330 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

process. Applicants who claim a 

competitive bidding exemption must 

submit relevant documentation to allow 

the Administrator to verify that the 

applicant is eligible for the claimed 

exemption. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 54.645 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 54.645 Payment Process. 

* * * * * 

(b) Before the Administrator may 

process and pay an invoice, both the 

Consortium Leader (or health care 

provider, if participating individually) 

and the vendor must certify that they 

have reviewed the document and that it 

is accurate. The service provider must 

certify on the invoice that it has 

reviewed all applicable requirements for 

the program, including the competitive 

bidding requirements described in 

§ 54.642, and has complied with those 

requirements. All invoices must be 

received by the Administrator within 

six months (180 days) of the end date of 

the time period covered by the funding 

commitment. 

[FR Doc. 2017–27746 Filed 1–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC14 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for the Panama City Crayfish 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus 

econfinae), a semi-terrestrial crayfish 

species native to Bay County, Florida, as 

a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (Act). After 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing this species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

Panama City crayfish as a threatened 

species under the Act. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would extend the 

Act’s protections to this species and add 

this species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 5, 2018. 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 public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: The 

report upon which this proposed rule is 

based (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) 

is available at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061 and on the 

Service’s Southeast Region website at 

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0061; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Phillips, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama 

City Ecological Services Field Office, 

1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 

32405; telephone 850–769–0552; 

facsimile 850–763–2177. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. Critical 

habitat shall be designated, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, for any species 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

This rule proposes adding the Panama 

City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) 

as a threatened species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)). 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) Disease or 

predation; (D) The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that habitat loss and 

fragmentation from development (Factor 

A) is the primary threat to the Panama 

City crayfish. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Panama City crayfish. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

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. Maps depicting the 

historical range and current populations 

are included in the SSA for reference. 

Peer review. We solicited independent 

peer review of the SSA Report by six 

individuals with expertise in crayfish; 

aquatic invertebrates, population, or 

landscape ecology; genetics and 

conservation genetics; and/or speciation 

and conservation biology. We received 

comments from one of the six peer 

reviewers. The SSA report and other 

materials relating to this proposal can be 

found on the Service’s Southeast Region 

website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 331 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

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 concerned 

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 Panama City crayfish’s 

biology, range, and population trends, 

including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) Specific prohibitions and 

exceptions to those prohibitions that 

may be necessary and advisable for the 

Panama City crayfish’s conservation. We 

intend to publish, as appropriate, a 

more tailored proposed rule with 

provisions set forth under section 4(d) 

of the Act for public review and 

comment in the future. Activities we are 

considering for potential exemption 

under a section 4(d) rule include, but 

are not necessarily limited to, 

exceptions for: 

(a) Specific soil and vegetation 

restoration activities that will benefit 

the Panama City crayfish; 

(b) Water quality improvement; 

(c) Genetic and population 

monitoring; 

(e) Activities that maintain native 

vegetation near occupied or likely to be 

occupied Panama City crayfish habitat; 

(f) Sustainable silviculture practices 

that primarily occur adjacent to Panama 

City crayfish habitat and that are 

implemented according to certified best 

management practices; or 

(g) Any additional activities that 

should fall under the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

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

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial 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 http:// 

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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Panama City Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

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

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received by the date listed above in 

DATES. Such requests must be sent to the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

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

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of six 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

SSA report, which informed this 

proposed rule. We received a response 

from one of the six peer reviewers. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing determination is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. The peer reviewers have 

expertise in crayfish biology, habitat, 

and stressors to the species. We invite 

any additional comment from the peer 

reviewers during this public comment 

period; these comments will be 

available along with other public 

comments in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

Previous Federal Action 

In 2010, the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) petitioned the Service 

to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 

species from the Southeastern United 

States under the Act. The Panama City 

crayfish was among these 404 species. 

On September 27, 2011, the Service 

published a substantial 90-day finding 

for 374 of the 404 species, including the 

Panama City crayfish, soliciting 

information about, and initiating status 

reviews for, those species (76 FR 59836). 

In 2015, CBD filed a complaint against 

the Service for failure to complete a 12- 

month finding for the Panama City 

crayfish within the statutory timeframe. 

The Service entered into a settlement 

agreement with CBD to address the 

complaint; the court-approved 

settlement agreement specified that a 

12-month finding for the Panama City 

crayfish would be delivered to the 

Federal Register by September 30, 2017. 

On September 21, 2017, the Court 

approved an extension, allowing the 

Service to submit this 12-month finding 

to the Federal Register no later than 

December 29, 2017. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the Panama 

City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) is 

presented in the SSA report, version 1.0 

(Service 2017). The SSA report 

documents the results of our 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the Panama City crayfish, including 

an assessment of the potential stressors 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
332 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

to the species. The SSA report does not 

represent a regulatory decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be proposed for listing as an endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. It 

does provide the scientific basis that 

informs that decision, which involves 

the further application of standards 

within the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The full SSA 

report can be found on the Service’s 

Southeast Region website at https://

www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061. 

Species Description 

The Panama City crayfish is a small, 

semi-terrestrial crayfish that grows to 

about 2 inches (in) (50.8 millimeters 

(mm)) in length (minus claws), and is 

found in south-central Bay County, 

Florida. The species’ color pattern 

consists of a medium dark-brown 

background color, lighter brown middorsal stripe, and darker brown 

dorsolateral stripes (FWC 2016, p.1). 

The Panama City crayfish was first 

described by Hobbs in 1942 from Bay 

County, Panama City, Florida. 

Currently, the Panama City crayfish is 

classified in the family Cambaridae and 

is considered a valid taxon by the 

scientific community (Taylor et al. 1996, 

2007; Integrated Taxonomic Information 

System 2017). The life history of the 

Panama City crayfish specifically is not 

well known. Cambarid crayfish may live 

about 2.5 to 3 years (Hobbs 2001, 

p. 977), with a generation period of 2 

years. For this family of crayfish, the 

majority breed more than once, with 

mating among mature yearlings 

frequent; however, many individuals do 

not become sexually active until late 

summer or fall. Females may produce 

between 30 and 160 eggs, and have been 

found with eggs and/or young from 

March through September. Juveniles are 

most frequently found in the summer 

and have been observed through 

December, so young appear to be 

produced from at least March through 

December. Juveniles can be carried 

overland by sheet flow during rainy 

periods, which aids in dispersal 

(Keppner and Keppner 2002, p. 11). 

