50264 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/ 

healthactions/section1135/Pages/covid19- 

13March20.aspx. 

nation’s healthcare community in 

responding to COVID–19. On March 11, 

2020, the World Health Organization 

(WHO) publicly declared COVID–19 a 

pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the 

President declared the COVID–19 

pandemic a national emergency. This 

declaration, along with the Secretary’s 

January 31, 2020 declaration of a PHE, 

conferred on the Secretary certain 

waiver authorities under section 1135 of 

the Act. On March 13, 2020, the 

Secretary authorized waivers under 

section 1135 of the Act, effective March 

1, 2020.1 Effective July 20, 2021, the 

Secretary renewed the January 31, 2020 

determination that was previously 

renewed on April 21, 2020, July 23, 

2020, October 2, 2020, January 7, 2021, 

April 15, 2021, and July 19, 2021, that 

a PHE exists and has existed since 

January 27, 2020. The unprecedented 

nature of this national emergency has 

placed enormous responsibilities upon 

CMS to respond appropriately, and 

resources have had to be re-allocated 

throughout the agency in order to be 

responsive. 

Due to the PHE and in accordance 

with section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act, on 

September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55385), we 

published a second document 

continuing the effectiveness of effect 

and the regular timeline for publication 

of the final rule for an additional year, 

until September 6, 2021. 

Because of CMS’s continued efforts to 

address resource challenges resulting 

from the PHE and consistent with 

section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act, we are 

publishing a third notice of 

continuation extending the effectiveness 

of the technical conforming changes to 

the Medicare regulations that were 

implemented through interim final rule 

and to allow time to publish a final rule. 

Therefore, the Medicare provisions 

adopted in interim final regulation 

continue in effect and the regular 

timeline for publication of the final rule 

is extended for an additional year, until 

September 6, 2022. 

Karuna Seshasai, 

Executive Secretary to the Department, 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19382 Filed 9–3–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD36 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Slenderclaw Crayfish and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), for the slenderclaw 

crayfish (Cambarus cracens), a cryptic 

freshwater crustacean that is endemic to 

streams on Sand Mountain within the 

Tennessee River Basin in DeKalb and 

Marshall Counties, Alabama. This rule 

adds this species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In 

addition, we designate approximately 

78 river miles (126 river kilometers) in 

DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama, as critical habitat for the 

species under the Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 8, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069 and at https:// 

www.fws.gov/southeast/. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069. Comments, 

materials, and documentation that we 

considered in this rulemaking will be 

available by appointment, during 

normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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 under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069, at https://

www.fws.gov/southeast/, and at the 

Alabama Ecological Services Field 

Office (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 

Service website and Field Office set out 

above, and may also be included in the 

preamble and/or at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Pearson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1208– 

B Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; 

telephone 251–441–5870. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may warrant 

protection through listing if it is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. In 

addition, to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable, we must 

designate critical habitat for any species 

that we determine to be an endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule. 

What this rule does. This rule will list 

the slenderclaw crayfish (Cambarus 

cracens) as an endangered species and 

will finalize the designation of critical 

habitat for the species under the Act. 

Accordingly, this rule revises part 17 of 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.95. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the slenderclaw 

crayfish is threatened by competition 

from a nonnative species (Factors A and 

E) and habitat degradation resulting 

from poor water quality (Factor A). 

Under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if we 

determine that any species is an 

endangered or threatened species we 

must, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, designate critical 

habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

the Secretary shall designate critical 

habitat on the basis of the best available 

scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50265 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

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. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

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

prepared a draft economic analysis of 

the impacts of designating critical 

habitat. We published an announcement 

of the completion of the draft and 

solicited public comments (83 FR 

50582; October 9, 2018). We received no 

comments on the draft economic 

analysis. We adopt the draft economic 

analysis as final. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our 

designation is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We invited these peer reviewers to 

comment on our species status 

assessment (SSA) report, which 

informed both the proposed rule and 

this final rule. We also considered all 

comments and information received 

from the public and peer reviewers 

during the comment period. 

Supporting Documents 

We prepared an SSA report for the 

slenderclaw crayfish. Written in 

consultation with species experts, the 

SSA report represents the best scientific 

and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the slenderclaw 

crayfish, including the impacts of past, 

present, and future factors (both adverse 

and beneficial) affecting the species 

(Service 2019, entire). The SSA report 

underwent independent peer review by 

scientists with expertise in crayfish 

biology, habitat management, and 

stressors (factors negatively affecting the 

species) to the slenderclaw crayfish. The 

SSA report, the proposed rule, this final 

rule, and other materials relating to this 

rulemaking can be found on the 

Service’s Southeast Region website at 

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

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 9, 2018, we published in 

the Federal Register a proposed rule (83 

FR 50582) to list the slenderclaw 

crayfish as a threatened species with 

provisions under section 4(d) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and to 

designate critical habitat. Please refer to 

that proposed rule for a detailed 

description of all previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. 

Background 

The slenderclaw crayfish is a 

relatively small, cryptic freshwater 

crustacean, with an average lifespan of 

2 to 3 years, that is endemic to streams 

on Sand Mountain within the Tennessee 

River Basin in DeKalb and Marshall 

Counties, Alabama. Primarily due to the 

invasion of nonnative virile crayfish 

(Faxonius virilis) that prey upon and 

compete with the slenderclaw crayfish, 

in addition to habitat degradation 

resulting in poor water quality, the 

species’ range is reduced with 

extirpation at some sites and low 

condition in both populations currently. 

Please refer to the October 9, 2018, 

proposed listing and designation of 

critical habitat rule for the slenderclaw 

crayfish (83 FR 50582) and the SSA 

report for a full summary of species 

information. Both are available on the 

Service’s Southeast Region website at 

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

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the October 9, 2018, proposed 

listing and critical habitat rule (83 FR 

50582), we requested that all interested 

parties submit written comments on the 

proposal by December 10, 2018. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. A newspaper notice 

inviting general public comment was 

published in the Guntersville (Alabama) 

Advertiser Gleam on October 17, 2018. 

We did not receive any requests for a 

public hearing. All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period has either been 

incorporated directly into the SSA 

report or this final determination or is 

addressed below, as appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review of listing actions 

under the Act, we solicited the expert 

opinions from six knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise that 

included familiarity with slenderclaw 

crayfish and its habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received 

responses from two peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the slenderclaw crayfish, and we 

updated the SSA report prior to the 

proposed rule. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

SSA report. Peer reviewer comments 

were incorporated into the SSA report 

and this final rule as appropriate. In our 

response to peer reviewer comments, we 

only address issues that were not 

reflected in changes to the SSA report 

or this final rule. 

Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that we project increased 

variability in rainfall instead of change 

in annual mean precipitation in our 

future condition projections. The 

reviewer noted that one historic drought 

could potentially eliminate one of these 

populations, and we do not understand 

the effects of flooding on the 

slenderclaw crayfish. In addition, the 

reviewer noted that considering climateinduced variability with urbanization 

could lead to a higher probability of 

occasional stream drying. 

Our response: Although we did not 

use a model to project increased 

variability in rainfall as the commenter 

suggested, in the SSA, we did account 

for increased variability in rainfall and 

the hydrological impacts from 

precipitation change in our futurescenario projections and predictions of 

the slenderclaw crayfish. To assess the 

future condition of slenderclaw 

crayfish, we projected how precipitation 

can change in order to understand 

potential future hydrologic impacts 

within the system. Based on this 

information, we developed future 

scenarios on the plausible range in the 

hydrologic impacts from precipitation 

change as well as other factors 

influencing the viability of the 

slenderclaw crayfish. 

Public Comments 

We received 10 public comments on 

the proposed listing rule and critical 

habitat rule. Where commenters 

provided substantive comments or new 

information concerning the proposed 

listing and species-specific section 4(d) 

rule for the slenderclaw crayfish, we 

incorporated this information into the 

final SSA report and this final rule as 

appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern about the presence of 

the virile crayfish in slenderclaw 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

crayfish habitat and provided additional 

information and references on research 

of the effects of virile crayfish on other 

crayfish species. The commenter noted 

the virile crayfish has been attributed to 

decline of other native crayfish species 

in rivers and streams in West Virginia, 

Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 

Our response: We appreciate the 

additional information and references 

provided regarding the virile crayfish 

effects to other native crayfish species. 

We incorporated the information from 

the additional studies of virile crayfish 

into the appropriate section of the SSA 

report (Service 2019, pp. 16–17). We 

further considered the additional 

information about the invasion of virile 

crayfish and what the impact is to the 

current condition of the slenderclaw 

crayfish. After further consideration of 

the invasion of virile crayfish, coupled 

with the low abundance of slenderclaw 

crayfish, we determined the risk of 

extinction for the slenderclaw crayfish 

is higher (see Determination of 

Slenderclaw Status, below) than we 

characterized in the proposal to list the 

slenderclaw crayfish as a threatened 

species. Based on the documented past 

expansion of the virile crayfish, current 

invasion and expansion into the 

slenderclaw crayfish’s range in both 

populations will occur. Therefore, the 

slenderclaw crayfish is currently at risk 

of extinction as a result of the virile 

crayfish expansion. We reassessed the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data available regarding the slenderclaw 

crayfish to evaluate its status under the 

Act (see Determination of Slenderclaw 

Crayfish Status, below). 

(2) Comment: Several other 

commenters expressed their opinion 

that the Service should list the species 

as endangered, rather than threatened, 

and stated reasons including 

degradation of its habitat, inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms, small 

population size, competition with virile 

crayfish, and climate change. One 

commenter specifically identified kudzu 

(Pueraria montana), an invasive plant, 

as a current and future threat to the 

riparian habitat in the range of the 

slenderclaw crayfish. In addition, the 

commenter noted that degradation of 

habitat for the slenderclaw crayfish is 

ongoing despite existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Our response: When we evaluated the 

best available information, we 

concluded that kudzu was not a threat 

to the slenderclaw crayfish. Although 

we recognize that kudzu can alter 

habitat, this plant has not been 

documented to impact the slenderclaw 

crayfish. As to habitat degradation, as 

discussed under the Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats and 

Determination sections of the preamble 

of this final listing rule, we determined 

that existing regulatory mechanisms 

currently address the threat of habitat 

degradation. Other than identifying 

kudzu as a potential threat, the 

commenters did not provide any new 

information regarding current threats to 

the slenderclaw crayfish or its current 

status that was not already considered 

in the SSA report or proposed rule. 

However, as stated above under Our 

Response to (1) Comment, based on new 

information about the invasive virile 

crayfish, coupled with known 

information about slenderclaw crayfish 

abundance, we determined the 

slenderclaw crayfish meets the 

definition of an endangered species (see 

Determination of Slenderclaw Crayfish 

Status, below). 

(3) Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the slenderclaw crayfish has been 

extirpated from 80 percent of its 

historical range, citing information from 

a status survey for three rare crayfishes, 

including the slenderclaw crayfish 

(Kilburn et al. 2012, entire). 

Our response: As discussed in 

Kilburn et al. (2012, entire), the 

slenderclaw crayfish was only ever 

known to occur at five historical sites 

within two watersheds, Short and Town 

Creeks, and the authors did not find the 

slenderclaw crayfish outside these two 

watersheds. Since the publication of 

Kilburn et al. (2012, entire), recent 

surveys conducted in 2015 through 

2017 identified the slenderclaw crayfish 

occurring at three new sites within this 

historical range. Although there is 

evidence of reduced abundance and 

presumed extirpation at four historical 

sites within this range, there are 

currently two populations of 

slenderclaw crayfish occurring across 

the range in Alabama, and the 

slenderclaw crayfish occurs within the 

two watersheds where it historically 

was known to occur. In short, at this 

time, the slenderclaw crayfish has not 

been extirpated from 80 percent of its 

historical range. Please refer to section 

2.5 Range and Distribution in the SSA 

report for additional information on the 

historical and current range of the 

species. 

(4) Comment: The Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) recommended that the 

planting of bare-root seedlings as a 

method to revegetate and stabilize 

streambanks be included in the 4(d) 

rule. TVA has found this method to be 

successful for establishing a diversity of 

vegetation within riparian zones. 

Our response: We agree that the 

planting of bare-root seedlings as a 

method to revegetate and stabilize 

streambanks would be beneficial to 

slenderclaw crayfish. However, in this 

final rule, the Service has determined 

that the slenderclaw crayfish meets the 

definition of an endangered species, and 

the Act does not allow issuance of a 4(d) 

rule for a species listed as endangered. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

The final rule incorporates changes to 

our proposed listing rule and SSA 

Report based on the comments we 

received, as discussed in the Summary 

of Comments and Recommendations. 

Based on comments received and our 

further consideration of the invasion of 

virile crayfish coupled with low 

abundance of slenderclaw crayfish, we 

determined the risk of extinction is 

higher (see Determination, below) than 

we characterized in the proposal to list 

the slenderclaw crayfish as a threatened 

species (83 FR 50582; October 9, 2018). 

We reassessed our analysis and found 

that the documented expansion and 

invasion of the virile crayfish in the 

slenderclaw crayfish’s range, along with 

additional information regarding 

impacts to other native crayfish species 

and known low abundance in both 

populations of the slenderclaw crayfish, 

places the slenderclaw crayfish at a high 

risk for extinction throughout its range. 

Thus, after evaluating the best available 

information and the Act’s regulation 

and policies, we determined that the 

slenderclaw crayfish meets the 

definition of an endangered species, and 

such status is more appropriate than 

that of a threatened species as originally 

proposed. Because we determined that 

the slenderclaw crayfish meets the 

definition of an endangered species, a 

4(d) rule is inapplicable; consequently, 

the proposed special rule under the 

authority of section 4(d) of the Act was 

removed from the final rule. We 

received no substantive comments on 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation; accordingly, there are no 

changes in the final designation. Lastly, 

we made minor editorial and 

nonsubstantive corrections throughout 

the SSA report and this final rule. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

We completed a comprehensive 

assessment of the biological status of the 

slenderclaw crayfish and prepared an 

SSA report (Service 2019, entire), which 

provides a thorough account of the 

species’ overall viability. Below, we 

summarize the key results and 

conclusions of the SSA report. 

To evaluate the current and future 

viability of the slenderclaw crayfish, we 

assessed the three conservation biology 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50267 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (the ‘‘3 Rs’’ 

described in detail in the SSA report) 

(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). 

Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of 

the species to withstand environmental 

and demographic stochasticity (for 

example, wet or dry, warm or cold 

years), redundancy supports the ability 

of the species to withstand catastrophic 

events (for example, droughts, large 

pollution events), and representation 

supports the ability of the species to 

adapt over time to long-term changes in 

the environment (for example, climate 

changes). In general, the more resilient 

and redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The historical range of the 

slenderclaw crayfish included two 

known populations, Short and Town 

Creeks, in watersheds leading into the 

Tennessee River in Alabama. Within the 

Short Creek population, a total of 90 

slenderclaw crayfish, with 56 of those 

being juveniles, were collected during 

the period 1970–1974 (Bouchard and 

Hobbs 1976, entire; Schuster 2017, 

unpublished data). Historically, only 

one crayfish was collected in the Town 

Creek population in the period 1970– 

1974 (Bouchard and Hobbs 1976, entire; 

Schuster 2017, unpublished data). 

Surveys conducted from 2009 through 

2017 have documented the slenderclaw 

crayfish within the same two 

populations, Short Creek (three sites in 

Shoal Creek) and Town Creek (one site 

in Bengis Creek and one site in Town 

Creek) (Kilburn et al. 2014, pp. 116–117; 

Bearden et al. 2017, pp. 17–18; Schuster 

2017, unpublished data; Taylor 2017, 

unpublished data). 

Of the five historical sites, the 

slenderclaw crayfish is no longer found 

and is presumed extirpated at three sites 

in the Short Creek population (one site 

in Short Creek and two sites in Scarham 

Creek) and one site in the Town Creek 

population (one site in Bengis Creek) 

despite repeated survey efforts (Kilburn 

et al. 2014, pp. 116–117; Bearden et al. 

2017, pp. 17–18; Schuster 2017, 

unpublished data; Taylor 2017, 

unpublished data). Across current 

survey efforts from 2009 through 2017, 

researchers collected 28 slenderclaw 

crayfish, including 2 juveniles, within 

the Short Creek population, and 2 adults 

and 2 juveniles from the Town Creek 

population. There are no actual 

historical or current population 

estimates for slenderclaw crayfish, and 

the abundance numbers (total number 

collected) reported are not population 

estimates. 

At the population level, the overall 

current condition in terms of resiliency 

was determined to be low for both Short 

Creek and Town Creek populations. We 

estimate that the slenderclaw crayfish 

currently has some adaptive potential 

(i.e., representation) due to the habitat 

variability features occurring in the 

Short Creek and Town Creek 

populations. The Short Creek 

population occurs in streams with 

predominantly large boulders and 

fractured bedrock, broader stream 

widths, and greater depths, and the 

Town Creek population occurs in 

streams with larger amounts of gravel 

and cobble, narrower stream widths, 

and shallower depths (Bearden 2017, 

pers. comm.). At present, the 

slenderclaw crayfish has two 

populations in low condition 

(resiliency) with habitat types that vary 

between populations. Therefore, given 

the variable habitat in which the 

slenderclaw crayfish occurs, the species 

may have some level of adaptive 

capacity. Given the low resiliency of 

both populations of the slenderclaw 

crayfish, current representation is 

reduced. 

The slenderclaw crayfish exhibits 

limited redundancy given its narrow 

range and that four out of five sites 

within the species’ historical range are 

presumed extirpated. In addition, 

connectivity between the Short Creek 

and Town Creek populations is likely 

low, because both Short and Town 

Creek streams flow downstream into, 

and thus are separated by, Guntersville 

Lake. To date, no slenderclaw crayfish 

have been documented in impounded 

areas including Guntersville Lake. 

Multiple sites in the same population 

could allow recolonization following a 

catastrophic event (e.g., chemical spill) 

that may affect a large proportion of a 

population; however, given the species’ 

limited redundancy and current low 

resiliency of both populations, it might 

be difficult to reestablish an entire 

population affected by a catastrophic 

event, as the connectivity between the 

two populations is low. Further, the 

currently occupied sites in the Short 

Creek population are in a single 

tributary, and one catastrophic event 

could impact this entire population. 

Risk Factors for Slenderclaw Crayfish 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any factors affecting its continued 

existence. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We reviewed the potential risk factors 

(i.e., threats or stressors) that are 

affecting the slenderclaw crayfish now 

and are expected to affect it into the 

future. Because we have determined 

that the species is currently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range, in this 

final rule we will discuss in detail only 

those threats that we conclude are 

driving the current status and viability 

of the species. We have determined that 

competition from a nonnative species 

(Factors A and E), habitat degradation 

resulting from poor water quality 

(Factor A), and low abundance (Factor 

E) pose the largest risk to the current 

viability of the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Other potential stressors to the 

species—hydrological variation and 

alteration (Factors A and E), land use 

(Factor A), and scientific collection 

(Factor B)—are discussed in the SSA 

report and proposed rule. Currently 

existing regulatory mechanisms, such as 

regulations implemented under the 

Clean Water Act to protect water quality 

and instream habitat, address the habitat 

degradation threat to the slenderclaw 

crayfish. However, we also found that 

existing regulatory mechanisms do not 

address, nor do they contribute to, the 

threat of the nonnative virile crayfish, 

which is the primary threat to the 

slenderclaw crayfish. We find the 

species does not face significant threats 

from disease or predation (Factor C). We 

also reviewed the conservation efforts 

being undertaken for the habitat in 

which the slenderclaw crayfish occurs. 

Nonnative Species 

The virile crayfish (Faxonius virilis), 

previously recognized as Orconectes 

virilis (Crandall and De Grave 2017, p. 

5), is a crayfish native to the Missouri, 

upper Mississippi, lower Ohio, and the 

Great Lakes drainages (Service 2015, p. 

1). The species has spread from its 

native range through dispersal as fishing 

bait, as pets, and through commercial 

(human) consumption (Schwartz et al. 

1963, p. 267; Service 2015, p. 4). Virile 

crayfish inhabit a variety of watersheds 

in the United States, including those 

with very few to no native crayfish 

species, and have been found in lake, 

wetland, and stream environments 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50268 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(Larson et al. 2010, p. 2; Loughman and 

Simon 2011, p. 50). Virile crayfish are 

generalists, able to withstand various 

conditions, and have the natural 

tendency to migrate (Loughman and 

Simon 2011, p. 50). This species has 

been documented to spread 

approximately 124 mi (200 km) over 15 

years (B. Williams 2018, pers. comm.; 

Williams et al. 2011, entire). 

Based on comparison of body size, 

average claw size, aggression levels, and 

growth rates, it appears that the virile 

crayfish has an ecological advantage 

over several native crayfish species, 

including those in the Cambarus and 

Procambarus genera (Hale et al. 2016, p. 

6). In addition, virile crayfish have been 

documented to displace native crayfish 

(Hubert 2010, p. 5; Loughman and 

Welsh 2010, pp. 70 and 72). 

Virile crayfish were first collected 

near the range of slenderclaw crayfish in 

1967 (Schuster 2017, unpublished data). 

Since then, the virile crayfish has been 

documented in Guntersville Lake (a 

Tennessee Valley Authority reservoir 

constructed in 1939, on the Tennessee 

River mainstem) (Schuster 2017, 

unpublished data; Taylor 2017, 

unpublished data). In addition, the 

virile crayfish was found in 2015 at the 

type locality (location where the species 

was first described) for the slenderclaw 

crayfish in Short Creek (Short Creek 

population), in which the slenderclaw 

crayfish no longer occurs (Schuster 

2017, unpublished data; Taylor 2017, 

unpublished data). In 2016, the virile 

crayfish was found at two sites in Drum 

Creek within the Short Creek population 

boundary and at the confluence of Short 

Creek and Guntersville Lake (Schuster 

2017, unpublished data; Taylor 2017, 

unpublished data). During 2017, 20 

virile crayfish were again found at the 

location where slenderclaw crayfish was 

first described in Short Creek (Taylor 

2017, unpublished data). Also during 

2017, this nonnative crayfish was 

documented at four new sites in 

adjacent watersheds outside of the Short 

Creek population boundary. Juvenile 

virile crayfish have been collected in the 

Short Creek population, indicating that 

the species is established there (Taylor 

2017, unpublished data). To date, no 

virile crayfish have been documented 

within the Town Creek population 

boundary (Schuster 2017, unpublished 

data; Taylor 2017, unpublished data). 

The adaptive nature of the virile 

crayfish, the effects of this nonnative 

species on other crayfish species in their 

native ranges, and records of the virile 

crayfish’s presence in the slenderclaw 

crayfish’s historical and current range 

indicate that the virile crayfish is a 

factor that negatively influences the 

viability of the slenderclaw crayfish in 

the near term and future. Also, 

considering that the virile crayfish is a 

larger crayfish, is a strong competitor, 

and tends to migrate, while the 

slenderclaw crayfish has low abundance 

and is a smaller bodied crayfish, it is 

reasonable to conclude that once the 

virile crayfish is established at a site, it 

will out-compete slenderclaw crayfish. 

Water Quality 

Direct impacts of poor water quality 

on the slenderclaw crayfish are 

unknown; however, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates (i.e., mayflies, 

caddisflies, stoneflies) are negatively 

affected by poor water quality, and this 

may indirectly impact the slenderclaw 

crayfish, which likely feeds on them. 

Degradation of water quality impacts 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and may 

even cause stress to individual crayfish 

(Arthur et al. 1987, p. 328; Devi and 

Fingerman 1995, p. 749; Rosewarne et 

al. 2014, p. 69). Although crayfish 

generally have a higher tolerance to 

ammonia than some aquatic species 

(i.e., mussels), their food source, larval 

insects, is impacted by ammonia at 

lower concentrations (Arthur et al. 

1987, p. 328). Juvenile slenderclaw 

crayfish likely feed exclusively on 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, which are 

impacted by elevated ammonia and 

poor water quality. 

Within the range of the slenderclaw 

crayfish, Scarham Creek and Town 

Creek were identified as impaired 

waters by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM). 

These creeks were listed in 1996 and 

1998, respectively, on Alabama’s list of 

impaired water bodies (list of 

waterbodies that do not meet 

established State water quality 

standards) under section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act (hereafter, ‘‘the 303(d) 

list’’) (ADEM 1996, p. 1; ADEM 2001, p. 

11). Scarham Creek was placed on the 

303(d) list for impacts from pesticides, 

siltation, ammonia, low dissolved 

oxygen/organic enrichment, and 

pathogens from agricultural sources; 

this section of Scarham Creek stretched 

24 mi (39 km) upstream from its 

confluence with Short Creek to its 

source (ADEM 2013, p. 1). However, 

Scarham Creek was removed from 

Alabama’s 303(d) list of impaired waters 

in 2004, after the total maximum daily 

loads (TMDLs; maximum amount of a 

pollutant or pollutants allowed in a 

water body while still meeting water 

quality standards) were developed in 

2002 (ADEM 2002, p. 5; ADEM 2006, 

entire). Town Creek was previously 

listed on the 303(d) list for ammonia 

and organic enrichment/dissolved 

oxygen impairments. Although TMDLs 

have been in development for these 

issues (ADEM 1996, entire), all of Town 

Creek is currently on the 303(d) list for 

mercury contamination due to 

atmospheric deposition (ADEM 2016a, 

appendix C). One identified source of 

wastewater discharge to Town Creek is 

Hudson Foods near Geraldine, Alabama 

(ADEM 1996, p. 1). 

Pollution from nonpoint sources 

stemming from agriculture, animal 

production, and unimproved roads has 

been documented within the range of 

the slenderclaw crayfish (Bearden et al. 

2017, p. 18). Alabama is ranked third in 

the United States for broiler (chicken) 

production (Alabama Poultry Producers 

2017, unpaginated), and DeKalb and 

Marshall Counties are two of the four 

most active counties in Alabama for 

poultry farming (Conner 2008, 

unpaginated). Poultry farms and poultry 

litter (a mixture of chicken manure, 

feathers, spilled food, and bedding 

material that frequently is used to 

fertilize pastureland or row crops) have 

been documented to contain nutrients, 

pesticides, bacteria, heavy metals, and 

other pathogens (Bolan et al. 2010, pp. 

676–683; Stolz et al. 2007, p. 821). A 

broiler house containing 20,000 birds 

will produce approximately 150 tons of 

litter a year (Ritz and Merka 2013, p. 2). 

Surface-spreading of litter allows runoff 

from heavy rains to carry nutrients from 

manure into nearby streams. Poultry 

litter spreading is a practice that occurs 

within the Short Creek watershed (Short 

Creek population of slenderclaw 

crayfish) (Top of Alabama Regional 

Council of Governments 2015, p. 8). 

During recent survey efforts, water 

quality was impaired due to nutrients 

and bacteria within the Short Creek 

population, and levels of atrazine may 

be of concern in the watershed (Bearden 

et al. 2017, p. 32). In Bengis Creek 

(Town Creek population), lead 

measurements exceeded the acute and 

chronic aquatic life criteria set by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and ADEM (Bearden et al. 2017, 

p. 32; ADEM 2017, p. 10–7). These 

criteria are based on levels developed by 

the EPA and ADEM to protect fish and 

wildlife (ADEM 2017, entire), and 

exceedance of these values is likely to 

harm animal or plant life (EPA 2018b, 

unpaginated). Elevated ammonia 

concentrations in Town Creek were also 

documented and reflected nonpoint 

source pollution at low-flow and highflow measurements (Bearden et al. 2017, 

p. 21). In late summer and fall surveys, 

potential eutrophication likely 

stemming from low-water conditions, 

elevated nutrients, and low dissolved 

oxygen was documented within both 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50269 

Short and Town Creek watersheds 

(Bearden et al. 2017, p. 31). 

Low Abundance 

The number of slenderclaw crayfish is 

currently low, with only two 

populations and few individuals within 

each population, which is reflected in 

the species’ low resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation. The current 

estimated low abundance (n=32) and 

genetic drift may negatively affect 

populations of the slenderclaw crayfish. 

In general, the fewer populations a 

species has or the smaller the sizes of 

those populations, the greater the 

likelihood of extinction by chance alone 

(Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 307). Genetic 

drift occurs in all species but is more 

likely to negatively affect populations 

that have a smaller effective population 

size (Caughley 1994, pp. 219–220; Huey 

et al. 2013, p. 10). There are only two 

populations of the slenderclaw crayfish 

with limited connectivity between those 

populations, which may have reduced 

genetic diversity. However, no testing 

for genetic drift has been conducted for 

the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Synergistic Effects 

In addition to impacting the species 

individually, it is likely that several of 

the risk factors are acting synergistically 

or additively on the species. The 

combined impact of multiple stressors is 

likely more harmful than a single 

stressor acting alone. For example, in 

the Town Creek watershed, Town Creek 

was previously listed as an impaired 

stream due to ammonia and organic 

enrichment/dissolved oxygen 

impairments, and recent surveys 

documented eutrophic conditions of 

elevated nutrients and low dissolved 

oxygen. In addition, hydrologic 

variation and alteration has occurred 

within the Town Creek watershed as 

discussed further in the SSA report. 

Low-water conditions naturally occur in 

streams where the slenderclaw crayfish 

occurs, and alteration causing prolonged 

low-water periods could have a negative 

impact on the reproductive success of 

the slenderclaw crayfish. Further, 

connectivity between Town Creek and 

Short Creek watersheds is likely low 

due to Guntersville Lake. The 

combination of all of these stressors on 

the sensitive aquatic species in this 

habitat has probably impacted 

slenderclaw crayfish, in that only four 

individuals have been recorded there 

since 2009. 

Conservation Actions 

TMDLs have been developed in 

Scarham Creek for siltation, ammonia, 

pathogens, organic enrichment/low 

dissolved oxygen, and pesticides 

(ADEM 2002, p. 5). Town Creek is 

currently on the 303(d) list for mercury 

contamination due to atmospheric 

deposition (ADEM 2016a, appendix C). 

However, a TMDL for organic 

enrichment/dissolved oxygen has been 

developed for Town Creek (ADEM 1996, 

entire). Through the 303(d) program, 

ADEM provides funding derived under 

section 319 of the Clean Water Act to 

improve water quality in the 

watersheds. In 2014, the Upper Scarham 

Creek Watershed was selected as a 

priority by ADEM for the development 

of a watershed management plan. In 

Fiscal Year 2016, the DeKalb County 

Soil and Water Conservation District 

contracted with ADEM to implement 

the Upper Scarham Creek Watershed 

Project using section 319 funding 

(ADEM 2016b, p. 39). 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) National Water Quality 

Initiative program identified the 

Guntersville Lake/Upper Scarham Creek 

in DeKalb County as an Alabama 

Priority Watershed in 2015 (NRCS 2017, 

unpaginated). This watershed is within 

the historical range of the slenderclaw 

crayfish. It is recognized as in need of 

conservation practices, as it was listed 

on the Alabama 303(d) list as impaired 

due to organic enrichment/low 

dissolved oxygen and ammonia as 

nitrogen (ADEM 2002, p. 4). The 

National Water Quality Initiative helps 

farmers, ranchers, and forest 

landowners improve water quality and 

aquatic habitats in impaired streams 

through conservation and management 

practices. Such practices include 

controlling and trapping nutrient and 

manure runoff, and installation of cover 

crops, filter strips, and terraces. 

Future Condition of the Slenderclaw 

Crayfish 

For the purpose of this assessment, 

we define viability as the ability of the 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. As part of the SSA, to 

help address uncertainty associated 

with the degree and extent of potential 

future stressors and their impacts on the 

needs of the species, the concepts of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation were applied using three 

plausible future scenarios. We devised 

these scenarios by identifying 

information on the following primary 

stressors that are anticipated to affect 

the species in the future: Nonnative 

virile crayfish, hydrological variation 

(precipitation and water quantity), landuse change, and water quality. However, 

having determined that the current 

condition of the slenderclaw crayfish is 

consistent with that of an endangered 

species (see Determination of 

Slenderclaw Crayfish Status, below), the 

results of the future scenarios are not 

material to our decision, and therefore, 

we are not presenting the results in this 

final rule. Please refer to the proposed 

listing and designation of critical habitat 

rule for the slenderclaw crayfish (83 FR 

50582; October 9, 2018) and the SSA 

report (Service 2018, entire) for the full 

analysis of future conditions and 

descriptions of the associated scenarios. 

Determination of Slenderclaw Crayfish 

Status 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the slenderclaw 

crayfish. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533) and its implementing regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for determining whether a 

species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an endangered 

species as a species ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range,’’ and a threatened 

species as a species ‘‘likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we have determined the 

slenderclaw crayfish to be endangered 

throughout all of its range. Our review 

of the best available information 

indicates that there are currently two 

populations of slenderclaw crayfish in 

low condition occurring across the 

species’ historical range in Alabama. 

Despite the species being identified at 

three new sites as reflected by recent 

increased survey efforts, there is 

substantial evidence of reduced 

abundance (current estimate of n=32) 

and presumed extirpation at four 

historical sites. In the Short Creek 

population, 28 slenderclaw crayfish 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

were collected during surveys from 

2009 through 2017; in the Town Creek 

population, only 4 slenderclaw crayfish 

were collected during this same time 

period. Further, there is evidence of 

limited reproduction with only 3 

juveniles collected from both 

populations since 2016. The 

slenderclaw crayfish exhibits low 

natural redundancy given its narrow 

range, but given presumed extirpation of 

sites within both populations, the 

species’ redundancy is further limited. 

Several sources of indirect water 

quality impacts on both populations 

have been identified. However, no 

direct water quality-related impacts are 

known at this time, and crayfish 

generally have a higher tolerance to 

poor water quality conditions than other 

aquatic species. In addition, currently 

existing regulatory mechanisms, such as 

establishing TMDLs, are addressing the 

effects of poor water quality on the 

slenderclaw crayfish. 

Currently, one of the primary threats 

to the slenderclaw crayfish is the 

nonnative virile crayfish. The virile 

crayfish is a larger crayfish, a strong 

competitor, and tends to migrate, and 

has been attributed to declines of other 

native crayfish species. Considering 

these characteristics of the virile 

crayfish and the size (small-bodied) of 

the slenderclaw crayfish, it is reasonable 

to infer that once virile crayfish is 

established at a site it will out-compete 

slenderclaw crayfish. This may already 

be the case at the slenderclaw crayfish 

type locality where virile crayfish were 

found in recent surveys. At present, the 

virile crayfish has been reported as 

occurring at only one site, the type 

locality, where the slenderclaw crayfish 

was known to occur. Specifically, the 

virile crayfish occupies approximately 

12.5 river miles (mi) (20.1 river 

kilometers (km)) at a few sites 

approximately 7 river mi (11 river km) 

downstream of current slenderclaw 

crayfish sites in the Short Creek 

population (233.6 river mi (375.9 river 

km)), and, therefore, the virile crayfish 

is an imminent threat to slenderclaw 

crayfish in the Short Creek population. 

Although there are currently no records 

of the virile crayfish in the Town Creek 

population (281.7 river mi (453.4 river 

km)), the virile crayfish is documented 

in Guntersville Lake, which leads 

directly into the Town Creek 

population. Based on the documented 

past expansion of the virile crayfish 

(despite some uncertainty and variation 

in the rate at which it will expand), and 

documented impacts and declines to 

other native crayfish species, current 

invasion and expansion into the 

slenderclaw crayfish’s range in the 

Town Creek population will occur. 

Coupled with the current low 

abundance (n=4) of slenderclaw crayfish 

in the Town Creek population, the 

invasion of virile crayfish makes the 

slenderclaw crayfish at high risk of 

extirpation in this watershed. 

Overall, given the current low 

resiliency in both populations and the 

species’ limited redundancy, it will be 

difficult to reestablish an entire 

population, should it be affected by a 

catastrophic event, without human 

intervention, as the connectivity 

between the two populations is low. 

Therefore, the slenderclaw crayfish is 

currently at risk of extirpation in both 

populations. Thus, we have determined 

that the slenderclaw crayfish is 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the slenderclaw 

crayfish is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range, warranting 

listing as endangered throughout its 

range. Accordingly, we did not 

undertake an analysis of any significant 

portion of its range. Our determination 

is consistent with the decision in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the slenderclaw crayfish 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species. Therefore, in accordance with 

sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act, we 

add the slenderclaw crayfish as an 

endangered species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11(h). 

Available Conservation Measures 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Conservation 

measures provided to species listed as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act include recognition, recovery 

actions, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness and 

conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local agencies, private 

organizations, and individuals. The Act 

encourages cooperation with the States 

and calls for recovery actions to be 

carried out for all listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the 

Service to develop and implement 

recovery plans for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species. The 

recovery planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline and making it available 

to the public within 30 days of a final 

listing determination. The recovery 

outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered) or from our Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50271 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

Alabama will be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat. Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

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

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

slenderclaw crayfish’s habitat that may 

require conference or consultation or 

both as described in the preceding 

paragraph include management and any 

other landscape-altering activities on 

Federal lands administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. 

Forest Service; technical assistance and 

projects funded through the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s NRCS; 

issuance of permits by the Tennessee 

Valley Authority for right-of-way stream 

crossings; issuance of section 404 Clean 

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

permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; and construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

species listed as an endangered species. 

It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. Based on the best 

available information, at this time, we 

are unable to identify specific activities 

that would not be considered to result 

in a violation of section 9 of the Act, 

because it is likely that site-specific 

conservation measures may be needed 

for activities that may directly or 

indirectly affect the slenderclaw 

crayfish. Based on the best available 

information, the following actions may 

potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act or this final rule; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized handling, collecting, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the slenderclaw 

crayfish, including interstate 

transportation across State lines and 

import or export across international 

boundaries. 

(2) Destruction/alteration of the 

species’ habitat by discharge of fill 

material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond 

construction, stream channelization or 

diversion, or diversion or alteration of 

surface or ground water flow into or out 

of the stream (i.e., due to roads, 

impoundments, discharge pipes, 

stormwater detention basins, etc.). 

(3) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

slenderclaw crayfish, such as the 

introduction of nonnative virile crayfish 

in Alabama. 

(4) Modification of the channel or 

water flow of any stream in which the 

slenderclaw crayfish is known to occur. 

(5) Discharge of chemicals or fill 

material into any waters in which the 

slenderclaw crayfish is known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat Designation 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Designation also does 

not allow the government or public to 

access private lands, nor does 

designation require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Where a landowner requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

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 within an 

area, we focus on the specific features 

that 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. We will determine whether 

unoccupied areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species by 

considering the life-history, status, and 

conservation needs of the species. This 

consideration will be further informed 

by any generalized conservation 

strategy, criteria, or outline that may 

have been developed for the species to 

provide a substantive foundation for 

identifying which features and specific 

areas are essential to the conservation of 

the species and, as a result, the 

development of the critical habitat 

designation. For example, an area 

currently occupied by the species but 

that was not occupied at the time of 

listing may be essential to the 

conservation of the species and may be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

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

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

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

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) section 9 

of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any 

individual of the species, including 

taking caused by actions that affect 

habitat. 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, or other 

species conservation planning efforts if 

new information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

On August 27, 2019, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR 

45020) to amend our regulations 

concerning the procedures and criteria 

we use to designate and revise critical 

habitat. That rule became effective on 

September 26, 2019, but, as stated in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50273 

that rule, the amendments it sets forth 

apply to ‘‘rules for which a proposed 

rule was published after September 26, 

2019.’’ We published our proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

slenderclaw crayfish on October 9, 2018 

(83 FR 50582); therefore, the 

amendments set forth in the August 27, 

2019, final rule (84 FR 45020) do not 

apply to this final designation of critical 

habitat for the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Physical or Biological Features 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical or biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 define ‘‘physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species’’ as the features that occur in 

specific areas and that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features 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 needed to support the 

life history of the species. In considering 

whether features are essential to the 

conservation of the species, the Service 

may consider an appropriate quality, 

quantity, and spatial and temporal 

arrangement of habitat characteristics in 

the context of the life-history needs, 

condition, and status of the species. 

These include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential for 

slenderclaw crayfish from studies of this 

species’ and similar crayfish species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history. The 

primary habitat elements that influence 

resiliency of the slenderclaw crayfish 

include water quantity, water quality, 

substrate, interstitial space, and habitat 

connectivity. More detail of the habitat 

and resource needs are summarized in 

the Habitat section of the proposed 

listing designation of critical habitat 

rule for the slenderclaw crayfish (83 FR 

50582; October 9, 2018) and the SSA 

report. We use the ADEM water quality 

standards for fish and wildlife criteria to 

determine the minimum standards of 

water quality necessary for the 

slenderclaw crayfish. A full description 

of the needs of individuals, populations, 

and the species is available from the 

SSA report; the resource needs of 

individuals are summarized below in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—RESOURCE NEEDS FOR SLENDERCLAW CRAYFISH TO COMPLETE EACH LIFE STAGE

Life stage Resources needed 

Fertilized Eggs ................................ • Female to carry eggs. 

• Water to oxygenate eggs. 

• Female to fan eggs to prevent sediment buildup and oxygenate water as needed. 

• Female to shelter in boulder/cobble substrate and available interstitial space. 

Juveniles ......................................... • Female to carry juveniles in early stage. 

• Water. 

• Food (likely aquatic macroinvertebrates). 

• Boulder/cobble substrate and available interstitial space for shelter. 

Adults .............................................. • Water. 

• Food (likely omnivorous, opportunistic, and generalist feeders). 

• Boulder/cobble substrate and available interstitial space for shelter. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

In summary, we derive the specific 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the slenderclaw 

crayfish from studies of this species’ 

and similar crayfish species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history, as described 

above. Additional information can be 

found in the SSA report (Service 2019, 

entire) available on http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069. We have 

determined that the following physical 

or biological features are essential to the 

conservation of the slenderclaw 

crayfish: 

(1) Geomorphically stable, small to 

medium, flowing streams: 

(a) That are typically 19.8 feet (ft) (6 

meters (m)) wide or smaller; 

(b) With attributes ranging from: 

(i) Streams with predominantly large 

boulders and fractured bedrock, with 

widths from 16.4 to 19.7 ft (5 to 6 m), 

low to no turbidity, and depths up to 2.3 

ft (0.7 m), to 

(ii) Streams dominated by small 

substrate types with a mix of cobble, 

gravel, and sand, with widths of 

approximately 9.8 feet (3 m), low to no 

turbidity, and depths up to 0.5 feet (0.15 

m); 

(c) With substrate consisting of 

boulder and cobble containing abundant 

interstitial spaces for sheltering and 

breeding; and 

(d) With intact riparian cover to 

maintain stream morphology and to 

reduce erosion and sediment inputs. 

(2) Seasonal water flows, or a 

hydrologic flow regime (which includes 

the severity, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time), 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found and to 

maintain connectivity of streams with 

the floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for maintenance 

of the crayfish’s habitat and food 

availability. 

(3) Appropriate water and sediment 

quality (including, but not limited to, 

conductivity; hardness; turbidity; 

temperature; pH; and minimal levels of 

ammonia, heavy metals, pesticides, 

animal waste products, and nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers) 

necessary to sustain natural 

physiological processes for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages. 

(4) Prey base of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates and detritus. Prey 

items may include, but are not limited 

to, insect larvae, snails and their eggs, 

fish and their eggs, and plant and 

animal detritus. 

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. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the slenderclaw crayfish may require 

special management considerations or 

protections to reduce the following 

threats: (1) Impacts from invasive 

species, including the nonnative virile 

crayfish; (2) nutrient pollution from 

agricultural activities that impact water 

quantity and quality; (3) significant 

alteration of water quality and water 

quantity, including conversion of 

streams to impounded areas; (4) culvert 

and pipe installation that creates 

barriers to movement; and (5) other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments or nutrients into 

the water. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to: Control and removal of 

introduced invasive species; limiting 

the spreading of poultry litter to time 

periods of dry, stable weather 

conditions; use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank side 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and retention of sufficient 

canopy cover along banks; moderation 

of surface and ground water 

withdrawals to maintain natural flow 

regimes; and reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments, pollutants, or 

nutrients into the water. 

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. 

The current distribution of the 

slenderclaw crayfish is much reduced 

from its historical distribution in one 

(Short Creek watershed) of the two 

populations. The currently occupied 

sites in the Short Creek watershed occur 

in a single tributary (Shoal Creek), and 

one catastrophic event could impact this 

entire population. In addition, the 

nonnative virile crayfish occupies sites 

within the Short Creek watershed, 

including the type locality for the 

slenderclaw crayfish in Short Creek in 

which the slenderclaw crayfish no 

longer occurs. We anticipate that 

recovery will require continued 

protection of existing populations and 

habitat, as well as establishing sites in 

additional streams that more closely 

approximate its historical distribution 

in order to ensure there are adequate 

numbers of crayfish in stable 

populations and that these populations 

have multiple sites occurring in at least 

two streams within each watershed. 

This goal will help ensure that 

catastrophic events, such as a chemical 

spill, cannot simultaneously affect all 

known populations. 

Sources of data for this critical habitat 

designation include numerous survey 

reports on streams throughout the 

species’ range and databases maintained 

by crayfish experts and universities 

(Bouchard and Hobbs 1976, entire; 

Bearden 2017, unpublished data; 

Schuster 2017, unpublished data; Taylor 

2017, unpublished data; Service 2018, 

entire). We have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species. Sources of 

information on habitat requirements 

include surveys conducted at occupied 

sites and published in agency reports, 

and data collected during monitoring 

efforts. 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

For locations within the geographic 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing, we identified stream channels 

that currently support populations of 

the slenderclaw crayfish. We defined 

‘‘current’’ as stream channels with 

observations of the species from 2009 to 

the present. Due to the recent breadth 

and intensity of survey efforts for the 

slenderclaw crayfish throughout the 

historical range of the species, it is 

reasonable to assume that streams with 

no positive surveys since 2009 should 

not be considered occupied for the 

purpose of our analysis. Within these 

areas, we delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following process: 

We evaluated habitat suitability of 

stream channels within the geographical 

area occupied at the time of listing, and 

retained for further consideration those 

streams that contain one or more of the 

physical or biological features to 

support life-history functions essential 

to conservation of the species. We 

refined the starting and ending points of 

units by evaluating the presence or 

absence of appropriate physical or 

biological features. We selected the 

headwaters as upstream cutoff points for 

each stream and downstream cutoff 

points that omit areas that are not 

suitable habitat. For example, the 

Guntersville Lake Tennessee Valley 

Authority project boundary was selected 

as an endpoint for one unit, as there was 

a change to unsuitable parameters (e.g., 

impounded waters). 

Based on this analysis, the following 

streams meet criteria for areas occupied 

by the species at the time of listing: 

Bengis Creek, Scarham Creek, Shoal 

Creek, Short Creek, Town Creek, and 

Whippoorwill Creek (see Unit 

Descriptions, below). This list does not 

include all stream segments known to 

have been occupied by the species 

historically; rather, it includes only the 

occupied stream segments within the 

historical range that have also retained 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features that will allow for the 

maintenance and expansion of existing 

populations. 

Areas Outside the Geographical Area 

Occupied at the Time of Listing 

To consider for designation areas not 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, we must demonstrate that these 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. To determine if these 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the slenderclaw crayfish, we 

considered the life history, status, 

habitat elements, and conservation 

needs of the species such as: 

(1) The importance of the stream to 

the overall status of the species, the 

importance of the stream to the 

prevention of extinction, and the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50275 

stream’s contribution to future recovery 

of the slenderclaw crayfish; 

(2) whether the area is and could be 

maintained or restored to contain the 

necessary habitat (water quantity, 

substrate, interstitial space, and 

connectivity) to support the slenderclaw 

crayfish; 

(3) whether the site provides 

connectivity between occupied sites for 

genetic exchange; 

(4) whether a population of the 

species could be reestablished in the 

location; and 

(5) whether the virile crayfish is 

currently present in the stream. 

For the one subunit containing areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries by evaluating stream 

segments not known to have been 

occupied at listing (i.e., outside of the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species) but that are within the 

historical range of the species to 

determine if they are essential for the 

survival and recovery of the species. 

Essential areas are those that: 

(a) Expand the geographical 

distribution within areas not occupied 

at the time of listing across the historical 

range of the species; 

(b) Were determined to be of suitable 

habitat and contain the primary habitat 

elements (water quantity, substrate, 

interstitial space, and connectivity) that 

support the viability of the slenderclaw 

crayfish; and 

(c) Are connected to other occupied 

areas, which will enhance genetic 

exchange between populations. 

Based on this analysis, ScarhamLaurel Creek was identified as meeting 

the criteria for areas outside the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of the species (see Subunit 

2b unit description below). 

General Information on the Maps of the 

Critical Habitat Designation 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other structures because such lands 

lack physical or biological features 

necessary for slenderclaw crayfish. The 

scale of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries shown 

on the maps of this final rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

included for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, a Federal action 

involving these lands would not trigger 

section 7 consultation under the Act 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing. We also are designating areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing that 

were historically occupied but are 

presently unoccupied, because we have 

determined that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species (see 

description of Subunit 2b below for 

explanation). 

The two occupied units were 

designated based on one or more of the 

elements of physical or biological 

features being present to support 

slenderclaw crayfish life processes. 

Some stream segments within the units 

contained all of the identified elements 

of physical or biological features and 

supported multiple life processes. Some 

stream segments contained only some 

elements of the physical or biological 

features necessary to support the 

slenderclaw crayfish’s particular use of 

that habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document in the rule portion. We 

include more detailed information on 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the discussion of 

individual units below. We will make 

the coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based available to 

the public on http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069, and at the 

field office responsible for the 

designation (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 78 

river mi (126 river km) in two units as 

critical habitat for the slenderclaw 

crayfish. The critical habitat areas, 

described below, constitute our current 

best assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

slenderclaw crayfish. The two units are: 

(1) Town Creek Unit, and (2) Short 

Creek Unit. Unit 2 is subdivided into 

two subunits: (2a) Shoal Creek and 

Short Creek subunit, and (2b) ScarhamLaurel Creek subunit. Table 2 shows the 

name, occupancy of the unit, land 

ownership of the riparian areas 

surrounding the units, and approximate 

river miles of the designated critical 

habitat units for the slenderclaw 

crayfish. 

TABLE 2—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE SLENDERCLAW CRAYFISH

Stream(s) Occupied at the time of listing Ownership 

Length of unit 

in river miles 

(kilometers) 

Unit 1—Town Creek 

Bengis and Town Creeks ......................................................... Yes .......................................... Private ..................................... 42 (67) 

Unit 2—Short Creek 

Subunit 2a—Shoal Creek and Short Creek: 

Scarham, Shoal, Short, and Whippoorwill Creeks ............ Yes .......................................... Private ..................................... 10 (17) 

Subunit 2b—Scarham-Laurel Creek: 

Scarham-Laurel Creek ....................................................... No ........................................... Private ..................................... 26 (42) 

Total ............................................................................ ................................................. ................................................. 78 (126) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

slenderclaw crayfish, below. 

Unit 1: Town Creek 

Unit 1 consists of 41.8 river mi (67.2 

river km) of Bengis and Town creeks in 

DeKalb County, Alabama. Unit 1 

includes stream habitat up to bank full 

height, consisting of the headwaters of 

Bengis Creek to its confluence with 

Town Creek and upstream to the 

headwaters of Town Creek. Stream 

channels in and lands adjacent to Unit 

1 are privately owned except for bridge 

crossings and road easements, which are 

owned by the State and County. The 

slenderclaw crayfish occupies all stream 

reaches in this unit, and the unit 

currently supports all breeding, feeding, 

and sheltering needs essential to the 

conservation of the slenderclaw 

crayfish. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required for 

control and removal of introduced 

invasive species, including the 

nonnative virile crayfish, which 

occupies the boulder and cobble 

habitats and interstitial spaces within 

these habitats that the slenderclaw 

crayfish needs. At present, the virile 

crayfish is not present in this unit, 

although it has been documented just 

outside the watershed boundary. 

However, based on future projections in 

the SSA report, the virile crayfish is 

expected to be present in the Town 

Creek watershed within the next 2 

years. 

In addition, special management 

considerations or protection may be 

required to address water withdrawals 

and drought as well as excess nutrients, 

sediment, and pollutants that enter the 

streams and serve as indicators of other 

forms of pollution, such as bacteria and 

toxins. A primary source of these types 

of pollution is agricultural runoff. 

However, during recent survey efforts 

for the slenderclaw crayfish, water 

quality analysis found lead 

measurements in Bengis Creek that 

exceeded the acute and chronic aquatic 

life criteria set by EPA and ADEM, and 

elevated ammonia concentrations in 

Town Creek. Special management or 

protection may include moderating 

surface and ground water withdrawals, 

using best management practices to 

reduce sedimentation, and reducing 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release pollutants and nutrients 

into the water. 

Unit 2: Short Creek 

Subunit 2a—Shoal Creek and Short 

Creek: Subunit 2a consists of 10.3 river 

mi (16.6 river km) of Scarham, Shoal, 

Short, and Whippoorwill Creeks in 

DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama. Subunit 2a includes stream 

habitat up to bank full height, consisting 

of the headwaters of Shoal Creek to its 

confluence with Whippoorwill Creek, 

Whippoorwill Creek to its confluence 

with Scarham Creek, Scarham Creek to 

its confluence with Short Creek, and 

Short Creek downstream to the 

Guntersville Lake Tennessee Valley 

Authority project boundary. Stream 

channels in and lands adjacent to 

subunit 2a are privately owned except 

for bridge crossings and road easements, 

which are owned by the State and 

Counties. The slenderclaw crayfish 

occupies all stream reaches in this unit, 

and the unit currently supports all 

breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs 

essential to the conservation of the 

slenderclaw crayfish. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required for 

control and removal of introduced 

invasive species, including the virile 

crayfish (see Unit 1 discussion, above). 

At present, the virile crayfish is present 

at sites in Short Creek and Drum Creek 

within the Short Creek watershed and 

just outside of the unit boundary in 

Guntersville Lake. Based on future 

projections in the SSA report, the virile 

crayfish is expected to be present in 

more tributaries within the Short Creek 

watershed within the next 2 to 5 years. 

In addition, special management 

considerations or protection may be 

required to address water withdrawals 

and drought as well as excess nutrients, 

sediment, and pollutants that enter the 

streams and serve as indicators of other 

forms of pollution such as bacteria and 

toxins. A primary source of these types 

of pollution is agricultural runoff. 

During recent survey efforts for the 

slenderclaw crayfish, water quality 

analysis indicated that impaired water 

quality due to nutrients, bacteria, and 

levels of atrazine may be of concern in 

the Short Creek watershed. Special 

management or protection may include 

moderating surface and ground water 

withdrawals, using best management 

practices to reduce sedimentation, and 

reducing watershed and floodplain 

disturbances that release pollutants and 

nutrients into the water. 

Subunit 2b—Scarham-Laurel Creek: 

Subunit 2b consists of 25.9 river mi 

(41.7 river km) of Scarham-Laurel Creek 

in DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama. Subunit 2b includes stream 

habitat up to bank full height, consisting 

of the headwaters of Scarham-Laurel 

Creek to its confluence with Short 

Creek. Stream channels in and lands 

adjacent to Subunit 2b are privately 

owned except for bridge crossings and 

road easements, which are owned by the 

State and Counties. The subunit is 

connected to Subunit 2a. 

This subunit is unoccupied by the 

species but is considered to be essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Scarham-Laurel Creek is within the 

historical range of the slenderclaw 

crayfish but is not within the 

geographical range occupied by the 

species at the time of listing. The 

slenderclaw crayfish has not been 

documented at sites in Scarham-Laurel 

Creek in over 40 years, and we presume 

those historically occupied sites to be 

extirpated. Scarham-Laurel Creek is a 

small to medium, flowing stream with 

substrate consisting of boulder and 

cobble containing interstitial spaces for 

sheltering and breeding. Although it is 

currently unoccupied, this subunit 

contains some or all of the physical or 

biological features necessary for the 

conservation of the slenderclaw 

crayfish. This subunit possesses 

characteristics as described by physical 

or biological feature 1 (geomorphically 

stable, small to medium, flowing 

streams with substrate consisting of 

boulder and cobble and intact riparian 

cover); physical or biological feature 2 

(seasonal water flows, or a hydrologic 

flow regime, necessary to maintain 

benthic habitats where the species is 

found and to maintain connectivity of 

streams); and physical or biological 

feature 4 (prey base of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates and detritus). 

Physical or biological feature 3 

(appropriate water and sediment 

quality) is degraded in this subunit, and 

with appropriate management and 

restoration actions, this feature can be 

restored. 

In terms of water quality, ScarhamLaurel Creek is in restorable condition, 

and is currently devoid of the virile 

crayfish. Water quality concerns have 

been documented within ScarhamLaurel Creek, causing it to be listed on 

Alabama’s 303(d) list of impaired waters 

for impacts from pesticides, siltation, 

ammonia, low dissolved oxygen/organic 

enrichment, and pathogens from 

agricultural sources in 1998 (ADEM 

1996, p. 1). In 2004, Scarham Creek was 

removed from the 303(d) list after 

TMDLs were established (ADEM 2002, 

p. 5); however, recent water quality 

analysis indicated that water quality 

was impaired within the Short Creek 

watershed in which Scarham-Laurel 

Creek is located (Bearden et al. 2017, p. 

32). When the water quality of ScarhamLaurel Creek is restored, the stream 

could be an area for population 

expansion within the Short Creek 

watershed, in that this subunit is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50277 

connected to the occupied Shoal Creek 

and Short Creek subunit, and thereby 

provide redundancy needed to support 

the species’ recovery. Therefore, we 

conclude that this stream is essential for 

the conservation of the slenderclaw 

crayfish, because it will provide habitat 

for population expansion in known 

historical habitat that is necessary to 

increase viability of the species by 

increasing its resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation. 

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 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the final critical habitat designation. 

Exclusions 

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 she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

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 that determination, 

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. 

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. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an incremental 

effects memorandum (IEM) and 

screening analysis which together with 

our narrative and interpretation of 

effects we consider our draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 

habitat designation and related factors 

(IEc 2018, entire). The analysis, dated 

June 29, 2018, addressed probable 

economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation for the slenderclaw crayfish. 

The DEA was made available for public 

review from October 9, 2018, through 

December 10, 2018 (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2018, entire), but 

we did not receive any comments on the 

draft DEA. Additional information 

relevant to the probable incremental 

economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation for the slenderclaw crayfish 

is summarized below and available in 

the screening analysis for the 

slenderclaw crayfish (IEc 2018, entire), 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

The final critical habitat designation 

for the slenderclaw crayfish totals 

approximately 78 river mi (126 river 

km), which includes both occupied and 

unoccupied streams. This final critical 

habitat designation is likely to result, 

annually, in a maximum of three 

informal section 7 consultations and 

five technical assistance efforts at a total 

incremental cost of less than $10,000 

per year. Within the occupied streams, 

any actions that may affect the species 

would likely also affect critical habitat, 

and it is unlikely that any additional 

conservation efforts would be required 

to address the adverse modification 

standard over and above those 

recommended as necessary to avoid 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the species. Within all unoccupied 

critical habitat, the Service will consult 

with Federal agencies on any projects 

that occur within the hydrologic unit 

code (HUC) 12-digit watershed 

boundaries, due to overlap with the 

ranges of other listed species such as 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat 

(Myotis grisescens), northern long-eared 

bat (Myotis septentrionalis), harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum), and green 

pitcher-plant (Sarracenia oreophila) in 

these HUCs. In addition, all of the HUC 

12-digit watershed boundaries 

containing unoccupied habitat are 

within the HUC 12-digit range of 

watersheds occupied by slenderclaw 

crayfish. Thus, no incremental project 

modifications resulting solely from the 

presence of unoccupied critical habitat 

are anticipated. Therefore, the only 

additional costs that are expected in all 

of the critical habitat designation are 

administrative costs, due to the fact that 

this additional analysis will require 

time and resources by both the Federal 

action agency and the Service. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

As discussed above, the Service 

considered the economic impacts of the 

critical habitat designation and the 

Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

slenderclaw crayfish based on economic 

impacts. A copy of the IEM and 

screening analysis with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or 

by downloading from the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

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

not cover all Department of Defense 

(DoD) lands or areas that pose potential 

national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 

installation that is in the process of 

revising its INRMP for a newly listed 

species or a species previously not 

covered). If a particular area is not 

covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), 

national-security or homeland-security 

concerns are not a factor in the process 

of determining what areas meet the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

Nevertheless, when designating critical 

habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

the Service must consider impacts on 

national security, including homeland 

security, on lands or areas not covered 

by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Accordingly, we will always consider 

for exclusion from the designation areas 

for which DoD, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), or another 

Federal agency has requested exclusion 

based on an assertion of nationalsecurity or homeland-security concerns. 

However, no lands within the 

designation of critical habitat for 

slenderclaw crayfish are owned or 

managed by DoD or DHS. Consequently, 

the Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from the 

final designation based on impacts on 

national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

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

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area, such as habitat conservation 

plans, safe harbor agreements, or 

candidate conservation agreements with 

assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look 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 consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this final rule, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

permitted conservation plans or other 

non-permitted conservation agreements 

or partnerships for the slenderclaw 

crayfish, and the final critical habitat 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. We anticipate 

no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, 

permitted or non-permitted plans, or 

agreements from this critical habitat 

designation. Accordingly, the Secretary 

is not exercising her discretion to 

exclude any areas from the final 

designation based on other relevant 

impacts. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to critical habitat of 

any species that is listed as an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat of any listed 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 result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. 

We published a final regulation with 

a revised 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’ 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, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act is documented 

through our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, critical 

habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

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 destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. We 

define ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ (50 CFR 402.02) as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate formal consultation on 

previously reviewed actions. These 

requirements apply when the Federal 

agency has retained discretionary 

involvement or control over the action 

(or the agency’s discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law) and, subsequent to the previous 

consultation, we have listed a new 

species or designated critical habitat 

that may be affected by the Federal 

action, or the action has been modified 

in a manner that affects the species or 

critical habitat in a way not considered 

in the previous consultation. In such 

situations, Federal agencies sometimes 

may need to request reinitiation of 

consultation with us, but the regulations 

also specify some exceptions to the 

requirement to reinitiate consultation on 

specific land management plans after 

subsequently listing a new species or 

designating new critical habitat. See the 

regulations for a description of those 

exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Services may find 

are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat, during a consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would alter the 

minimum flow or the existing flow 

regime. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, impoundment, 

channelization, water diversion, and 

water withdrawal. These activities 

could eliminate or reduce the habitat 

necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of the slenderclaw crayfish 

by decreasing or altering seasonal flows 

to levels that would adversely affect the 

species’ ability to complete its life cycle. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter water chemistry or quality. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, release of chemicals 

(including pharmaceuticals, metals, and 

salts) or biological pollutants into the 

surface water or connected groundwater 

at a point source or by dispersed release 

(non-point source). These activities 

could alter water conditions to levels 

that are beyond the tolerances of the 

slenderclaw crayfish and result in direct 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50279 

or cumulative adverse effects to these 

individuals and their life cycles. 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

increase sediment deposition within the 

stream channel. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, excessive 

sedimentation from livestock grazing, 

road construction, channel alteration, 

poor forestry management, off-road 

vehicle use, and other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances. These activities 

could eliminate or reduce the habitat 

necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of the slenderclaw crayfish 

by increasing the sediment deposition to 

levels that would adversely affect the 

species’ ability to complete its life cycle. 

(4) Actions that would significantly 

increase eutrophic conditions. 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 

(non-point source). These activities can 

result in excessive nutrients and algae 

filling streams and reducing habitat for 

the slenderclaw crayfish, degrading 

water quality from excessive nutrients 

and during algae decay, and decreasing 

oxygen levels to levels below the 

tolerances of the slenderclaw crayfish. 

(5) Actions that would significantly 

alter channel morphology or geometry 

or decrease connectivity. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

channelization, impoundment, road and 

bridge construction, mining, dredging, 

and destruction of riparian vegetation. 

These activities may lead to changes in 

water flows and levels that would 

degrade or eliminate the slenderclaw 

crayfish and its habitats. These actions 

can also lead to increased sedimentation 

and degradation in water quality to 

levels that are beyond the tolerances of 

the slenderclaw crayfish. 

(6) Actions that result in the 

introduction, spread, or augmentation of 

nonnative aquatic species in occupied 

stream segments, or in stream segments 

that are hydrologically connected to 

occupied stream segments, or 

introduction of other species that 

compete with or prey on the 

slenderclaw crayfish. Possible actions 

could include, but are not limited to, 

stocking of nonnative crayfishes and 

fishes, stocking of sport fish, or other 

related actions. These activities can 

introduce parasites or disease; result in 

direct predation or direct competition; 

or affect the growth, reproduction, and 

survival of the slenderclaw crayfish. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs 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. 

The Service’s current understanding 

of the requirements under the RFA, as 

amended, and following recent court 

decisions, is that Federal agencies are 

only required to evaluate the potential 

incremental impacts of rulemaking on 

those entities directly regulated by the 

rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not 

required 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 by this designation. 

There is no requirement under 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 

final critical habitat designation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

During the development of this final 

rule we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment period that may pertain to our 

consideration of the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

critical habitat designation. Based on 

this information, we affirm our 

certification that this final critical 

habitat designation will not have a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and 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. OMB 

has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

The economic analysis finds that none 

of these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 

the economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with slenderclaw 

crayfish conservation activities within 

critical habitat are not expected. As 

such, the designation of critical habitat 

is not expected to 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 would 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 

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 conclude that this rule would 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because the lands within 

and adjacent to the streams being 

designated as critical habitat are owned 

by private landowners. These 

government entities do not fit the 

definition of ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ Consequently, we 

conclude that the critical habitat 

designation would not 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 

slenderclaw crayfish in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Service to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures, or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for slenderclaw crayfish 

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 the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, the appropriate State resource 

agency in Alabama. We did not receive 

comments from Alabama. 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 State, or on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the State, 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 to 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 these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(because these local governments 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50281 

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 does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the order. We are designating 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 designated areas of 

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 any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

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.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), need not be prepared in 

connection with listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

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 NEPA in connection with 

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 identified no Tribal interests 

that will be affected by this final 

rulemaking. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

the SSA report and this rulemaking is 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069 and upon 

request from the Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Species 

Assessment Team and Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Crayfish, slenderclaw’’ to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife in alphabetical order under 

Crustaceans to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

CRUSTACEANS

* * * * * * * 

Crayfish, slenderclaw ...... Cambarus cracens ......... Wherever found .............. E 86 FR [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 9/8/21; 50 

CFR 17.95(h)CH. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Slenderclaw Crayfish 

(Cambarus cracens)’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Pecos Amphipod (Gammarus pecos)’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Slenderclaw Crayfish (Cambarus 

cracens) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the slenderclaw crayfish 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Geomorphically stable, small to 

medium, flowing streams: 

(A) That are typically 19.8 feet (ft) (6 

meters (m)) wide or smaller; 

(B) With attributes ranging from: 

(1) Streams with predominantly large 

boulders and fractured bedrock, with 

widths from 16.4 to 19.7 ft (5 to 6 m), 

low to no turbidity, and depths up to 2.3 

ft (0.7 m); to 

(2) Streams dominated by small 

substrate types with a mix of cobble, 

gravel, and sand, with widths of 

approximately 9.8 feet (3 m), low to no 

turbidity, and depths up to 0.5 feet (0.15 

m); 

(C) With substrate consisting of 

boulder and cobble containing abundant 

interstitial spaces for sheltering and 

breeding; and 

(D) With intact riparian cover to 

maintain stream morphology and to 

reduce erosion and sediment inputs. 

(ii) Seasonal water flows, or a 

hydrologic flow regime (which includes 

the severity, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time), 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found and to 

maintain connectivity of streams with 

the floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for maintenance 

of the crayfish’s habitat and food 

availability. 

(iii) Appropriate water and sediment 

quality (including, but not limited to, 

conductivity; hardness; turbidity; 

temperature; pH; and minimal levels of 

ammonia, heavy metals, pesticides, 

animal waste products, and nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers) 

necessary to sustain natural 

physiological processes for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages. 

(iv) Prey base of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates and detritus. Prey 

items may include, but are not limited 

to, insect larvae, snails and their eggs, 

fish and their eggs, and plant and 

animal detritus. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on October 8, 2021. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) Zone 16N coordinates 

and species’ occurrence data. The 

hydrologic data used in the maps were 

extracted from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Hydrography Dataset High 

Resolution (1:24,000 scale) using 

Geographic Coordinate System North 

American 1983 coordinates. The maps 

in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2018–0069 and 

at the field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50283 

(6) Unit 1: Town Creek, DeKalb 

County, Alabama. 

(i) This unit consists of 41.8 river 

miles (67.2 river kilometers) of occupied 

habitat in Bengis and Town Creeks. Unit 

1 includes stream habitat up to bank full 

height consisting of the headwaters of 

Bengis Creek to its confluence with 

Town Creek and upstream to the 

headwaters of Town Creek. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER08SE21.000</GPH>

Slenderclaw Crayfish ( Cambarus cracens} 

Critical Habitat Index Map 

Marsh.all and DeKalb Counties, Alabama 

~ Slenderclaw Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Rivers and Streams 

Lakes and Ponds 

~ US Interstates 

~ State Boundary 

GJ County Boundary 1:335,000 

0 1.5 3 12 

--==::::::.--c::==::::::.--Mll&s 

6 9 

0 2.5 5 15 

--===---c::::==::::iKilometers 

10 

TENNESSEE 

ALABAMA 

FLORIDA 
50284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Unit 2: Short Creek, DeKalb and 

Marshall Counties, Alabama. 

(i) Subunit 2a: Shoal Creek and Short 

Creek, DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama. 

(A) This subunit consists of 10.3 river 

miles (16.6 river kilometers) of occupied 

habitat in Scarham, Shoal, Short, and 

Whippoorwill Creeks. Subunit 2a 

includes stream habitat up to bank full 

height consisting of the headwaters of 

Shoal Creek to its confluence with 

Whippoorwill Creek, Whippoorwill 

Creek to its confluence with Scarham 

Creek, Scarham Creek to its confluence 

with Short Creek, and Short Creek to its 

downstream extent to the Guntersville 

Lake Tennessee Valley Authority project 

boundary. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2a follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER08SE21.001</GPH>

Unit 1 Town Creek Critical Habitat for 

Slenderclaw Crayf1Sh·(Cambarus .cmcens) 

Oet<ab County, Alabama 

JatkSOft 

--...sieooerelaw crayr1sttcrlticalHabilat 

Rillera and streams 

Lakes and Ponds 

~ us tnteratates 

• Cities 

(ii county BOUl'.Klaiy 

C] state Botinc:lary 1:250,000 

0 1.5 3 6 9 12 

" 

--==---====- -Kilometers 

TENNESSEE 

8iminghl,m 

• 

Watter 

cttattooga 

Afanla 

• 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50285 

(ii) Subunit 2b: Scarham-Laurel Creek, 

DeKalb and Marshall Counties, 

Alabama. 

(A) This subunit consists of 25.9 river 

miles (41.7 river kilometers) of 

unoccupied habitat in Scarham-Laurel 

Creek. Subunit 2b includes stream 

habitat up to bank full height consisting 

of the headwaters of Scarham-Laurel 

Creek to its confluence with 

Whippoorwill Creek. This subunit is a 

small to medium, flowing stream with 

substrate consisting of boulder and 

cobble containing interstitial spaces for 

sheltering and breeding and connected 

to the occupied subunit 2a. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2b follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER08SE21.002</GPH>

Subunit 2a: Shoal Creek and Short Creek Critical Habitat for 

Slenderclaw Crayfish (Cambarus cracens) 

DeKalb and Marshall. Counties, Ataba,na 

~ Slenderclaw Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Rivers and Streams 

lakes and Ponds 

~ US tntersta~s 

• Cities 

GJ county Boundary 

cJ State Boundary 1:200,000 

0 1 2 8 --==::::::a--c:::===---.Miles 4 6 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

-==---==:::::1-•Kllometers 

TENNESSEE 
50286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER08SE21.003</GPH>

Subunit 2b: Scarham-Laurel Creek Critical Habitat for 

Slenderclaw Crayfish (Cambarus cracens) 

DeKalb and Marshall Counties, Alabama 

«l\,,M Slenderclaw Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Rivers and Streams 

lakes and Ponds 

,-.....___, US Interstates 

• Cities 

GJ County Boundary 

c:J State Boundary 1:200,000 

0 1 2 s --=:::::i---======---Miles 4 6 

0 1 2 4 6 S -::::11--====--Kl!Ometers 

llimingbam 

• 

TBINESSEE 

A 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50287 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19093 Filed 9–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket Nos. 090206140–91081–03, 

120405260–4258–02, and 200706–0181; 

RTID 0648–XB391] 

Revised Reporting Requirements Due 

to Catastrophic Conditions for Federal 

Seafood Dealers, Individual Fishing 

Quota Dealers, and Charter Vessels 

and Headboats in Portions of 

Louisiana 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; determination 

of catastrophic conditions. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the individual 

fishing quota (IFQ), Federal dealer 

reporting, and Federal charter vessel 

and headboat (for-hire vessel) reporting 

programs specific to the reef fish fishery 

in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and the 

coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) 

fisheries in the Gulf, the Regional 

Administrator (RA), Southeast Region, 

NMFS, has determined that Hurricane 

Ida has caused catastrophic conditions 

in the Gulf for certain Louisiana 

parishes. This temporary rule authorizes 

any dealer in the affected area described 

in this temporary rule who does not 

have access to electronic reporting to 

delay reporting of trip tickets to NMFS 

and authorizes IFQ participants within 

the affected area to use paper-based 

forms, if necessary, for basic required 

administrative functions, e.g., landing 

transactions. This rule also authorizes 

any Federal for-hire owner or operator 

in the affected area described in this 

temporary rule who does not have 

access to electronic reporting to delay 

reporting of logbook records to NMFS. 

This temporary rule is intended to 

facilitate continuation of IFQ, dealer, 

and Federal for-hire reporting 

operations during the period of 

catastrophic conditions. 

DATES: The RA is authorizing Federal 

dealers, IFQ participants, and Federal 

for-hire operators in the affected area to 

use revised reporting methods from 

September 2, 2021, through October 8, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IFQ 

Customer Service, telephone: 866–425– 

7627, fax: 727–824–5308, email: 

nmfs.ser.catchshare@noaa.gov. For 

Federal dealer reporting, Fisheries 

Monitoring Branch, telephone: 305– 

361–4581. For Federal for-hire 

reporting, Southeast For-Hire Integrated 

Electronic Reporting program, 

telephone: 833–707–1632. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery of the Gulf is managed 

under the Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) for Reef Fish Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico (Reef Fish FMP), 

prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Gulf Council). 

The CMP fishery is managed under the 

FMP for CMP Resources in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Region (CMP 

FMP), prepared by the Gulf Council and 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council. Both FMPs are implemented 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

Amendment 26 to the Reef Fish FMP 

established an IFQ program for the 

commercial red snapper component of 

the Gulf reef fish fishery (71 FR 67447; 

November 22, 2006). Amendment 29 to 

the Reef Fish FMP established an IFQ 

program for the commercial grouper and 

tilefish components of the Gulf reef fish 

fishery (74 FR 44732; August 31, 2009). 

Regulations implementing these IFQ 

programs (50 CFR 622.21 and 622.22) 

require that IFQ participants have 

access to a computer and the internet 

and that they conduct administrative 

functions associated with the IFQ 

program, e.g., landing transactions, 

online. However, these regulations also 

specify that during catastrophic 

conditions, as determined by the RA, 

the RA may authorize IFQ participants 

to use paper-based forms to complete 

administrative functions for the 

duration of the catastrophic conditions. 

The RA must determine that 

catastrophic conditions exist, specify 

the duration of the catastrophic 

conditions, and specify which 

participants or geographic areas are 

deemed affected. 

The Generic Dealer Amendment 

established Federal dealer reporting 

requirements for federally permitted 

dealers in the Gulf and South Atlantic 

(79 FR 19490; April 9, 2014). The Gulf 

For-Hire Reporting Amendment 

implemented reporting requirements for 

Gulf reef fish and CMP owners and 

operators of for-hire vessels (85 FR 

44005; July 21, 2020). Regulations 

implementing these dealer reporting 

requirements (50 CFR 622.5) and forhire vessel reporting requirements (50 

CFR 622.26 and 622.374) state that 

dealers must submit electronic reports 

and that Gulf reef fish and CMP vessels 

with the applicable charter vessel/ 

headboat permit must submit electronic 

fishing reports of all fish harvested and 

discarded. However, these regulations 

also specify that during catastrophic 

conditions, as determined by the RA, 

the RA may waive or modify the 

reporting time requirements for dealers 

and for-hire vessels for the duration of 

the catastrophic conditions. 

Hurricane Ida made landfall in the 

U.S. near Port Fourchon, Louisiana, in 

the Gulf as a Category 4 hurricane on 

August 29, 2021. Strong winds and 

flooding from this hurricane impacted 

communities throughout coastal 

Louisiana. This resulted in power 

outages and damage to homes, 

businesses, and infrastructure. As a 

result, the RA has determined that 

catastrophic conditions exist in the Gulf 

for the Louisiana parishes of Saint 

Tammany, Orleans, Saint Bernard, 

Plaquemines, Jefferson, Saint Charles, 

Lafourche, Terrebonne, Saint Mary, 

Iberia, Vermilion, and Cameron. 

Through this temporary rule, the RA 

is authorizing Federal dealers and 

Federal for-hire operators in these 

affected areas to delay reporting of trip 

tickets and for-hire logbooks to NMFS, 

and authorizing IFQ participants in this 

affected area to use paper-based forms, 

from September 2, 2021, through 

October 8, 2021. NMFS will provide 

additional notification to affected 

dealers via NOAA Weather Radio, 

Fishery Bulletins, and other appropriate 

means. NMFS will continue to monitor 

and re-evaluate the areas and duration 

of the catastrophic conditions, as 

necessary. 

Dealers may delay electronic 

reporting of trip tickets to NMFS during 

catastrophic conditions. Dealers are to 

report all landings to NMFS as soon as 

possible. Assistance for Federal dealers 

in affected area is available from the 

NMFS Fisheries Monitoring Branch at 

1–305–361–4581. NMFS previously 

provided IFQ dealers with the necessary 

paper forms and instructions for 

submission in the event of catastrophic 

conditions. Paper forms are also 

available from the RA upon request. The 

electronic systems for submitting 

information to NMFS will continue to 

be available to all dealers, and dealers 

in the affected area are encouraged to 

continue using these systems, if 

accessible. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES