag 

and Cicerello 2016, p. 261). 

Furthermore, Kentucky creekshell 

occurrences have not been reported 

from heavily dam-influenced reaches on 

the mainstem Barren, Nolin, and Rough 

Rivers indicating dam-influenced 

reaches do not provide conditions that 

meet the species’ life-history needs. 

The construction and presence of 

dams had a substantial negative impact 

on the Kentucky creekshell and was a 

primary driver of its condition 

historically. The historical negative 

impact of dams continues through 

isolation of populations and the 

degradation and fragmentation of 

habitat throughout the range of the 

species. Although some obsolete 

navigation locks and dams on the Green 

and Barren Rivers have been removed, 

the historical negative effects associated 

with large reservoir dams and smaller, 

more numerous low-head dams 

continue to negatively influence the 

species and its habitats. 

Changing Climate Conditions 

Changing climate conditions can 

affect freshwater mussels, their habitat, 

and their host fish by altering water 

temperatures and precipitation patterns 

that increase flooding, prolong droughts, 

or reduce stream flows (Nobles and 

Zhang 2011, pp. 147–148). Increases in 

water temperatures alter fundamental 

ecological processes, thermal suitability 

of aquatic habitats for resident species, 

and their geographic distribution, thus 

increasing the likelihood of species 

extinction and loss of biodiversity. 

Climate change may cause changes 

and shifts in seasonal patterns of 

precipitation and runoff, which can 

alter the hydrology of stream systems, 

affecting species composition and 

ecosystem productivity. Aquatic 

organisms are sensitive to changes in 

frequency, duration, and timing of 

extreme precipitation events such as 

floods or droughts, potentially resulting 

in interference of reproduction. Further, 

increased water temperatures and 

seasonally reduced streamflow can alter 

many ecosystem processes, including 

increases in nuisance algal blooms. 

Some nonnative invasive species may 

be better adapted to the effects of 

climate change, including more 

tolerance to higher temperatures 

(Ferreira-Rodriguez et al. 2017, entire). 

Changes in presence or combinations of 

native and nonnative invasive species 

could result in specific ecological 

responses to changing climate 

conditions that cannot be easily 

predicted at this time. Shifts in mussel 

community structure may occur in 

response to climate-induced changes in 

water temperatures since sedentary 

freshwater mussels have limited refugia 

from disturbances such as droughts and 

floods, and because they are thermoconformers whose physiological 

processes are constrained by water 

temperature within species-specific 

thermal preferences (Galbraith et al. 

2010, p. 1,176). 

The Kentucky creekshell is 

particularly vulnerable to climate 

change given its limited spatial 

distribution as an endemic to the Green 

River basin. The expected effects of 

climate change in this region will lead 

to more frequent and severe storms and 

droughts, which will destabilize 

suitable habitat, dewater headwater 

streams occupied by the species, and 

negatively affect host fish distribution. 

The species is susceptible to droughts 

that affect smaller streams to a greater 

degree, as well as flooding/scouring 

events, as the species is found in 

streams with unstable and mobile 

substrates. Conversely, the species is 

associated with spring-influenced 

habitats, which may provide cool, 

flowing water during long dry periods. 

Overall, we expect the effects of 

climate change will negatively impact 

the Kentucky creekshell through 

changes in hydrology and stream flow, 

water temperature, mussel community 

structure (including invasive species), 

and drought. These impacts are 

anticipated to increase in the future. 

Invasive Species 

Approximately 42 percent of federally 

threatened or endangered species are 

estimated to be significantly affected by 

invasive species (Pimentel et al. 2004). 

When an invasive species is introduced 

into an ecosystem, it may have many 

advantages over native species, such as 

easy adaptation to varying environments 

and a high tolerance of living conditions 

that allow it to thrive in its new habitat. 

There may not be natural predators to 

keep the invasive species in check; 

therefore, it can potentially live longer 

and reproduce more often, further 

reducing the biodiversity in the system. 

The native species may become an easy 

food source for invasive species, or the 

invasive species may carry diseases that 

extirpate populations of native species. 

There are several invasive species that 

affect freshwater mussels (Service 2023, 

p. 23). Currently, only the Asian clam is 

likely to pose a significant risk to the 

Kentucky creekshell. 

The Asian clam has several 

competitive advantages over freshwater 

mussels including competing for space 

and food resources while being more 

tolerant of higher temperatures (Fuller 

and Richardson 1976, p. 52, Strayer 

1999, p. 82; Ferreira-Rodriguez and 

Pardo 2017, p. 171; Ferreira-Rodriguez 

et al. 2017, p. 941; Haag et al. 2020, 

entire). While feeding, the Asian clam 

may ingest large numbers of freshwater 

mussel sperm, glochidia, and newly 

metamorphosed juveniles that could 

severely alter the reproductive ability of 

nearby mussel populations (Strayer 

1999, p. 82). The effect of Asian clams 

on freshwater mussel habitat may also 

contribute to the below-described 

enigmatic decline (Haag 2019, entire). 

Asian clams grow rapidly and 

experience a rapid die-off following 

reproduction, causing toxic ammonia 

spikes in the streams and rivers 

(Scheller 1997, p. 2; Strayer 1999, p. 82; 

Cherry et al. 2005, p. 377). Although we 

do not have information that the Asian 

clam is currently impacting Kentucky 

creekshell populations, the clam has 

been documented to outcompete other 

freshwater mussels and occurs 

throughout the Kentucky creekshell 

range. We expect the negative effects of 

this nonnative invasive species will 

continue into the future as well as to 

receive more documented information 

about the Asian clam’s effect on native 

mussel populations once studies are 

published. 

Enigmatic Population Declines 

Enigmatic population declines have 

been documented in freshwater river 

mussel populations since the 1960s. 

Mussel populations occasionally 

experience declines in the absence of 

any obvious cause. These declines are 

termed enigmatic population declines, 

due to their mysterious and currently 

puzzling nature (Haag 2012, p. 341). The 

cause of these die-offs is unknown, but 

researchers suspect either disease or the 

introduction of the Asian clam (see 

section 3.4 of the SSA report) are likely 

factors (Haag 2019, entire; Service 2023, 

pp. 22–24). Contaminants that are not 

easily observable, such as metals bound 

in sediments, a result of past land cover, 

could also be a contributor (Price et al. 

2014, p. 855). Characteristics of 

enigmatic declines include fauna-wide 

collapse affecting all mussel species, 

recruitment failure leading to a 

senescent fauna, rapid onset often 

leading to faunal collapse within 10 

years, and a faunal collapse that 

proceeds upstream over 10 to 20 years 

in most cases (Haag 2019, entire). These 

enigmatic declines have been 

documented within rivers and streams 

occupied by the Kentucky creekshell 

including: the Nolin River, Drakes 

Creek, and Gasper River, all which have 

extant Kentucky creekshell populations 

characterized as low resiliency (Haag 

2019, p. 49). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76204 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Cumulative/Synergistic Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

Populations that have a small 

effective population size (number of 

breeding individuals) and that are 

geographically isolated from one 

another are more vulnerable than more 

robust populations. The fragmentation 

of habitat segments and isolation caused 

by instream barriers and inundation of 

riffle habitats contribute to the 

extinction risk that mussel populations 

face from stochastic events (Haag 2008, 

p. 107) and restrict or prevent the 

movement of host fish. 

Cumulative or synergistic impacts can 

occur when climate change acts as an 

additional stressor to sensitive 

freshwater systems, which are already 

adversely affected by a variety of other 

human impacts, such as altered flow 

regimes and deterioration of water 

quality. Changes in presence or 

combinations of native and nonnative 

invasive species could result in specific 

ecological responses to changing climate 

conditions. These types of changes (e.g., 

increased temperatures that are more 

favorable or more tolerated by a 

nonnative invasive species compared to 

a native species) can result in novel 

interactions or situations that may 

necessitate adaptive management 

strategies. 

Depletion of energetic reserves of 

native mussels to cope with increasing 

temperatures could compromise native 

mussels’ tolerance to additional 

stressors such as competition with 

invasive species, including the Asian 

clam, or food reduction (FerreiraRodriguez and Pardo 2017, p. 171) (see 

Changing Climate Conditions above). 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Large dams in the Green River basin 

fall into two general categories: reservoir 

dams and navigation dams. Reservoir 

dams such as Rough River Dam, Nolin 

River Dam, Green River Dam, and 

Barren River Dam are used primarily for 

hydropower production, flood control, 

and/or municipal water supply. 

Navigation dams in the species’ range 

include the Green River Locks and 

Dams 1–6 and Barren River Lock and 

Dam 1. Several conservation efforts are 

occurring in the range of the Kentucky 

creekshell that address habitat 

fragmentation and isolation of 

populations as well as Kentucky 

creekshell reintroduction efforts. Green 

River Lock and Dam (L&D) 6 and Barren 

River L&D 1 were removed in 2017 and 

2022, respectively, through a 

collaborative effort between State and 

Federal agencies and nongovernmental 

partners (Compton et al. 2017, entire). 

Additionally, a substantial portion of 

Green River L&D 5 was removed in 2022 

with plans to complete the removal in 

the fall of 2024. These dam removals 

have expanded free-flowing 

hydrological conditions of the Green 

and Barren Rivers by more than 40 

kilometers (km) (25 miles (mi)) and have 

provided increased aquatic habitat 

connectivity throughout much of the 

Kentucky creekshell range. For example, 

the removal of Barren River L&D 1 in 

2022 restored approximately 24 

continuous km (15 mi) of stream habitat, 

changing this reach from a lentic (still 

water) habitat into a lotic (moving 

water) habitat suitable for the Kentucky 

creekshell and its host fish. 

Additionally, this dam removal now 

connects the Gasper River Kentucky 

creekshell population with the Drakes 

Creek and Trammel Creek populations. 

The Center for Mollusk Conservation 

(CMC) is a mussel propagation facility 

operated by the Kentucky Department of 

Fish and Wildlife Resources since 2002 

with the mission to restore and recover 

rare and imperiled freshwater mollusks. 

The CMC has been working on 

propagation efforts for the Kentucky 

creekshell for more than 10 years and 

has reared juveniles for release since 

2016 using the banded sculpin and in 

vitro (outside the body) culturing 

methods since 2021resulting in higher 

numbers of juveniles (McGregor 2023, 

pers. comm.). Approximately 4,888 

juveniles have been released in 14 

locations in the Green River, Rough 

River, South Fork Nolin River, Middle 

Creek, Russel Creek, Walter’s Creek, and 

Nolin River. Propagation efforts are 

ongoing with reintroductions and 

augmentations scheduled to be released 

in the fall of 2024. However, the postrelease survival and reproduction of 

propagated Kentucky creekshell 

juveniles and the establishment of new 

Kentucky creekshell populations as a 

result of these releases have not been 

fully assessed. 

State Conservation Actions and Laws 

The Kentucky creekshell is Statelisted as endangered in Kentucky. This 

listing status protects the species by 

prohibiting any person from the import, 

transport, possession for resale or sale of 

the Kentucky creekshell or parts (shell, 

etc.) (KRS § 150.180). The Kentucky 

creekshell is not currently listed by the 

State of Tennessee. The Kentucky 

creekshell and its habitats are afforded 

some protection from water quality and 

habitat degradation under Kentucky’s 

Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS 

§§ 149.330–149.355), Kentucky’s 

Agriculture Water Quality Act of 1994 

(KRS §§ 224.71–224.140) and the 

Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 

1971 (TN Code § 69–3–121). Although 

the protections afforded by these 

statutes and regulations are not directed 

specifically towards Kentucky 

creekshell and have not prevented the 

degradation of some habitats used by 

the Kentucky creekshell, there have 

been some improvements in water 

quality and habitat conditions in areas 

occupied by the species stemming from 

these regulatory mechanisms. 

The Kentucky creekshell is identified 

as a Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need in Kentucky’s State Wildlife 

Action Plan (SWAP). By identifying 

declining or rare species and 

management or protection needed to 

improve their conservation status, the 

SWAP intends to guide management 

and conservation of species and habitats 

before they become too rare or costly to 

restore. The Kentucky creekshell has a 

State rank of S1S2 (imperiled) with the 

highest priority for the State. Actions 

outlined in the SWAP to benefit 

Kentucky creekshell include population 

monitoring, propagation, augmentation 

of existing low-resilient populations, 

and further genetic or taxonomic 

studies. Conservation issues identified 

by the SWAP include dams and water 

management/use, ecosystem 

modifications, and pollution (Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Resources 2023, entire). The Kentucky 

creekshell is not listed in the Tennessee 

SWAP plan as it was not known to 

occur in the State at the time the latest 

SWAP plan was written. 

Federal Laws 

The Kentucky creekshell and its 

habitats are afforded some protection 

from water quality and habitat 

degradation under the Clean Water Act. 

While the protections afforded are not 

directed specifically towards Kentucky 

creekshell and have not prevented the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76205 

degradation of some habitats used by 

the Kentucky creekshell, there have 

been certain improvements in water 

quality and habitat conditions stemming 

from these regulatory mechanisms. 

The Kentucky creekshell receives 

incidental protection under the 

Endangered Species Act because 

populations in portions of the Barren 

River and Green River share habitats 

with multiple federally listed mussels 

and critical habitat. Some of these 

mussels include the fanshell 

(Cyprogenia stegaria), rough pigtoe 

(Pleurobema plenum), spectaclecase 

(Cumberlandia monodonta), pink 

mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), and 

sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus 

cyphyus); and critical habitat for the 

longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) and 

round hickorynut (Obovaria 

subrotunda). Section 7 of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with the Service on any action that may 

affect a listed species or any action that 

may destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Section 9 of the Act also 

provides protection against ‘‘take’’ of the 

species (‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct). In Kentucky, 

streams supporting federally threatened 

or endangered species receive 

additional protection under Kentucky’s 

water quality standards. Pursuant to 401 

KAR §§ 10:031, Section 8, the existing 

water quality and habitat of these 

Outstanding State Resource Waters 

(OSRWs) shall be maintained and 

protected, unless it can be demonstrated 

that lowering of water quality or a 

habitat modification will not have a 

harmful effect on the threatened or 

endangered species that the water 

supports. Kentucky Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits associated 

with OSRWs typically contain 

additional requirements designed to 

protect waters supporting listed species. 

It is also unlawful under the Lacey 

Act (see 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(2)(A)) to 

import, export, transport, sell, receive, 

acquire, or purchase in interstate or 

foreign commerce any fish or wildlife 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State. Because the possession of 

Kentucky creekshell is illegal in 

Kentucky, interstate or international 

sale of individuals collected is 

prohibited by the Lacey Act. 

Current Condition 

The Kentucky creekshell’s range and 

distribution has declined over time. 

Four of 13 analytical units (AUs) are 

now extirpated. In our SSA analyses, we 

considered an analytical unit extant if it 

contained records after 2003. We 

considered AUs with observations prior 

to 2003 (and no more recent 

observations) as historical. We 

considered analytical units to be 

extirpated if no individuals were 

detected since 1973, indicating a 50- 

year absence. This species was formerly 

the most abundant species found in the 

Nolin River in the 1960s, and hundreds 

of shells were found in the 1980s. Very 

few individuals have been found in this 

system since 2003. On the Green River 

mainstem at Munfordville, hundreds of 

live individuals were found, and 

hundreds of shells were collected 

multiple times during the 1960s, 

whereas a 2022 survey targeting the 

species for propagation efforts in the 

same general location found just three 

individuals in 24 person-hours search 

time. 

In our SSA, we describe the current 

condition of the species using categories 

that estimate overall condition 

(resiliency) of the Kentucky creekshell 

populations. We identified five major 

factors that act or will act on the 

viability of Kentucky creekshell 

populations. These include habitat loss 

and degradation (i.e., aquatic degrading 

land cover, siltation/sedimentation, 

gravel mining, impoundment effects), 

climate change, invasive species, 

enigmatic population declines, and 

conservation actions. See chapter 4 in 

the SSA report for further explanation of 

the analysis methodology (Service 2023, 

pp. 28–31). The Kentucky creekshell is 

known historically from 13 AUs. 

Historical populations in the Lower 

Nolin River, Bays Fork–Barren River, 

Skaggs Creek, Little Muddy Creek– 

Barren River are now considered to be 

extirpated, and current condition was 

not assessed for these AUs. Currently, 

the Kentucky creekshell occurs in nine 

AUs in the Green River Basin. We 

assessed the current condition of these 

nine AUs to inform species’ current 

viability. We determined no AU 

currently exhibits high resiliency, two 

AUs exhibit moderate resiliency, and 

seven AUs exhibit low resiliency. To 

assess resiliency, we considered five 

variables for each AU—instream habitat 

(substrates), percent of suitable land 

cover, length of occupied reaches, 

abundance of individuals on surveys, 

and connectivity as a result of the 

presence or absence of dams/barriers. 

The two moderately resilient AUs are 

characterized by higher habitat 

condition scores (substrates, land cover, 

and connectivity) and higher extent of 

occupancy than low-resiliency AUs. 

The Kentucky creekshell currently 

occurs in a limited number of 

populations/watersheds that are 

disjunct from each other. Each of those 

populations is very small, and only a 

small portion of those populations is 

reproducing. It is not clear or expected 

that these populations can sustain 

themselves at such low levels, which 

elevates the risk of local extirpations. In 

addition, the majority of AUs have low 

resiliency (seven of nine), and the two 

moderate-resiliency AUs are impacted 

by existing and ongoing threats, such as 

low population numbers and 

sedimentation, as well as increasing 

threats from urbanization and 

incompatible land use changes. 

Representation describes the ability of 

a species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time and 

is characterized by the breadth of 

genetic and environmental diversity 

within and among populations. The 

more representation a species has, the 

more it is capable of adapting to changes 

(natural or human caused) in its 

environment. We determined the 

Kentucky creekshell’s current 

representation by assessing attributes 

that demonstrate a species’ inherent 

adaptive capacity. These attributes 

relate to the species’ ability to shift in 

space or persist in place in response to 

changing environmental conditions. We 

found that the species’ representation is 

moderate given its inherent ability to 

adapt to change. Movement and abiotic 

niche are deemed to be low for the 

species because it cannot readily move 

away from stressors, and it relies on a 

fish host with a relatively small home 

range. However, many characteristics 

such as minimal parental investment, 

high fecundity, and multiple 

reproductive cycles in lifetime are high 

abilities to adapt to change for the 

species. The combination of high and 

low abilities to adapt to change bring us 

to conclude that the species exhibits 

moderate representation. 

We have determined the species’ 

current redundancy to be low based on 

its geographically small range, limiting 

preferred habitat; lack of connectivity 

between and among populations; and 

lack of highly resilient AUs. Low 

redundancy means the Kentucky 

creekshell is more vulnerable to 

catastrophic events than species with 

higher redundancy. Potential 

catastrophes that could affect the 

species include extreme, range-wide 

drought or a chemical or other 

hazardous waste spill that affects water 

quality conditions across multiple 

populations. 

In summary, the Kentucky creekshell 

currently occurs in a limited number of 

populations/watersheds that are 

disjunct from each other. The majority 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76206 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

of AUs have low resiliency (seven of 

nine), and the two moderate-resiliency 

AUs are impacted by existing and 

ongoing threats, such as low population 

numbers and sedimentation, as well as 

increasing threats from urbanization and 

incompatible land use changes. 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

two plausible future-condition scenarios 

to capture the range of future viability 

including future threats and the 

projected responses by the Kentucky 

creekshell. We evaluated the future 

condition of the Kentucky creekshell in 

2040 and 2060 by assessing future land 

cover change and climate change under 

high emissions and lower emissions 

scenarios. Because we determined that 

the current condition of the Kentucky 

creekshell is consistent with an 

endangered species (see Determination 

of the Kentucky Creekshell’s Status), we 

are not presenting the results of the 

future scenarios in this proposed rule. 

Please refer to the SSA report (Service 

2023, pp. 43–49) for the full analysis of 

future scenarios. 

Determination of the Kentucky 

Creekshell’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we determined the 

Kentucky creekshell currently has 

limited resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation and is expected to 

decline further. Historically, the 

Kentucky creekshell was known from 13 

AUs in the Green River basin. Historical 

populations in the Lower Nolin River, 

Bays Fork–Barren River, Skaggs Creek, 

and Little Muddy Creek–Barren River 

are now considered to be extirpated, 

and the species is currently known from 

9 AUs. Current factors affecting the 

species’ viability include loss and 

degradation of suitable habitat, low 

connectivity (i.e., isolation by dams), 

and small population size. There is not 

enough evidence yet to assess the direct 

effects of invasive species, enigmatic 

population declines, or conservation 

actions on Kentucky creekshell or its 

host fish. We determined that seven 

analytical units exhibit low current 

resiliency, two analytical units exhibit 

moderate resiliency, and no units 

exhibit high resiliency. Current 

resiliency is driven by poor instream 

habitat, low percent of suitable land 

cover, abundance as detected on recent 

surveys, shorter occupied reaches, and 

lack of connectivity due to dams/ 

barriers. 

With regard to the species’ adaptive 

capacity, the Kentucky creekshell has 

moderate representation at the species 

level, with an inherent capacity to adapt 

in place. The species’ redundancy is 

low based on its geographically small 

range, limiting preferred habitat; lack of 

connectivity with other populations; 

and lack of highly resilient analytical 

units or populations. 

Thus, after evaluating the best 

available information and as a result of 

the combination of these factors, the 

threats have a high imminence and 

magnitude such that they are 

significantly affecting the species’ 

current viability. Accordingly, the 

species meets the definition of an 

endangered species. 

We do not find the Kentucky 

creekshell meets the definition of a 

threatened species because the species 

has already shown dramatic declines in 

abundance and resiliency of its 

populations. With the majority of 

populations in low resiliency, the 

species’ condition is currently in poor 

condition and is expected to decline 

over time due to existing threats, such 

as low population numbers and 

sedimentation, as well as increasing 

threats in some of the watersheds from 

increasing urbanization and 

incompatible land use changes. The 

Kentucky creekshell has low 

redundancy and moderate species-level 

representation, with an inherent 

capacity to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions but increased 

vulnerability to catastrophic events 

because it cannot readily move away 

from stressors, and it relies on a fish 

host with a relatively small home range. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determine that 

Kentucky creekshell is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

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. We have 

determined that the Kentucky creekshell 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range and accordingly did not 

undertake an analysis of any significant 

portion of its range. Because the 

Kentucky creekshell warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination does not conflict with 

the decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 

(D.D.C. 2020), because that decision 

related to significant portion of the 

range analyses for species that warrant 

listing as threatened, not endangered, 

throughout all of their range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Kentucky creekshell 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species. Therefore, we propose to list 

the Kentucky creekshell as an 

endangered species in accordance with 

sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 

governments, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies, 

including the Service, and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76207 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Kentucky and 

Tennessee would be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the Kentucky creekshell. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: https://www.fws.gov/ 

service/financial-assistance. 

Although the Kentucky creekshell is 

only proposed for listing under the Act 

at this time, please let us know if you 

are interested in participating in 

recovery efforts for this species. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled 

Interagency Cooperation and mandates 

all Federal action agencies to use their 

existing authorities to further the 

conservation purposes of the Act and to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action which is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species proposed to be listed under 

the Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

proposed to be designated for such 

species. Although the conference 

procedures are required only when an 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification, action agencies 

may voluntarily confer with the Service 

on actions that may affect species 

proposed for listing or critical habitat 

proposed to be designated. In the event 

that the subject species is listed or the 

relevant critical habitat is designated, a 

conference opinion may be adopted as 

a biological opinion and serve as 

compliance with section 7(a)(2). 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the Kentucky creekshell that may be 

subject to conference and consultation 

procedures under section 7 are land 

management or other landscape-altering 

activities on Federal lands administered 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Environmental Protection Agency, or 

National Park Service (NPS) as well as 

actions on State, Tribal, local, or private 

lands that require a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the Kentucky Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific 

questions on section 7 consultation and 

conference requirements. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit or to cause to be committed any 

of the following acts with regard to any 

endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or 

export from, the United States; (2) take 

(which includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents of the Service, NMFS, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to endangered wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensure, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership 

or establish a refuge, wilderness, 

reserve, preserve, or other conservation 

area. Such designation also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information compiled in 

the SSA report and information 

developed during the listing process for 

the species. Additional information 

sources may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76209 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best scientific 

data available at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory 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 earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory 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. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

As described in Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, the 

Kentucky creekshell is a freshwater 

mussel that occurs in rivers and 

streams. Occasional or regular 

interaction among individuals in 

different reaches not interrupted by a 

barrier likely occurs, but in general, 

interaction is strongly influenced by 

habitat fragmentation and distance 

between occupied river or stream 

reaches. Once released from their fish 

host, freshwater mussels are benthic, 

generally sedentary aquatic organisms 

and closely associated with appropriate 

habitat patches within a river or stream. 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Kentucky creekshell 

from studies of the species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history as described 

below. The primary habitat elements 

that influence resiliency of the 

Kentucky creekshell include water 

quality, water quantity, substrate, 

habitat connectivity, and the presence of 

host fish species to ensure recruitment. 

Adequate flows ensure delivery of 

oxygen, enable reproduction, deliver 

food to filter-feeding mussels, and 

reduce contaminants and fine sediments 

from interstitial spaces. Stream velocity 

is not static over time, and variations 

may be attributed to seasonal changes 

(with higher flows in winter/spring and 

lower flows in summer/fall), extreme 

weather events (e.g., drought or floods), 

or anthropogenic influence (e.g., flow 

regulation via impoundments). These 

features are also described above as 

species needs under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, and a full 

description is available in the SSA 

report; the resource and demographic 

needs for breeding, feeding, sheltering, 

and dispersal of the Kentucky creekshell 

include the following: (1) Adequate 

freshwater availability (water quantity) 

and sufficient water quality, including 

spring-influenced river sections; (2) 

appropriate substrates; (3) sufficient 

food and nutrition; (4) availability of 

sufficient host fish numbers; (5) 

connected instream habitats; and (6) 

appropriate abundance, density, and 

distribution of mussel beds 

(aggregations of freshwater mussels). 

Additional information can be found 

in the SSA report (Service 2023, entire; 

available on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2024–0065). We have 

determined that the following physical 

or biological features are essential to the 

conservation of the Kentucky creekshell: 

(1) Water quantity and quality 

necessary to sustain natural 

physiological processes for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages, including (but not limited to): 

water conditions in the stream that are 

cool; are well-oxygenated with no 

evidence of excessive sediments or 

suspended solids, salinity, ammonia, 

nutrients, pesticides, or herbicides; and 

have a stream flow and pattern 

consistent with natural flow regimes. 

Spring-influenced river sections are 

important habitat types for this species 

as most Kentucky creekshell 

populations are associated with this 

habitat type, and this is also the 

preferred habitat type for the host fish, 

the banded sculpin. 

(2) Suitable substrates and connected 

instream habitats characterized by 

geomorphically stable stream channels 

and banks (i.e., channels that maintain 

lateral dimensions, longitudinal 

profiles, and sinuosity patterns over 

time without an aggrading or degrading 

bed elevation) and stable riffle-run-pool 

habitats that provide flow refuges 

consisting of predominantly silt-free, 

stable coarse sand, gravel, and cobble 

substrates. 

(3) Adequate food availability for 

Kentucky creekshell including (but not 

limited to): suspended phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, rotifers, protozoans, 

detritus, and dissolved organic matter 

from the water column or sediments. 

(4) Habitat conditions that support the 

presence and abundance of banded 

sculpin, the host fish necessary for 

Kentucky creekshell recruitment, as 

well as the actual presence and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

abundance of the banded sculpin in the 

habitat. 

(5) Connected instream habitats 

without barriers such as dams and 

perched or undersized culverts to 

provide suitable lotic rather than lentic 

habitat; access to quality habitat for 

multiple life stages of Kentucky 

creekshell; access for host fish 

movement, which in turn, may 

influence Kentucky creekshell 

distribution and provide genetic 

exchange for both species and 

recolonization of Kentucky creekshell. 

(6) Appropriate abundance, density, 

and distribution of mussel beds 

(aggregations of freshwater mussels) 

such that local stochastic events do not 

necessarily eliminate the bed(s), 

allowing the mussel beds and the 

overall local population within a stream 

reach to recover from any single event 

and for resilient populations. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the Kentucky creekshell 

may require special management 

considerations or protections to reduce 

the following threats: 

(1) Alteration of the natural flow 

regime (modifying the natural 

hydrograph and seasonal flows), 

including groundwater and surface 

water withdrawal as well as water 

releases from impoundments and 

reservoirs, resulting in hydrological 

instability, high shear stress, and scour. 

(2) significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution from a 

variety of activities, such as urban 

development, mining, and agricultural 

activities; 

(3) alteration of instream substrate, 

stream channels, and stream banks from 

a variety of activities, including but not 

limited to those that cause stream 

siltation and sedimentation, destabilize 

stream channels, and result in the 

removal of riparian vegetation (e.g., 

instream gravel mining, agriculture, 

channelization, construction projects, 

and land development); 

(4) urbanization of the landscape, 

including (but not limited to) land 

conversion for residential, commercial, 

and industrial uses and the 

accompanying infrastructure 

(impervious surfaces, pipelines, roads, 

bridges, utilities), and urban water uses 

(resource extraction activities, water 

supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, 

etc.); 

(5) land use activities that remove 

large areas of forested wetlands and 

riparian systems; 

(6) dam, culvert and pipe, or other 

instream installations that create 

barriers to movement for the Kentucky 

creekshell, or their host fish, the banded 

sculpin; 

(7) impacts from invasive species; 

(8) changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and 

(9) other watershed and floodplain 

disturbances that release sediments, 

pollutants, or nutrients into the water. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include but are 

not limited to: use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of groundwater and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; use of 

best management practices when 

releasing water from reservoirs/ 

impoundments; improved stormwater 

management; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; removal of 

instream barriers; prevention of 

instream gravel mining; and controlling 

invasive species. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing. We also are proposing to 

designate specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have determined 

those areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Rangewide 

recovery considerations, such as 

maintaining existing genetic diversity 

and representation of all major portions 

of the species’ current range, were 

considered in formulating this proposed 

critical habitat designation. Given the 

Kentucky creekshell’s substantial lost 

historical range and currently 

fragmented populations, we are 

designating unoccupied areas. The 

unoccupied critical habitat areas we are 

adding each contain one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Kentucky 

creekshell (although not required by 50 

CFR 424.12). These features include 

suitable water quality and quantity, 

substrates, food, host fish, connected 

instream habitat, and/or mussel beds. 

Designating unoccupied areas would aid 

in increasing the species’ currently low 

redundancy, as having additional 

protected and connected habitat will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species as it will allow the species to 

expand in the future through recovery 

efforts. Thus, the unoccupied units we 

are designating are essential for the 

conservation of the Kentucky creekshell. 

Sources of data for this proposed 

critical habitat designation include 

multiple databases maintained by 

universities, information from State 

agencies throughout the species’ range, 

and survey reports on streams 

throughout the species’ range (see SSA 

report (Service 2023, entire)). We have 

also reviewed available information that 

pertains to the habitat requirements of 

this species. Sources of information on 

habitat requirements include studies 

conducted at occupied sites, agency 

reports, and data collected during 

monitoring efforts (Service 2023, entire). 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, we 

delineated occupied critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following criteria: 

(1) Stream reaches with species 

occurrences after 2003; 

(2) Suitable habitat with at least one 

physical or biological feature present, 

such as suitable substrates and springinfluenced river reaches; 

(3) A stream reach that provides a 

connective corridor between 

populations; and/or 

(4) A stream reach that may contain 

a historical Kentucky creekshell 

occurrence. 

For areas within the geographical area 

not occupied by the species at the time 

of listing, we delineated unoccupied 

critical habitat unit boundaries using 

the following criteria: 

(1) Stream reaches with species 

occurrences before 2003 or expert 

opinion that the species likely once 

existed in the reach; 

(2) Suitable habitat with at least one 

physical or biological feature present, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76211 

such as suitable substrates and springinfluenced river reaches; and 

(3) A stream reach that provides a 

connective corridor between 

populations or provides a logical 

reintroduction location for the recovery 

of a unit. 

In addition, we determined the 

upstream extent of critical habitat units 

as the first perennial tributary 

confluence upstream of the upstreammost occurrence record and the 

downstream extent as the mouth of the 

stream of the farthest downstream 

record. The lateral extent of each unit 

includes the bankfull width of the 

stream. We considered portions of the 

Kentucky creekshell’s historical, current 

range as well as any stream segment that 

had one or more PBFs that would 

contribute to the continuation of the 

species. The scale of the maps we 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical 

habitat is finalized as proposed, a 

Federal action involving these lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical 

habitat is finalized as proposed, a 

Federal action involving these lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We propose to designate as critical 

habitat areas that we have determined 

are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 

currently occupied) and that contain 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features that are essential to support 

life-history processes of the species. We 

have also identified, and propose for 

designation as critical habitat, four 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the species. These 

unoccupied areas all have one or more 

of the physical or biological features 

present to support Kentucky 

creekshell’s life-history processes. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing 10 units as critical 

habitat for Kentucky creekshell. The 

critical habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for Kentucky creekshell. Critical 

habitat includes only stream channels 

up to bankfull height, where the stream 

base flow is contained within the 

channel. The 10 areas that we propose 

as critical habitat are: (1) Green River; 

(2) Barren River; (3) Gasper River; (4) 

Drakes Creek; (5) Trammel Creek; (6) 

Salt Lick Creek; (7) Russell Creek; (8) 

Middle Nolin River; (9) Upper Nolin 

River; and (10) Rough River. Table 1 

shows the proposed critical habitat 

units and the approximate area of each 

unit. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR KENTUCKY CREEKSHELL

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical habitat unit number/name Adjacent riparian land ownership Length of unit in miles 

(kilometers) Occupied? 

Unit 1: Green River, Subunit 1a (Green River) ................ Private, NPS, State agency ............... 72.21 (116.2) Yes. 

0.67 (1.1) 

0.12 (0.2) 

Total = 73.0 (117.5) 

Unit 1: Green River, Subunit 1b (Green River) ................ Private, NPS ...................................... 50.2 (80.8) No. 

7.5 (12.1) 

Total = 57.7 (92.9) 

Unit 2: Barren River .......................................................... Private ................................................ 79.9 (128.6) No. 

Unit 3: Gasper River ......................................................... Private ................................................ 52.8 (85) Yes. 

Unit 4: Drakes Creek ........................................................ Private ................................................ 55.1 (88.7) Yes. 

Unit 5: Trammel Creek ..................................................... Private ................................................ 15.9 (25.6) Yes. 

Unit 6: Salt Lick Creek ...................................................... Private ................................................ 19.1 (30.7) Yes. 

Unit 7: Russell Creek ........................................................ Private ................................................ 53.7 (86.4) Yes. 

Unit 8: Middle Nolin River, Subunit 8a (Nolin River) ........ Private, USACE, State agency .......... 53.7 (86.4) No. 

0.38 (0.63) 

0.39 (0.68) 

Total = 54.5 (87.7) 

Unit 8: Middle Nolin River Subunit 8b (Round Stone 

Creek).

Private, USACE ................................. 9.8 (15.9) Yes. 

0.02 (0.03) 

Total = 9.9 (15.9) 

Unit 9: Upper Nolin River ................................................. Private, State Agency ........................ 21.3 (34.3) Yes. 

2.6 (4.2) 

Total = 23.9 (38.5) 

Unit 10: Rough River Subunit 10a (Rough River and 

Meeting Creek).

Private, USACE ................................. 35.8 (57.6) Yes. 

1.6 (2.7) 

Total = 37.5 (60.4) 

Unit 10: Rough River Subunit 10b (Clifty Creek) ............. Private, USACE ................................. 11.3 (18.2) No. 

0.34 (0.54) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR KENTUCKY CREEKSHELL—Continued 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical habitat unit number/name Adjacent riparian land ownership Length of unit in miles 

(kilometers) Occupied? 

Total = 11.6 (18.7) 

Total ........................................................................... ............................................................ 544.6 (876.4) 

Note: Miles may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Kentucky creekshell, below. 

Unit 1: Green River 

Unit 1 consists of a total of 130.7 river 

miles (210.4 km) within two subunits; 

one that is occupied, and one that is 

unoccupied habitat. Subunit 1a (Green 

River) is occupied, while Subunit 1b 

(Green River) is unoccupied. 

Subunit 1a (Green River): Subunit 1a 

consists of 73.0 river miles (117.5 km) 

of Green and Hart Counties, Kentucky, 

from the confluence of Russell Creek 

near Greensburg, Kentucky, downstream 

to the Edmonson County line in 

Mammoth Cave National Park. Nearly 

all (approximately 99 percent) of the 

lands adjacent to Subunit 1a are 

privately owned including lands 

managed under the Green River 

Watershed conservation easement by 

The Nature Conservancy. The remaining 

lands adjacent to this subunit (one 

percent) include parts of the Mammoth 

Cave National Park, managed by the 

National Park Service, and Western 

Kentucky University’s Upper Green 

River Biological Preserve, which is 

managed by the State of Kentucky. 

Subunit 1a is considered occupied by 

the species and contains the physical or 

biological features 1 through 6 (See 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features) essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

urbanization of the landscape; land use 

activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

dam, culvert and pipe, or other instream 

installations that create barriers to 

movement; impacts from invasive 

species; changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include use of 

best management practices designed to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of groundwater and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; use of 

best management practices when 

releasing water from reservoirs/ 

impoundments; improved stormwater 

management; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; removal of 

instream barriers; prevention of 

instream gravel mining; and controlling 

invasive species (see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

Subunit 1b (Green River): Subunit 1b 

consists of 57.7 river miles (92.9 km) of 

Edmonson, Butler, and Warren 

Counties, Kentucky. The unit is located 

from the Edmonson County line in 

Mammoth Cave National Park to the 

confluence with the Barren River in 

Woodbury, Kentucky. Approximately 87 

percent of the lands adjacent to Subunit 

1b are owned by private entities, and 

the remaining 13 percent is managed by 

the National Park Service for the 

Mammoth Cave National Park. Subunit 

1b is currently unoccupied by the 

species and contains the physical or 

biological features 1 through 4, and 6 

(See Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features) essential to the 

conservation of the species. The unit 

will contain physical and biological 

feature 5 once Green River Lock and 

Dam 5 is completely removed (see 

below for more details). 

Threats identified within this unit 

includes alteration of the natural flow 

regime; significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

urbanization of the landscape; land use 

activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

dam, culvert and pipe, or other instream 

installations that create barriers to 

movement; impacts from invasive 

species; changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include use of 

best management practices designed to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of groundwater and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; use of 

best management practices when 

releasing water from reservoirs/ 

impoundments; improved stormwater 

management; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; removal of 

instream barriers; prevention of 

instream gravel mining; and controlling 

invasive species. 

Suitable habitat in this area was lost 

during the construction of Green River 

Lock and Dam (GRLD) 5 and 6 in the 

early 1900s, which isolated the Green 

River populations from the Barren River 

populations; however, with the removal 

of GRLD 6 in 2017 and partial removal 

of GRLD 5 in 2022 (with full removal 

expected in fall 2024), suitable habitat 

has been gradually restored. Although 

some evidence suggests that Kentucky 

creekshell populations in subunit 1b 

may not have been as abundant as in 

subunit 1a due to changes in karst 

landscape characteristics, experts still 

believe that they were sufficient to 

facilitate genetic exchange between the 

Green River and Barren River 

populations (Compton 2023, pers. 

comm.). 

The Green River mainstem plays a 

crucial role in the conservation of the 

Kentucky creekshell as it serves as the 

sole link between populations in the 

Green River and populations in the 

Barren River. Reintroduction efforts in 

this subunit will help preserve genetic 

diversity and facilitate the exchange of 

genes between populations in Unit 1a, 

which is occupied and begins at the 

confluence of Russell Creek near 

Greensburg, and populations in Unit 7, 

upstream from Unit 1a, downstream to 

the confluence of the Barren River near 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76213 

Woodbury. For these reasons, this unit 

is essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit 2: Barren River 

Unit 2 consists of 79.9 river miles 

(128.6 km) of Barren River in Butler, 

Warren, Allen, and Barren Counties, 

Kentucky, from the Barren River Lake 

dam in Barren and Allen Counties to the 

confluence of the Green River in Butler 

and Warren Counties. Approximately 

79.4 river miles (127.8 km; 99 percent) 

of riparian lands that border the unit are 

in private ownership, and 0.46 stream 

mile (0.74 km; less than 1 percent) is in 

Federal (Barren River Lake; USACE) 

ownership. Unit 2 is considered 

currently unoccupied by the species and 

contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 4, and 6 (See 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features) essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

includes alteration of the natural flow 

regime, alteration of instream substrate, 

urbanization of the landscape, impacts 

from invasive species, and dam, culvert 

and pipe, or other instream 

installations. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include the use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; use of 

best management practices when 

releasing water from reservoirs/ 

impoundments; improved stormwater 

management; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; removal of 

instream barriers; and controlling 

impacts from invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

This unit serves a critical role in 

conservation by providing the sole 

connection between populations in the 

Barren River tributaries and those in the 

Green River; thus, it is essential for the 

conservation of the Kentucky creekshell. 

The species was extirpated along the 

mainstem Barren River following the 

construction of Barren River Lock and 

Dam 1 in the 1930s, which created 

extensive unsuitable habitat for the 

Kentucky creekshell and its host fish, 

leading to the isolation and restriction 

of populations to the tributaries. 

However, the dam’s removal in 2022 has 

led to the rapid restoration of suitable 

habitat along the river. 

An influence on the species in this 

unit is a small rock dam barrier between 

the Gasper River and the Drakes/ 

Trammel Creek populations. While this 

barrier may impede gene flow, experts 

believe it may still allow for some 

connectivity, resembling a large riffle 

through which the banded sculpin 

(Kentucky creekshell host fish) could 

likely pass (Compton 2023, pers. 

comm.). To reestablish gene flow 

between the Barren River tributaries and 

the Green River populations, 

reintroductions of captively propagated 

individuals should be undertaken along 

this section. 

Unit 3: Gasper River 

Unit 3 consists of 52.8 river miles 

(85.0 km) of the Gasper River, 

Wiggington Creek, and Clear Fork Creek 

in Warren and Logan Counties, 

Kentucky. This unit includes Wigginton 

Creek from the headwaters near Rogers, 

Kentucky, to the confluence with 

Gasper River; Clear Fork Creek from the 

headwaters near US HWY 68 bridge to 

the confluence with Gasper River; and 

the Gasper River from headwaters near 

Auburn, Kentucky, to the confluence 

with the Barren River. All riparian lands 

that border the unit are in private 

ownership. Unit 3 is considered 

occupied by the species and contains 

the physical or biological features 1 

through 5 (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

includes significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

alteration of instream substrate, stream 

channels, and stream banks; impacts 

from invasive species; changes and 

shifts in seasonal temperature and 

precipitation patterns as a result of 

climate change; and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include best management practices 

designed to reduce sedimentation, 

erosion, and bank destruction; 

protection of riparian corridors and 

woody vegetation; protection of ground 

water and spring-fed streams; reduction 

of other watershed and floodplain 

disturbances that release sediments, 

pollutants, or nutrients into the water; 

prevention of instream gravel mining; 

and controlling invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

The mainstem Gasper River connects 

Wiggington Creek and Clear Fork Creek, 

and other historically occupied 

tributaries, with the mainstem Barren 

River. Including this unit protects 

occupied habitat for improved 

redundancy throughout the range and 

protects connections to other occupied 

habitat in these areas, all of which 

contributes to the conservation of the 

Kentucky creekshell. 

Unit 4: Drakes Creek 

Unit 4 consists of 55.1 river miles 

(88.7 km) of Drakes Creek, West Fork 

Drakes Creek, and Lick Creek in Warren 

and Simpson Counties, Kentucky. This 

unit includes Drakes Creek from the 

confluence of West Fork Drakes Creek 

and Middle Fork Drakes Creek 

downstream to the confluence with the 

Barren River near Bowling Green, 

Kentucky; West Fork Drakes Creek from 

the West Fork Drakes Creek Reservoir in 

Franklin, Kentucky, downstream to the 

confluence with Drakes Creek; and Lick 

Creek from the Scottsville Road bridge 

to the confluence with West Fork Drakes 

Creek. All of the riparian lands that 

border the unit are in private 

ownership. Unit 4 is considered 

occupied by the species and contains 

the physical or biological features 1 

through 4 (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

alteration of instream substrate, stream 

channels, and stream banks; impacts 

from invasive species; changes and 

shifts in seasonal temperature and 

precipitation patterns as a result of 

climate change; and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include best management practices 

designed to reduce sedimentation, 

erosion, and bank destruction; 

protection of riparian corridors and 

woody vegetation; protection of ground 

water and spring-fed streams; reduction 

of other watershed and floodplain 

disturbances that release sediments, 

pollutants, or nutrients into the water; 

prevention of instream gravel mining; 

and controlling invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

Unit 5: Trammel Creek 

Unit 5 consists of 15.9 river miles 

(25.6 km) of Trammel Creek in Warren 

and Allen Counties, Kentucky, from the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

confluence with John’s Creek near 

Butlersville, Kentucky, downstream to 

its confluence with Drakes Creek. Unit 

5 is considered occupied by the species 

and contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 5 (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features). 

Threats identified within this unit 

include significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

alteration of instream substrate, stream 

channels, and stream banks; impacts 

from invasive species; changes and 

shifts in seasonal temperature and 

precipitation patterns as a result of 

climate change; and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include best management practices 

designed to reduce sedimentation, 

erosion, and bank destruction; 

protection of riparian corridors and 

woody vegetation; protection of ground 

water and spring-fed streams; reduction 

of other watershed and floodplain 

disturbances that release sediments, 

pollutants, or nutrients into the water; 

prevention of instream gravel mining; 

and controlling invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

This stream is a major tributary of 

Drakes Creek, which allows for genetic 

exchange and redundancy in the Drakes 

Creek system and Barren River system. 

Unit 6: Salt Lick Creek 

Unit 6 consists of 19.1 river miles 

(30.7 km) of Salt Lick Creek in Monroe 

County, Kentucky, and Macon County, 

Tennessee, from the headwaters south 

of Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee, to 

the confluence with Long Fork, 

Kentucky. All of the riparian lands that 

border the unit are in private 

ownership. Unit 6 is considered 

occupied by the species and contains 

the physical or biological features 1 

through 5 (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of instream substrate, 

stream channels, and stream banks; land 

use activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include best 

management practices designed to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; and prevention 

of instream gravel mining (see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

This unit is one of the most isolated 

units within the Kentucky creekshell 

range as it is the only known population 

upstream of Barren River Lake. This 

population is also the most recently 

discovered population, found in 2019 

during a survey of the upper Barren 

River basin in Tennessee. This unit 

provides improved redundancy and 

potential representation across the 

species’ range and could be used as a 

source population for future 

propagation efforts upstream of Barren 

River Lake,, both of which will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit 7: Russell Creek 

Unit 7 consists of 53.7 river miles 

(86.4 km) of Russell Creek in Green and 

Adair Counties, Kentucky, from the 

confluence with Cabin Fork Creek 

approximately 5 miles southeast of 

Columbia downstream to the confluence 

with the Green River south of 

Greensburg, Kentucky. All the riparian 

lands that border the unit are in private 

ownership. Unit 7 is considered 

occupied by the species and contains 

the physical or biological features 1 

through 5 (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

alteration of instream substrate, stream 

channels, and stream banks; 

urbanization of the landscape; land use 

activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include best 

management practices designed to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams; changes and shifts in 

seasonal temperature and precipitation 

patterns as a result of climate change; 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water; and prevention of instream 

gravel mining (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection). 

Experts believe the species can be 

found all the way to the confluence of 

the Green River, given the flow regimes 

and suitable substrates throughout the 

reach, although in likely very small 

numbers (Compton 2023, pers. comm.). 

This unit provides improved 

redundancy across the species’ range as 

it is the only known population 

upstream of the mainstream Green River 

population. Additionally, this unit 

offers the shortest distance to connect 

with the mainstem Green River 

population to reestablish gene flow 

between these units and contributes to 

the conservation of the species. 

Unit 8: Middle Nolin River 

Unit 8 consists of a total of 64.4 river 

miles (103.6 km) with two subunits: one 

occupied and one unoccupied by the 

Kentucky creekshell. Subunit 8a (Nolin 

River) is occupied, while Subunit 8b 

(Round Stone Creek) is unoccupied. 

Subunit 8a(Nolin River): Subunit 8a 

consists of 54.5 river miles (87.7 

kilometers) of the Nolin River in Larue, 

Hardin, Grayson, and Hart Counties, 

Kentucky. Subunit 8a extends from the 

confluence of the north and south fork 

of the Nolin River west of Hodgenville, 

Kentucky, downstream to the 

confluence of Round Stone Creek south 

of Millerstown, Kentucky. 

Approximately 99 percent of the lands 

adjacent to subunit 8a are privately 

owned, and the remaining are Federal 

lands managed by the USACE for Nolin 

River Recreation Area and State lands of 

Kentucky State Department of Natural 

Resources. Subunit 8a is considered 

occupied by the species and contains 

the physical or biological features 1 

through 4 (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; alteration of instream substrate, 

stream channels, and stream banks; land 

use activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

urbanization of the landscape; dam, 

culvert and pipe, or other instream 

installations that create barriers to 

movement for the Kentucky creekshell 

or its host fish; impacts from invasive 

species; changes and shifts in seasonal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76215 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include the use 

of best management practices designed 

to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and 

bank destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water; removal of instream barriers; 

prevention of instream gravel mining; 

and controlling invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

Subunit 8b (Round Stone Creek): 

Subunit 8b consists of 9.9 river miles 

(15.9 km) of Round Stone Creek in Hart 

County, Kentucky. Subunit 8b extends 

from the origins of the stream at Blue 

Hole Spring to the confluence with the 

mainstem Nolin River. Approximately 

99 percent of riparian lands adjacent to 

subunit 8b are in private ownership. 

The rest (less than 0.5 percent) are 

managed by the USACE in the Nolin 

River Recreation Area. Subunit 8b is 

considered unoccupied by the species 

and contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 4 (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features) essential to the conservation 

of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; alteration of instream substrate, 

stream channels, and stream banks; land 

use activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

urbanization of the landscape; dam, 

culvert and pipe, or other instream 

installations that create barriers to 

movement for the Kentucky creekshell 

or their host fish; impacts from invasive 

species; changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include the use 

of best management practices designed 

to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and 

bank destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water; removal of instream barriers; 

prevention of instream gravel mining; 

and controlling invasive species (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

Round Stone Creek, a tributary in the 

lower section of the Nolin River may 

provide a location for reintroduction 

that would augment the overall Nolin 

River population. Relic shells have been 

found in the mouth of Round Stone 

Creek, and the stream’s source is two 

springs, the species’ associated habitats. 

Protection of spring-fed habitat in this 

tributary off the main stem channel 

could reduce the effects of potential 

catastrophic events. Experts believe this 

stream segment may still hold Kentucky 

creekshell (Compton 2023, pers. 

comm.), which would contribute genetic 

variation (representation) to the species, 

as well as improved redundancy in a 

degraded system. In addition, this 

stream is the most logical place for 

augmentation/reintroductions to begin 

for lower sections of the Nolin River, all 

of which would contribute to the 

conservation of the species. For these 

reasons, this unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 9: Upper Nolin River 

Unit 9 consists of 23.9 river miles 

(38.5 km) of the Nolin River, South Fork 

Nolin River, and Walters Creek in Larue 

County, Kentucky. Approximately 21.3 

stream miles (34.3 km; 89 percent) of 

riparian lands that border the unit are in 

private ownership, and 2.6 stream miles 

(4.2 km; 11 percent) are managed by the 

State Department of Natural Resources 

for the Kentucky Department of 

Agriculture. This unit includes the 

South Fork Nolin River from Buffalo, 

Kentucky, downstream to its confluence 

with the North Fork Nolin River and 

Walters Creek from its headwaters near 

J.E. Jones Road to its confluence with 

the South Fork Nolin Creek. Unit 9 is 

considered occupied by the species and 

contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 5 (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features) essential to the conservation 

of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include significant alteration of the 

natural flow regime; alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution; 

alteration of instream substrate, stream 

channels, and stream banks; land use 

activities that remove large areas of 

forested wetlands and riparian systems; 

dam, culvert and pipe, or other instream 

installations that create barriers; 

changes and shifts in seasonal 

temperature and precipitation patterns 

as a result of climate change; and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include use of 

best management practices designed to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water; and the removal of instream 

barriers (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection). 

This unit is the only area in the upper 

Nolin River section known to have 

Kentucky creekshell populations. Given 

the consistent numbers of individuals 

found in this area, this section has been 

the source population for Nolin River 

stock and augmentation from 

propagated individuals and has been 

stocked at multiple locations to increase 

species abundance. This area is vitally 

important for the conservation of the 

species and future recovery of the Nolin 

River populations. 

Unit 10: Rough River 

Unit 10 consists of 49.1 stream miles 

(79.1 km) with two subunits; one 

occupied and one unoccupied. Subunit 

10a (Rough River and Meeting Creek) is 

occupied, while Subunit 10b (Clifty 

Creek) is unoccupied. 

Subunit 10a (Rough River and 

Meeting Creek): Subunit 10a consists of 

37.5 river miles (60.4 km) of the Rough 

River in Breckinridge, Hardin, and 

Grayson Counties, Kentucky. This 

subunit includes the Rough River from 

the Hardinsburg Road bridge 

downstream to its confluence with 

Meeting Creek and Meeting Creek from 

its confluence with Petty Creek 

downstream to its confluence with 

Rough River. Approximately 96 percent 

of the lands adjacent to subunit 10a are 

privately owned; the remaining 4 

percent are managed by the USACE for 

Rough River Lake. Subunit 10a is 

considered occupied by the species and 

contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 4 (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features) essential to the conservation 

of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; significant alteration of water 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

quality and nutrient pollution from a 

variety of activities; alteration of 

instream substrate, stream channels, and 

stream banks from a variety of activities; 

land use activities that remove large 

areas of forested wetlands and riparian 

systems; dam, culvert and pipe, or other 

instream installations that create 

barriers to movement for the Kentucky 

creekshell, or their host fish; changes 

and shifts in seasonal temperature and 

precipitation patterns as a result of 

climate change; and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water; and removal of 

instream barriers. (see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection). 

This unit has the highest number of 

individuals found (57) since 2003 

including multiple age classes observed 

during the collections. It could be 

characterized as the most resilient unit 

among all 10 analytical units. Including 

this unit protects occupied habitat for 

improved redundancy throughout the 

species’ range. 

Subunit 10b (Clifty Creek): Subunit 

10b consists of 11.6 river miles (18.7 

km) of Clifty Creek in Grayson County, 

Kentucky, from Elizabethtown Road 

bridge downstream to Rough River Lake. 

Approximately 97 percent of the lands 

adjacent to subunit 10b are owned by 

private entities, while the remainder is 

managed by the USACE for Rough River 

Lake backwaters. Subunit 10b is 

considered unoccupied by the species 

and contains the physical or biological 

features 1 through 4 (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features) essential to the conservation 

of the species. 

Threats identified within this unit 

include alteration of the natural flow 

regime; significant alteration of water 

quality and nutrient pollution from a 

variety of activities; alteration of 

instream substrate, stream channels, and 

stream banks from a variety of activities; 

land use activities that remove large 

areas of forested wetlands and riparian 

systems; dam, culvert and pipe, or other 

instream installations that create 

barriers to movement for the Kentucky 

creekshell or their host fish; impacts 

from invasive species; changes and 

shifts in seasonal temperature and 

precipitation patterns as a result of 

climate change; and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and woody vegetation; 

protection of ground water and springfed streams and moderation of surface 

and ground water withdrawals to 

maintain natural flow regimes; 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water; the removal of instream 

barriers; prevention of instream gravel 

mining; and controlling invasive 

species. (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection). 

Clifty Creek is a nearby tributary of 

the mainstem Rough River with suitable 

substrates and is heavily influenced by 

springs. Experts believe the species 

could be present in Clifty Creek and was 

likely there historically (Compton 2023, 

pers. comm.). Clifty Creek is the most 

promising location for reintroduction/ 

augmentation in unit 9, which would 

add redundancy to the most resilient 

unit. It is essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Destruction or adverse modification 

means a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 

402.02). 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during formal consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species or avoid the likelihood 

of destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of 

consultation is required and shall be 

requested by the Federal agency, where 

discretionary Federal involvement or 

control over the action has been 

retained or is authorized by law and: (1) 

If the amount or extent of taking 

specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (4) if a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the 

requirement to reinitiate consultations 

for new species listings or critical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76217 

habitat designation does not apply to 

certain agency actions (e.g., land 

management plans issued by the Bureau 

of Land Management in certain 

circumstances). 

Destruction or Adverse Modification of 

Critical Habitat 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat for the conservation of 

the listed species. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of a listed species 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that 

our Federal Register documents ‘‘shall, 

to the maximum extent practicable also 

include a brief description and 

evaluation of those activities (whether 

public or private) which, in the opinion 

of the Secretary, if undertaken may 

adversely modify [critical] habitat, or 

may be affected by such designation.’’ 

Activities that may be affected by 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Kentucky creekshell include those that 

may affect the physical or biological 

features of the Kentucky creekshell’s 

critical habitat (see Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species). 

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 (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 (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. No DoD 

lands with a completed INRMP are 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or any other relevant impacts. 

Exclusion decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 

both of which were developed jointly 

with NMFS. We also refer to a 2008 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

opinion entitled ‘‘The Secretary’s 

Authority to Exclude Areas from a 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. In our final rules, we explain any 

decision to exclude areas, as well as 

decisions not to exclude, to make clear 

the rational basis for our decision. We 

describe below the process that we use 

for taking into consideration each 

category of impacts and any initial 

analyses of the relevant impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 

supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 and directs 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. Section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866 identifies four criteria when a 

regulation is considered a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ and requires 

additional analysis, review, and 

approval if met. The criterion relevant 

here is whether the designation of 

critical habitat may have an economic 

effect of $200 million or more in any 

given year (section 3(f)(1) as amended 

by E.O. 14094). Therefore, our 

consideration of economic impacts uses 

a screening analysis to assess whether a 

designation of critical habitat for 

Kentucky creekshell is likely to exceed 

the economically significant threshold. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Kentucky creekshell (IEc 2024, entire). 

We began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat in order to focus our 

analysis on the key factors that are 

likely to result in incremental economic 

impacts. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out particular 

geographical areas of critical habitat that 

are already subject to such protections 

and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 

incremental economic impacts. In 

particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, 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. 

The presence of the listed species in 

occupied areas of critical habitat means 

that any destruction or adverse 

modification of those areas is also likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Therefore, designating 

occupied areas as critical habitat 

typically causes little if any incremental 

impacts above and beyond the impacts 

of listing the species. As a result, we 

generally focus the screening analysis 

on areas of unoccupied critical habitat 

(unoccupied units or unoccupied areas 

within occupied units). Overall, the 

screening analysis assesses whether 

designation of critical habitat is likely to 

result in any additional management or 

conservation efforts that may incur 

incremental economic impacts. This 

screening analysis combined with the 

information contained in our IEM 

constitute what we consider to be our 

economic analysis of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

Kentucky creekshell and is summarized 

in the narrative below. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Kentucky creekshell, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated March 26, 

2024, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) Development 

along the Interstate 65 corridor; (2) 

installation of expanded broadband 

internet; (3) solar energy development; 

(4) pipeline maintenance projects; (5) 

bridge and road replacements and 

rehabilitations; and (6) water control 

activities. 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 affects 

only activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. If we list the species, in areas 

where the Kentucky creekshell is 

present, Federal agencies would be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act on activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out that 

may affect the species. If when we list 

the species, we also finalize this 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consider the effects of their actions on 

the designated habitat, and if the 

Federal action may affect critical 

habitat, our consultations would 

include an evaluation of measures to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

Kentucky creekshell’s critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for Kentucky creekshell is being 

proposed concurrently with the listing, 

it has been our experience that it is 

more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 

essential physical or biological features 

identified for critical habitat are the 

same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would likely adversely 

affect the essential physical or biological 

features of occupied critical habitat are 

also likely to adversely affect the species 

itself. The IEM outlines our rationale 

concerning this limited distinction 

between baseline conservation efforts 

and incremental impacts of the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

species. This evaluation of the 

incremental effects has been used as the 

basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Kentucky creekshell 

totals approximately 544.6 river miles, 

of which 159.1 miles are considered to 

be unoccupied by the species. Critical 

habitat designation for the Kentucky 

creekshell is unlikely to generate costs 

exceeding $200 million in a single year. 

Therefore, the rule is unlikely to meet 

the threshold for an economically 

significant rule, with regard to costs, 

under E.O. 12866. In fact, the total 

annual incremental cost of critical 

habitat designation for the Kentucky 

creekshell is anticipated to be a 

maximum of $51,300 per year (2024 

dollars). The total incremental costs of 

critical habitat designation for the 

Kentucky creekshell are anticipated to 

be between approximately $438,200 to 

$513,100 over the next 10 years, or 

approximately $43,800 to $51,300 

annually. 

We have determined that, in occupied 

Kentucky creekshell critical habitat, 

costs are likely to be limited to 

administrative costs. This is primarily 

because, regardless of whether critical 

habitat is designated, all projects with a 

Federal nexus would be subject to 

section 7 requirements, and 

conservation efforts requested to avoid 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the species would be substantially 

similar to those that would be 

recommended to avoid adverse 

modification. In addition, in both 

occupied and unoccupied habitat for 

Kentucky creekshell, conservation 

efforts for other listed species with 

ranges and/or proposed critical habitat 

areas that overlap the Kentucky 

creekshell proposed designation are 

likely to provide protections to the 

Kentucky creekshell, even absent 

critical habitat designation for the 

Kentucky creekshell. Of the more than 

540 miles of proposed designated 

critical habitat, 13 federally listed 

mussel species’ ranges overlap with 

Kentucky creekshell: between 33 miles 

and 208 miles for each species. 

Additionally, three critical habitat units 

for federally listed mussel species 

overlap with the Kentucky creekshell’s 

critical habitat: between 73 miles and 

156 miles for each species. Total overlap 

across all species is 208 miles (38%) 

and the majority of these overlaps occur 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76219 

in the mainstem Green River and 

mainstem Barren River. These species 

have similar habitat requirements to the 

Kentucky creekshell. 

The incremental costs associated with 

section 7 consultations for the Kentucky 

creekshell in unoccupied habitat are 

likely to include administrative costs 

resulting from consultations as well as 

costs associated with potential 

additional conservation efforts. This is 

primarily because activities with a 

Federal nexus in unoccupied areas 

would not be subject to section 7 

consultation requirements for the 

Kentucky creekshell absent the 

designation of critical habitat because 

the species is not present. Depending on 

the action and the level of its impact on 

the habitat, the action agency or project 

proponent may need to undertake 

conservation activities, which may have 

an associated cost. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the economic 

analysis discussed above. During the 

development of a final designation, we 

will consider the information presented 

in the economic analysis and any 

additional information on economic 

impacts we receive during the public 

comment period to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2), our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area, provided 

the exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ However, we must 

still consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on those lands or areas not covered by 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 

4(b)(2) requires us to consider those 

impacts whenever it designates critical 

habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides information, 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Kentucky creekshell are not owned 

or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security or homeland security. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. To identify other relevant 

impacts that may affect the exclusion 

analysis, we consider a number of 

factors, including whether there are 

permitted conservation plans covering 

the species in the area—such as safe 

harbor agreements (SHAs), candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs) or ‘‘conservation 

benefit agreement’’ or ‘‘conservation 

agreement’’ (CBAs) (CBAs are a new 

type of agreement replacing SHAs and 

CCAAs in use after April 2024 (89 FR 

26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs, or 

whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that may 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, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that no HCPs or other 

management plans for the Kentucky 

creekshell currently exist, and the 

proposed designation does not include 

any Tribal lands or trust resources or 

any lands for which designation would 

have any economic or national security 

impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or 

HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 

designation, and thus, as described 

above, we are not considering excluding 

any particular areas on the basis of the 

presence of conservation agreements or 

impacts to trust resources. 

However, if through the public 

comment period we receive information 

that we determine indicates that there 

are potential economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, then as part of developing the 

final designation of critical habitat, we 

will evaluate that information and may 

conduct a discretionary exclusion 

analysis to determine whether to 

exclude those areas under authority of 

section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we 

receive a request for exclusion of a 

particular area and after evaluation of 

supporting information we do not 

exclude, we will fully describe our 

decision in the final rule for this action. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

14094) 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, and E.O. 13563, and the 

Presidential Memorandum of January 

20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). Regulatory analysis, as 

practicable and appropriate, shall 

recognize distributive impacts and 

equity, to the extent permitted by law. 

E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed 

by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 

that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget will review 

all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 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 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies would be directly regulated if 

we adopt the proposed critical habitat 

designation. The RFA does not require 

evaluation of the potential impacts to 

entities not directly regulated. 

Moreover, Federal agencies are not 

small entities. Therefore, because no 

small entities would be directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that, if made final as 

proposed, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ when 

undertaking actions identified as 

significant energy actions (66 FR 28355; 

May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as an action 

that (i) is a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 or any successor 

order; and (ii) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This rule 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 

21879; April 11, 2023). Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and there is no requirement to prepare 

a statement of energy effects for this 

action. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76221 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or more (adjusted annually for 

inflation) in any year; that is, it is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Small governments will be affected only 

to the extent that any Federal programs 

issuing Federal funds or permits, or 

conducting 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 

Kentucky creekshell in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Services to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures, or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Kentucky creekshell, and it 

concludes that, if adopted, this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of critical habitat are 

presented on maps, and the proposed 

rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations. In a line of cases 

starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 

48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts 

have upheld this position. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the boundaries of the 

proposed critical habitat for the 

Kentucky creekshell, so no Tribal lands 

would be affected by the proposed 

designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, amend paragraph (h) in 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by adding an entry for 

‘‘Creekshell, Kentucky’’ in alphabetical 

order under CLAMS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

CLAMS

* * * * * * * 

Creekshell, Kentucky ......... Leaunio ortmanni .............. Wherever found ................. E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]; 50 CFR 

17.95(f).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Kentucky 

Creekshell (Leaunio ortmanni)’’ after the 

entry for ‘‘Canoe Creek Clubshell 

(Pleurobema athearni)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

* * * * * 

Kentucky Creekshell (Leaunio ortmanni) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Adair, Allen, Barren, Breckinridge, 

Butler, Edmonson, Grayson, Green, 

Hardin, Hart, Larue, Logan, Monroe, 

Simpson, and Warren Counties, 

Kentucky, and Macon County, 

Tennessee, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Kentucky creekshell 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Water quantity and quality 

necessary to sustain natural 

physiological processes for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages, including (but not limited to) 

water conditions in the stream that are 

cool; are well-oxygenated with no 

evidence of excessive sediments or 

suspended solids, salinity, ammonia, 

nutrients, pesticides, or herbicides; and 

have a stream flow and pattern 

consistent with natural flow regimes. 

Spring-influenced river sections are 

important: Most Kentucky creekshell 

populations are associated with this 

habitat type, and it is also the preferred 

habitat type for the host fish, the banded 

sculpin (Cottus carolinae). 

(ii) Suitable substrates and connected 

instream habitats characterized by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76223 

geomorphically stable stream channels 

and banks (i.e., channels that maintain 

lateral dimensions, longitudinal 

profiles, and sinuosity patterns over 

time without an aggrading or degrading 

bed elevation); stable riffle-run-pool 

habitats that provide flow refuges 

consisting of predominantly silt-free, 

stable coarse sand, gravel, and cobble 

substrates. 

(iii) Adequate food availability for 

Kentucky creekshell including (but not 

limited to): suspended phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, rotifers, protozoans, 

detritus, and dissolved organic matter 

from the water column or sediments. 

(iv) Habitat conditions that support 

the presence and abundance of banded 

sculpin, the host fish necessary for 

Kentucky creekshell recruitment, as 

well as the actual presence and 

abundance of the banded sculpin in the 

habitat. 

(v) Connected instream habitats 

without barriers such as dams and 

perched or undersized culverts to 

provide suitable lotic rather than lentic 

habitat; access to quality habitat for 

multiple life stages of Kentucky 

creekshell; access for host fish 

movement, which in turn, may 

influence Kentucky creekshell 

distribution and provide genetic 

exchange for both species and 

recolonization of Kentucky creekshell. 

(vi) Appropriate abundance, density, 

and distribution of mussel beds 

(aggregations of freshwater mussels) 

such that local stochastic events do not 

necessarily eliminate the bed(s), 

allowing the mussel beds and the 

overall local population within a stream 

reach to recover from any single event 

and for resilient populations. 

(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 the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using ArcGIS Profession 

version 3.2.2 (Environmental Systems 

Research Institute, Inc.), a geographic 

information systems program on a base 

of USA Topo Maps. Critical habitat 

units were then mapped by delineating 

stream segments and polygons from the 

National Hydrography Database highresolution flow lines and areas with 

USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area 

Conic USGS projection and NAD83 

datum. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. 

(5) Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

Figure 1 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (5) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.001</GPH>

Kentucky Creekshell 

Critical Habitat 

Overview 

iO iti l<lfoirietei-. I • 

0 10 20Miies 

/\J Critical Habitat 

'\/ Unoccupied 

Critical Habitat 
76224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 1: Green River; Green, Hart, 

Edmonson, Butler, and Warren 

Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 130.7 stream 

miles (210.4 km) in Green, Hart, 

Edmonson, Butler, and Warren 

Counties, Kentucky. The unit includes 

both occupied and unoccupied 

subunits. 

(A) Subunit 1a (Green River) is 

approximately 73.0 stream miles 

(117.5km) and considered occupied 

habitat. Nearly all (approximately 99 

percent) of the lands adjacent to subunit 

1a are privately owned. The remaining 

lands adjacent to this subunit (one 

percent) are federally or State owned. 

(B) Subunit 1b (Green River) is 

approximately 57.7 stream miles (92.9 

km) and considered unoccupied habitat. 

Approximately 87 percent of the lands 

adjacent to subunit 1b are privately 

owned. The remaining 13 percent is 

federally owned. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 

Figure 2 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (6)(ii) 

(7) Unit 2: Barren River; Butler, 

Warren, Allen, and Barren Counties, 

Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of 79.9 stream miles 

(128.6 km) of Barren River in Butler, 

Warren, Allen, and Barren Counties, 

Kentucky. Approximately 79.4 stream 

miles (127.8 km; 99 percent) of riparian 

lands that border the unit is private 

ownership, and 0.46 stream miles (0.74 

km; less than 1 percent) are federally 

owned and managed. Unit 2 is 

unoccupied by the species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 

Figure 3 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (7)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.002</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 1: Green River 

Subunit la (Green River) 

Subunit lb (Green River) 

0 5 10 15Kilometers r'\./ 

0 5 10 15 Miles 

Critical Habltat 

Unoccupied 

Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76225 

(8) Unit 3: Gasper River; Warren and 

Logan Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 3 consists of 52.8 stream miles 

(85.0 km) of the Gasper River, 

Wiggington Creek, and Clear Fork Creek 

in Warren and Logan Counties, 

Kentucky. All the riparian lands that 

border the unit are in private 

ownership. Unit 3 is occupied by the 

species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows: 

Figure 4 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (8)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.003</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 2: Barren River 

0 5 10 15 l<ilome'ieis Unoccupied 

critical H~bitat 
76226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Unit 4: Drakes Creek; Warren and 

Simpson Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of 55.1 stream miles 

(88.7 km) of Drakes Creek, West Fork 

Drakes Creek, and Lick Creek in Warren 

and Simpson Counties, Kentucky. All of 

the riparian lands that border the unit 

are in private ownership. Unit 4 is 

occupied by the species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 

Figure 5 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (9)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.004</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 3: Gasper River 

fv1organto 

/ 

Q 5 

Q 

\_ 

·er --\ 

\ 

1 Q Kilometers 

5 10 M~es 

/\J Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76227 

(10) Unit 5: Trammel Creek; Warren 

and Allen Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of 15.9 stream miles 

(25.6 km) of Trammel Creek in Warren 

and Allen Counties, Kentucky. All of 

the riparian lands that border the unit 

are in private ownership. Unit 5 is 

occupied by the species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: 

Figure 6 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (10)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.005</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky CreeksheU 

Unit4: Drakes Creek 

0 5 10 Kilometers 

0 .5 10 MIies 

/\J Critical Habitat 
76228 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit 6: Salt Lick Creek; Monroe 

County, Kentucky, and Macon County, 

Tennessee. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of 19.1 stream miles 

(30.7 km) of Salt Lick Creek in Monroe 

County, Kentucky, and Macon County, 

Tennessee. All of the riparian lands that 

border the unit are private ownership. 

Unit 6 is occupied by the species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: 

Figure 7 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (11)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.006</GPH>

Critical Habitatfor Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 5:Trammel Creek 

0 5 10 Kilom~ters 

0 5 10 Miles 

/"\,,/ Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76229 

(12) Unit 7: Russell Creek; Green and 

Adair Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 7 consists of 53.7 stream miles 

(86.4 km) of Russell Creek in Green and 

Adair Counties, Kentucky. All of the 

riparian lands that border the unit are in 

private ownership. Unit 7 is occupied 

by the species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: 

Figure 8 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (12)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.007</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky CreeksheU 

Unit 6: Salt Lick Creek 

O 5 Kilometers 

0 

r'\,/ Critical Habitat 
76230 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(13) Unit 8: Middle Nolin River; 

Larue, Hardin, Hart, and Grayson 

Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 8 consists of 64.4 stream miles 

(103.6 km) in Larue, Hardin, Hart, and 

Grayson Counties, Kentucky. The unit 

includes both occupied and unoccupied 

subunits. 

(A) Subunit 8a (Nolin River) is 

approximately 54.5 stream miles (87.7 

km) and considered occupied habitat. 

Nearly all (approximately 99 percent) of 

the lands adjacent to subunit 8a are 

privately owned. The remaining lands 

adjacent to this subunit (one percent) 

are federally owned and managed. 

(B) Subunit 8b (Round Stone Creek) is 

approximately 9.8 stream miles (15.9 

km) and considered unoccupied habitat. 

Approximately 99 percent of the lands 

adjacent to subunit 8b are owned by 

private entities. The other 1 percent is 

federally owned and managed. 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: 

Figure 9 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (13)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.008</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 7: Russell Creek 

5 Kilometers 

5Mil<,& 

rv Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76231 

(14) Unit 9: Upper Nolin River; Larue 

County, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 9 consists of 23.9 stream miles 

(38.5 km) of the South Fork Nolin River 

and Walters Creek in Larue County, 

Kentucky. Approximately 21.3 stream 

miles (34.3 km; 89 percent) of riparian 

lands that border the unit are in private 

ownership, and 2.6 stream miles (4.2 

km; 11 percent) are State owned and 

managed. Unit 9 is occupied by the 

species. 

(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows: 

Figure 10 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (14)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.009</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 8: Middle NOiin River 

Subunit 8a {Nolin River) 

Subunit8b (Round Stone Creek) 

0 1 O Kil.ometers 

0 5 10 Miles 

rv 

'V 

Critical Habitat 

Unoccupied 

Critical Habitat 
76232 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(15) Unit 10: Rough River; 

Breckinridge, Hardin, and Grayson 

Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Unit 10 consists of 49.1 stream 

miles (79.0 km) in Breckinridge, Hardin, 

and Grayson Counties, Kentucky. The 

unit includes both occupied and 

unoccupied subunits. 

(A) Subunit 10a (Rough River and 

Meeting Creek) is approximately 37.5 

stream miles (60.4 km) and considered 

occupied habitat. Approximately 96 

percent of the lands adjacent to subunit 

10a are privately owned. The remaining 

lands adjacent to this subunit (four 

percent) are federally owned and 

managed. 

(B) Subunit 10b (Clifty Creek) is 

approximately 11.6 stream miles (18.7 

km) and considered unoccupied habitat. 

Approximately 97 percent of the lands 

adjacent to subunit 10b are owned by 

private entities. The other 3 percent is 

federally owned and managed. 

(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows: 

Figure 11 to Kentucky creekshell 

(Leaunio ortmanni) paragraph (15)(ii) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.010</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 9: Upper Nolin River 

0 5 Kilometers 

O 5 Miles 

rv Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76233 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20157 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17SE24.011</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Kentucky Creekshell 

Unit 10: Rough River 

subunit 10a (RdlJ~h River & Meeting Creek) 

Subunit 10b·(CJifty•Creek) 

0 

I 

0 

5 Kilometers 

I 

5MHes 

·rv·• Ctitical Habitat 

~.. •• Unoccupied "" ....,... Critical Habitat