Eight crayfish species are known to 

occur within the range of the Panama 

City crayfish, although only the hatchet 

crayfish, Procambarus kilbyi, and the 

jackknife crayfish, Procambarus 

hubbelli, are found in the same habitat 

as the Panama City crayfish and may cooccur with it (FWC 2017). The Panama 

City crayfish is not known to hybridize 

with other species of crayfish. 

Historically, the species inhabited 

natural and often temporary bodies of 

shallow fresh water within open pine 

flatwoods and wet prairie-marsh 

communities. However, most of these 

communities have been cleared for 

residential or commercial development 

or replaced with slash pine plantations. 

The Panama City crayfish currently is 

known to inhabit the waters of grassy, 

gently sloped ditches and swales, slash 

pine plantations, utility rights-of-way 

and a few remnant parcels protected 

under wetland and private easements 

(FWC 2016, p. 2). 

The highest densities of Panama City 

crayfish have been recorded in areas 

with little to no shrub or tree cover 

(FWC 2016, p.2). Suitable habitat is 

normally dominated by herbaceous 

vegetation. Lowest population densities 

have occurred in small, open sites 

where shrubs or trees were present, or 

in the furrows between bedding rows in 

some pine plantations (Keppner and 

Keppner 2005). When encountered in 

dense titi (Cyrilla racemiflora and 

Cliftonia monophylla) swamps, the 

species was associated with temporarily 

inundated areas open to the sun with 

some herbaceous vegetation. Such sites 

may be considered secondary or 

suboptimal habitat for the species. On 

sites where mixed habitat features are 

present (e.g., partially wooded sites or 

sites with permanent, deep-water 

ponds), the Panama City crayfish 

appears to select favorable areas 

dominated by herbaceous vegetation, 

with shallow or fluctuating water levels 

(FWC 2016, p. 3; Keppner and Keppner 

2005). 

The Panama City crayfish relies on 

particular soil types for burrow 

construction and supporting the 

herbaceous vegetation; these soil types 

are categorized as core or secondary 

soils. Core soils provide the best 

substrate to support the species; 

secondary soils are less ideal but still 

used. The core and secondary soil types 

that support Panama City crayfish 

within their known range are described 

in more detail in the SSA report 

(Service 2017, pp. 23–24). 

Panama City crayfish build burrows 

for shelter and are categorized as 

secondary burrowers, which are 

normally in surface water when it is 

present on the hydric soils they inhabit 

(Hobbs 1981). They construct burrows 

that contact the water table as the 

surface water of their habitat recedes, 

and they occupy burrows when surface 

water is absent or during periods of 

extreme water temperatures. They 

emerge from the burrows when surface 

water is present again or water 

temperatures are favorable. It appears 

that they can survive significant periods 

of drought in their burrows when they 

can maintain contact with the water 

table. During these dry periods the 

Panama City crayfish excavates and 

lives in unbranched burrows up to three 

feet long that extend down to the water 

table, thereby enabling the species to 

remain adequately hydrated and survive 

(FWC 2016, p. 3). 

Little is known about the specific 

feeding habits of the Panama City 

crayfish. Observations on Panama City 

crayfish that were held in aquaria 

spanning 1.5 plus years (Keppner 2014) 

indicate that they are detritivores and 

herbivores. Specimens were offered 

dead animal material, but they avoided 

it in favor of processing the substrate for 

particles of prepared fish food and the 

fresh aquatic vegetation that were 

provided as primary food sources. 

Herbaceous vegetation likely serves as a 

food source for the Panama City 

crayfish. 

The Panama City crayfish historically 

ranged throughout south-central Bay 

County, Florida within a 56 square mile 

area (see Figure 1). The historical range 

likely created one population connected 

by core and secondary soils. As urban 

growth came to Panama City, the range 

became fragmented and isolated 

patches. Today, the species has 13 

localized populations that can be 

divided into two distinct groups: The 

western and eastern group. The western 

group includes 8 separate populations 

and the eastern group includes 5 

separate populations. The 13 

populations are described in more detail 

in the SSA report (Service 2017, pp. 35– 

54). 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 333 

Species Needs and Viability 

The Panama City crayfish needs 

freshwater wetlands that support 

herbaceous vegetation, which is 

important to the Panama City crayfish 

for food, shelter, and detritus formation. 

The species needs core or secondary 

soils to provide the proper sediment 

structure for burrow construction and to 

support the herbaceous vegetation. The 

Panama City crayfish needs access to 

groundwater (through burrowing) or 

surface water to prevent desiccation of 

individuals and populations. The 

species needs both adequate water 

quality and quantity to fulfill its life 

history. 

We describe the Panama City 

crayfish’s viability by characterizing the 

status of the species in terms of its 

resiliency (ability of the populations to 

withstand stochastic events), 

redundancy (ability of the species to 

withstand large-scale, catastrophic 

events), and representation (the ability 

of the species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions). Using 

various time frames and the current and 

projected resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation, we describe the species’ 

level of viability over time. For the 

Panama City crayfish to maintain 

viability, its populations or some 

portion thereof must be resilient. A 

number of factors influence the 

resiliency of Panama City crayfish 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP03JA18.009</GPH>
334 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

populations, including the inbreeding 

coefficient, population isolation, and 

population abundance. Elements of 

Panama City crayfish habitat that 

determine whether Panama City 

crayfish populations can grow to 

maximize habitat occupancy influence 

those factors, thereby increasing the 

resiliency of populations. These 

demographic and habitat factors are 

discussed here; for each factor, we 

assigned a condition category of high, 

medium, or low (see Table 1). We 

evaluated each population and assigned 

it a high, medium, or low condition 

category for each factor, as well as an 

overall condition. 

