Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34979 

(3) If the Offeror or Lessor indicates ‘‘is’’ 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause, then 

complete this additional representation: Is 

the highest-level owner a foreign entity?: b 

Yes or b No. 

(4) If the Offeror or Lessor indicates ‘‘is’’ 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause, then 

complete this additional representation: Is 

the highest-level owner a foreign person?: b 

Yes or b No. 

(5) If the Offeror or Lessor indicates ‘‘Yes’’ 

in either paragraph (d)(3) or (4) of this clause, 

indicating that there is foreign ownership (as 

a foreign entity or foreign person), then enter 

the following information for the foreign 

owner (respond for each as applicable). 

Physical address.

Country.

(e) Financing entity. (1) The Offeror or 

Lessor represents that the financing b does 

or b does not involve a foreign entity? 

(2) The Offeror or Lessor represents that 

the financing b does or b does not involve 

a foreign person? 

(3) If the Offeror or Lessor indicates ‘‘does’’ 

in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this clause, 

indicating foreign financing (as a foreign 

entity or foreign person), then enter the 

following information for the foreign 

financing (respond for each as applicable). 

Legal name (do not use a ‘‘doing 

business as’’ name).

Unique entity identifier (if available).

Physical address.

Country.

(End of clause) 

552.270–34 Access Limitations for HighSecurity Leased Space. 

As prescribed in 570.703(d), use the 

following clause: 

Access Limitations for High-Security 

Leased Space (Jun 2021) 

(a) The Lessor, including representatives of 

the Lessor’s property management company 

responsible for operation and maintenance of 

the leased space, shall not— 

(1) Maintain access to the leased space; or 

(2) Have access to the leased space without 

prior approval of the authorized Government 

representative. 

(b) Access to the leased space or any 

property or information located within that 

Space will only be granted by the 

Government upon determining that such 

access is consistent with the Government’s 

mission and responsibilities. 

(c) Written procedures governing access to 

the leased space in the event of emergencies 

shall be documented as part of the 

Government’s Occupant Emergency Plan, to 

be signed by both the Government and the 

Lessor. 

(End of clause) 

PART 570—ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD 

INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY 

■ 4. Add section 570.118 to subpart 

570.1 to read as follows: 

570.118 Foreign Ownership Disclosure. 

If a foreign ownership disclosure is 

made pursuant to clause 552.270–33: 

(a) The contracting officer shall notify 

the Federal tenant for the leased space 

in writing: 

(1) If the disclosure is made during 

the lease acquisition process, the 

contracting officer shall notify the 

Federal tenant prior to lease award. 

(2) If the disclosure is made 

concurrent with a request for novation, 

the contracting officer shall notify the 

Federal tenant prior to executing the 

novation. 

(3) If the disclosure is made 

concurrent with a renewal option or 

extension, the contracting officer shall 

notify the Federal tenant prior to 

executing the renewal option or 

extension. 

(b) The contracting officer shall 

coordinate with the Federal tenant 

regarding security concerns and any 

necessary mitigation measures. 

■ 5. Amend section 570.703 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

570.703 GSAR contract clauses. 

* * * * * 

(c) Insert the representation clause at 

552.270–33, Foreign Ownership and 

Financing Representation for HighSecurity Leased Space, in novations, 

solicitations and contracts for leased 

space that: 

(1) Will be occupied by Federal 

employees for nonmilitary activities; 

and 

(2) Has a facility security level of III, 

IV, or V. 

(d) Insert the clause at 552.270–34 

Access Limitations for High-Security 

Leased Space, in novations, solicitations 

and contracts for leased space that: 

(1) Will be occupied by Federal 

employees for nonmilitary activities; 

and 

(2) Has a facility security level of III, 

IV, or V. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14161 Filed 6–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0059; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD09 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Suwannee Moccasinshell 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (Act), as amended. In total, 

approximately 190 miles (306 

kilometers) of stream channels in 

Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, 

Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, 

Suwannee, and Union Counties, 

Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes 

Counties, Georgia, fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The effect of this regulation 

is to designate critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell under the Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0059 and at https:// 

www.fws.gov/panamacity/. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

some supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this rule, are available 

for public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available upon 

mailed request from U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1601 

Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; 

or by telephone 850–769–0552. 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this critical habitat designation and 

are available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0059, and at the 

Panama City Ecological Services Field 

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

panamacity/ (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional 

tools or supporting information that we 

developed for this critical habitat 

designation will also be available at the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34980 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website 

and upon mailed request to the Field 

Office set out above, and may also be 

included in the preamble and at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

B. Herrington, 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. 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 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if we 

determine that a species is endangered 

or threatened, we must designate critical 

habitat to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. We listed 

the Suwannee moccasinshell as a 

threatened species on November 7, 2016 

(81 FR 69417). We are designating a 

total of approximately 190 mi (306 km) 

of stream channel in three units as 

critical habitat for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. 

Basis for this rule. Section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, at the time 

it is listed, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protections; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination by the Secretary 

that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Section 

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

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

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

prepared an economic analysis of the 

impacts of designating critical habitat 

for the Suwannee moccasinshell. We 

published the announcement of, and 

solicited public comments on, the draft 

economic analysis (DEA; 84 FR 65325, 

November 27, 2019). Because we 

received no comments on the DEA, we 

adopted the DEA as a final version. 

Peer review and public comment. In 

accordance with our peer review policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from three knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the Suwannee 

moccasinshell and its habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received a 

response from one peer reviewer who 

agreed with the information in the 

proposed critical habitat rule. We also 

considered all comments and 

information received from the public 

during the comment period on the 

proposed designation. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60335), we 

proposed to list the Suwannee 

moccasinshell as a threatened species. 

On October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69417), we 

published the final listing rule, which 

added the Suwannee moccasinshell to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h). 

On November 27, 2019 (84 FR 65325), 

we proposed to designate critical habitat 

for the Suwannee moccasinshell. All 

other previous Federal actions for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell are described 

in one or more of the documents 

discussed above. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our November 27, 2019, proposed 

critical habitat rule, we requested 

written comments from the public on 

the proposed designation and the 

associated DEA by January 27, 2020. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

and DEA during the comment period. 

Notices of the availability of these 

documents for review and inviting 

public comment were published by the 

Tallahassee Democrat on December 4, 

2019, Gainesville Sun and Gilchrist 

Journal on December 5, 2019, and 

Valdosta Daily Times and Suwannee 

Democrat on December 11, 2019. We 

received nine comments during the 60- 

day comment period. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. All substantive information 

provided during the comment period 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or is 

addressed below. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act 

requires the Service to give actual notice 

of any designation of lands that are 

considered to be critical habitat to the 

appropriate agency of each State in 

which the species is believed to occur, 

and invite each such agency to comment 

on the proposed regulation. The Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC) provided comments 

in support of the designation of critical 

habitat, and provided additional 

information related to current and 

future threats. Specifically, the FWC 

provided a publication by Holcomb et 

al. (2018, entire) on the strong 

connection between spring discharge 

and species occupancy; information on 

a proposed surface mining operation 

along the New River; and a publication 

by Neupane et al. (2019, entire) that 

assessed the hydrologic responses to 

projected climate change in the 

Suwannee River basin. We incorporated 

this new information into the final rule. 

Public Comments 

We received eight public comments 

on the proposed rule. Several 

commenters indicated support for the 

habitat protection of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. None of the comments 

were substantive so as to require the 

Service’s response. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

After consideration of the comments 

we received during the public comment 

period (refer to Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations above), and new 

information published or obtained since 

the proposed rule was published, we 

made changes to the final critical habitat 

rule. Many small, nonsubstantive 

changes and corrections, not affecting 

the determination (e.g., updating the 

Background section in response to 

comments, minor clarifications), were 

made throughout the document. Below 

is a summary of changes made to the 

final rule. 

(1) We incorporated information on 

the strong connection between spring 

discharge and species occupancy from 

Holcomb et al. (2018, entire) into the 

discussion of natural flow regimes in 

the Habitats Protected From 

Disturbance section under Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species. 

(2) We incorporated information from 

Neupane et al. (2018, entire), provided 

by FWC (see above), that assessed the 

hydrologic responses to projected 

climate change scenarios in the 

Suwannee River basin into the 

discussion of natural flow regimes in 

the Habitats Protected From 

Disturbance section under Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species. 

(3) We incorporated information 

received from FWC (see above) on a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34981 

proposed surface mining operation in 

the upper Santa Fe River sub-basin into 

the discussion of physical or biological 

features that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection within Unit 1 under Final 

Critical Habitat Designation. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as: An area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

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

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

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

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we may 

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. When designating critical 

habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate 

areas occupied by the species. The 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. In 

addition, for an unoccupied area to be 

considered essential, the Secretary must 

determine that there is a reasonable 

certainty both that the area will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and that the area contains one 

or more of those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

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

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally from the 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34982 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

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

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the 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, alkali 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 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. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Mussels generally live embedded in 

the bottom of stable streams and other 

bodies of water, in areas where flow 

velocities are sufficient to remove finer 

sediments and provide well-oxygenated 

waters. The Suwannee moccasinshell 

inhabits creeks and rivers where it is 

found in substrates of sand or a mixture 

of sand and gravel, and in areas with 

slow to moderate current (Williams 

2015, p. 2). The species is often 

associated with large woody material 

embedded in the substrate, which may 

help stabilize substrates and act as a 

flow refuge. The Suwannee 

moccasinshell, similar to other 

freshwater mussels, is dependent on 

areas with flow refuges, where shear 

stress is relatively low and sediments 

remain stable during high flow events 

(Strayer 1999, pp. 468, 472; Hastie et al. 

2001, pp. 111–114; Gangloff and 

Feminella 2007, p. 71). Substrates that 

remain stable in high flows conceivably 

allow these relatively sedentary animals 

to remain in the same general location 

throughout their entire lives. These 

habitat conditions not only provide 

space for Suwannee moccasinshell 

populations, but also provide cover and 

shelter and sites for breeding, 

reproduction, and growth of offspring. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Freshwater mussels, such as the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, siphon water 

into their shells and across four gills 

that are specialized for respiration, food 

collection, and brooding larvae in 

females. Food items include fine 

detritus (particles of organic debris), 

algae, diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et 

al. 2004, pp. 430–431, Vaughn et al. 

2008, p. 410). Adult mussels obtain food 

items both from the water column and 

from the sediment, either by taking 

water in through the incurrent siphon or 

by moving material extracted from 

sediments into their shell using cilia 

(hair-like structures) on their foot. For 

the first several months, juvenile 

mussels feed primarily with their foot, 

although they also may filter interstitial 

(pore) water (Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 

217–221). Food availability and quality 

for the Suwannee moccasinshell is 

affected by habitat stability, floodplain 

connectivity, flow, and water and 

sediment quality. Adequate food 

availability and quality is essential for 

normal behavior, growth, and viability 

during all life stages of this species. 

The Suwannee moccasinshell is a 

riverine species that depends upon 

adequate amounts of flowing water. 

Flowing water transports food items to 

the sedentary juvenile and adult life 

stages, provides oxygen for respiration, 

removes wastes, transports sperm to 

females, and maintains the stream 

bottom habitats where the species is 

found (the effects of flow alteration on 

habitat is discussed below under 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance). A 

sufficient amount of continuously 

flowing water is a feature essential to 

this species. 

Important water quality parameters 

for freshwater mussels include (but are 

not limited to) dissolved oxygen (DO), 

temperature, pH, salinity, and 

suspended sediment. As relatively 

sedentary animals, mussels must 

tolerate the full range of physical and 

chemical conditions that occur naturally 

within the streams where they persist, 

but many species are considered 

sensitive to disturbance. Water quality 

within the Suwannee River basin may 

vary according to season, geology, 

climate events, and human activities 

within the watershed. Dissolved oxygen 

(DO) and water temperature are 

important parameters for freshwater 

mussel early life stages, which are more 

sensitive to deviations from normal 

ranges. Water temperature also plays an 

important role in the overall water 

quality, including oxygen solubility and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34983 

ammonia toxicity. Increased stream 

temperatures and decreased dissolved 

oxygen concentrations are important 

secondary effects associated with flow 

reduction and cessation (Haag and 

Warren 2008, pp. 1174–1176). Sensitive 

mussel species like the Suwannee 

moccasinshell may suffer lethal and 

nonlethal effects to low dissolved 

oxygen levels and elevated stream 

temperatures (Gagnon et al. 2004, p. 

672; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 501; Haag 

and Warren 2008, pp. 1174–1176; 

Spooner and Vaughn 2008, p. 313), and 

are particularly susceptible to these 

conditions during early life stages 

(Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 132–133; 

Pandolfo et al. 2010, p. 965; 

Archambault et al. 2013, p. 247). Water 

temperatures of not more than 91 °F 

(32 °C), and DO concentrations of not 

less than 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

represent important thresholds for 

freshwater mussels (Sparks and Strayer 

1998, pp. 132–133; Gagnon et al. 2004, 

p. 672; Pandolfo et al. 2010, p. 965; 

Khan et al. 2019, p. 6). The specific 

physical and chemical tolerance ranges 

needed by the Suwannee moccasinshell 

for normal behavior, growth, and 

viability of all life stages have not been 

investigated. In the absence of speciesspecific data, we are using the current 

numeric standards for water quality 

criteria adopted by the States under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). We find these 

criteria represent sustainable levels for 

aquatic life that would provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Sites for breeding, reproduction, and 

development are tied to areas in stable 

rivers and creeks where flow velocities 

are sufficient to maintain habitats, and 

bottom substrates are composed of sand 

or a mixture of sand and gravel (see 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior above). 

Juvenile mussels depend upon areas 

where substrates remain stable during 

high flow events. The presence of large 

embedded logs may contribute to 

substrate stability and act as flow 

refuges. The larvae of most freshwater 

mussels are parasitic, requiring a period 

of encystment on a fish host in order to 

transform into juvenile mussels. Thus, 

the presence of appropriate host fishes 

to complete its reproductive life cycle is 

essential to the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. In laboratory host trials, 

Suwannee moccasinshell larvae 

transformed primarily on the 

blackbanded darter (Percina 

nigrofasciata) and to a lesser extent on 

the brown darter (Etheostoma edwini) 

(Johnson et al. 2016, p. 171). The 

blackbanded darter is one of the most 

abundant darter species in coastal plain 

streams, and the distribution of both 

fish species overlap with the historical 

distribution of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell (Kuehne and Barbour 

1983, pp. 29–30; Robins et al. 2018, pp. 

317, 336). 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance 

The Suwannee moccasinshell’s 

habitat has been impacted by pollution 

and reduced flows throughout its range, 

and by channel instability and excessive 

sedimentation in portions of its range 

(see Factor A, The Present or 

Threatened Destruction, Modification, 

or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range of 

the proposed listing rule). 

An environment free from toxic levels 

of pollutants is essential to the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, especially to 

its early life stages. There is no specific 

information on the sensitivity of the 

species to common municipal, 

agricultural, and industrial pollutants. 

However, as a group, freshwater mussels 

are more sensitive to pollution than 

many other aquatic organisms and are 

one of the first species to respond to 

water quality impacts (Haag 2012, p. 

355). A detailed discussion of pollution 

issues in the basin and potential effects 

to the Suwannee moccasinshell is 

provided in the proposed listing rule (80 

FR 60335) under Factor A. 

The Suwannee moccasinshell 

depends upon a natural flow regime to 

maintain its benthic habitats. Altered 

flow regimes (including higher peak 

flows, lower base flows, and changes to 

seasonal flow pulses) within the basin 

are attributable to altered stormwater 

runoff patterns, lowering of the 

groundwater table, recent periods of 

drought, and climate change. Developed 

areas and some agricultural lands shed 

water extremely quickly during storm 

events. Urban areas significantly affect 

water quantity because of the high 

percentage of impervious cover and 

increases in water consumption. 

Rainfall on impervious surfaces is 

immediately transported to stream 

channels, causing increases in flow 

volume and velocity. These effects are 

discussed further in the next section 

and in the final listing rule under Factor 

A, Stream Channel Instability. 

Because less infiltration occurs in 

developed areas, less groundwater 

recharge occurs and stream base flows 

may be reduced. The distinctive geology 

of the Suwannee River basin relies 

heavily on spring discharge to buffer the 

tannic waters of the mainstem, and 

groundwater recharge is limited in the 

region due to confinement of the 

aquifer. Over 250 springs located in this 

system have been threatened by 

increased demand for water resources 

within the basin and adjacent basins. 

The combined effects of groundwater 

pumping and prolonged droughts have 

resulted in lower groundwater tables 

and reduced flow and dewatering of 

basin streams and springs for extended 

periods (Grubbs and Crandall 2007, p. 

78; Torak et al. 2010, pp. 46–47). The 

springs provide refugia for aquatic 

organisms during periods of drought 

when groundwater has the most 

influence on water quality and quantity. 

Recent surveys found the species only 

in portions of the basin with significant 

contributions from spring discharge and 

failed to locate the species in areas 

without this influence (Holcomb et al. 

2018, pp. 99–100). The strong 

connection between spring discharge 

and Suwannee moccasinshell 

occupancy indicates that groundwater 

discharge via springs is important to 

maintaining flows and water quality 

needed by the species, especially during 

drought (Holcomb et al. 2018, p. 95). 

Reductions in stream flow may also 

alter hydraulically mediated sediment 

sorting throughout the river, which may 

displace or otherwise alter Suwannee 

moccasinshell habitat. Climate scenarios 

for the years 2050 and 2080 predict 

changes to seasonal and annual 

hydrology of the Suwannee River basin 

due to a wetter and warmer climate in 

the region (Neupane et al. 2018, pp. 

2232–2238). Within the basin, surface 

runoff is projected to increase as a result 

of increased precipitation, and summer 

stream flow is projected to decrease 

substantially (up to 25%) by 2080 due 

to the effects of higher air temperature 

(Neupane et al. 2018, p. 2240). 

Because freshwater mussels are 

relatively long-lived and have limited 

mobility, habitat stability is a 

requirement shared by nearly all 

freshwater mussels (Haag 2012, p. 106). 

Optimal substrate conditions for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell include 

consolidated sand or sand and gravel 

mixtures, without excessive 

accumulations of sediment or detritus, 

and that remain stable during high 

flows. These substrates are dependent 

on geomorphically stable stream 

channels and intact riparian areas 

(Allan et al. 1997, p. 149; Rosgen 1996, 

pp. 8–11). Stable stream channels 

consistently transport their sediment 

load, such that the stream bed neither 

degrades nor aggrades, and have lower 

suspended sediment loads (Rosgen 

1996, pp. 1–3), which mussels require 

in order to efficiently feed, respire, and 

reproduce. Stable stream channels are 

formed and maintained by natural flow 

regimes, channel features (dimension, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34984 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

pattern, and profile), and natural 

sediment input to the system through 

periodic flooding, which maintains 

connectivity and interaction with the 

floodplain. Habitat instability is 

induced by changes in natural sediment 

or flow regimes, and by physical 

modifications to the stream channel or 

floodplain (channel instability is 

discussed further under Factor A of the 

final listing rule). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We have determined that the 

following physical or biological features 

are essential to the conservation of 

Suwannee moccasinshell: 

(1) Geomorphically stable stream 

channels (channels that maintain lateral 

dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 

sinuosity patterns over time without an 

aggrading or degrading bed elevation). 

(2) Stable substrates of muddy sand or 

mixtures of sand and gravel, and with 

little to no accumulation of 

unconsolidated sediments and low 

amounts of filamentous algae. 

(3) A natural hydrologic flow regime 

(magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found, and 

connectivity of stream channels with 

the floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for habitat 

maintenance, food availability, and 

spawning habitat for native fishes. 

(4) Water quality conditions needed to 

sustain healthy Suwannee 

moccasinshell populations, including 

low pollutant levels (not less than State 

criteria), a natural temperature regime, 

pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), adequate 

oxygen content (not less than State 

criteria), hardness, turbidity, and other 

chemical characteristics necessary for 

normal behavior, growth, and viability 

of all life stages. 

(5) The presence of abundant fish 

hosts necessary for recruitment of the 

Suwannee moccasinshell. The presence 

of blackbanded darters (Percina 

nigrofasciata) and brown darters 

(Etheostoma edwini) will serve as an 

indication of fish host presence. 

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 that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

All three units that we are designating 

as critical habitat, including the unit 

that was occupied by the species at the 

time of listing, have mixed ownership of 

adjacent riparian lands, with mainly 

private (72 percent) and State (27 

percent) lands (Table 1). All Stateowned riparian lands are in Florida, and 

the majority are managed by Florida’s 

Suwannee River Water Management 

District (District). Tracts are managed to 

maintain adequate water supply and 

water quality for natural systems by 

preserving riparian habitats and 

restricting development (SRWMD 2014, 

p. 3). 

The District established minimum 

flows and levels for the lower Suwannee 

River, downstream of Fanning Springs 

and for the upper Santa Fe River. 

Minimum flow and level criteria 

establish a limit at which further 

withdrawals would be detrimental to 

water resources, taking into 

consideration fish and wildlife habitats, 

the passage of fish, sediment loads, and 

water quality, among others (SRWMD 

2005, pp. 6–8; SRWMD 2007, entire). In 

addition, the Suwannee River and Santa 

Fe River systems have been designated 

Outstanding Florida Waters, which 

prevents the permitted discharge of 

pollutants that would lower existing 

water quality of, or significantly 

degrade, such waters. While these 

programs may indirectly alleviate some 

detrimental impacts on aquatic habitats, 

there currently are no plans or 

agreements designed specifically for the 

conservation of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell or for freshwater mussels 

in general. 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to ameliorate the following 

threats: Altered flow regimes, nonpoint 

source pollution (from stormwater 

runoff or infiltration), point source 

pollution (from wastewater discharges 

or accidental releases), physical 

alterations to the stream channel (for 

example, dredging, straightening, 

impounding, etc.), and altered physical 

and chemical water quality parameters 

(especially, temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, turbidity, pH, and salinity). 

Special management considerations or 

protection may be required within 

critical habitat areas to ameliorate these 

threats, and include (but are not limited 

to): (1) Moderation of surface and 

ground water withdrawals; (2) 

improvement of the treatment of 

wastewater discharged from permitted 

facilities and the operation of those 

facilities; (3) reductions in pesticide and 

fertilizer use especially in groundwater 

recharge areas and near stream 

channels; (4) use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and stream bank 

alteration; (5) protection and restoration 

of riparian buffers; and (6) avoidance of 

physical alterations to stream channels 

and adjacent floodplains. This list 

applies only to Federal actions (see the 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard below for more 

information). 

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. As discussed in more 

detail below, we are designating critical 

habitat in areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing. We also are designating 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing because we have determined 

that a designation limited to occupied 

areas would be inadequate—and 

therefore designation of unoccupied 

areas is essential—to ensure the 

conservation of the species. 

On December 16, 2020, we published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (85 

FR 81411) adding a definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ to our regulations for purposes 

of critical habitat designations under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This rule became 

effective on January 15, 2021 and only 

applies to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 15, 2021. Consequently, 

this new regulation does not apply to 

this final rule. 

The current distribution of the species 

is much reduced from its historical 

range. We anticipate that recovery will 

require continued protection of the 

existing population and its habitat, as 

well as reintroduction of Suwannee 

moccasinshell into historically occupied 

areas, ensuring there are multiple viable 

populations and that they occur over a 

wide geographic area. Range-wide 

recovery considerations, such as 

maintaining existing genetic diversity 

and striving for representation of all 

major portions of the species’ current 

range, were considered in formulating 

the critical habitat. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34985 

For this rule, we delineated critical 

habitat unit boundaries using the 

following criteria: 

(1) We compiled all available 

occurrence data records. 

(2) We used confirmed presences 

between the years 2000 and 2016 as the 

foundation for identifying areas 

currently occupied. 

(3) We evaluated habitat suitability of 

stream segments currently occupied by 

the species and retained all occupied 

stream segments. 

(4) We evaluated unoccupied stream 

segments for suitability, connectivity, 

and expansion, and identified areas 

containing the components comprising 

the physical or biological features that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

(5) We omitted some unoccupied 

areas that are highly degraded and are 

not likely restorable (e.g., insufficient 

flowing water, channel destabilized), 

and, therefore, are not considered 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

(6) We delineated boundaries of 

critical habitat units based on the above 

information. 

Specific criteria and methodology 

used to determine critical habitat unit 

boundaries are discussed below. 

Sources of data for this critical habitat 

designation include multiple databases 

maintained by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Dr. James D. 

Williams, Florida Museum of Natural 

History, and U.S. Geological Survey; 

verified museum records from multiple 

institutions (see Methods in Johnson et 

al. 2016, pp. 164–165); and a status 

report by Blalock–Herod and Williams 

(2001, entire). Historical and recent 

occurrence data included records 

collected from May 1916 to March 2016. 

Many surveys were conducted 

throughout the Suwannee River basin 

by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission biologists 

during 2012–2016, and all sites with 

historical occurrences of Suwannee 

moccasinshell were sampled during this 

period. Sources of information 

pertaining to habitat requirements of the 

Suwannee moccasinshell include 

observations recorded during surveys 

and information contained in Blalock– 

Herod and Williams (2001, entire) and 

Williams et al. (2014, pp. 278–280). 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

We define ‘‘currently occupied’’ as 

river reaches with positive surveys from 

2000 to 2016. In making these 

determinations, we recognized that 

known occurrences for some mussel 

species are extremely localized, and rare 

mussels can be difficult to locate. In 

addition, stream habitats are highly 

dependent upon upstream and 

downstream channel habitat conditions 

for their maintenance. Therefore, we 

considered the entire reach between the 

uppermost and lowermost currently 

occupied locations to delineate the 

probable upstream and downstream 

extent of the Suwannee moccasinshell’s 

distribution. Within the current range of 

the species, some habitats may or may 

not be actively utilized by individuals, 

but we consider these areas to be 

occupied at the scale of the geographic 

range of the species. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

for the Suwannee moccasinshell one 

occupied unit in the Suwannee River 

and lower Santa Fe River. This area 

contains one or more of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell, and those physical or 

biological features may require special 

management conditions or protections. 

However, this single population 

provides little redundancy for the 

species, and a series of back-to-back 

stochastic events or a single catastrophic 

event could significantly reduce or 

extirpate this one population. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

the occupied area is inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Therefore, we have also identified, and 

are designating as critical habitat, 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Areas Not Occupied at the Time of 

Listing 

We are designating two unoccupied 

units as critical habitat. The units have 

some of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and we are reasonably 

certain that each will contribute to the 

conservation of the species. Our specific 

rationale for each unit can be found in 

the unit descriptions below. 

An examination of all available 

collection data shows that the 

Suwannee moccasinshell’s range and 

numbers have declined over time (see 

‘‘Distribution and Abundance’’ 

discussion in the final listing rule). For 

example, despite considerable survey 

effort, the species has not been collected 

in the lower Suwannee River or 

Withlacoochee River sub-basins since 

the 1960s, and was last collected in the 

upper Santa Fe River sub-basin in 1996 

(Johnson et al. 2016, p. 170). There has 

also been a reduction in numbers, with 

fewer individuals encountered during 

recent surveys than were collected 

historically (Johnson et al. 2016, pp. 

166, 170). 

The Suwannee moccasinshell’s 

reduced range and small population size 

may increase its vulnerability to many 

threats. Aquatic species with small 

ranges, few populations, and small or 

declining population sizes are the most 

vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008, 

p. 137; Haag 2012, p. 336). The effects 

of certain environmental pressures, 

particularly habitat degradation and 

loss, catastrophic weather events, and 

introduced species, are greater when 

population size is small (Soule ́ 1980, 

pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133–137, 

152). Threats to the Suwannee 

moccasinshell are compounded by its 

reduced and linear distribution, with 

nearly the entire population presently 

distributed within the Suwannee River 

mainstem. A small population also 

occurs in the lower Santa Fe River; 

however, only 5 recent collections (3 of 

which are relic shell) have been 

reported in this sub-basin (Johnson et al. 

2016, p. 171). 

A larger population of Suwannee 

moccasinshell occurring over a wide 

geographic area can have higher 

resilience. A large population is better 

able to return to pre-disturbance 

numbers after stochastic events, and 

also has increased availability of mates 

and reduced risk of genetic drift and 

inbreeding depression. The minimum 

viable population size needed to 

withstand stochastic events is not 

known for mussels. For species with 

complex life histories like freshwater 

mussels, maximizing the chances of 

viability over the long term, likely 

requires a population of considerable 

size (Haag 2012, p. 371). Reestablishing 

viable populations in the Withlacoochee 

and upper Santa Fe River sub-basins 

increases Suwannee moccasinshell 

redundancy by expanding its range into 

historically occupied areas, potentially 

increasing population size, and 

providing refuge from catastrophic 

events (for example, flooding and spills) 

in the Suwannee River. 

We determined the Withlacoochee 

and upper Santa Fe River sub-basins 

have the potential for future 

reoccupation by the species, provided 

that stressors are managed and 

mitigated. These specific areas 

encompass the minimum area of the 

species’ historical range within the 

critical habitat designation, while still 

providing ecological diversity so that 

the species has the ability to evolve and 

adapt over time (representation) to 

ensure that the species has an adequate 

level of redundancy to guard against 

future catastrophic events. These areas 

also represent the stream reaches within 

the historical range with the best 

potential for recovery of the species due 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34986 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

to their current conditions and likely 

suitability for reintroductions. 

Accordingly, we are designating one 

unoccupied unit in the upper Santa Fe 

River and one unoccupied unit in the 

Withlacoochee River. As described 

below in the individual unit 

descriptions, each unit contains one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features and is reasonably certain to 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species. 

General Information on the Maps of the 

Critical Habitat Designation 

The critical habitat streams were 

mapped with USGS National 

Hydrography Dataset GIS data. The 

high-resolution 1:24,000 flowlines were 

used to delineate the upstream and 

downstream boundaries of the critical 

habitat units and to calculate river 

kilometers and miles, according to the 

criteria explained below. The 

downstream boundary of a unit is the 

confluence of a named tributary stream 

or spring, below the farthest 

downstream occurrence record. The 

upstream boundary is the confluence of 

the first major tributary, road-crossing 

bridge, or a permanent barrier to fish 

passage above the farthest upstream 

occurrence record. The confluence of a 

large tributary typically marks a 

significant change in the size of the 

stream and is a logical and recognizable 

upstream terminus. Likewise, a dam or 

other barrier to fish passage marks the 

upstream extent to which mussels may 

disperse via their fish hosts. In the unit 

descriptions, distances between 

landmarks marking the upstream or 

downstream extent of a stream segment 

are given in river kilometers (km) and 

equivalent miles (mi), as measured 

tracing the course of the stream, not 

straight-line distance. 

The areas designated as critical 

habitat include only stream channels 

within the ordinary high-water line. 

States were granted ownership of lands 

beneath navigable waters up to the 

ordinary high-water line upon achieving 

statehood (Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 

How.) 212 (1845)). Prior sovereigns or 

the States may have made grants to 

private parties that included lands 

below the ordinary high-water mark of 

some navigable waters that are included 

in this rule. Most, if not all, lands 

beneath the navigable waters included 

in this final rule are owned by the States 

of Florida and Georgia. The lands 

beneath most non-navigable waters 

included in this final rule are in private 

ownership. 

There are no developed areas within 

the critical habitat boundaries except for 

transportation crossings, which do not 

remove the suitability of these areas for 

this 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 rule have been excluded by 

text in the rule and are not designated 

as critical habitat. Therefore, 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 critical habitat designation is 

defined by these maps, as modified by 

any accompanying regulatory text, 

presented at the end of this document 

in the text of the rule itself. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. The coordinates on which 

each map is based are available at the 

Service’s internet site, (https://

www.fws.gov/panamacity), (http://

www.regulations.gov) at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0059, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above). 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 306 

km (190 mi) of stream channel in three 

units as critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell. The three 

units we are designating as critical 

habitat are: Unit 1: Suwannee River, 

Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, and Unit 

3: Withlacoochee River. About 81 

percent of critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell is already 

designated as critical habitat for either 

of two ESA-listed species: The oval 

pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) or the 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi). The table below shows the 

critical habitat units for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell and ownership of 

riparian lands adjacent to the units. 

TABLE OF CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE SUWANNEE MOCCASINSHELL

[Ownership of riparian lands adjacent to the units is given for each streambank in kilometers (km) and miles (mi). Lengths greater than 10 

kilometers are rounded to the nearest whole kilometer and mile.] 

Bank Private 

km (mi) 

State 

km (mi) 

County 

km (mi) 

Unit length 

km (mi) 

Unit 1: Suwannee River, FL ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 187 (116.2) 

Right descending bank * ........................................................................... 133 (83) 51 (31) 3.1 (1.9) ........................

Left descending bank * ............................................................................. 133 (83) 53 (33) 1.5 (0.9) ........................

Total ................................................................................................... 266 (165) 103 (64) 4.6 (2.9) ........................

Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, FL .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 43 (26.7) 

Right descending bank ............................................................................. 34 (21) 8.4 (5.2) 0.4 (0.3) ........................

Left descending bank ............................................................................... 26 (16) 13 (8) 3.6 (2.2) ........................

Total ................................................................................................... 61 (38) 22 (13) 4 (2.5) ........................

Unit 3: Withlacoochee River, FL and GA ........................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 75.5 (46.9) 

Right descending bank ............................................................................. 58 (36) 17 (11) 0 ........................

Left descending bank ............................................................................... 53 (33) 22 (14) 0 ........................

Total ................................................................................................... 112 (69) 39 (25) 0 ........................

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

* Right and left descending bank is that bank of a stream when facing in the direction of flow or downstream. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34987 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, below. 

Unit 1: Suwannee River, Florida 

Unit 1 consists of approximately 187 

km (116 mi) of the Suwannee River and 

lower Santa Fe River in Alachua, 

Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, 

Madison, and Suwannee Counties, 

Florida. The unit includes the 

Suwannee River mainstem from the 

confluence of Hart Springs (near river 

kilometer 71) in Dixie and Gilchrist 

Counties, upstream 137 km (85 mi) to 

the confluence of the Withlacoochee 

River in Madison and Suwannee 

Counties; and the Santa Fe River from 

its confluence with the Suwannee River 

in Suwannee and Gilchrist Counties, 

upstream 50 km (31 mi) to the river’s 

rise in Alachua County. The Santa Fe 

River flows underground for about 5 km 

(3.1 mi), ‘‘sinking’’ at O’Leno State Park 

and ‘‘rising’’ at River Rise Preserve State 

Park. The lower and upper portions of 

the Santa Fe River are intermittently 

connected during high flow events. The 

riparian lands along stream reaches in 

this unit are generally privately owned 

agricultural or silvicultural lands, or 

State-owned or -managed conservation 

lands (Table 1). 

The Suwannee moccasinshell 

occupies all stream reaches in this unit, 

which contains most of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. However, decreases in 

stream flow and changes in water 

quality, especially increased nitrogen 

loads and algae growth, are recognized 

issues in all stream reaches within the 

unit (SRWMD 2017, pp. 26–27, 42–50). 

During drought, depressed dissolved 

oxygen levels and elevated water 

temperatures may also be degraded in 

some reaches. Therefore, physical or 

biological features 3 and 4 are not 

consistently present in the unit. 

Currently, 73 percent of Unit 1 is 

designated critical habitat for the Gulf 

sturgeon (a migratory fish). Some small 

urban areas also are located near the two 

rivers. 

Special management considerations 

and protections that may be required to 

address threats within the unit include: 

Minimizing ground and surface water 

withdrawals or other actions that alter 

stream hydrology; reducing the use of 

fertilizers and pesticides, especially in 

spring recharge areas and near stream 

channels; improving treatment of 

wastewater discharged from permitted 

facilities and the operation of those 

facilities; implementing practices that 

protect or restore riparian buffer areas 

along stream corridors; avoidance of 

physical alternations to the stream 

channel and floodplain; prohibiting the 

removal of pre-cut submerged timber 

(deadhead logs); and establishing and 

enforcing restrictions on boat speed and 

length, especially in the lower Santa Fe 

River. Many of these measures would 

also be implemented in stream reaches 

upstream of the unit to adequately 

protect habitat within the unit. For 

example, a large surface mining project 

is proposed adjacent the New River 

within the upper Santa Fe River 

watershed. If the mining operation and 

its associated structures are constructed 

as currently proposed, we anticipate 

that physical or biological features 3 and 

4 would be negatively impacted to a 

significant degree within the unit. In 

addition, groundwater discharge via 

springs is important to maintaining 

flows and water quality needed by the 

species, especially during drought 

(Holcomb et al., 2018, p. 95). Therefore, 

spring recharge areas and aquifers may 

also need to be protected in order to 

fully address threats within the unit. 

Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, Florida 

Unit 2 consists of approximately 43 

km (27 mi) of the Santa Fe River and 

New River in Alachua, Bradford, 

Columbia, and Union Counties, Florida. 

The unit includes the Santa Fe River 

from the river’s sink in Alachua County, 

upstream 36.5 km (23 mi) to the 

confluence of Rocky Creek in Bradford 

and Alachua Counties; and the New 

River from its confluence with the Santa 

Fe River, upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the 

confluence of Five Mile Creek in Union 

and Bradford Counties. The riparian 

lands along stream channels in this unit 

are generally privately owned 

agricultural or silvicultural lands, or are 

State-owned or -managed conservation 

lands (Table 1). All of Unit 2 is also 

designated critical habitat for the oval 

pigtoe (a freshwater mussel). The 

Suwannee moccasinshell was routinely 

represented in historical collections in 

the upper Santa Fe sub-basin; however, 

it is the only mussel species not 

detected in contemporary surveys. Unit 

2 retains the features of a natural stream 

channel and presently supports a 

diverse mussel fauna, including several 

mussel species known to co-occur with 

the Suwannee moccasinshell. This unit 

has at least one of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and we are 

reasonably certain that this area will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species. Our specific rationale for this 

unit can be found below. 

This area is essential for the 

conservation of the species because it 

would improve its resiliency and 

redundancy of the species, which is 

necessary to conserve and recover the 

Suwanee moccasinshell. To improve the 

species’ overall viability by increasing 

resiliency and redundancy, it is 

important to reestablish Suwannee 

moccasinshell populations in its former 

range in the Santa Fe River sub-basin 

(i.e., Unit 2). Presently, nearly the entire 

population of the species is linearly 

distributed within the Suwannee River 

and vulnerable to catastrophic events 

(for example, contaminant spills or 

severe floods), as well as to random 

fluctuations in population size or 

environmental conditions (Haag and 

Williams 2014, p. 48). Therefore, 

reestablishing populations in Unit 2 

would reduce its extinction risk by 

expanding its current range into areas 

beyond the mainstem by providing 

connectivity to already occupied areas, 

space for growth and population 

expansion in portions of historical 

habitat, and refugia areas from threats in 

the Suwannee River. 

Although it is considered unoccupied, 

portions of this unit contain some or all 

of the physical or biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Unit 2 possesses characteristics 

described by physical or biological 

features 1 and 2 as long reaches of stable 

stream channel and suitable substrates 

are present throughout much of the unit. 

Unit 2 retains the features of a natural 

stream channel and presently supports 

a diverse mussel fauna, including 

several mussel species that ordinarily 

co-occur with the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. Both fish species found 

to serve as larval hosts for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell occur within the unit 

(Robins et al., 2018, pp. 317, 336). 

Physical or biological features 3 and 4 

are degraded in the Unit during some 

times of the year. Flow levels in the 

upper Santa Fe River have declined over 

time, and the river has ceased to flow 

multiple times since 2000 (Johnson et 

al., 2016, p. 170). An important effect of 

reduced flows is altered water quality, 

especially depressed dissolved oxygen 

levels and elevated water temperatures 

(discussed above under ‘‘Physical or 

Biological Features’’). In 2007, the 

District developed minimum flow levels 

to establish flows protective of ‘‘fish and 

wildlife habitats and the passage of 

fish’’ in the upper Santa Fe River 

(SRWMD 2007, entire). The restoration 

of natural flow levels is a complex issue 

that will require considerable 

involvement and collaboration of 

Federal, State, and local governments 

and private landowners to implement 

projects that reduce groundwater 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34988 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

pumping in order to recover aquifer 

levels and sustain base flows in the 

upper Santa Fe River sub-basin. 

However, if implemented, water 

management strategies would improve 

physical or biological features 3 and 4. 

The need for conservation efforts is 

recognized by our conservation 

partners, and methods for restoring 

natural flow regimes and reintroducing 

the species into unoccupied habitat are 

being advocated and developed. 

Accordingly, we are reasonably certain 

this unit will contribute to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 3: Withlacoochee River, Georgia 

and Florida 

Unit 3 consists of approximately 75.5 

km (47 mi) of the Withlacoochee River 

in Madison and Hamilton Counties, 

Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes 

Counties, Georgia. The unit includes the 

Withlacoochee River from its 

confluence with the Suwannee River in 

Madison and Hamilton Counties, FL, 

upstream 75.5 km (47 mi) to the 

confluence of Okapilco Creek in Brooks 

and Lowndes Counties, GA. The 

riparian lands along stream channels in 

this unit are generally privately owned 

agricultural or silvicultural lands (Table 

1). Unit 3 is within the historical range 

of the Suwannee moccasinshell but is 

not currently occupied by the species. 

Twenty-five percent of Unit 3 is also 

designated critical habitat for the Gulf 

sturgeon. Unit 3 retains the features of 

a natural stream channel and supports 

a diverse mussel fauna, including 

several mussel species known to cooccur with the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. This unit has at least one 

of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and we are reasonably certain 

that this area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species. Our specific 

rationale for this unit can be found 

below. 

This area is essential for the 

conservation of the species because it 

would improve the resiliency and 

redundancy of the species, which is 

necessary to conserve and recover the 

Suwanee moccasinshell. Presently, 

nearly the entire population of the 

species is linearly distributed within the 

Suwannee River (see Unit 1 above) and 

vulnerable to catastrophic events (for 

example, contaminant spills or severe 

floods) as well as to random fluctuations 

in population size or environmental 

conditions (Haag and Williams 2014, p. 

48). Reestablishing populations in 

Withlacoochee River sub-basin would 

reduce its extinction risk by expanding 

its current range into areas beyond the 

mainstem by providing connectivity to 

already occupied areas, space for growth 

and population expansion in portions of 

historical habitat, and refugia areas from 

threats in the Suwannee River. 

Although it is considered unoccupied, 

portions of this unit contain some or all 

of the physical or biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Specifically, Unit 3 possesses 

characteristics described by physical or 

biological features 1 and 2 as long 

reaches of stable stream channel with 

suitable substrates are present within 

the unit. Unit 3 retains the features of 

a natural stream channel and supports 

a diverse mussel fauna, including 

several mussel species that ordinarily 

co-occur with the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. Both fish species found 

to serve as larval hosts for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell occur within the unit 

(Robins et al. 2018, pp. 317, 336). 

Therefore, we find that the unit has the 

potential to support the species’ lifehistory functions. 

Physical or biological feature 4 is in 

degraded condition, and pollution may 

have contributed to the Suwannee 

moccasinshell’s decline in Unit 3. The 

domestic wastewater treatment plant for 

the city of Valdosta, GA is 

approximately 14 river miles upstream 

of the unit and has a history of 

untreated sewage releases to the 

Withlacoochee River after heavy rain 

events. However, major renovations to 

the city’s sewer system were completed 

in June 2016 with the construction of a 

new treatment plant. Additional 

projects to address continued problems 

with sewage spills are ongoing, and the 

construction of a large retention basin is 

planned. If these improvements are 

realized, water quality could be restored 

to levels necessary to support the 

species. 

The need for conservation efforts is 

recognized by our conservation 

partners, and methods for restoring and 

reintroducing the species into 

unoccupied habitat are being developed. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources have 

expressed support for including this 

area in a critical habitat designation 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 2019; Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources 2018). 

Accordingly, we are reasonably certain 

this unit will contribute to 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 fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

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

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action that is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species listed under the 

Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

We published a final regulation with 

a new definition of destruction or 

adverse modification on August 27, 

2019 (84 FR 45020). Destruction or 

adverse modification means a direct or 

indirect alteration that appreciably 

diminishes the value of critical habitat 

as a whole for the conservation of a 

listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

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

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2), is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34989 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the listed species 

and/or avoid the likelihood of 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies sometimes may need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Overall, about 81 percent of critical 

habitat proposed for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell is already designated as 

critical habitat for either the oval pigtoe 

or Gulf sturgeon. For Federal actions 

within areas already designated as 

critical habitat for these species, 

conservation measures we would 

recommend for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell are likely to be the same 

or very similar to those we already 

recommend for the oval pigtoe and Gulf 

sturgeon. New additional conservation 

measures will, however, likely be 

needed within that portion of Unit 3 

that is unoccupied by the Suwannee 

moccasinshell but not currently 

designated critical habitat for the Gulf 

sturgeon. 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether, with 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action, the affected critical habitat 

would continue to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

result in a direct or indirect alteration 

that appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. As discussed above, the 

role of critical habitat is to support 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of a listed species 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that may affect critical 

habitat, when carried out, funded, or 

authorized by a Federal agency, should 

result in consultation for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. These activities include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would introduce 

contaminants or alter water chemistry or 

temperature. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, release 

of chemical or biological pollutants, or 

heated effluents into the surface water 

or connected groundwater at a point 

source or by dispersed release (nonpoint 

source). These activities could alter 

water quality conditions to levels that 

are beyond the tolerances of the mussel 

or its fish host. 

(2) Actions that would reduce flow 

levels or alter flow regimes. This could 

include, but is not limited to, activities 

that lower groundwater levels including 

groundwater pumping and surface water 

withdrawal or diversion. These 

activities can result in long-term 

reduced stream flows, which may cause 

streams to stop flowing or dry up; and 

also may decrease oxygen levels, elevate 

water temperatures, degrade water 

quality, and cause sediments to 

accumulate. These activities could alter 

flow levels beyond the tolerances of the 

mussel or its fish host. 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

increase the filamentous algal 

community within the stream channel. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, release of nutrients into 

the surface water or connected 

groundwater at a point source or by 

dispersed release (nonpoint source). 

These activities can result in excessive 

filamentous algae filling streams and 

reducing habitat for the mussel and its 

fish host, degrading water quality 

during their decay, and decreasing 

oxygen levels at night from their 

respiration. Thick algal mats can also 

entrain young mussels and prevent 

juveniles from settling into the 

sediment. These activities could 

degrade the habitat and reduce oxygen 

levels below the tolerances of the 

mussel or its fish host. 

(4) Actions that would significantly 

alter channel morphology or cause 

channel instability. Such activities 

could include but are not limited to 

channelization, impoundment, road and 

bridge construction, mining, dredging, 

destruction of riparian vegetation, and 

land clearing. These activities may lead 

to changes in flow regimes, erosion of 

the streambed and banks, and excessive 

sedimentation that could degrade the 

habitat of the mussel or its fish host. 

(5) Actions that would cause 

significant amounts of sediments to 

enter the stream channel. Such activities 

could include but are not limited to 

livestock grazing, road and bridge 

construction, channel alteration, 

incompatible with best management 

practices, commercial and residential 

development, and other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances. These activities 

could eliminate or degrade the habitat 

necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of the mussel or its fish 

host. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: 

‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as 

critical habitat any lands or other 

geographical areas owned or controlled 

by the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan [INRMP] prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

(DoD) lands with a completed INRMP 

within the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of 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 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34990 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will 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. On December 18, 2020, we 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions 

of our regulations pertaining to 

exclusions of critical habitat. These final 

regulations became effective on January 

19, 2021 and apply to critical habitat 

rules for which a proposed rule was 

published after January 19, 2021. 

Consequently, these new regulations do 

not apply to this final rule. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan. 

In the case of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell, the benefits of critical 

habitat include public awareness of the 

presence of the species and the 

importance of habitat protection, and, 

where a Federal nexus exists, increased 

habitat protection for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell due to protection from 

adverse modification or destruction of 

critical habitat. In practice, situations 

with a Federal nexus exist primarily on 

Federal lands or for projects undertaken 

by Federal agencies. Additionally, 

continued implementation of an 

ongoing management plan that provides 

equal to or more conservation than a 

critical habitat designation would 

reduce the benefits of including that 

specific area in the critical habitat 

designation. 

We describe below the process that 

we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

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

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the 

designated areas. We then identify 

which conservation efforts may be the 

result of the species being listed under 

the Act versus those attributed solely to 

the designation of critical habitat for 

this particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

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

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

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 an optional section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

For this designation, we developed an 

incremental effects memorandum (IEM) 

considering the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

this designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation (Industrial Economics 2020, 

entire). The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out the geographic 

areas in which the critical habitat 

designation is unlikely to result in 

probable incremental economic impacts. 

In particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may 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. The 

screening analysis filters out particular 

areas of critical habitat that are already 

subject to such protections and are, 

therefore, unlikely to incur incremental 

economic impacts. 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 screening 

analysis also assesses whether units 

unoccupied by the species may require 

additional management or conservation 

efforts as a result of the critical habitat 

designation, and thus may incur 

incremental economic impacts. This 

screening analysis, combined with the 

information contained in our IEM, 

constitute our economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell and is 

summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct Federal agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 

feasible) and qualitative terms. 

Consistent with the E.O. regulatory 

analysis requirements, our effects 

analysis under the Act may take into 

consideration impacts to both directly 

and indirectly affected entities, where 

practicable and reasonable. If sufficient 

data are available, we assess to the 

extent practicable the probable impacts 

to both directly and indirectly affected 

entities. As part of our screening 

analysis, we considered the types of 

economic activities that are likely to 

occur within the areas likely affected by 

the critical habitat designation. In our 

evaluation of the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated June 30, 

2016, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) Groundwater 

pumping; (2) agriculture; (3) mining; (4) 

grazing; (5) discharge of chemical 

pollutants; (6) roadway and bridge 

construction; (7) in-stream dams and 

diversions; (8) dredging; (9) commercial 

or residential development; (10) timber 

harvest; and (11) removal of large inchannel logs. We considered each 

industry or category individually. 

Additionally, we considered whether 

these activities would have any Federal 

involvement. 

Critical habitat designation generally 

will not affect activities that do not have 

any Federal involvement; under the Act, 

the designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. In areas where the Suwannee 

moccasinshell is present, Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34991 

agencies already are required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the species. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat will be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

will 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 

Suwannee moccasinshell’s critical 

habitat. The following specific 

circumstances in this case help to 

inform our evaluation: (1) The physical 

or biological features identified for 

occupied critical habitat are the same 

features essential for the life requisites 

of the species and (2) any actions that 

would result in sufficient harm or 

harassment to constitute jeopardy to the 

Suwannee moccasinshell would also 

likely adversely affect the essential 

physical or biological features of 

occupied critical habitat. 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. 

The final critical habitat designation 

for the Suwannee moccasinshell totals 

approximately 306 kilometers (190 

miles) of stream channels in three units. 

The riparian lands adjacent to critical 

habitat are under private (72 percent), 

State (27 percent), and county (1 

percent) ownership. Unit 1 is the only 

occupied unit and is 61 percent of the 

critical habitat designation. As 

discussed above, in this occupied area, 

any actions that may affect the species 

or its habitat would also affect 

designated critical habitat and it is 

unlikely that any additional 

conservation efforts would be 

recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. Therefore, only 

administrative costs are expected in 

actions affecting this unit. While this 

additional analysis will require time 

and resources by both the Federal action 

agency and the Service, it is believed 

that, in most circumstances, these costs, 

because they are predominantly 

administrative in nature, would not be 

significant. 

Units 2 and 3 are currently 

unoccupied by the species but are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. These units total 119 km (78 

mi) and comprise 39 percent of the 

critical habitat designation. In these 

unoccupied areas, any conservation 

efforts or associated probable impacts 

would be considered incremental effects 

attributed to the critical habitat 

designation. 

The screening analysis finds that the 

total annual incremental costs of critical 

habitat designation for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell are anticipated to be less 

than $100,000 per year. The highest 

costs are anticipated in Unit 3 because 

it is unoccupied by the species and is 

not already designated critical habitat 

for another mussel species (for 

comparison, see discussion for Unit 2 

below). In this unit, the designation is 

anticipated to result in a small number 

of additional section 7 consultations 

(approximately three per year), 

primarily related to planned 

transportation projects that intersect the 

unit. Anticipated project modifications 

may include minimizing the extent of 

in-channel maintenance activities, 

relocation of discharge outfalls, or 

requiring strict adherence of water 

quality and habitat protections. Total 

annual costs to the Service and action 

agencies for consultations and project 

modifications in Unit 3 are anticipated 

to be less than $80,000 annually 

(Industrial Economics 2020, pp. 9–12). 

In Units 1 and 2, the economic costs 

of implementing the rule will most 

likely be limited to additional 

administrative efforts by the Service and 

action agencies to consider adverse 

modification. Unit 1 is occupied by the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, and 

conservation actions taken in order to be 

protective of the species would also be 

sufficient to protect its critical habitat. 

Unit 2 is also designated as critical 

habitat for the oval pigtoe, a freshwater 

mussel with nearly identical physical or 

biological features to the Suwannee 

moccasinshell. Conservation efforts 

taken to protect oval pigtoe critical 

habitat would also be sufficient to 

protect Suwannee moccasinshell critical 

habitat. Thus, additional project 

modifications are not anticipated in 

Units 1 and 2. In total, up to six section 

7 consultations per year are anticipated 

to occur in Units 1 and 2, with total 

costs of less than $20,000 annually 

(Industrial Economics 2020, pp. 7–9). 

Exclusions 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

We solicited data and comments from 

the public regarding the economic 

analysis, as well as all aspects of the 

proposed rule. We did not receive any 

additional information on economic 

impacts 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) and 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

Based on the above-described 

consideration of the economic impacts 

of the critical habitat designation, the 

Secretary is not exercising his discretion 

to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell based on 

economic impacts. 

A copy of the IEM and economic 

screening analysis with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Panama City Ecological 

Services Field Office or from the field 

office’s website (see ADDRESSES). 

Exclusions Based on Impacts to 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

In preparing this rule, we determined 

that none of the lands within the 

designated critical habitat for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell are owned or 

managed by the Department of Defense 

or Department of Homeland Security, 

and, therefore, we anticipate no impact 

on national security or homeland 

security. We did not receive any 

additional information during the 

public comment period for the proposed 

designation regarding impacts of the 

designation on national security or 

homeland security that would support 

excluding any specific areas from the 

final critical habitat designation under 

authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

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

considered any other relevant impacts, 

in addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

considered a number of factors 

including whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, or candidate conservation 

agreements with assurances, or whether 

there are non-permitted conservation 

agreements and partnerships that would 

be encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we looked at the existence of 

Tribal conservation plans and 

partnerships and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also considered any social impacts 

that might occur because of the 

designation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34992 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

In preparing this final rule, we 

determined that there are currently no 

HCPs or other management plans for the 

Suwannee moccasinshell, and the final 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. Therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, 

partnerships, or HCPs from this final 

critical habitat designation. We did not 

receive any additional information 

during the public comment period for 

the proposed rule regarding other 

relevant impacts to support excluding 

any specific areas from the final critical 

habitat designation under authority of 

section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Accordingly, the Secretary is not 

exercising his discretion to exclude any 

areas from this final designation based 

on other relevant impacts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in the 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 

with the critical habitat designation. 

There is no requirement under the RFA 

to evaluate the potential impacts to 

entities not directly regulated. 

Moreover, Federal agencies are not 

small entities. Therefore, because no 

small entities would be directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that the critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the 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 the critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this critical habitat designation 

would significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34993 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

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

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it would not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the critical habitat designation would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, 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 

Suwannee moccasinshell in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Service to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures, or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Suwannee 

moccasinshell 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 rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this critical 

habitat designation with, appropriate 

State resource agencies. From a 

federalism perspective, the designation 

of critical habitat directly affects only 

the responsibilities of Federal agencies. 

The Act imposes no other duties with 

respect to critical habitat, either for 

States and local governments, or for 

anyone else. As a result, the rule does 

not have substantial direct effects either 

on the States, or on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

powers and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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 Executive Order 

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 designated 

critical habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this rule identifies 

the elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The areas of designated 

critical habitat are presented on maps, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act in connection with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands would be affected by the 

designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking 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). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking are staff of the Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 23, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11 in paragraph (h) by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Moccasinshell, 

Suwannee’’ under ‘‘Clams’’ in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

CLAMS

* * * * * * * 

Moccasinshell, Suwannee Medionidus walkeri ......... Wherever found .............. T 81 FR 69417, 10/6/2016; 50 CFR 17.95(f).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95 in paragraph (f) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Suwannee 

Moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri)’’ 

immediately after the entry for ‘‘Fluted 

Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

subtentum),’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

Suwannee Moccasinshell (Medionidus 

walkeri) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

on the maps in this entry for Alachua, 

Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, 

Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, 

Suwannee, and Union Counties, 

Florida; and Brooks and Lowndes 

Counties, Georgia. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Suwannee 

moccasinshell consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Geomorphically stable stream 

channels (channels that maintain lateral 

dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 

sinuosity patterns over time without an 

aggrading or degrading bed elevation). 

(ii) Stable substrates of muddy sand or 

mixtures of sand and gravel, and with 

little to no accumulation of 

unconsolidated sediments and low 

amounts of filamentous algae. 

(iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime 

(magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found, and 

connectivity of stream channels with 

the floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for habitat 

maintenance, food availability, and 

spawning habitat for native fishes. 

(iv) Water quality conditions needed 

to sustain healthy Suwannee 

moccasinshell populations, including 

low pollutant levels (not less than State 

criteria), a natural temperature regime, 

pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), adequate 

oxygen content (not less than State 

criteria), hardness, turbidity, and other 

chemical characteristics necessary for 

normal behavior, growth, and viability 

of all life stages. 

(v) The presence of fish hosts 

necessary for recruitment of the 

Suwannee moccasinshell. The presence 

of blackbanded darters (Percina 

nigrofasciata) and brown darters 

(Etheostoma edwini) will serve as an 

indication of fish host presence. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, dams, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34995 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on August 2, 2021. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created with U.S. Geological 

Survey National Hydrography Dataset 

GIS data. The high-resolution 1:24,000 

flowlines were used to calculate river 

kilometers and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 

10.2.2 software was used to determine 

longitude and latitude coordinates using 

decimal degrees. The projection used in 

mapping all units was Universal 

Transverse Mercator, NAD 83, Zone 16 

North. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates on which each map is based 

are available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0059, the Service’s 

internet site (https://www.fws.gov/ 

panamacity), and at the field office 

responsible for this designation. You 

may obtain field office location by 

contacting one of the Service regional 

offices, the addresses of which are listed 

at 50 CFR 2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the Suwannee moccasinshell 

in Florida and Georgia follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

(6) Unit 1: Suwannee River in 

Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, 

Lafayette, Madison, and Suwannee 

Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of approximately 

187 kilometers (km) (116 miles (mi)) of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER01JY21.000</GPH>

BROOKS 

Index Map of Critical Habitat for 

Medionidus walkeri (Suwannee Moccasinshell) 

1..--~-- I l 

I

J-- ...... ...,, 1--! 

' I •----------------~.., ,- I, CLINCH I ' 

I \ I I , ""'" = I i ECHOLS ---,--.... , \ WARE I 

t l { : i 

l ___ l -- _GEORGIA l ,, j 

\ - - - - - - - - - - - .,----- - - - -r-J- - - - - - -J ~ FLORIDA / I I 

,. ~ \ \ '-_ HAMILTON 'l 1 I, ) 

LOWNDES 

CHARLTON 

MADISON - ~\ ( ,, \, 

-------, I 

----.--- SUWANNEE 

TAYLOR LAFAYETTE 

'"i 

) BAKER 

""\,..,}-~__,-_,J 

: 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

COLUMBIA 

-... ,.~,,,,,--"'- . . 

'• 

L ____________ _ 

, 

r 

I 

.. 

,, .. , ' •• I -.. •-' I 

. ' 

. 

V' 

. 

. 

. ,, 

\ .. 

- Critical Habitat 

: - - -, County Boundary 

DIXIE 

0 2 4 

0 5 10 

8 12 

20 

f 

,, 

I 

'7--"'--- ., .. ..., __ ,, 

I) 

16 20 

Miles 

30 

Kilometers 

N 

+ 

ALACHUA 
34996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the Suwannee River and lower Santa Fe 

River in Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, 

Gilchrist, Lafayette, Madison, and 

Suwannee Counties, Florida. The unit 

includes the Suwannee River mainstem 

from the confluence of Hart Springs in 

Dixie and Gilchrist Counties, upstream 

137 km (85 mi) to the confluence of the 

Withlacoochee River in Madison and 

Suwannee Counties; and the Santa Fe 

River from its confluence with the 

Suwannee River in Suwannee and 

Gilchrist Counties, upstream 50 km (31 

mi) to the river’s rise (the Santa Fe River 

runs underground for more than 3 

miles, emerging at River Rise Preserve 

State Park) in Alachua County. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1, Suwannee River, 

follows: 

(7) Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River in 

Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, and 

Union, Counties, Florida. 

(i) The Upper Santa Fe River Unit 

consists of approximately 43 km (27 mi) 

of the Santa Fe River and New River in 

Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, and 

Union Counties, Florida. The unit 

includes the Santa Fe River from the 

river’s sink in Alachua County, 

upstream 36.5 km (23 mi) to the 

confluence of Rocky Creek in Bradford 

and Alachua Counties; and the New 

River from its confluence with the Santa 

Fe River, upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the 

confluence of Five Mile Creek in Union 

and Bradford Counties. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER01JY21.001</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Medionidus walkeri (Suwannee Moccasinshell) 

Unit 1 : Suwannee River 

Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Madison, 

and Suwannee Counties, Florida 

SUWANNEE 

LAFAYETTE 

------------------------- - GILCHRIST 

Lake City 

0 

COLUMBIA 

I 

I 

I 

I 

J 

ALACHUA 

~ 

I, 

I 

( 

r 

I 

- Critical Habitat 

; = =, County Boundary 

Conservation Land 

DIXIE 

0 2.5 5 10 

--c:::=----Miles 

0 2.5 5 10 15 

--==---c:::=:::1Kilcmelers 

N 

+ 

,, 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34997 

(ii) Map of Unit 2, Upper Santa Fe 

River, follows: 

(8) Unit 3: Withlacoochee River in 

Hamilton and Madison Counties, 

Florida; Brooks and Lowndes Counties, 

Georgia. 

(i) The Withlacoochee River Unit 

consists of approximately 75.5 km (47 

mi) of the Withlacoochee River in 

Hamilton and Madison Counties, 

Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes 

Counties, Georgia. The unit includes the 

Withlacoochee River from its 

confluence with the Suwannee River in 

Madison and Hamilton Counties, FL, 

upstream 75.5 km (47 mi) to the 

confluence of Okapilco Creek in Brooks 

and Lowndes Counties, GA. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3, Withlacoochee 

River, follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER01JY21.002</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Medionidus walkeri (Suwannee Moccasinshell) 

Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River 

Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, and Union Counties, Florida 

- Critical Habttat 

; = =, County Boundary 

Conservation Land 

J 

' 

, ' 

UNION 

ALACHUA 

0 2 4 --===----Miles 

0 1 2 4 6 --===---===Kilometers 

BRADFORD 

N 

+ 
34998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Anissa Craghead, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13800 Filed 6–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER01JY21.003</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Medionidus walkeri (Suwannee Moccasinshell) 

Unit 3: Withlacoochee River 

Madison and Hamilton Counties, Florida; 

Brooks and Lowndes Counties, Georgia 

LOWNDES 

BROOKS 

MADISON 

N 

- Critical Habitat 

: - - -, County Boundary 

a 1 2 4 s -c:::=---===:::iMiles 

a 1 2 4 s a 10 

-==---==--==Kilometers + 

\ 

l 

I 

I 

) 

1" 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I --l ______ _ 

HAMILTON