Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40115 

(iii) Maliciously damage or destroy 

the species on any areas under Federal 

jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy the species on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

State law or regulation or in the course 

of any violation of a State criminal 

trespass law, as set forth at section 

9(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

(iv) Engage in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, as set forth at § 17.61(d) for 

endangered plants. 

(v) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to Echinacea laevigata, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities, including 

activities prohibited under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section, if they are 

authorized by a permit issued in 

accordance with the provisions set forth 

at § 17.72. 

(ii) Conduct activities authorized by a 

permit issued under § 17.62 prior to 

August 5, 2022 for the duration of the 

permit. 

(iii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 17.61(c)(2) through (4) for 

endangered plants and § 17.71(b). 

(iv) Engage in any act prohibited 

under paragraph (f)(1) of this section 

with seeds of cultivated specimens, 

provided that a statement that the seeds 

are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies 

the seeds or their container. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14291 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE82 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Canoe Creek Clubshell 

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 

that the Canoe Creek clubshell 

(Pleurobema athearni), a freshwater 

mussel species endemic to a single 

watershed in north-central Alabama, is 

an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended. We also designate critical 

habitat for the species under the Act. In 

total, approximately 58.5 river 

kilometers (36.3 river miles) in St. Clair 

and Etowah Counties, Alabama, fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. This rule extends 

the Act’s protections to the species and 

its designated critical habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078. 

The coordinates or plot points from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file for this 

critical habitat designation and are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078 

and on the Service’s website at https:// 

www.fws.gov/office/alabama-ecologicalservices. Any additional tools or 

supporting information that we 

developed for the critical habitat 

designation will also be available at the 

Service’s website set out above and may 

also be included in the preamble and at 

https://www.regulations.gov, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William J. Pearson, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 

Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; 

telephone 251–441–5181. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). We have 

determined that the Canoe Creek 

clubshell meets the definition of an 

endangered species; therefore, we are 

listing it as such. 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 and 

designation of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

lists the Canoe Creek clubshell 

(Pleurobema athearni) as an endangered 

species and designates critical habitat 

for this species under the Endangered 

Species Act. We are designating critical 

habitat in 2 units totaling approximately 

58.5 river kilometers (km) (36.3 river 

miles (mi)) in St. Clair and Etowah 

Counties, Alabama. 

The basis for our action. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may 

determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species based 

on any of five factors: (A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We have determined that 

habitat degradation through changes in 

water quality and quantity (Factor A), 

increased sedimentation (Factor A), and 

climate events (Factor E) are the primary 

threats to the species. 

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

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

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

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

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

prepared an economic analysis of the 

impacts of designating critical habitat. 

We made the draft economic analysis 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

available for public comments on 

November 3, 2020 (85 FR 69540). 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought the expert opinions of eight 

appropriate specialists with expertise in 

biology, habitat, and threats to the 

species regarding the species status 

assessment report. We did not receive 

any responses to our peer review 

requests. We also considered all 

comments and information we received 

from the public during the comment 

period for the proposed listing and 

critical habitat for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 3, 2020, we published 

in the Federal Register a proposed rule 

(85 FR 69540) to list the Canoe Creek 

clubshell as an endangered species and 

to designate critical habitat for the 

species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). Please refer to that proposed ruled 

for a detailed description of other 

previous Federal actions concerning the 

Canoe Creek clubshell prior to the 

proposal’s publication. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public on our 

November 3, 2020, proposed rule 

regarding Canoe Creek clubshell (85 FR 

69540). This final rule incorporates 

minor, non-substantive changes to the 

critical habitat unit descriptions (see 

Critical Habitat Designation) based on 

the comments we received. However, 

the information we received during the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

did not change our determination that 

the Canoe Creek clubshell is an 

endangered species. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. The SSA report 

and other materials relating to this rule 

can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the November 3, 2020, proposed 

rule, we requested that interested 

parties submit written comments by 

January 4, 2021. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal and State agencies, 

scientific experts and organizations, and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule. 

A newspaper notice inviting general 

public comment was published in the 

The St. Clair Times legal notice section 

on November 12, 2020. Although we 

invited requests for a public hearing in 

the rule, we did not receive any requests 

for a public hearing. All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period has either been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination, in the final economic 

analysis, or is addressed below. 

Public Comments 

We received 60 public comments in 

response to the proposed rule. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

during the public comment period for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the proposed rule. No new 

information concerning the proposed 

listing and designation of critical habitat 

for the Canoe Creek clubshell was 

received. Fifty-eight commenters were 

supportive of the proposal to list the 

Canoe Creek clubshell as endangered, to 

designate critical habitat, or both. Two 

commenters provided information about 

forestry practices but offered neither 

support nor opposition to the proposed 

rule. We did not receive any comments 

in opposition of the proposed rule. 

Below, we provide a summary of public 

comments we received; however, 

comments outside the scope of the 

proposed rule and those without 

supporting information did not warrant 

an explicit response and, thus, are not 

presented here. Identical or similar 

comments have been consolidated and a 

single response provided. 

(1) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that the Service should 

consider forestry best management 

practices (BMPs) as part of the overall 

conservation benefit for the species and 

account for these beneficial actions in 

any threat analysis as done in past rules. 

A related comment recommended that 

the Service expressly recognize 

silviculture conducted in accordance 

with State-approved BMPs as a category 

of activities not expected to negatively 

impact the species’ conservation and 

recovery efforts in the final rule’s 

preamble and that these BMPs can 

ameliorate threats. Similarly, another 

commenter recommended the Service 

include a discussion of not only the 

ability of forest management to retain 

adequate conditions but also to improve 

forest conditions, which may redound 

to the benefit of species. 

Our Response: We have considered 

the conservation benefits of 

implementing BMPs in our analyses. 

For example, in the SSA report, we 

explain that forestry BMPs will likely 

reduce sediments originating from 

forestry activities. We recognize that 

silvicultural operations (forestry 

activities) are widely implemented in 

accordance with State-approved best 

management practices (BMPs), and the 

adherence to these BMPs broadly 

protects water quality particularly 

related to sedimentation to an extent 

that does not impair the species’ 

conservation. Consistent with how we 

have addressed this issue in other 

relevant rules, we identified normal 

silvicultural practices that are carried 

out in accordance with BMPs as an 

example of an action that is unlikely to 

result in a violation of section 9 and the 

use of BMPs as an example of an 

activity that could ameliorate threats to 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. However, given 

the species’ low abundance and lack of 

successful reproduction and 

recruitment, the potential protection of 

water quality provided by BMPs do not 

appear to offset factors of decline. 

Therefore, we did not include a 

discussion of the ability of forest 

management to improve forest 

conditions to an extent that they may 

benefit the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

(2) Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the description of 

designated critical habitat be clarified to 

state that critical habitat is limited to the 

bankfull width of the designated 

streams. 

Our Response: We have clarified in 

this final rule that the boundaries of 

critical habitat extend laterally to the 

bankfull width. The critical habitat 

proposed for designation was not 

intended to include adjacent terrestrial 

components. 

(3) Comment: One commenter 

recommended the Service note in the 

final rule its willingness to work 

collaboratively with forest owners 

adjacent to designated critical habitat to 

develop streamlined agreements, similar 

to Safe Harbor Agreements, that 

provided regulatory assurances to 

landowners and recognize that forest 

management conducted with approved 

BMPs will not be subject to enforcement 

under the prohibition on take in section 

9 of the ESA. 

Our Response: It is our mission to 

collaborate with public and private 

partners to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and the 

habitats on which they depend. Tools 

are available through Section 10 of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40117 

Act for private landowners to coordinate 

with the Service to facilitate 

conservation of listed species and 

receive regulatory assurances and 

certainty for their actions. A discussion 

of these conservation tools is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking, but they will 

be identified and discussed in 

forthcoming recovery documents. We 

agree that when used and properly 

implemented, BMPs can offer a 

substantial improvement to water 

quality compared to forestry operations 

where BMPs are not properly 

implemented. Normal silvicultural 

practices that are carried out in 

accordance with BMPs as an action that 

can maintain favorable habitat 

conditions for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. In addition, we recognize that 

silvicultural operations are widely 

implemented in accordance with Stateapproved best management practices 

(BMPs; as reviewed by Cristan et al. 

2018, entire), and the adherence to these 

BMPs broadly protects water quality, 

particularly related to sedimentation (as 

reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; 

Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and 

Schilling et al. 2021, entire), to an extent 

that does not impair the species’ 

conservation. However, if adverse 

effects to listed species or critical 

habitat are likely or if take is reasonably 

certain to occur, formal consultation 

under section 7 with an accompanying 

biological opinion or a take permit 

under section 10 of the Act would be 

necessary to avoid violating section 9 of 

the Act. 

I. Final Listing Determination 

Background 

The Canoe Creek clubshell is a narrow 

endemic mussel that is only known 

from the Big Canoe Creek watershed in 

St. Clair and Etowah counties, Alabama. 

The species’ current distribution is 

similar to its historical distribution, 

which has likely always been narrow. 

However, the current range of the 

species is disjunct; the eastern and 

western portions of its range are 

separated by a stretch of river that 

exceeds the dispersal distance of the 

species’ host fish (the clubshell’s 

primary mode of dispersal in the larval 

stage) and contains an inhabitable 

portion. As a result, we believe there is 

no genetic exchange occurring between 

the western and eastern portions of the 

species’ range and we characterize these 

portions as subpopulations. 

Please refer to our November 3, 2020, 

proposed rule (85 FR 69540) and the 

species status assessment report 

(Service 2020, entire) for a summary of 

species background information. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER06JY22.000</GPH>
40118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent a decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be proposed for listing as an endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. It 

does, however, provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. The following is a summary of 

the key results and conclusions from the 

SSA report; the full SSA report can be 

found at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– 

0078 on https://www.regulations.gov. 

To assess the Canoe Creek clubshell’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

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

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (e.g., wet or 

dry, warm or cold years), redundancy 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand catastrophic events (e.g., 

droughts, large pollution events), and 

representation supports the ability of 

the species to adapt over time to longterm changes in the environment (e.g., 

climate changes). In general, the more 

resilient and redundant a species is and 

the more representation it has, the more 

likely it is to sustain populations over 

time, even under changing 

environmental conditions. Using these 

principles, we identified the species’ 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Individual, Subpopulation, and Species 

Needs 

Juvenile and adult Canoe Creek 

clubshells need stable instream 

substrates, including, but not limited to, 

coarse sand and gravel for settlement 

and sheltering. Clean, flowing water is 

needed to keep these substrates free 

from excess sedimentation that may 

reduce the amount of available habitat 

for sheltering, hinder a mussel’s ability 

to feed, and, in severe instances, cause 

smothering and death (see Risk Factors 

for the Canoe Creek Clubshell, below, 

for information on impacts of 

sedimentation). Clean, flowing water is 

also needed to attract host fish and 

disperse juveniles throughout stream 

reaches. In addition, freshwater mussels 

are sensitive to changes in water quality 

parameters such as temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40119 

pollutants. Therefore, while the precise 

tolerance thresholds for these water 

quality parameters are unknown for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, we know the 

species requires water of sufficient 

quality to sustain its natural 

physiological processes for normal 

behavior, growth, and survival at all life 

stages (see Risk Factors for the Canoe 

Creek Clubshell, below, for more 

information on water quality 

impairments). Food and nutrients are 

needed for individuals at all life stages 

for survival and growth. Lastly, the 

presence of host fish is needed for 

successful reproduction and dispersal. 

Host fish used by the Canoe Creek 

clubshell include the tricolor shiner 

(Cyprinella trichroistia), Alabama shiner 

(C. callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus 

chrysocephalus), among others. 

To be healthy at the subpopulation 

and species levels, the Canoe Creek 

clubshell needs individuals to be 

present in sufficient numbers 

throughout the subpopulations; 

reproduction, which is evidenced by the 

presence of multiple age classes within 

a subpopulation; and connectivity 

among mussel beds (local aggregations) 

within a subpopulation and between 

subpopulations. Mussel abundance 

facilitates reproduction. Mussels do not 

actively seek mates; males release sperm 

into the water column, where it drifts 

until a female takes it in (Moles and 

Layzer 2008, p. 212). Therefore, 

successful reproduction and 

subpopulation growth requires a 

sufficient number of females to be 

downstream of a sufficient number of 

males. 

There must also be multiple mussel 

beds of sufficient density such that local 

stochastic events do not eliminate most 

or all the beds. Connectivity among beds 

within each subpopulation is also 

needed to allow mussel beds within a 

stream reach to be recolonized by one 

another and recover from stochastic 

events. A nonlinear distribution of beds 

over a sufficiently large area helps 

buffer against stochastic events that may 

impact portions of a clubshell 

subpopulation. Similarly, having 

multiple subpopulations that are 

connected to one another protects the 

species from catastrophic events, such 

as spills, because subpopulations can 

recolonize one another following events 

that impact the entirety or portions of 

one subpopulation. 

Risk Factors for the Canoe Creek 

Clubshell 

We identified several factors that are 

influencing the viability of the Canoe 

Creek clubshell. The primary factors 

include sedimentation, water quality, 

and climate events. For a complete 

discussion on the factors influencing the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, including the 

impacts of connectivity and 

conservation efforts, see the species 

status assessment report (Service 2020, 

pp. 30–53). 

Sedimentation 

Under a natural flow regime, 

sediments are washed through river and 

stream systems, and the overall amount 

of sediment in the substrate remains 

relatively stable over time. However, 

some past and ongoing activities or 

practices can result in elevated levels of 

sediment in the substrate. This 

excessive stream sedimentation (or 

siltation) can be caused by soil erosion 

associated with upland activities (e.g., 

agriculture, poor forest management 

practices, unpaved roads, road 

construction, development, unstable 

streambanks, and urbanization) and 

stream channel destabilization 

associated with other activities (e.g., 

dredging, poorly installed culverts, 

pipeline crossings, or other instream 

structures) (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, 

p. 102; Wynn et al. 2016, pp. 36–52). In 

severe cases, stream bottoms can 

become ‘‘embedded,’’ whereby substrate 

features including larger cobbles, gravel, 

and boulders are surrounded by, or 

buried in, sediment, which eliminates 

interstitial spaces (small openings 

between rocks and gravels). 

The negative effects of increased 

sedimentation on mussels are relatively 

well-understood (Brim Box and Mossa 

1999, entire; Gascho Landis et al. 2013, 

entire; Poole and Downing 2004, pp. 

118–124). First, the river processes and 

sediment dynamics caused by increased 

sedimentation degrade and reduce the 

amount of habitat available to mussels. 

Juvenile mussels burrow into interstitial 

spaces in the substrate. Therefore, 

juveniles are particularly susceptible to 

excess sedimentation that removes those 

spaces, and they are unable to find 

adequate habitat to survive and become 

adults (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 

100). Second, sedimentation interferes 

with juvenile and adult physiological 

processes and behaviors. Mussels can 

die from being physically buried and 

smothered by excessive sediment. 

However, the primary impacts of excess 

sedimentation on individuals are 

sublethal; sedimentation can reduce a 

mussel’s ability to feed (Brim Box and 

Mossa 1999, p. 101) and reproduce (by 

reducing the success of glochidial 

attachment and metamorphosis; 

Beussink 2007, pp. 19–20). 

The primary activities causing 

sedimentation that have occurred, and 

continue to occur, in the Big Canoe 

Creek watershed include urbanization 

and development, agricultural practices, 

and forest management (Wynn et al. 

2016, pp. 9–10, 50–51). Approximately 

59 percent of the Big Canoe Creek 

watershed is in evergreen or mixed 

deciduous forest, and forestry activities 

are common in central Big Canoe Creek 

and Little Canoe Creek West. 

Agriculture is also common, with 

pasture and small farms comprising 18 

percent, and cultivated crops 

comprising 2.3 percent, of land use in 

the watershed. Urban development 

comprises 6 percent of the watershed’s 

land use and is concentrated near the 

cities of Ashville and Springville near 

the western clubshell subpopulation, 

and Steele near the eastern 

subpopulation (Wynn et al. 2016, p. 9). 

A rapid habitat assessment survey 

that included an evaluation of 

sedimentation deposition was 

completed at multiple sites in the Big 

Canoe Creek watershed from 2008–2013 

(Wynn et al. 2016, pp. 37–39). Overall 

habitat quality varied from poor to 

optimal throughout Big Canoe Creek’s 

nine subwatersheds, but six 

subwatersheds were reported impaired 

by sedimentation (Wynn et al. 2016, p. 

51). 

Water Quality 

Water quality in freshwater systems 

can be impaired through contamination 

or alteration of water chemistry. 

Chemical contaminants are ubiquitous 

throughout the environment and are a 

major reason for the current declining 

status of freshwater mussel species 

nationwide (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 

2025). Chemicals such as ammonia 

enter the environment through both 

point and nonpoint discharges, 

including spills, industrial sources, 

municipal effluents, and agricultural 

runoff. These sources contribute organic 

compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, 

herbicides, and a wide variety of newly 

emerging contaminants to the aquatic 

environment. 

Alteration of water chemistry 

parameters is another type of 

impairment. Reduced dissolved oxygen 

levels and increased water temperatures 

are of particular concern. Runoff and 

wastewater can wash nutrients (e.g., 

nitrogen and phosphorus) into the water 

column, which can stimulate excessive 

plant growth (Carpenter et al. 1998, p. 

561). The decomposition of this plant 

material can lead to reduced dissolved 

oxygen levels and eutrophication. 

Increased temperatures from climate 

changes (Alder and Hostetler 2013, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) National 

Climate Change Viewer) and low flow 

events during periods of drought can 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40120 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

also reduce dissolved oxygen levels 

(Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1176). 

The effects of water quality 

impairments on freshwater mussels is 

well studied (Naimo 1995, entire; 

Havlik and Marking 1987, entire; Milam 

et al. 2005, entire; Markich 2017, 

entire). Contaminants, reduced 

dissolved oxygen levels, and increased 

temperatures are primary types of 

impairments that affect mussel survival, 

reproduction, and fitness. Freshwater 

mussels in their early life stages are 

among the most sensitive organisms to 

contaminants, but all life stages are 

vulnerable and can suffer from both 

acute and chronic effects (Augspurger et 

al. 2003, p. 2569). Depending on the 

type and concentration, contaminants 

can cause mortality of or sublethal 

effects (e.g., reduced filtration 

efficiency, growth, and reproduction) on 

mussels at all life stages. 

In addition to contaminants, 

alterations in water chemistry, 

especially reduced dissolved oxygen 

levels and increased temperatures, can 

have negative impacts on mussels. 

Although juveniles tend to be more 

vulnerable, reduced dissolved oxygen 

levels can have lethal and sublethal 

impacts on mussels in all life stages. 

Mussels require oxygen for metabolism 

and when levels are low, normal 

functions and behaviors (e.g., 

ventilation, filtration, oxygen 

consumption, feeding, growth, and 

reproduction) are impaired. Below a 

certain level, mortality can occur. 

Lastly, increased water temperatures 

can impact mussel health. Young 

juveniles (less than 3 weeks old) are 

particularly sensitive, with upper and 

lower thermal limits 2 to 3 degrees 

Celsius (°C) higher or lower than 

juveniles 1 to 2 years older (Martin 

2016, pp. 14–17). While drastic 

increases in temperatures beyond 

thermal tolerances can cause mortality, 

the most common negative effects of 

temperatures on mussels is caused by 

relatively minor increases that 

exacerbate impacts caused by other 

issues, such as contamination. For 

example, temperature increases impair 

physiological functions like immune 

response, filtration and excretion rates, 

oxygen consumption, and growth 

(Pandolfo et al. 2012, p. 73). 

Temperature increases have been linked 

to increased respiration rates and have 

also been linked to increased toxicity of 

some metals, like copper (Rao and Khan 

2000, pp. 176–177). 

In the Big Canoe Creek watershed, 

water quality impairments have 

historically impacted the Canoe Creek 

clubshell and continue to do so. Rapid 

habitat assessments conducted from 

2008–2013 found 24 of 34 sites to have 

suboptimal, marginal, or poor habitat 

and sedimentation and elevated nutrient 

levels were documented throughout the 

watershed. For further discussion on 

water quality impairments within the 

range of the Canoe Creek clubshell, see 

the species status assessment report 

(Service 2020, pp. 35–43). Historically, 

point source discharges and pesticide 

and herbicide applications were not 

well regulated. The Clean Water Act 

(CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is the 

primary Federal law in the United 

States governing water pollution. A 

primary role of the CWA is to regulate 

the point source discharge of pollutants 

to surface waters through a permit 

process pursuant to the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). The NPDES permit process 

may be delegated by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to the States. 

In Alabama, this authority has been 

delegated to the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management. Currently, 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management requires that discharges 

not exceed state water quality standards 

or criteria. However, it has been found 

that organisms commonly used in 

toxicity testing for determining water 

quality criteria may be less sensitive to 

tested toxicants than some freshwater 

mussels (Wang et al. 2007). Because 

there is no information on the Canoe 

Creek clubshell’s sensitivity to common 

pollutants, we are not sure whether 

Federal and State water quality 

parameters are protective for this 

species. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. 

136 et seq.) is intended to protect 

against unreasonable human health or 

environmental effects. While pesticides 

are usually tested on standard biological 

media (e.g., honey bees (Apis sp.), 

daphnia (Daphnia magna), bluegill 

sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), mice (Mus 

musculus)), often endangered and 

threatened species are more susceptible 

to pollutants than test organisms 

commonly used in bioassays. While 

State and Federal regulations have 

become more stringent and toxicity and 

environmental consequences of 

contaminants are better understood, the 

use of many pesticides and herbicides 

are more commonplace. Runoff and 

discharges are also concerns now and 

into the future with the ongoing 

urbanization of the area. 

Climate Events 

Climate events such as droughts and 

floods can have significant impacts on 

freshwater systems and their 

fundamental ecological processes (Poff 

et al. 2002, pp. ii–v). Drought can cause 

dewatering of freshwater habitats and 

low flows, which exacerbate water 

quality impairments (e.g., dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, contaminants). 

Streams with smaller drainage areas are 

especially vulnerable to drought 

because they are more likely to 

experience extensive dewatering than 

larger streams that maintain substantial 

flow (Haag and Warren 2008, pp. 1172– 

1173). Floods can cause excessive 

erosion, destabilize banks and bed 

materials, and lead to increases in 

sedimentation and suspended solids. 

Climate change can affect the frequency 

and duration of drought and floods, as 

well as alter normal temperature 

regimes. Higher water temperatures, 

which are common during the low flow 

periods of droughts, decrease mussel 

survival (Gough et al. 2012, p. 2363). 

Severe drought and major floods can 

have significant impacts on mussel 

communities (Haag and Warren 2008, p. 

1165; Hastie et al. 2001, p. 107; Hastie 

et al. 2003, pp. 40–45). Reduced flows 

from drought can isolate or eliminate 

areas of suitable habitat for mussels in 

all life stages and render individuals 

exposed and vulnerable to drying and 

predation (Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 

503–504). Drought can also degrade 

water quality (e.g., decreased dissolved 

oxygen levels and increased 

temperatures), which can reduce mussel 

survival, reproduction, and fitness 

(Golladay et al. 2004, p. 501; Haag and 

Warren 2008, pp. 1174–1176) (see 

discussion above under ‘‘Water 

Quality’’). If severe or frequent, droughts 

can cause substantial declines in mussel 

abundance. Flooding can also affect 

mussels by dislodging individuals and 

depositing them in unsuitable habitat, 

which can affect their ability to survive 

and reproduce (Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 

108, 114). Higher turbidity and reduced 

visibility during high flows reduce the 

chances of successful fertilization of the 

female and impede the host fish’s ability 

to find and take up conglutinates. 

The stream segments within Big 

Canoe Creek where clubshells occur 

have relatively small drainage sizes, 

which render them particularly 

vulnerable to drought. Combined with 

other stressors such as water quality 

degradation that occur within the 

watershed, severe droughts can have 

significant impacts on the species (Haag 

and Warren 2008, p. 1175). No studies 

have been conducted specifically on the 

impacts of drought events to Canoe 

Creek clubshells within Big Canoe 

Creek. However, neighboring streams of 

similar size and condition experienced 

drastic declines in the density and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40121 

abundance of the warrior pigtoe 

(Pleurobema rubellum, a mussel species 

similar to the clubshell). Following a 

severe drought event in 2000, warrior 

pigtoe abundance declined by 65 to 83 

percent (Haag and Warren 2008, p. 

1165), and multiple sites were 

extirpated. We presume that Big Canoe 

Creek faced similar conditions following 

this and other severe drought events 

because of its geographic proximity and 

similar size and condition. 

Additionally, we presume the Canoe 

Creek clubshell’s response to the 

drought event was comparable to that of 

the warrior pigtoe given its similar lifehistory characteristics and physiological 

and habitat needs. 

While the impacts on mussels 

following the drought in 2000 were well 

documented (Golladay et al. 2004, 

entire; Haag and Warren 2008, entire), 

drought events have been occurring in 

the area and affecting mussel 

communities for decades. The severity 

and frequency of droughts is closely 

monitored and recorded at the local and 

State levels by multiple initiatives 

(NDMC 2019; USGS 2019). The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National 

Integrated Drought Information System 

(NIDIS) program keeps one of the most 

extensive records (beginning in 1895) of 

drought in Alabama. The program uses 

the Palmer Drought Severity Index 

(PDSI), which is a measurement of 

dryness based on evapotranspiration 

(NOAA 2020). These data indicate that 

over the past 100 years (1918–2018), 

approximately 6 percent of years 

experienced severe drought. 

While severe droughts are natural 

events that these streams have always 

experienced, this part of Alabama has 

undergone more frequent severe drought 

events over the last 20 years; the 

number of severe drought years has 

increased to approximately 11 percent 

(NOAA 2020, unpaginated). Water flow 

gauge data at a Big Canoe Creek gauging 

site reported low flows that correlate to 

the severe and exceptional droughts in 

the Big Canoe Creek watershed during 

2000, 2007, and 2008 (USGS 2019). The 

severe drought events that occurred in 

relatively short succession during a 

prolonged dry period likely caused 

severe impacts to the survival, 

reproduction, and abundance of Canoe 

Creek clubshells. Although we do not 

have specific data on the Canoe Creek 

clubshell in response to these drought 

events, the decline of other freshwater 

mussel species was documented in a 

nearby watershed. The dark pigtoe 

(Pleurobema furvum), a freshwater 

mussel with similar life history 

characteristics of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell, was extirpated at sites with 

low densities following the 2000 severe 

drought event (Haag and Warran 2008, 

pp. 1173). 

Cumulative Effects 

It is likely that individual stressors 

identified are synergistic and have 

cumulative impacts on the species. For 

instance, an increase in drought 

frequency would amplify water quality 

issues predicted to occur with increases 

in developed land use. Decreased 

stream flows would be even less able to 

accommodate increasing levels of nonpoint source pollution associated with 

and expected from increased human 

populations within the range of the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. Further, 

increasing water temperatures from 

drought events have been and will 

continue to exacerbate water quality 

issues such as decreases in dissolved 

oxygen in Big Canoe Creek (see 

‘‘Climate Events,’’ above). 

Species Condition 

The Canoe Creek clubshell’s ability to 

withstand, or be resilient to, stochastic 

events and disturbances such as drought 

and fluctuations in reproductive rates is 

extremely limited. The species has 

likely always been a rare, narrow 

endemic of the Big Canoe Creek 

watershed; however, past and ongoing 

stressors, including decreased water 

quality from drought events, 

development, and agriculture, among 

other sources, have greatly reduced the 

resiliency of the species. At present, the 

clubshell has extremely low abundance, 

shows no signs of successful 

reproduction, and has poor connectivity 

within and among subpopulations. 

During comprehensive mussel 

surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018 in 

the Big Canoe Creek watershed, only 25 

Canoe Creek clubshells were found 

(Fobian et al. 2017, entire; Fobian 2018, 

entire). In the western subpopulation, 9 

individuals were found in 2 of the 40 

sites that were surveyed. In the eastern 

subpopulation, 16 individuals were 

found at only 1 of the 8 sites that were 

surveyed. In the 25 years prior to these 

surveys, fewer than 15 live individuals 

were found (Fobian et al. 2017, pp. 9– 

10). Further, the age structure of the 

individuals located consisted of aged 

adults and the surveys found no 

evidence of successful recruitment (i.e., 

sub adults (Fobian et al. 2017, pp. 9– 

10)). 

In addition to a low abundance, the 

clubshell is experiencing recruitment 

failure; juveniles are not surviving to 

reproductive ages and joining the adult 

population (Strayer and Malcom 2012, 

pp. 1783–1785). This is evidenced by 

the species’ heavily skewed age class 

distribution. Of the 25 individuals 

found in recent surveys, all were aging 

adults (Fobian et al. 2017, entire; Fobian 

2018, entire). This skewed age class 

distribution is indicative of a species 

that is not successfully reproducing and 

is in decline. 

Lastly, the resiliency of each 

subpopulation is limited by their 

disjunct distribution. The stretch of 

unsuitable habitat separating the 

subpopulations prevents individuals 

from dispersing from one subpopulation 

to another. This isolation renders the 

subpopulations vulnerable to 

extirpation because individuals are 

unable to recolonize portions of the 

range following stochastic disturbances 

that eliminate entire mussel beds or a 

subpopulation. 

The Canoe Creek clubshell’s ability to 

withstand catastrophic events 

(redundancy) is also limited, primarily 

because of its narrow range. Severe 

droughts resulting in decreased water 

quality and direct mortality were likely 

the primary causes of the species’ recent 

decline. Compared to a more wideranging species whose risk is spread 

over multiple populations across its 

range, the entirety of the clubshell’s 

range is impacted by a severe drought 

event. However, the impacts of other 

potential catastrophic events, such as 

contaminant spills, may be restricted to 

a portion of the clubshell’s range, 

especially because the species’ 

subpopulations are not directly 

downstream from one another. 

The ability of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions 

(representation) over time is also likely 

limited. There are no studies that have 

explicitly explored the species’ adaptive 

capacity or the fundamental 

components—phenotypic plasticity, 

dispersal ability, and genetic diversity— 

by which it is characterized. The 

clubshell is a narrow endemic, 

inhabiting a single watershed, and we 

do not observe any ecological, 

behavioral, or other form of diversity 

that may indicate adaptive capacity 

across its range; thus, we presume the 

species currently has limited ability to 

adapt to changing environmental 

conditions. 

Future Condition 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

three future condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. Our scenarios assumed a 

moderate or enhanced probability of 

severe drought, and either propagation 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

or no propagation of the species. 

Because we determined that the current 

condition of the Canoe Creek clubshell 

was consistent with an endangered 

species (see Determination of Canoe 

Creek Clubshell’s Status, below), we are 

not presenting the results of the future 

scenarios in this rule. Please refer to the 

SSA report (Service 2020) for the full 

analysis of future scenarios. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

State Protections 

The Canoe Creek clubshell is 

currently ranked as a priority 1 (highest 

conservation concern) species of 

greatest conservation need in Alabama 

(Shelton-Nix 2017, p. 51; ANHP 2017, p. 

41), but is not currently listed as State 

threatened or endangered (ADCNR 

2015, p. 23, ANHP 2017, p. 41). 

However, all mussel species not listed 

as a protected species under the 

Invertebrate Species Regulation are 

partially protected by other regulations 

of the Alabama Game, Fish, and Fur 

Bearing Animals Regulations. 

Regulation 220–2-.104 prohibits the 

commercial harvest of all but the 11 

mussel species for which commercial 

harvest is legal (ADCNR 2015, p. 438). 

The Canoe Creek clubshell is not one of 

the 11 mussel species for which 

commercial harvest is legal. 

Conservation Actions 

The Service and numerous partners 

are working to provide technical 

guidance and offering conservation tools 

to meet both species and habitat needs 

in aquatic systems of Alabama. The Big 

Canoe Creek watershed has been 

designated as a Strategic Habitat Unit by 

the Alabama Rivers and Streams 

Network (a group of non-profit 

organizations, private companies, State 

and Federal agencies and concerned 

citizens that recognize the importance of 

clean water and working together to 

maintain healthy water supplies and 

investigate water quality, habitat 

conditions, and biological quality in 

rivers and streams and make these 

findings to the public) for the purpose 

of facilitating and coordinating 

watershed management and restoration 

efforts as well as focus funding to 

address habitat and water quality issues 

(Wynn et al. 2016, p. 11, Wynn et al. 

2018, entire). In 2016, the Geological 

Survey of Alabama completed a 

watershed assessment of the Big Canoe 

Creek system for the recovery and 

restoration of imperiled aquatic species 

(Wynn et al. 2016, entire). This 

assessment is being used by multiple 

Federal, State, and non-government 

organizations to contribute to 

restoration projects that will improve 

habitat and water quality for at risk and 

listed species like the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. An example of organizations 

working together under Alabama Rivers 

and Streams Network is the removal of 

the Goodwin’s Mill Dam in 2013 on Big 

Canoe Creek, which restored 

connectivity to a portion of the range of 

the Canoe Creek clubshell within Little 

Canoe Creek (west). Multiple agencies 

and groups came together for this 

removal including: the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Ecological Services, and Fisheries 

programs, Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources 

(ADCNR), Geological Survey of 

Alabama, Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, Alabama 

Power Company, The Nature 

Conservancy, Coosa River Keeper, and 

Friends of Big Canoe Creek. 

The Nature Conservancy is very active 

in Alabama and has listed Big Canoe 

Creek as a priority watershed for 

focused conservation efforts. The Nature 

Conservancy has been awarded a 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

grant to create a watershed coordinator 

position for the Big Canoe Creek 

watershed that will work with 

landowners on headwater protection 

through land acquisition and easements; 

protect water quality by restoring and 

bolstering riparian buffers on public and 

private lands; install on the ground 

restoration projects that stabilize 

eroding streambanks and increase 

overall water quality and instream 

habitat on public and private lands; and 

promote public access and recreational 

use of the river through conservation 

and protection of the water resource. 

The Nature Conservancy has also 

received funding from Natural 

Resources Conservation Service’s 

Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program to restore degrading 

streambanks in several watersheds in 

Alabama, including the Big Canoe Creek 

watershed. These efforts are in their 

early stages and have not yet resulted in 

improvements to the status of the Canoe 

Creek clubshell. 

The Friends of Big Canoe Creek is a 

non-governmental organization formed 

in 2008 for purpose of preserving and 

protecting the Big Canoe Creek 

watershed through education and 

participation of on the ground 

conservation efforts that was 

instrumental in advocating for and 

nominating land along the creek for 

inclusion into Forever Wild, a State 

program that buys land to protect and 

preserve it. As of 2018, a 382-acre tract 

of land was established as the Big Canoe 

Creek Nature Preserve with about a mile 

of creek frontage near Springville in St. 

Clair County. The preserve will be 

retained by the Alabama Land Trust and 

maintained by the City of Springville. 

While the Canoe Creek clubshell is not 

known to occupy the Big Canoe Creek 

Nature preserve, it is expected that the 

species will benefit from the habitat 

protections the preserve provides. 

In 2021, the Alabama Aquatic 

Biodiversity Center (a program of the 

ADCNR) submitted a final report 

detailing aspects of the species’ 

reproductive periodicity, fish host 

relationships, and propagation methods. 

The Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity 

Center has been successful in 

propagating individuals of the species 

and has begun releasing them into the 

Big Canoe Creek watershed. In March 

2020, approximately 1,500 individuals 

of the Canoe Creek clubshell were 

stocked into Big Canoe Creek. Annual 

monitoring to evaluate growth and 

survival is planned, and additional 

propagation and stocking efforts will 

continue in upcoming years. 

In summary, the Canoe Creek 

clubshell is currently comprised of a 

critically low number of older adults 

that are failing to recruit young. The 

severity and frequency of drought 

events in the past two decades, 

combined with other ongoing habitatrelated stressors such as sedimentation 

and water quality degradation and the 

mussel’s naturally inefficient 

reproductive strategy, likely caused the 

decline of the species to its current 

vulnerable condition. The Canoe Creek 

clubshell’s vulnerability to ongoing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40123 

stressors is heightened to such a degree 

that it is currently on the brink of 

extinction in the wild as a result of its 

narrow range and critically low 

numbers. 

Determination of the Canoe Creek 

Clubshell’s Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Canoe Creek Clubshell’s Status 

Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that past and 

ongoing stressors including decreased 

water quality from drought, 

development, and agriculture, among 

other sources (Factor A), have reduced 

the resiliency of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell to such a degree that the 

species is particularly vulnerable to 

extinction. The Canoe Creek clubshell 

has likely always been a rare, narrow 

endemic within the Big Canoe Creek, 

and the species has some natural ability 

to withstand stochastic demographic 

fluctuations and catastrophic events 

such as a severe drought, which are 

characteristic of the environment in 

which it evolved. However, the 

frequency of severe drought events in 

the past two decades, combined with 

other ongoing habitat-related stressors 

and the mussel’s naturally inefficient 

reproductive strategy, likely caused the 

decline of the species to its current 

vulnerable condition from which it is 

likely unable to recover naturally. The 

species’ declining trend and tenuous 

status is evidenced by the results of 

recent comprehensive surveys in both 

the western and eastern subpopulations 

that reveal the species is comprised of 

a limited number of older adults that are 

failing to recruit young. We anticipate 

these threats will continue to act on the 

species in the future. The Canoe Creek 

clubshell’s vulnerability to ongoing 

stressors is heightened as a result of its 

narrow range and critically low 

numbers such that it is currently in 

danger of extinction throughout its 

range. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Canoe Creek clubshell is in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range. 

Canoe Creek Clubshell’s Status 

Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 

Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined the Canoe Creek clubshell is 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

its range and, accordingly, did not 

undertake an analysis to determine 

whether there is a significant portion of 

its range that may have a different 

status. Because we have determined the 

Canoe Creek clubshell warrants listing 

as endangered throughout all of its 

range, our determination does not 

conflict with the decision in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 

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

that decision related to the SPR analyses 

for a species that warrants listing as 

threatened, not endangered, throughout 

all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Canoe Creek clubshell 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we are 

listing the Canoe Creek clubshell as an 

endangered species in accordance with 

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

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, 

private organizations, and individuals. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and other countries and calls 

for recovery actions to be carried out for 

listed species. The protection required 

by Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against certain activities are discussed, 

in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

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

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, 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 subsequent to a final 

listing determination. The recovery 

outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process 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, to the maximum extent 

practicable, 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 (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ 

species/4693), 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

rule, funding for recovery actions will 

be available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost-share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

Alabama would be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

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

service/financial-assistance. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(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 consult 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

consultation, as described in the 

preceding paragraph include 

management and any other landscapealtering activities. These actions 

include, but are not limited to, work 

authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers that administers the issuance 

of section 404 Clean Water Act permits 

that regulate fill of wetlands and the 

Federal Highway Administration that 

regulates the construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways. 

Additional actions that may require 

consultation are those conducted by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

This program provides technical and 

financial assistance to private 

landowners and Tribes who are willing 

to help meet habitat needs of Federal 

trust species. The Farm Service Agency 

administers the Conservation Reserve 

Program, which includes providing 

incentives for farmers and private 

landowners to use their 

environmentally sensitive agricultural 

land for conservation benefit. The 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

works with private landowners under 

multiple Farm Bill programs, all aimed 

at the conservation of water and soil. 

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 fish 

or 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 listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of 

the listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9, if these activities 

are carried out in accordance with 

existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Normal agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, that are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices. 

(2) Normal residential development 

and landscape activities that are carried 

out in accordance with any existing 

regulations, permit requirements, and 

best management practices. 

(3) Normal recreational hunting, 

fishing, or boating activities that are 

carried out in accordance with all 

existing hunting, fishing, and boating 

regulations, and following reasonable 

practices and standards. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities, 

which are activities that the Service 

finds could potentially harm the Canoe 

Creek clubshell and result in ‘‘take’’ of 

the species, may potentially result in a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if they 

are not authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell, including import or export 

across State lines and international 

boundaries, except for properly 

documented antique specimens of the 

taxon at least 100 years old, as defined 

by section 10(h)(1) of the Act. 

(2) Unauthorized modification of the 

channel, substrate, temperature, or 

water flow of any stream or water body 

in which the Canoe Creek clubshell is 

known to occur. 

(3) Unauthorized discharge of 

chemicals or fill material into any 

waters in which the Canoe Creek 

clubshell is known to occur. 

(4) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, such as the zebra 

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and 

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea). 

(5) Pesticide applications in violation 

of label restrictions. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Alabama Ecological Services 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40125 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

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

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

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

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that 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 that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) when 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) the 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

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

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

occupied by the species and important 

to the conservation of the species, both 

inside and outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to: (1) Conservation actions 

implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act; (2) regulatory protections 

afforded by the requirement in section 

7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 

ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species; 

and (3) the prohibitions found in section 

9 of the Act. Federally funded or 

permitted projects affecting listed 

species outside their designated critical 

habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 

findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. 

For example, physical features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species might include gravel of a 

particular size required for spawning, 

alkaline soil for seed germination, 

protective cover for migration, or 

susceptibility to flooding or fire that 

maintains necessary early-successional 

habitat characteristics. Biological 

features might include prey species, 

forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of 

trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 

fungi, or a particular level of nonnative 

species consistent with conservation 

needs of the listed species. The features 

may also be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. In considering whether 

features are essential to the conservation 

of the species, 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 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Canoe Creek clubshells live in 

freshwater rivers and streams. 

Clubshells, like many other freshwater 

mussels, live in aggregations called 

mussel beds, which can be patchily 

distributed throughout an occupied 

river or stream reach, but together 

comprise a mussel population. Mussel 

beds are connected to one another when 

host fish infested by mussel larvae in 

one bed disperse the larvae to another 

bed. While adults are mostly sedentary, 

larval dispersal among beds causes 

mussel density and abundance to vary 

dynamically throughout an occupied 

reach over time. Connectivity among 

beds and populations is essential for 

maintaining resilient populations 

because it allows for recolonization of 

areas following stochastic events. 

Populations that do not occupy a long 

enough reach or have too few or 

sparsely distributed beds are vulnerable 

to extirpation. 

The primary requirements for 

individual Canoe Creek clubshells 

include the following: stable instream 

substrate for attaching and sheltering; 

clean, flowing water to keep substrates 

free from excess sedimentation and to 

facilitate host fish interactions and 

feeding; appropriate water quality and 

temperatures to meet physiological 

needs for survival, growth, and 

reproduction; food and nutrients to 

survive and grow; and host fish for 

reproduction and dispersal (see 

Individual, Subpopulation, and Species 

Needs, above, for more discussion of 

these needs). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell from studies of the species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history as 

described below. Additional 

information can be found in the SSA 

report (Service 2020, entire; available on 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078). 

We have determined that the following 

physical or biological features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

Canoe Creek clubshell: 

(1) Suitable substrates and connected 

instream habitats, characterized by a 

geomorphically stable stream channel (a 

channel that maintains its lateral 

dimensions, longitudinal profile, and 

spatial pattern over time without 

aggrading or degrading bed elevation) 

and connected instream habitats (e.g., 

stable riffle-run-pool habitats that 

provide flow refuges consisting of siltfree gravel and coarse sand substrates). 

(2) A hydrologic flow regime (i.e., the 

magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found; to maintain 

connectivity of streams with the 

floodplain; and to provide for normal 

behavior, growth, and survival of all life 

stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels 

and their fish hosts. 

(3) Water quality (including, but not 

limited to, temperature, conductivity, 

hardness, turbidity, ammonia, heavy 

metals, oxygen content, and other 

chemical characteristics) necessary to 

sustain natural physiological processes 

for normal behavior, growth, and 

viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek 

clubshell mussels and their fish hosts. 

(4) Sediment quality (including, but 

not limited to, coarse sand and/or gravel 

substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment, low amounts 

of attached filamentous algae, and other 

physical and chemical characteristics) 

necessary for normal behavior, growth, 

and viability of all life stages of Canoe 

Creek clubshell mussels and their fish 

hosts. 

(5) The presence and abundance of 

known fish hosts, which may include 

the tricolor shiner (Cyprinella 

trichroistia), Alabama shiner (C. 

callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus 

chrysocephalus), necessary for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40127 

recruitment of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell mussel. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Canoe Creek clubshell may require 

special management considerations or 

protections to ensure that conditions are 

improved. Examples of these threats 

include excessive amounts of fine 

sediment deposited in the channel, 

changes in water quality (impairment), 

activities that cause a destabilization of 

the stream channel and/or its banks, 

loss of riparian cover, and altered 

hydrology from inundation, 

channelization, withdrawals, or flow 

loss/scour resulting from other humaninduced perturbations. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to: Use of best management 

practices designed to reduce 

sedimentation, erosion, and bank-side 

destruction; protection of riparian 

corridors and retention of sufficient 

canopy cover along banks; exclusion of 

livestock and nuisance wildlife (feral 

hogs, exotic ungulates); moderation of 

surface and ground water withdrawals 

to maintain natural flow regimes; 

increased use of stormwater 

management and reduction of 

stormwater flows into the systems; use 

of highest water quality standards for 

wastewater and other return flows; and 

reduction of other watershed and 

floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into 

the water. 

In summary, we find that the areas we 

are designating as critical habitat 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Special 

management considerations or 

protection may be required of the 

Federal action agency to eliminate, or to 

reduce to negligible levels, the threats 

affecting the physical and biological 

features of each unit. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. 

To inform our designation, we 

reviewed observations of one or more 

live individuals, or recent dead shell 

material, from 1999 to the present 

because Canoe Creek clubshells may be 

difficult to detect and some sites have 

not been visited multiple times. 

Recently dead shell material at a site 

indicates the species is likely present in 

that area, given their average life span 

of 25 to 35 years. We confirmed that 

these areas continued to be occupied in 

2017 and 2018 from surveys (Fobian et 

al. 2017, pp 26–29; Fobian 2018 pers. 

comm.; Fobian 2019, unpaginated). 

Therefore, we consider portions of the 

Big Canoe Creek mainstem and portions 

of Little Canoe Creek in its eastern and 

western reaches as occupied by the 

Canoe Creek clubshell at the time of 

listing. 

The Canoe Creek clubshell has likely 

always been a narrow endemic within 

its single watershed. Therefore, the 

species’ redundancy and representation 

is limited, but likely similar to that 

which it was historically. However, the 

species has an extremely limited ability 

to withstand stochastic events and 

disturbances because of its now 

critically low numbers. Conserving the 

species will therefore require increasing 

the species’ abundance throughout its 

range and successful recruitment. 

Although conservation of the Canoe 

Creek clubshell will require improving 

the species’ resiliency, we concluded 

that the occupied areas designated as 

critical habitat are sufficient to ensure 

the conservation of the species because 

these areas represent the maximum 

extent of the historical range that is 

capable or likely to become capable of 

supporting the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

Inundation of the lower reaches of the 

Big Canoe Creek watershed after the 

completion of Neely Henry Dam 

removed the physical and biological 

features necessary for the species for 

food, shelter, and reproduction in the 

intervening stream reaches between the 

occupied reaches of habitat. Based on 

the information available, the extent of 

designated CH is the best estimate of the 

extent of habitat that is essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Sources of data for this critical habitat 

designation include multiple databases 

maintained by the Service, museums, 

universities, nongovernmental 

organizations, and State agencies; 

scientific and agency reports; peerreviewed journal articles; and numerous 

survey reports on streams throughout 

the species’ range. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing, we delineated 

critical habitat unit boundaries as 

follows: We evaluated habitat suitability 

of stream segments within the 

geographic area occupied at the time of 

listing and retained those segments that 

contain some or all of the physical and 

biological features to support lifehistory functions essential for 

conservation of the species. Host fish 

species (minnows in the genus 

Cyprinella and Luxilus) are distributed 

throughout the occupied reaches and 

provide additional support that these 

areas are also occupied by the Canoe 

Creek clubshell. Then, we assessed 

those occupied stream segments 

retained through the above analysis and 

refined the starting and ending points 

by evaluating the presence or absence of 

appropriate physical and biological 

features. We selected upstream and 

downstream cutoff points to reference 

existing easily recognizable landmarks, 

including stream confluences, highway 

crossings, and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission boundary of H. 

Neely Henry Reservoir. Unless 

otherwise specified, any stream beds 

located directly beneath bridge 

crossings or other landmark features 

used to describe critical habitat 

spatially, such as stream confluences, 

are considered to be wholly included 

within the critical habitat unit. Critical 

habitat stream segments were then 

mapped using ArcGIS Pro version 2.3.3 

(ESRI, Inc.), a Geographic Information 

Systems program. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other structures because such lands 

lack physical or biological features 

necessary for the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

The scale of the maps we prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed lands. Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

final rule have been excluded by text in 

the rule and are not designated as 

critical habitat. With the publication of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

this final rule, a Federal action 

involving these lands would not trigger 

section 7 consultation with respect to 

critical habitat and the requirement of 

no adverse modification unless the 

specific action would affect the physical 

or biological features in the adjacent 

critical habitat. 

We designate as critical habitat 

streams that are occupied at the time of 

listing (i.e., currently occupied) and 

contain one or more of the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

support life-history processes of the 

species. Both designated units contain 

all of the identified physical or 

biological features and support multiple 

life-history processes and therefore meet 

the definition of critical habitat. 

The final critical habitat designation 

is defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Regulation 

Promulgation. We include more detailed 

information on the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation in the 

preamble of this document. We will 

make the coordinates or plot points or 

both on which each map is based 

available to the public on https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078 and on our 

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

office/alabama-ecological-services. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 

58.5 river kilometers (km) (36.3 river 

miles (mi)) in two units as critical 

habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. The two units 

we designate as critical habitat are: (1) 

Little Canoe Creek East and (2) Big 

Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek West. 

Table 1 shows the critical habitat units 

and the approximate size of each unit. 

In Alabama, all waters are held within 

the public trust. The Service consulted 

with the State to confirm the status of 

ownership of the river bottoms in these 

river segments. However, this 

information was not available at the 

time of publication of this final rule. 

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CANOE CREEK CLUBSHELL

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

Critical habitat unit Adjacent land 

ownership by type 

Size of unit 

in kilometers 

(miles) 

Occupied? 

1. Little Canoe Creek East ........................................... Private, County ............................................................. 9.7 (6.0) Yes. 

2. Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek West ............. Private .......................................................................... 48.8 (30.3) Yes. 

Total ....................................................................... ...................................................................................... 58.5 (36.3) Yes. 

Note: Sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of both 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, below. 

Unit 1: Little Canoe Creek East 

Unit 1 consists of 9.7 river km (6.0 

river mi) of Little Canoe Creek East, due 

east of the Town of Steele, in St. Clair 

and Etowah Counties, Alabama. The 

unit consists of the Little Canoe Creek 

mainstem to the bankfull width from the 

intersection with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission boundary of H. 

Neely Henry Reservoir (at elevation 155 

meters (m) (509 feet (ft)) above mean sea 

level and approximately 4.4 river km 

(2.7 river mi) upstream of its confluence 

with Big Canoe Creek), upstream 9.7 

river km (6.0 river mi) to the U.S. 

Highway 11 bridge crossing. 

This unit is currently occupied by the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. The majority of 

the adjacent land surrounding this unit 

is privately owned. A small amount of 

the adjacent land is publicly owned in 

the form of bridge crossings and 

easements, and portions of the eastern 

bank of Little Canoe Creek between U.S. 

Highway 11 to Interstate 59, in Etowah 

County, Alabama. Approximately 2.4 

river km (1.5 river mi) of Little Canoe 

Creek borders property to the east 

owned by Etowah County, Alabama. 

Unit 1 contains all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. The channel 

within Unit 1 is relatively stable and 

provides the necessary riffle-run-pool 

sequences required by the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. A continued hydrologic flow 

regime with adequate water quality and 

limited fine sediments are present 

within this unit, providing habitat 

features that support the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. The unit also contains fish 

hosts for the clubshell. The physical and 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protections to ensure 

that conditions do not further degrade. 

Examples of threats within this unit 

include excessive amounts of fine 

sediment deposited in the channel, 

changes in water quality (impairment), 

activities that cause a destabilization of 

the stream channel and/or its banks, 

loss of riparian cover, and altered 

hydrology from either inundation, 

channelization, withdrawals, or flow 

loss/scour resulting from other humaninduced perturbations (see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection, above). 

Unit 2: Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe 

Creek West 

Unit 2 consists of 48.8 river km (30.3 

river mi) of Big Canoe Creek and its 

tributary Little Canoe Creek West, 

which are located geographically 

between the cities of Springville and 

Ashville, St. Clair County, Alabama. 

The unit consists of the main channel of 

Big Canoe Creek to the bankfull width 

from the Double Bridge Road bridge 

crossing near Ashville, Alabama, 

upstream 32.2 river km (20.0 river mi) 

to the Washington Valley Rd (St. Clair 

County Road 23) bridge crossing near 

Springville, Alabama; and Little Canoe 

Creek West from its confluence with Big 

Canoe Creek, upstream 16.6 river km 

(10.3 river mi) to the confluence of 

Stovall Branch. This unit is currently 

occupied by the Canoe Creek clubshell. 

The majority of this unit is adjacent to 

private land, except for any small 

amount of adjacent land that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings 

and easements. 

Unit 2 contains all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. The channel 

within Unit 2 is relatively stable and 

provides the necessary riffle-run-pool 

sequences required by the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. A continued hydrologic flow 

regime with adequate water quality and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40129 

limited fine sediments is present within 

this unit, providing habitat features that 

support the Canoe Creek clubshell. A 

diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts 

for the clubshell, are known from this 

unit. The physical and biological 

features in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protections to ensure that conditions do 

not degrade. Examples of threats within 

this unit include excessive amounts of 

fine sediment deposited in the channel, 

changes in water quality (impairment), 

activities that cause a destabilization of 

the stream channel and/or its banks, 

loss of riparian cover, and altered 

hydrology from either inundation, 

channelization, withdrawals, or flow 

loss/scour resulting from other humaninduced perturbations (see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection, above). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ on August 27, 2019 (84 

FR 44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must consult 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), is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate 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: (1) if the amount or extent 

of taking specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion; or (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

In such situations, Federal agencies 

sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

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

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would alter the 

geomorphology of stream and river 

habitats. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, instream 

excavation or dredging, impoundment, 

channelization, sand and gravel mining, 

clearing riparian vegetation, and 

discharge of fill materials. These 

activities could cause aggradation or 

degradation of the channel bed 

elevation or significant bank erosion 

and result in entrainment or burial of 

this mussel, and could cause other 

direct or cumulative adverse effects to 

this species and its life cycles. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter the existing flow regime where this 

species occurs. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, 

impoundment, urban development, 

water diversion, and water withdrawal. 

These activities could eliminate or 

reduce the habitat necessary for growth 

and reproduction of this mussel and its 

fish hosts. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40130 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

alter water chemistry or water quality 

(for example, temperature, pH, 

contaminants, and excess nutrients). 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, hydropower discharges, 

or the release of chemicals, biological 

pollutants, or heated effluents into 

surface water or connected groundwater 

at a point source or by dispersed release 

(nonpoint source). These activities 

could alter water conditions that are 

beyond the tolerances of this mussel, its 

fish hosts, or both, and result in direct 

or cumulative adverse effects to the 

species throughout its life cycle. 

(4) Actions that would significantly 

alter stream bed material composition 

and quality by increasing sediment 

deposition or filamentous algal growth. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, construction projects, 

gravel and sand mining, oil and gas 

development, coal mining, livestock 

grazing and other agricultural practices, 

irresponsible timber harvest, and other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that release sediments or nutrients into 

the water. These activities could 

eliminate or reduce habitats necessary 

for the growth and reproduction of this 

mussel, its fish hosts, or both, by 

causing excessive sedimentation and 

burial of the species or its habitat, or 

nutrification leading to excessive 

filamentous algal growth. Excessive 

filamentous algal growth can cause 

reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen 

levels through respiration, and prevent 

juvenile mussels from settling into 

stream sediments. 

Exemptions 

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

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

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

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (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 DoD lands within the final 

critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless we 

determine, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. 

On December 18, 2020, we published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (85 

FR 82376) revising portions of our 

regulations pertaining to exclusions of 

critical habitat. These final regulations 

became effective on January 19, 2021 

and apply to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 19, 2021. Consequently, 

these new regulations do not apply to 

this final rule. 

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

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. We describe below the process 

that we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

In this final rule, we have not 

considered any areas for exclusion from 

critical habitat. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

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

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

designated. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

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

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

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

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat when 

conducting a discretionary 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this designation of 

critical habitat. The information 

contained in our IEM was then used to 

develop a screening analysis of the 

probable effects of the designation of 

critical habitat for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell, which was revised based on 

comments received during the comment 

period (IEc 2021, entire). We began by 

conducting a screening analysis of the 

designation of critical habitat in order to 

focus our analysis on the key factors 

that are likely to result in incremental 

economic impacts. The purpose of the 

screening analysis is to filter out 

particular geographic areas of critical 

habitat that are already subject to such 

protections and are, therefore, unlikely 

to incur incremental economic impacts. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40131 

In particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may be 

subject to conservation plans, land 

management plans, best management 

practices, or regulations that protect the 

habitat area as a result of the Federal 

listing status of the species. Ultimately, 

the screening analysis allows us to focus 

our analysis on evaluating the specific 

areas or sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. If there are any 

unoccupied units in the critical habitat 

designation, the screening analysis 

assesses whether any additional 

management or conservation efforts may 

incur incremental economic impacts. 

This screening analysis, combined with 

the information contained in our IEM, 

constitutes what we consider our 

economic analysis of the critical habitat 

designation for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell and is summarized in the 

narrative below. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with the E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated November 

27, 2019, probable incremental 

economic impacts associated with the 

following categories of activities: (1) 

Agriculture, (2) poultry farming, (3) 

grazing, (4) development, (5) recreation, 

(6) restoration activities, (7) flood 

control, (8) transportation, and (9) 

utilities. We considered each industry 

or category individually. Additionally, 

we considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. In areas where the Canoe 

Creek clubshell is present, Federal 

agencies would be required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the species. 

When this rule becomes effective (see 

DATES, above), consultations to avoid 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of Canoe Creek clubshell critical habitat 

would be incorporated into the existing 

consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

will result from the species being listed 

and those attributable to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., difference 

between the jeopardy and adverse 

modification standards) for the Canoe 

Creek clubshell’s critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell is 

finalized concurrently with the listing, 

it has been our experience that it is 

more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 

essential physical or biological features 

identified for critical habitat are the 

same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would result in sufficient 

harm or harassment to constitute 

jeopardy to the Canoe Creek clubshell 

would also likely adversely affect the 

essential physical or biological features 

of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our 

rationale concerning this limited 

distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat for this species. This evaluation 

of the incremental effects has been used 

as the basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

designation of critical habitat. 

The evaluation of incremental costs of 

designating critical habitat for the Canoe 

Creek clubshell indicates costs are 

relatively low. The critical habitat 

designation for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell totals approximately 58.5 river 

kilometers (36.3 river miles) of river up 

to the bankfull width adjacent to private 

property across two currently occupied 

units in the Big Canoe Creek watershed. 

Numerous other listed species co-occur 

with the Canoe Creek clubshell in these 

areas (e.g. Georgia pigtoe, finelined 

pocketbook (Hamiota altilis), and 

triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

greenii)). As a result, all activities with 

a Federal nexus occurring in these areas 

are already subject to section 7 

consultation requirements regardless of 

a critical habitat designation for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell. Based on 

historical consultation rates for cooccurring species, we anticipate 

approximately five or fewer section 7 

consultation actions per year in the 

critical habitat areas for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell. 

In addition, any actions that may 

affect the Canoe Creek clubshell or its 

habitat in these areas would also affect 

designated critical habitat, and it is 

unlikely that any additional 

conservation efforts would be 

recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the species. Therefore, 

when section 7 consultations occur, the 

only costs expected are those associated 

with the additional administrative effort 

needed to consider adverse modification 

during the consultation process. While 

this additional analysis would require 

time and resources by both the Federal 

action agency and the Service, we 

believe that in most circumstances, 

these costs would be predominantly 

administrative in nature and would not 

be significant. 

Further, we do not expect the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell to trigger 

additional requirements under State or 

local regulations or have perceptional 

effects on markets. We also do not 

predict the designation would result in 

additional section 7 efforts needed to 

conserve the species. Thus, the annual 

administrative burden is unlikely to 

reach $100 million. 

In conclusion, based on our estimate 

of the number of consultations and their 

costs, which would likely be limited to 

those associated with administrative 

efforts, we estimate that the annual costs 

to the Service and Action agencies from 

designating critical habitat for the Canoe 

Creek clubshell would be approximately 

$18,300. Therefore, the designation is 

unlikely to meet the threshold of $100 

million in a single year for an 

economically significant rule, with 

regard to costs, under E.O. 12866. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

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

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

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

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

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

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40132 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ Nevertheless, when 

designating critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2), the Service must 

consider impacts on national security, 

including homeland security, on lands 

or areas not covered by section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i). 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 national-security or 

homeland-security concerns. 

We cannot, however, automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, it must provide a 

reasonably specific justification of an 

incremental impact on national security 

that would result from the designation 

of that specific area as critical habitat. 

That justification could include 

demonstration of probable impacts, 

such as impacts to ongoing bordersecurity patrols and surveillance 

activities, or a delay in training or 

facility construction, as a result of 

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

Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If the 

agency provides a reasonably specific 

justification, we will defer to the expert 

judgment of DoD, DHS, or another 

Federal agency as to: (1) Whether 

activities on its lands or waters, or its 

activities on other lands or waters, have 

national-security or homeland-security 

implications; (2) the importance of those 

implications; and (3) the degree to 

which the cited implications would be 

adversely affected in the absence of an 

exclusion. In that circumstance, in 

conducting a discretionary section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give 

great weight to national-security and 

homeland-security concerns in 

analyzing the benefits of exclusion. 

In preparing this rule, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell are not owned, 

managed, or used by the DoD or DHS, 

and, therefore, we anticipate no impact 

on national security or homeland 

security. Consequently, the Secretary is 

not exercising her discretion to exclude 

any areas from the final designation 

based on impacts on national security. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

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

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. We consider a number of factors, 

including whether there are permitted 

conservation plans (such as HCPs, safe 

harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs)) covering the 

species in the area, or whether there are 

non-permitted conservation agreements 

and partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we 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 

HCPs or other management plans for the 

Canoe Creek clubshell, and the 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. Therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, 

partnerships, or HCPs from this critical 

habitat designation and thus, as 

described above, we are not excluding 

any particular areas on the basis of the 

presence of conservation agreements or 

impacts to trust resources. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act 

During the development of this final 

rule, we considered any additional 

information we received through the 

public comment period to determine 

whether any specific areas should be 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of the Act’s 

section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. We are not 

excluding any areas from the critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act based on economic impacts, 

national security impacts, or other 

relevant impacts, such as partnerships, 

management, or protection afforded by 

cooperative management efforts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40133 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. There is no 

requirement under the RFA to evaluate 

the potential impacts to entities not 

directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 

agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities will 

be directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

the Service certifies that this final 

critical habitat designation will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

During the development of this final 

rule, we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment period on the November 3, 

2020, proposed rule (85 FR 69540) 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 critical habitat 

designation will not have a 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 Canoe Creek 

clubshell 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 finding: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

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

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the units do 

not occur within the jurisdiction of 

small governments. Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the Canoe 

Creek clubshell 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell 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 critical 

habitat designation with, appropriate 

State resource agencies. From a 

federalism perspective, the designation 

of critical habitat directly affects only 

the responsibilities of Federal agencies. 

The Act imposes no other duties with 

respect to critical habitat, either for 

States and local governments, or for 

anyone else. As a result, the rule does 

not have substantial direct effects either 

on the States, or on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

powers and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

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

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule would not unduly burden the 

judicial system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We 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 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 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

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

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the boundaries of the 

critical habitat for the Canoe Creek 

clubshell, so no Tribal lands will be 

affected by the designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– 

0078 and upon request from the 

Alabama Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this 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, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

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, in paragraph (h), by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Clubshell, Canoe 

Creek’’ to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical 

order under CLAMS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40135 

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

*******

CLAMS 

*******

Clubshell, Canoe Creek ...... Pleurobema athearni ........... Wherever found .................. E 87 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 

July 6, 2022; 50 CFR 17.95(f).CH

* * * * * * * 

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

adding an entry for ‘‘Canoe Creek 

Clubshell (Pleurobema athearni)’’ before 

the entry for ‘‘Appalachian Elktoe 

(Alasmidonta raveneliana)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) Clams and Snails. 

Canoe Creek Clubshell (Pleurobema 

athearni) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for St. Clair and Etowah Counties, 

Alabama, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Canoe Creek 

clubshell consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Suitable substrates and connected 

instream habitats, characterized by a 

geomorphically stable stream channel (a 

channel that maintains its lateral 

dimensions, longitudinal profile, and 

spatial pattern over time without 

aggrading or degrading bed elevation) 

and connected instream habitats (such 

as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that 

provide flow refuges consisting of siltfree gravel and coarse sand substrates). 

(ii) A hydrologic flow regime (i.e., the 

magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species is found; to maintain 

connectivity of streams with the 

floodplain; and to provide for normal 

behavior, growth, and survival of all life 

stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels 

and their fish hosts. 

(iii) Water quality (including, but not 

limited to, temperature, conductivity, 

hardness, turbidity, ammonia, heavy 

metals, oxygen content, and other 

chemical characteristics) necessary to 

sustain natural physiological processes 

for normal behavior, growth, and 

viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek 

clubshell mussels and their fish hosts. 

(iv) Sediment quality (including, but 

not limited to, coarse sand and/or gravel 

substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment, low amounts 

of attached filamentous algae, and other 

physical and chemical characteristics) 

necessary for normal behavior, growth, 

and viability of all life stages of Canoe 

Creek clubshell mussels and their fish 

hosts. 

(v) The presence and abundance of 

fish hosts, which may include the 

tricolor shiner (Cyprinella trichroistia), 

Alabama shiner (C. callistia), and 

striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), 

necessary for recruitment of the Canoe 

Creek clubshell mussel. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created from the National 

Hydrography High Resolution Dataset, 

and critical habit units were mapped 

using North American Datum (NAD) 

1983 Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) Zone 16N 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 the 

Service’s internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/daphne, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0078, 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) Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
40136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: Little Canoe Creek East, St. 

Clair and Etowah Counties, Alabama. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 9.7 river km (6.0 

river mi) of Little Canoe Creek East, due 

east of the Town of Steele, in St. Clair 

and Etowah Counties, Alabama. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER06JY22.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 40137 

(7) Unit 2: Big Canoe Creek/Little 

Canoe Creek West, St. Clair County, 

Alabama. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of 48.8 river km 

(30.3 river mi) of Big Canoe Creek and 

its tributary Little Canoe Creek West. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER06JY22.002</GPH>
40138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14312 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER06JY22.003</GPH>