TABLE 1—DEMOGRAPHIC AND HABITAT FACTORS FOR PANAMA CITY CRAYFISH

[Service 2017, p. 64] 

Condition 

category 

Demographic factors Habitat elements 

Inbreeding 

coefficient 

Population 

isolation 

(km) 

Population 

abundance 

Freshwater quality & 

quantity Herbaceous ground cover 

Suitable 

habitat 

(acres) 

High .............. >0.400 <0.5 >51 <33% developed and 

unsuitable.

easements or ROW with >15 

acres that is managed.

>800 

Moderate ...... 0.200–0.400 0.5–2.0 21–50 33–66% developed 

and unsuitable.

easements or ROW with ≤15 

acres suitable habitat that is 

managed; or timber lands.

100–800 

Low .............. <0.200 >2 1–20 >66% developed and 

unsuitable acres.

no managed lands, habitat currently a titi monoculture.<100 

Population Isolation: Least-cost path distance to nearest population in kilometers. 

Population Abundance: Based on population sampling counts from all conducted surveys recorded. 

Freshwater Quality & Quantity: Percentage of developed and unsuitable acres within the area supporting each population. 

Herbaceous Ground Cover: Includes land with and without easements, size of easements, and management activities. 

Suitable Habitat: Acres of undeveloped core and secondary soils within the area supporting each population. 

Inbreeding coefficient: The Panama 

City crayfish, once connected through 

core and secondary soils within a 56 

square mile area, is now separated into 

13 populations that, when combined, 

total a significantly smaller area than 

occupied by the historical, 

interconnected population. A recent 

genetic analysis of population 

differentiation and clustering to assess 

population structure of the Panama City 

crayfish quantified each population’s 

inbreeding coefficient numbers (Duncan 

et al. 2017). An inbreeding coefficient 

number shows the probability of 

inheriting two copies of the same allele 

from an ancestor that occurs on both 

sides of the pedigree. For Panama City 

crayfish populations, the differences in 

inbreeding coefficient numbers likely 

correspond to patterns of fragmentation 

from urban development and not 

necessarily from selective pressures 

maintaining adaptive differences. Little 

work has been done on the population 

genetics of wild crayfish populations. 

We have no comparison for values in 

crayfish species of expected inbreeding 

coefficients (Duncan et al. 2017), and 

treat this as a relative measure. Thus, we 

ranked individual populations into 

three numerically distinct breaks: Low 

when inbreeding coefficients were less 

than 0.200, moderate when they ranked 

between 0.200–0.400, and high when 

results were greater than 0.400. 

Population isolation: To promote 

genetic connectivity in Panama City 

crayfish, we must have an 

understanding of their potential abilities 

to move between populations. One 

working hypothesis was that ditches 

within the range promote movement, 

especially during flooding events. This 

idea is supported by observations of 

some localized movements of Panama 

City crayfish into previously 

unoccupied ditches after recent flooding 

where they were not seen in these new 

locations during the next sampling 

event. 

Because the landscape occupied by 

the Panama City crayfish is spatially 

heterogeneous, it is important to 

understand how certain landscape 

features affect the species’ ability to 

move in order to meet requirements for 

foraging, migration, or other movementdependent processes (Crooks and 

Sanjayan 2006 as cited in Duncan et al. 

2017). We relied on a landscape ‘‘Least 

Cost Path’’ land cover analysis 

conducted by Duncan et al. (2017) to 

assist in determining what may affect 

genetic connectivity in Panama City 

crayfish and inform our understanding 

of population isolation. 

Population abundance: The size of an 

individual population coupled with age 

and sex classifications can be used as an 

indicator of resiliency. Within the SSA 

report, we have summarized the years 

that surveys of varying levels were 

completed within each population. The 

protocol currently used for PCC 

monitoring typically depends on dip-net 

sampling when sufficient surface water 

is present and nondestructive 

evaluation of crayfish burrows. The 

protocol can miss specimens in 

vegetation and does not sample 

individuals living below ground in 

burrows, and we currently do not have 

an estimate of detection probability 

using this protocol. The protocol is 

quantitative and results in a catch per 

standard unit effort estimate of the 

population. We use population counts 

to assess the relative population size 

across the range of the species. 

Freshwater quality and quantity: 

Although crayfish are facultative air 

breathers, moisture is required to 

facilitate the respiratory process 

(Longshaw and Stebbing 2016, p. 327). 

Burrowing to groundwater or access to 

surface water are both important habitat 

features needed to prevent desiccation 

of individuals and populations. 

Declines in water quality are known to 

present a significant threat to other 

species of crayfish (and presumably to 

PCC). These declines can range from 

oxygen-deficient conditions resulting 

from algal blooms, sewage spills, or 

localized leaks to pollution originating 

from roadway runoff or chemical spills 

(Acosta and Perry 2001). The Panama 

City crayfish often inhabits ditches and 

swales close or adjacent to commercial 

and private properties, which may affect 

the water quality at these sites. We used 

a proxy measure of water quality and 

quantity based on the amount of 

development surrounding the 

population. We assumed that greater 

acreage in developed and unsuitable 

landcover types (which includes 

transportation and other developmentrelated types) is correlated with declines 

in this habitat element. Herbaceous 

ground cover: Herbaceous vegetation is 

important to the Panama City crayfish 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 335 

for food, detritus formation, and cover. 

Absence of vegetation increases 

exposure of this small crayfish to 

predation and reduces availability of 

food. Suitable habitat: Species sampling 

efforts and a recent landscape modeling 

analysis support the theory that the 

Panama City crayfish almost exclusively 

relies on core and secondary soils. 

These soils provide the sediment 

structure needed for burrow 

construction to the water table and also 

support the herbaceous vegetation upon 

which the species relies for food and 

cover. Lands supporting the Panama 

City crayfish must be of sufficient size 

to sustain a population, but we don’t 

know the minimum size, as many 

factors influence a Panama City crayfish 

population, including other habitat 

conditions. The recent work of Duncan 

et al. (2017) showed that all remaining 

populations with >800 acres of suitable 

habitat supporting them were 

genetically healthy, and population 

counts support this as well. 

Maintaining representation in the 

form of genetic or ecological diversity is 

important to maintain the Panama City 

crayfish’s capacity to adapt to future 

environmental changes. The 13 

remaining populations show relatively 

high genetic differentiation with 

inbreeding coefficients ranging from 

0.214 to 0.493 and associated acreages 

of suitable habitat ranging from 5 acres 

to 5,309 acres. 

Redundancy reduces the risk that a 

large portion of the species’ range will 

be negatively affected by a natural or 

anthropogenic catastrophic event at a 

given point in time. Species that have 

resilient populations spread throughout 

their historical range are less susceptible 

to extinction (Carroll et al. 2010; 

Redford et al. 2011). The Panama City 

crayfish historically lacked redundancy 

in that its historical range consisted of 

one population of interconnected soils. 

Today, there is a distinct genetic 

difference between individual patches 

located in the western range versus 

individual patches within the eastern 

range, which likely corresponds to 

patterns of fragmentation from urban 

development as well as some natural 

wetland buffers (creeks, stream bodies) 

(Duncan et al. 2017). 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

We completed a comprehensive 

assessment of the biological status of the 

Panama City crayfish, and prepared a 

report of the assessment, which 

provides a thorough account of the 

species’ overall viability. In this section, 

we summarize the conclusions of that 

assessment, which can be accessed at 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0061 on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any factors affecting its continued 

existence. We reviewed the potential 

risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) that 

could be affecting the Panama City 

crayfish now and in the future. In this 

proposed rule, we will discuss in detail 

only those factors that could 

meaningfully impact the status of the 

species. The primary risk factors (i.e., 

threats) affecting the status of the 

Panama City crayfish are habitat loss 

and degradation, habitat fragmentation, 

and subpopulation isolation due to 

development (Factor A from the Act). 

Additional stressors to the species 

include collection for bait (Factor B), 

disease (Factor C), off-road vehicle use 

(Factor A), and insecticide application 

(Factor E); however, our analysis shows 

that while these stressors may be 

impacting individual Panama City 

crayfish, they are not having specieswide impacts. For a full description of 

all identified stressors, refer to chapter 

4 of the SSA report (Service 2017). 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Development projects and land 

conversion can result in direct loss of 

habitat, as well as fragmentation and 

isolation of populations. The effects of 

development may also include 

alterations to water quality and 

quantity. Historically, the Panama City 

crayfish inhabited natural and often 

temporary bodies of shallow fresh water 

within open pine flatwoods and wet 

prairie-marsh communities (Hobbs 

1942). The Panama City crayfish’s 

natural habitat (wet pine flatwoods) has 

been lost or degraded through 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

development, as well as conversion to 

intensive pine silviculture and for 

ranching and farming uses. It is likely 

that no unaltered natural pine flatwoods 

remain within the Panama City 

crayfish’s current range. 

Most known Panama City crayfish 

occurrences are in human-altered 

habitats and are vulnerable to further 

loss or alteration. Although artificial 

habitats such as roadside ditches and 

rights-of-way have allowed the Panama 

City crayfish to persist in areas from 

which they would otherwise likely have 

been extirpated, human activities can 

alter the hydrology and configuration of 

these sites, making them unsuitable for 

long-term Panama City crayfish 

persistence. For example, roadside ditch 

maintenance and construction activities 

have resulted in the destruction of 

several crayfish sites. 

While ditch maintenance activities 

may have temporary negative impacts 

on the species, if conducted using 

conservation management principles, 

they may provide long-term habitat 

improvements that support Panama City 

crayfish presence. For example, the 

design of the ditch helps determine 

whether it can support Panama City 

crayfish. Swales and ditches with 

herbaceous vegetation and a 3:1 or 

shallower slope are more likely to 

support Panama City crayfish than 

ditches with a steeper slope (FWC 2017, 

p. 22). 

Infrastructure development has 

impacted, or is anticipated to impact, 

several crayfish sites (Keppner and 

Keppner 2001, pp. 13–14, 2004, p. 9). 

For example, several proposed road 

construction or expansion projects, such 

as the widening of Star Avenue and 

Kern Avenue and the widening and 

hardening of Tram Road, may impact 

Panama City crayfish habitat in the 

future. Infrastructure development can 

eliminate suitable Panama City crayfish 

habitat by removing the required 

herbaceous vegetation and digging up 

the surrounding soils. 

Silvicultural practices such as 

ditching and bedding, roller chopping, 

installing fire breaks, and constructing 

roads can alter the hydrology of Panama 

City crayfish sites, create physical 

barriers to crayfish movement, and 

destroy underground burrows (Hobbs 

2001, p. 988; Keppner and Keppner 

2001, p. 13, 2004, p. 10; FWC 2006, p. 

10). These activities may contribute to 

the isolation of Panama City crayfish 

populations. Fire suppression and high 

tree density on silvicultural sites can 

reduce herbaceous groundcover 

necessary for suitable crayfish habitat 

(Keppner and Keppner 2001, p. 13, 

2004, p. 10; FWC 2006, p. 27). Similarly, 

removal of tree canopy cover, changes 

in ground cover vegetation, and 

associated changes in water quality and 

surface water availability are all 

possible changes associated with the 

effects of conversion to farming and 

ranching practices, such as cattle 

grazing (e.g., Jansen and Robertson 

2001, pp. 71–73). These activities 

negatively impact the habitat of the 

Panama City crayfish. Although 

minimal changes are expected to occur 

due to farming and ranching practices, 

conversion from silviculture to grazing 

use has occurred on lands adjacent the 

crayfish’s range. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
336 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Freshwater crayfish may be sensitive 

to declines in water quality and declines 

have been identified as a threat to other 

crayfish species. Water quality declines 

can range from oxygen-deficient 

conditions resulting from algal blooms 

or sewage spills to pollution originating 

from roadway runoff, pesticide 

applications, or chemical spills (Acosta 

and Perry 2001, p. 46). Given the level 

of development throughout the range of 

the Panama City crayfish and the 

occurrences of Panama City crayfish 

adjacent to private properties, runoff 

from roads or improper application of 

chemicals, such as pesticides or 

fertilizers, may negatively impact water 

quality and have direct impacts on the 

species. 

The majority of known Panama City 

crayfish occurrences in the western part 

of the range are in roadside ditches and 

swales that are isolated from other 

Panama City crayfish populations by 

roads, development, and land use 

changes. Fragmentation and isolation 

can increase vulnerability to local 

extirpation due to adverse genetic, 

demographic, and environmental 

events. Further, when Panama City 

crayfish have been extirpated from an 

area, lack of habitat connections 

between sites can prevent Panama City 

crayfish from recolonizing the newly 

vacant sites (FWC 2006, p. 10). Recent 

genetic work indicates the isolation in 

the western portion of the range has 

resulted in inbreeding and drift (Duncan 

et al. 2017, p. 17). 

In addition to the effects on habitat 

described above, many of the activities 

contributing to habitat loss and 

degradation can also directly harm or 

kill Panama City crayfish. Continuous 

loss of individuals can eventually lead 

to extirpation of isolated populations. In 

particular, roadside maintenance, 

dredging, and infrastructure 

development in roadside ditches and 

silvicultural and farming activities, if 

done without appropriate safeguards, 

have the potential to kill, harm, or 

displace Panama City crayfish due to 

the removal by heavy machinery of soil 

from crayfish sites. In addition, fill 

placed on sites in preparation for 

construction activities can entomb 

crayfish in their burrows 

Off-road vehicle use may impact the 

Panama City crayfish by crushing, as 

well as impacting the habitat through 

rutting of the soil and destruction of 

vegetation (FWC 2016, p. 11). Off-road 

vehicle use has been documented in 

areas within the eastern part of the 

Panama City crayfish’s range along Gulf 

Power rights-of-way. Gulf Power has 

blocked access to these rights-of-way 

with gates, so access to these areas is 

limited and we do not expect off-road 

vehicle use is resulting in species-wide 

impacts. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Crayfish may be recreationally 

harvested for fish bait. Within the range 

of the Panama City crayfish, several of 

the areas where the species occurs are 

known to be utilized by locals collecting 

fish bait (FWC 2016, p.11; Keppner and 

Keppner 2001, 2005). However, 

although harvesting individual crayfish 

at these sites has been documented, the 

actual species collected are unknown. 

Therefore, while harvesting crayfish 

may be impacting individual Panama 

City crayfish, we find that it is not 

having a species-wide impact. 

Florida State Code 68A–9.002 

authorizes the Director of the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to issue permits to collect 

any wildlife species for ‘‘scientific, 

educational, exhibition, propagation, 

management or other justifiable 

purposes.’’ Permits have been issued for 

biologists conducting surveys on the 

Panama City crayfish; however, the 

Panama City crayfish is not known to be 

targeted for significant scientific or 

educational collections. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease agents and pests identified for 

freshwater crayfish include viruses, 

bacteria, rickettsia-like organisms, fungi, 

protistans, and metazoans (Evans et al. 

2002, p. 1). There is no reported 

information on the presence of disease 

or parasites in the Panama City crayfish 

to date. Nothing indicates that predation 

or competition by native or non-native 

predators is currently affecting Panama 

City crayfish at the species level. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The following existing regulatory 

mechanisms were considered and 

discussed as they relate to the stressors, 

under the applicable Factors, affecting 

the Panama City crayfish: Florida State 

Code 68A–9.002 (Factor B). 

The Panama City crayfish is currently 

identified as a State Species of Special 

Concern in Florida (Florida State Code 

68A–27.005). Species of Special 

Concern require individuals to obtain a 

permit from the FWC Executive Director 

in order to take, possess, transport, or 

sell the species. 

FWC has developed voluntary draft 

guidelines for developers to consider 

when undertaking projects that may 

impact Panama City crayfish and its 

habitat (FWC 2016). However, these 

guidelines are not regulatory in nature. 

We are not aware of any regulatory 

mechanisms in place to address the 

threat of habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation due to development. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

The Service considered several 

additional stressors to the Panama City 

crayfish, including chemical application 

and sea level rise. 

Mosquitocides are used within the 

range of the Panama City crayfish to 

treat both larval and adult mosquitoes. 

The mosquitocides registered for use 

within the range of the Panama City 

crayfish do not pose known threats to 

water quality if applied per label 

directions (FWC 2016, p. 10). Fertilizers, 

insecticides, and herbicides may pose a 

risk to Panama City crayfish if applied 

inappropriately. 

The Panama City crayfish was 

included in a statewide vulnerability 

assessment for approximately 1000 

species in Florida (Reece et al. 2013, 

Hocter et al. 2014) using a Standardized 

Index of Vulnerability and Value 

Assessment (SIVVA; Reece and Noss 

2014). Based on the data used in this 

assessment, the Panama City crayfish 

did not meet the vulnerability 

assessment criteria. The assessment 

used a 10 meter digital elevation model 

‘‘bathtub’’ projection that showed 2 

meters of sea level rise and overlapped 

these projections with species’ ‘element 

occurrences.’ (Reece et al 2013). The 

assessment focused on those species 

which had 50% or more of their 

occurrences intersecting with the sea 

level rise projection. The Panama City 

crayfish did not meet this criteria. 

Overall, little suitable habitat for 

Panama City crayfish will be affected by 

sea level rise (Hocter et al. 2014). 

Conservation Actions 

Several private lands within the 

Panama City crayfish’s range are being 

managed under conservation easements 

for the species. These easements largely 

cover wet pine flatwoods and wet 

prairie habitats. Other private lands are 

inaccessible to surveyors, but if they 

lack significant disturbance and have 

suitable habitat for the species, they are 

likely occupied by Panama City 

crayfish. 

Areas in silviculture adjacent to 

human-altered habitats may serve as 

refuges for Panama City crayfish, and 

silvicultural BMPs require operators to 

minimize impacts to Panama City 

crayfish. Use of BMPs for agriculture 

and grazing can also help minimize 

impacts to aquatic species (e.g., Florida 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 337 

Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services 2008, p. 1). Gulf 

Power Company manages rights-of-way 

along approximately 114 acres of land 

that is populated by the Panama City 

crayfish. The Service and FWC have a 

management agreement that provides 

recommended BMPs to Gulf Power 

Company; the management practices 

through this agreement have proven 

effective as the crayfish continue to 

thrive within the easement areas. 

Current Condition 

The historical range of the Panama 

City crayfish included a 56-square-mile 

area in Bay County, Florida. It was 

likely one contiguous population within 

open pine flatwoods and prairie-marsh 

communities providing connectivity 

across the landscape. Currently, the 

species is found in 13 genetically 

distinct populations within the 

boundaries of its historical range. 

Within its range, 61 percent (9,180 

acres) of habitat with core soils and 46 

percent (5,646 acres) of habitat with 

secondary soils remain undeveloped, 

and the total amount of available 

suitable habitat based on soils is 54 

percent of the historical habitat 

available to the species. 

The current condition is a qualitative 

estimate based on an analysis of the 

three population factors (inbreeding, 

population isolation, and population 

sampling/relative abundance) and three 

habitat elements (water quality/ 

availability, herbaceous ground cover, 

and suitable habitat). Overall population 

and habitat condition rankings were 

determined by combining the three 

population factors and three habitat 

elements using the most frequent score 

for individual factors as the overall 

score. Of the 13 populations described, 

the current conditions show 4 (31 

percent) populations are estimated to 

have high resiliency, 5 (38 percent) 

moderate resiliency, and 4 (31 percent) 

low resiliency. In the western group of 

populations, 4 populations have low 

resiliency, 3 populations have moderate 

resiliency, and 1 has high resiliency. In 

the eastern group, 2 populations have 

moderate resiliency and 3 populations 

have high resiliency. Generally, genetic 

variation is low and inbreeding is high 

across the range, which indicate a high 

degree of current population isolation. 

This pattern is generally more 

pronounced in the sampling locations in 

the west (heavily urbanized areas). 

Future Condition 

For the purpose of this assessment, 

we define viability as the ability of the 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. This discussion explains 

how the stressors associated with 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation from residential and 

commercial development will influence 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation for the Panama City 

crayfish throughout its current known 

range using a series of plausible 

scenarios for 2030, 2050, and 2070. We 

predicted both future population factors 

(inbreeding and population isolation) 

and habitat factors (water quality and 

quantity, herbaceous ground cover, and 

suitable habitat) and evaluated these to 

inform our future conditions. 

To predict potential future changes 

related to urban growth, we used layers 

from the Southeast Regional Assessment 

Project (SERAP, from the Biodiversity 

and Spatial Analysis Center at North 

Carolina State University; 60m 

resolution), a modification of the 

SLEUTH Projected Urban Growth model 

(Jantz et al. 2010, entire; Terando et al. 

2014, entire). SERAP identifies the 

parameters in global and regional 

models that are most likely to affect the 

Southeast region’s climate and local 

landscape dynamics, with the goal of 

providing decision makers with 

information about low-probability, highimpact climate extremes through 

downscaled models and threats 

analysis. We used these products to map 

future predicted changes in 

urbanization in 2030, 2050, and 2070. 

The uncertainty associated with the 

SLEUTH model increases in time, as the 

species’ response to the dynamic nature 

of the variables becomes less predictive. 

There is a greater confidence in 

predicting potential development and 

the species’ response to changes in the 

landscape in the near future rather than 

the distant future. 

To address uncertainty associated 

with the degree and extent of potential 

future stressors and their impacts on 

species’ requisites, the 3Rs were 

assessed using three scenarios: status 

quo development (i.e., ≥80 percent 

probability of occurring), moderate 

development (≥30 percent probability of 

occurring), and high development (≥0 

percent probability of occurring). The 

scenarios included projecting possible 

future development using the SERAP 

model (Jantz et al. 2010, entire; Terando 

et al. 2014, entire). They also describe 

the predicted effects of the development 

on loss and fragmentation of suitable 

habitat rangewide and on each of 11 

known populations, and draw 

inferences about population health 

based on the work of Duncan et al. 

(2017, entire). We excluded two 

populations (College Point and City of 

Lynn Haven) from our scenario analysis 

due to insufficient available data. Please 

refer to the SSA report (Service 2017) 

for the full analysis of the future 

scenarios. 

In scenario one, the ‘‘status quo’’ 

scenario, we considered the 

development most likely to occur. Based 

on the SERAP model, this was 

development with a ≥80 percent 

probability. Under this scenario, 

Panama City crayfish will lose 1,401 to 

3,096 acres of habitat rangewide as 

developed land increases from 20,221 to 

25,040 acres. This loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation of habitat would reduce 

the number of resilient populations in 

high or moderate condition from nine 

currently to five by 2050. This loss of 

resiliency comes from both a reduction 

in habitat elements as well as the effects 

of isolation and drift on the populations 

themselves. 

Under the ‘‘status quo’’ scenario, only 

one resilient population (the St. Joe 

population) is predicted to remain in 

the western group by 2050. This results 

in a loss of redundancy and 

representation, as only one resilient 

population will remain in the western 

group. In the eastern group, four 

resilient populations are predicted to 

persist through 2070. 

In scenario two, the ‘‘intermediate 

development’’ scenario, we considered 

development with a moderate potential 

to occur. Based on the SERAP model, 

this was development with a ≥30 

percent probability of occurring. In this 

scenario, the Panama City crayfish will 

lose 2,252 to 4,854 acres of habitat 

rangewide as developed land increases 

from 20,221 to 27,332 acres. This loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation of 

habitat is predicted to reduce the 

number of resilient populations in high 

or moderate condition from nine 

currently to four by 2070. This loss of 

resiliency comes from both a reduction 

in habitat elements as well as the effects 

of isolation and drift on the populations 

themselves. 

Under the ‘‘intermediate 

development’’ scenario, only one 

resilient population (the St. Joe 

population) is predicted to remain in 

the western group by 2050. This results 

in a loss of redundancy and 

representation, as only one resilient 

population will remain in the western 

group. In the eastern group, three 

resilient populations are predicted to 

persist through 2070. 

In scenario three, ‘‘high development’’ 

or ‘‘worst case’’ scenario, we considered 

the development that is least likely to 

occur. Based on the SERAP model, this 

was development with at >0 percent 

probability of occurring. In this 

scenario, the Panama City crayfish will 

lose 3,233 to 6,130 acres of habitat 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
338 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

rangewide as developed land increases 

from 20,221 to 28,899 acres. This loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation of 

habitat is predicted to reduce the 

number of resilient populations in high 

or moderate condition from nine 

currently to three by 2070. This loss of 

resiliency comes from both a reduction 

in habitat elements as well as the effects 

of isolation and drift on the populations 

themselves. 

Under the ‘‘high development’’ 

scenario, all resilient populations in the 

western group are predicted to be lost 

by 2050, resulting in a loss of all 

representation and redundancy in the 

western group. In the eastern group, 

three resilient populations are predicted 

to persist through 2070. 

Determination 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on: (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 carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Panama City 

crayfish. Our analysis of this 

information indicates that, at the species 

level, habitat development (Factor A) is 

the primary factor affecting the Panama 

City crayfish now and into the future. 

There may be additional infrastructure 

projects (e.g. roads, ditches, etc.) that 

affect the hydrology within the range of 

the Panama City crayfish as a result of 

forest clearing for permanent rights of 

way or silviculture. Additionally, the 

current level of habitat fragmentation 

(Factor A) further isolates populations, 

which reduces gene flow and limits the 

potential for the species to disperse. In 

addition, we have no evidence that ORV 

use (Factor A), overutilization (Factor B) 

or disease (Factor C) is affecting 

populations of Panama City crayfish. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ We find 

that an endangered species status is not 

appropriate for the Panama City crayfish 

because the species maintains multiple 

resilient populations across its historical 

range and the risk is low that the species 

would not persist in the near term; in 

other words, the risk of the Panama City 

crayfish significantly declining in the 

near term is low given that it has 

persisted despite historical levels of 

habitat loss. The current conditions as 

assessed in the Panama City crayfish 

SSA report show that only 43 to 54 

percent of the original lands historically 

available to the Panama City crayfish 

remain potentially available for use by 

the Panama City crayfish. However, 

while the species’ habitat has been 

reduced by at least 46 percent, the 

species currently consists of 13 

populations, 9 of which are highly to 

moderately resilient and found across 

its historical range. Further, despite 

changes to the crayfish’s natural habitat 

of wet pine flatwoods, the species 

currently persists using artificial 

habitats such as roadside ditches and 

rights-of-way although these sites may 

become unsuitable long term due to 

anthropogenic activities that can alter 

their hydrology or configuration. 

Therefore, we conclude that the current 

risk of extinction of the Panama City 

crayfish is sufficiently low that it does 

not meet the definition of an 

endangered species under the Act. 

The Act defines a threatened species 

as any species that is ‘‘likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future.’’ We find that the 

status of the Panama City crayfish meets 

the definition of a threatened species. 

Based on the biology of the species and 

the threats acting on it, the foreseeable 

future used in the determination was 20 

to 30 years. The generation time for the 

species is 2 years with a life-span up to 

3.5 years; the period of 20–30 years 

encompasses 10–15 generations, which 

is more than sufficient time to 

determine the species’ response to the 

stressors. Although the future scenarios, 

which were snapshots in time for 

predicting resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation extended through 2070, 

the uncertainty as to the outcomes with 

regard to the responses to the stressors 

became so great as to render the 

scenarios too unreliable beyond 2050 for 

that time period to be considered the 

foreseeable future. 

Habitat fragmentation and isolation 

have contributed to the partitioning into 

13 populations. While the Panama City 

crayfish faces a variety of threats, only 

one threat, habitat loss and degradation, 

habitat fragmentation, and 

subpopulation isolation due to urban 

development, was considered an 

important factor in our assessment of 

the future viability of the Panama City 

crayfish. Based on our future scenarios 

for urban development, we predict 

major losses of resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy for 

Panama City crayfish in the foreseeable 

future. Especially problematic is the 

predicted complete loss of resilience 

and redundancy from the western 

populations, which reduces half of the 

representation of Panama City crayfish. 

These combined losses under even the 

most probable status quo scenario make 

the ability of Panama City crayfish to 

sustain its populations into the 

foreseeable future questionable 

assuming current levels of protection 

and management. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Panama City 

crayfish. Habitat loss from development 

is occurring rangewide and has resulted 

in the fragmentation of the landscape. 

The fragmentation of suitable habitat 

has caused the isolation of existing 

populations limited to ditches, swales, 

slash pine plantations, and utility 

rights-of-ways. At the population level, 

Panama City crayfish now exists in 13 

populations. Currently, four populations 

are estimated to maintain high 

resiliency; five are estimated to have 

moderate resiliency; and four are 

estimated to have low resiliency, 

including the two populations that are 

in the low condition but were excluded 

from future scenario analysis because of 

inadequate data. 

At the species level, the 13 Panama 

City crayfish populations are broken 

down into an eastern group of five 

populations and a western group of 

eight populations based on the 

characteristics of Panama City crayfish 

and its geographic distribution. 

Currently, four populations, all in the 

west, are in low condition, including 

the two that were excluded from future 

condition analysis because of 

inadequate data. These two populations 

represent 31 percent of the known 

populations overall and 50 percent of 

the western group, and, although still in 

existence, they may not contribute to 

the future redundancy of Panama City 

crayfish, because the populations are 

already experiencing genetic drift and 

the habitat that supports them is 

susceptible to future development. 

All future scenarios predicted a 

negative impact on the redundancy of 

Panama City crayfish. Under the ‘‘status 

quo’’ scenario, 62 percent of 

populations are in low condition by 

2050; this percentage increases to 69 

percent under the ‘‘intermediate 

development’’ scenario and to 77 

percent under the ‘‘high development’’ 

scenario. The greatest loss of 

redundancy for Panama City crayfish is 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 339 

predicted to occur in the western group. 

In this group, 100 percent of the 

populations are in low condition by 

2050 under the ‘‘high development’’ 

scenario and 88 percent under the other 

two scenarios. In the eastern group, 

three populations are predicted to 

remain strongholds for Panama City 

crayfish, although they would represent 

only 60 percent of the remaining eastern 

populations. 

At the species level, we estimate that 

the Panama City crayfish currently has 

low to moderate adaptive potential 

across its range, and all of the future 

scenarios are predicted to have an 

impact on the species’ representation 

during the 50-year time horizon. Even 

though Panama City crayfish has low 

representation in the western group, 

with only two of the eight populations 

not in low condition, these two 

populations likely will persist because 

of the protection afforded through 

conservation easements. The eastern 

group comprises a much larger area and 

contains the three populations currently 

in high condition. However, two of 

these populations, Highpoint and 231- 

north, are predicted to be in low 

condition in the future. This is 

especially concerning given that the 

Highpoint population contains unique 

genetic diversity not found in other 

populations, although more work is 

needed to confirm this (Duncan et al. 

2017, p. 19). 

In short, based on our analysis of the 

species’ current and future conditions, 

as well as the conservation efforts 

discussed above, we conclude that the 

population and habitat factors used to 

determine the resiliency, representation 

and redundancy for Panama City 

crayfish will continue to decline so it is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

throughout its range within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, on the 

basis of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we propose 

listing the Panama City crayfish as 

threatened in accordance with sections 

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

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the Panama City crayfish is 

threatened throughout all of its range, 

under the Final Policy on Interpretation 

of the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (79 FR 

37577, July 1, 2014) (SPR Policy), if a 

species warrants listing throughout all 

of its range, no portion of the species’ 

range can be a ‘‘significant’’ portion of 

its range.). While it is the Service’s 

position under the SPR Policy that 

undertaking no further analysis of 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ in this 

circumstance is consistent with the 

language of the Act, we recognize that 

the Policy is currently under judicial 

review, so we also took the additional 

step of considering whether there could 

be any significant portions of the 

species’ range where the species is in 

danger of extinction. We evaluated 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that there are any portions of 

the species’ range: (1) That may be 

‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the species 

may be in danger of extinction. In 

practice, a key part of identifying 

portions appropriate for further analysis 

is whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated. The threats affecting the 

species are throughout its entire range; 

therefore, there is not a meaningful 

geographical concentration of threats. 

As a result, even if we were to 

undertake a detailed SPR analysis, there 

would not be any portions of the 

species’ range where the threats are 

harming the species to a greater degree 

such that it is in danger of extinction in 

that portion. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

in 50 CFR 424.12, require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we designate critical 

habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species. 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 in 

accordance with the Act, upon a 

determination by the Secretary of the 

Interior that such areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) 

state that the designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent when any of the 

following situations exist: (1) The 

species is threatened by taking or other 

human activity, and identification of 

critical habitat can be expected to 

increase the degree of threat to the 

species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. The regulations also 

provide that, in determining whether a 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species, the factors 

that the Service may consider include, 

but are not limited to, whether the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of a 

species’ habitat or range is not a threat 

to the species, or whether any areas 

meet the definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ 

(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)). 

As discussed above, there is no 

evidence that collection or vandalism 

are threats to the species, and there is 

no indication that identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is likely to 

initiate any such threats. Therefore, in 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to the species, if there 

are benefits to the species from a critical 

habitat designation, a finding that 

designation is prudent is appropriate. 

The potential benefits of designation 

may include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation 

activities on the most essential features 

and areas; (3) providing educational 

benefits to State or county governments 

or to private entities; and (4) preventing 

people from causing inadvertent harm 

to the protected species. Because 

designation of critical habitat would not 

likely increase the degree of threat to the 

species and may provide some measure 

of benefit, designation of critical habitat 

is prudent for the Panama City crayfish. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) 

further state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exists: (1) 

Information sufficient to perform 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking; or (2) the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of an area as critical 

habitat. A careful assessment of the 

economic impacts that may occur due to 

a critical habitat designation is ongoing, 

and we are in the process of working 

with the States and other partners in 

acquiring the complex information 

needed to perform that assessment. 

Until these efforts are complete, 

information sufficient to perform a 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, and, therefore, 

we find designation of critical habitat 

for this species to be not determinable 

at this time. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan also identifies recovery 

criteria for review of when a species 

may be ready for downlisting (i.e., 

reclassification from endangered status 

to threatened status) or delisting (i.e., 

removal from the List), and methods for 

monitoring recovery progress. Recovery 

plans also establish a framework for 

agencies to coordinate their recovery 

efforts and provide estimates of the cost 

of implementing recovery tasks. 

Recovery teams (composed of species 

experts, Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our website 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our Panama City 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 ranges 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 nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida 

would be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

the Panama City crayfish. Information 

on our grant programs that are available 

to aid species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Panama City crayfish 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(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied 

to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 

CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 

any of these) threatened wildlife within 

the United States or on the high seas. In 

addition, it is unlawful to import; 

export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, 

or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, for economic 

hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

special purposes consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. There are also 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 341 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Activities that the Service 

believes could potentially harm the 

Panama City crayfish and result in 

‘‘take’’ include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species; 

(2) Destruction or alteration of the 

species’ habitat by development; 

(3) Actions that would alter the 

hydrology within suitable soils available 

for the Panama City crayfish; 

(4) Actions that result in permanent 

loss of habitat within suitable soils once 

available to the Panama City crayfish; 

(5) Application of chemicals, 

including insecticides and petroleum 

products in violation of label 

restrictions, or other actions that pollute 

the soils and waters that are used by the 

Panama City crayfish; and 

(6) Destruction of herbaceous 

vegetation directly adjacent to occupied 

pools that affects the hydrology and 

removes cover for the crayfish. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Panama City Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with listing a species as an endangered 

or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

the SSA report is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Service’s Unified Listing Team and the 

Panama City Ecological Services Field 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to 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. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Crayfish, Panama 

City’’ in alphabetical order under 

CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth 

below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

CRUSTACEANS 

*******

Crayfish, Panama City ... Procambarus econfinae Wherever found ............. T [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * Dated: November 21, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Exercising the Authority of the 

Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28313 Filed 1–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS