# 84 FR 23644: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-10379

## Section

- **Citation:** 84 FR 23644
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 84 / 84 FR 23644

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BC28 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list two North Carolina species, the Neuse River waterdog ( Necturus lewisi ) and the Carolina madtom ( Noturus furiosus ), as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Neuse River waterdog is an aquatic salamander. The Carolina madtom is a freshwater fish. After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing both species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Neuse River waterdog as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (“4(d) rule”) and the Carolina madtom as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to both species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for both species under the Act. In total, approximately 738 river miles (1,188 river kilometers) in 16 units in North Carolina fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog. Approximately 257 river miles (414 river kilometers) in 7 units in North Carolina are being proposed as critical habitat for the Carolina madtom. Finally, we announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations.

DATES:
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 22, 2019
cal habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog. Approximately 257 river miles (414 river kilometers) in 7 units in North Carolina are being proposed as critical habitat for the Carolina madtom. Finally, we announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations.

DATES:
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 22, 2019. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES , below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by July 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rules box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record and are available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, and at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT )
ailability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record and are available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, and at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service website and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520; or facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom. The SSA team was composed of Service and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA reports represent 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 each species. Both SSA reports underwent independent peer review by scientists with expertise in fish or amphibian biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to the species. The SSA reports and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule
th expertise in fish or amphibian biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to the species. The SSA reports and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that a species may be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose the listing of the Neuse River waterdog as a threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act and the Carolina madtom as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the designation of critical habitat for both species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that habitat degradation (Factor A), resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and associated watershed-level effects on water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability, poses the largest risk to future viability of both species
g regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that habitat degradation (Factor A), resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and associated watershed-level effects on water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability, poses the largest risk to future viability of both species. This stressor is primarily related to habitat changes: The buildup of fine sediments, the loss of flowing water, instream habitat fragmentation, and impairment of water quality, and it is exacerbated by
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to the extent prudent and determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary will make the designation on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Section 3(5) 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 protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed if such areas are essential to the conservation of the species.
Peer Review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of 13 appropriate specialists regarding the SSA reports, which informed this proposed rule
e conservation of the species.
Peer Review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of 13 appropriate specialists regarding the SSA reports, which informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the science behind our listing determinations, the critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rule are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and stressors to the species.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
ts concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, including the locations of any additional populations of either species.
(5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog to include in a 4(d) rule for the species. The Service is proposing such measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, and will evaluate ideas provided by the public in considering the prohibitions we should include in the 4(d) rule.
of either species.
(5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog to include in a 4(d) rule for the species. The Service is proposing such measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, and will evaluate ideas provided by the public in considering the prohibitions we should include in the 4(d) rule.
(a) Additional provisions the Service may wish to consider for a 4(d) rule in order to conserve, recover, and manage the Neuse River waterdog, such as the best management practices used in agriculture.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Neuse River waterdog or Carolina madtom habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may be impacted.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include
her we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES .
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified above in DATES
the Neuse River waterdog ( Necturus lewisi ) is presented in the SSA Report Version 1.1.
The Neuse River waterdog is a permanently aquatic salamander species endemic to the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River drainages in North Carolina. The species occurs in riffles, runs, and pools in medium to large streams and rivers with moderate gradient in both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. Neuse River waterdogs are from an ancient lineage of permanently aquatic salamanders in the genus Necturus, one of three species of Necturus in North Carolina.
Neuse River waterdogs have a reddish brown skin with black spots, reaching up to 9 inches (in) in length as adults. Their underside is brownish grey, and they have external bushy dark red gills. They eat large aquatic arthropods, any aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and even some vertebrates like small fish. Like most waterdogs, they are opportunistic feeders who lie in wait for a small organism to swim or float by. All prey are ingested whole, and larger items are sometimes regurgitated and then re-swallowed.
Neuse River waterdogs are found in streams ranging from larger headwater streams in the Piedmont to coastal streams up to the point of saltwater intrusion. None have been found in lakes or ponds. They are usually found in streams wider than 15 meters (m), deeper than 100 centimeters (cm), and with a main channel flow rate greater than 10cm/second. Further, they need clean, flowing water characterized by high dissolved oxygen concentrations. The preferred habitats vary with the season, temperature, dissolved oxygen content, flow rate and precipitation; however, the waterdogs maintain home retreat areas under rocks, in burrows, or under substantial cover in backwater or eddy areas.
Longevity of Neuse River waterdogs is not known; however, their close relative N. maculosus may live for 30+ years. Like many long-lived animals, breeding is delayed until a minimum body size is reached and they tend to grow slowly
ntent, flow rate and precipitation; however, the waterdogs maintain home retreat areas under rocks, in burrows, or under substantial cover in backwater or eddy areas.
Longevity of Neuse River waterdogs is not known; however, their close relative N. maculosus may live for 30+ years. Like many long-lived animals, breeding is delayed until a minimum body size is reached and they tend to grow slowly. Generation time for Neuse River waterdogs is 10-15 years. They breed once per year, with mating in the fall or winter and spawning in the spring. Females lay a clutch of about 25-90 eggs under large rocks with sand and gravel beneath them and then guard the rudimentary nest.
Carolina Madtom
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Carolina madtom ( Noturus furiosus ) is presented in the SSA Report.
The Carolina madtom is a moderate-sized catfish with a short, chunky body and a distinct color pattern of three dark saddles and a wide black stripe along its side. Furiosus means “mad” or “raging,” as the Carolina madtom is the most strongly armed of the North American catfishes with stinging spines containing a potent poison in their pectoral fins. They are found in medium to large flowing streams of moderate gradient in both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions in the Neuse and Tar River basins. Suitable instream habitats are described as riffles, runs, and pools with current, and during the warm months the madtoms are found in or near swift current at depths of 1 to 3 feet (.3 to .9 meters). Stream bottom substrate composition is important for benthic Carolina madtoms; leaf litter, sand, gravel, and small cobble are all common substrates associated with the species, although it is most often found over sand mixed with pea-sized gravel and leaf litter. During the breeding season, Carolina madtoms shift to areas of moderate to slow flow with abundant cover used for nesting.
The nesting season extends from about mid-May to late July
for benthic Carolina madtoms; leaf litter, sand, gravel, and small cobble are all common substrates associated with the species, although it is most often found over sand mixed with pea-sized gravel and leaf litter. During the breeding season, Carolina madtoms shift to areas of moderate to slow flow with abundant cover used for nesting.
The nesting season extends from about mid-May to late July. Nest sites are often found under or in relic freshwater mussel shells, under large pieces of water-logged tree bark, or in discarded beverage bottles and cans partially buried on the stream bottom. The female produces about 80 to 300 eggs, and the male guards the nest until the eggs hatch. Clutch sizes average 152 larvae, and life expectancy for these fish is at least 4 years.
The Carolina madtom is a bottom-dwelling insectivore that feeds primarily during the night, with peaks at dawn and dusk. More than 95 percent of the food organisms in the Carolina madtom stomachs were larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, and beetle larvae (Burr et al. 1989, p. 78).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal 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 “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
a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the 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
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.
In our determination, we correlate the threats acting on the species to the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive biological status review for each species, including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. They do 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. They do, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involves 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 reports; the full SSA reports can be found on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092
forms our regulatory decisions, which involves 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 reports; the full SSA reports can be found on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092.
Summary of Analysis
To assess Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (together, the 3 Rs) (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes); and redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In general, the more redundant and resilient 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 used the 3Rs to evaluate 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
idual 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. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We utilize this information to inform our regulatory decision.
Neuse River Waterdog
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Neuse River waterdog, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the three river basins that Neuse River waterdogs have historically occupied ( i.e., Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent River basins). Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, populations were further delineated using Management Units (MUs). MUs were defined as one or more HUC10 (hydrologic unit code) watersheds that species experts identified as most appropriate for assessing population-level resiliency.
To assess resiliency, we analyzed MU occupancy over time and site occupancy over time (“population factors”) as well as four habitat elements that were determined in our analysis of the species' needs to have the most influence on the species: Water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity (“habitat elements”). We then assessed the overall condition of each population. Overall population condition rankings were determined by combining the two population factors and four habitat elements. For a more detailed explanation of the condition categories, see Table 1, below
s' needs to have the most influence on the species: Water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity (“habitat elements”). We then assessed the overall condition of each population. Overall population condition rankings were determined by combining the two population factors and four habitat elements. For a more detailed explanation of the condition categories, see Table 1, below.
Representation for the Neuse River waterdog can be described in terms of the size and range of the river systems it inhabits (medium streams to large rivers in three river basins), and physiographic variability (Piedmont and Coastal Plain). High redundancy for Neuse River waterdog is defined as multiple resilient populations (inclusive of multiple, resilient MUs) distributed throughout the species' historical range. That is, highly resilient populations, coupled with a relatively broad distribution, have a positive relationship to species-level redundancy.
Table 1—Population and Habitat Characteristics Used To Create Condition Categories for Resiliency Assessment for Neuse River Waterdog [MU = Management Unit; HUC10 = hydrologic unit code; ARA = active river area] Condition category Population factors MU occupancy Site occupancy Habitat elements Water quality Water quantity Connectivity Instream habitat (substrate) High <10% decline or a positive increase in occupied HUC10s over time <10% decline in site occupancy over time Very few (if any) known impairment or contaminant problems (<5 miles impaired streams; no major discharges, <10 non-major discharges) Optimal flowing water conditions to remove fine sediments, allow for food delivery, and maximize reproduction; no known flow issues; isolated low flow/drought periods; not flashy flow regime Very little (if any) known habitat fragmentation issues (<10 dams per MU; avg # of Road Crossings <300 per MU) Predominantly natural (>70% forested) ARA; <6% impervious surfaces in HUC10 watershed
discharges) Optimal flowing water conditions to remove fine sediments, allow for food delivery, and maximize reproduction; no known flow issues; isolated low flow/drought periods; not flashy flow regime Very little (if any) known habitat fragmentation issues (<10 dams per MU; avg # of Road Crossings <300 per MU) Predominantly natural (>70% forested) ARA; <6% impervious surfaces in HUC10 watershed. Moderate 11-30% decline in occupied HUC10s over time 11-30% decline in site occupancy over time Impairment or contaminants known to be an issue, but not at a level to put population at risk of being eliminated (5-50 miles impaired streams; 1-3 major discharges; 10-25 non-major discharges Water flow not sufficient to consistently remove fine sediments, drying conditions which could impact both food delivery and successful reproduction; moderate flow issues, including 3 to 4 years of consecutive drought or moderately flashy flows Some habitat fragmentation issues (10-30 dams per MU; Avg # of Road Crossings 300-500 per MU) 20-70% forested ARA; 6-15% impervious surfaces in HUC10 watershed. Low 31-70% decline in occupied HUC10s over time 31-70% decline in site occupancy over time Impairment or contaminants at levels high enough to put the population at risk of being eliminated (>50 miles impaired streams; >4 major discharges; 25+ non-major discharges) Water not flowing—either inundated or dry; severe flow issues; more than 4 consecutive years of drought; flashy flow regime Habitat severely fragmented (30+ dams in MU; 500+ Avg Road Crossings per MU) <20% forested ARA; >15% impervious surfaces in HUC10 watershed. Very Low >70% decline in occupied HUC10s over time >70% decline in site occupancy over time Impairment or contaminant at levels that cannot support species survival Flow conditions do no support species survival Habitat extremely fragmented and unable to support species survival Instream habitat unable to support species survival. Total Loss Total Loss N/A N/A N/A N/A
surfaces in HUC10 watershed. Very Low >70% decline in occupied HUC10s over time >70% decline in site occupancy over time Impairment or contaminant at levels that cannot support species survival Flow conditions do no support species survival Habitat extremely fragmented and unable to support species survival Instream habitat unable to support species survival. Total Loss Total Loss N/A N/A N/A N/A. Current Condition of Neuse River Waterdog
The historical range of the Neuse River waterdog included 3rd and 4th order streams and rivers in the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages (basins), with documented historical distribution in 40 HUC10s in 9 MUs across the 3 populations. Currently, the Neuse River waterdog is extant in all nine identified MUs; however, within those MUs, it is presumed extirpated from 35 percent (14/40) of the historically occupied HUC10s, and another 25 percent of the streams are in low or very low condition. Of the nine occupied MUs, two (22%) are estimated to have high resiliency, three (33%) moderate resiliency, and four (45%) low resiliency. At the population level, one of three populations (Tar) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (Neuse and Trent) are estimated to have low resiliency.
We estimated that the Neuse River waterdog currently has moderate adaptive potential, primarily due to ecological representation in three river basins and two physiographic regions. The species retains nearly all of its known River Basin variability; however, the variability within the basins is reduced compared to historical distribution. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains moderate Physiographic Variability in the Coastal Plain (87%) and in the Piedmont (67%). However, the Piedmont has experienced significant declines in occupancy, with nearly half of the MUs losing species occurrence. Of the 16 historically occupied Piedmont HUC10s, 7 are no longer occupied, and 9 have experienced loss
on. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains moderate Physiographic Variability in the Coastal Plain (87%) and in the Piedmont (67%). However, the Piedmont has experienced significant declines in occupancy, with nearly half of the MUs losing species occurrence. Of the 16 historically occupied Piedmont HUC10s, 7 are no longer occupied, and 9 have experienced loss.
The range of the Neuse River waterdog has always been very narrow, limited to the Tar, Trent, and Neuse River drainages. Within the identified representation areas ( i.e., river basins), the species retains redundancy in terms of occupied HUC10s within the Tar River population (82%) and the Neuse River population (70%), although 67 percent of redundancy has been lost in the Trent River population. Overall, the species has lost 27 percent (11 out of 40 historically occupied HUC10s) of its redundancy across its narrow, endemic range.
Carolina Madtom
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Carolina madtom, we assessed a similar range of conditions as described above for Neuse River waterdog to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. We assessed resiliency for the Carolina madtom using population factors (MU occupancy over time, approximate abundance, and recruitment) and habitat elements (water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate). Populations were delineated using the same three river basins that Carolina madtoms have historically occupied, namely the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent River basins. As with the waterdog, populations were further delineated using MUs, again defined as one or more HUC10 watersheds that species experts identified as the most appropriate unit for assessing population-level resiliency. Resiliency is characterized, and overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were determined, in the same way as for the waterdog
e, and Trent River basins. As with the waterdog, populations were further delineated using MUs, again defined as one or more HUC10 watersheds that species experts identified as the most appropriate unit for assessing population-level resiliency. Resiliency is characterized, and overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were determined, in the same way as for the waterdog.
Representation for the Carolina madtom can be described in terms of River Basin Variability (Tar, Trent, and Neuse River basins) and Physiographic Variability (eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain). We assessed Carolina madtom redundancy by first evaluating occupancy within each of the hydrologic units ( i.e., HUC10s) that constitute MUs, and then we evaluated occupancy at the MU and ultimately the population level.
Current Condition of Carolina Madtom
The historical range of the Carolina madtom included three populations, one in each of the same three river basins in North Carolina as the Neuse River waterdog. The results of surveys conducted from 2011 to 2016 suggest that the currently occupied range of the Carolina madtom includes four MUs from two populations, corresponding to the Tar and Neuse River basins; however, only one population (Tar) has multiple documented occurrences within the past 5 years. The species has been extirpated from the southern portion of its range, including a large portion of the Neuse River basin and the
We estimated that the Carolina madtom currently has low adaptive potential due to limited representation in two river basins and two physiographic regions. The species retains 33 percent of its known River Basin variability, considering greatly reduced variability observed in the Neuse River population. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains very limited physiographic variability in the Coastal Plain (14%) and moderate variability in the Piedmont (56%)
esentation in two river basins and two physiographic regions. The species retains 33 percent of its known River Basin variability, considering greatly reduced variability observed in the Neuse River population. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains very limited physiographic variability in the Coastal Plain (14%) and moderate variability in the Piedmont (56%).
The range of the Carolina madtom has always been very narrow, limited to the Tar, Trent, and Neuse River drainages. Within the identified representation areas, the species retains redundancy within the Tar River population (3 MUs currently extant); however, it has no redundancy (only 1 MU extant in the Neuse River population and no redundancy (extirpated) in the Trent River population. Overall, the species has lost 64 percent of its redundancy across its narrow, endemic range.
Risk Factors for Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom
A multitude of natural and anthropogenic factors may impact the status of species within aquatic systems. Generally, these factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors ( e.g., development, agriculture practices, or forest management) or systematic changes ( e.g., climate change, invasive species, dams or other barriers). The largest threats to the future viability of the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom involve habitat degradation from stressors influencing the four habitat elements: Water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity. All of these factors are exacerbated by the effects of climate change. A brief summary of these primary stressors is presented below; for a full description of these stressors, refer to chapter 4 of the SSA report for each species
olina madtom involve habitat degradation from stressors influencing the four habitat elements: Water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity. All of these factors are exacerbated by the effects of climate change. A brief summary of these primary stressors is presented below; for a full description of these stressors, refer to chapter 4 of the SSA report for each species.
Environmental Stressors
Development and Pollution
Development refers to urbanization of the landscape, including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.). The effects of urbanization may include alterations to water quality, water quantity, and habitat (both in-stream and stream-side) (Service 2018, p. 40).
Urbanization increases the amount of impervious surfaces. “Impervious surface” refers to all hard surfaces like paved roads, parking lots, roofs, and even highly compacted soils like sports fields. Impervious surfaces prevent the natural soaking of rainwater into the ground and slow seepage into streams. Instead, the rainwater accumulates and flows rapidly into storm drains, which drain as runoff to local streams. This degrades stream habitat in three ways: Water quantity (high flow during storms), water quality (pollutants washing into streams), and increased water temperatures due to the surfaces heating the water.
Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1,311). Water infrastructure development, including water supply, reclamation, and wastewater treatment, results in several pollution point discharges to streams.
A major result of urbanization is road development
phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1,311). Water infrastructure development, including water supply, reclamation, and wastewater treatment, results in several pollution point discharges to streams.
A major result of urbanization is road development. By its nature, road development increases impervious surfaces as well as land clearing and habitat fragmentation. Roads are generally associated with negative effects on the biotic integrity of aquatic ecosystems, including changes in surface water temperatures and patterns of runoff; sedimentation; and adding heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organics, ozone, and nutrients to stream systems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 18). These changes affect stream-dwelling organisms such as the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog by displacing them from once-preferred habitats, as well as increasing exposure and assimilation of pollutants that can result in growth defects, decreased immune response, and even death. In addition, a possible major impact of road development is improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either because flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream or because the culvert ends up being perched, so that aquatic organisms such as these species cannot pass through them.
Carolina madtoms prefer clean water with permanent flow and are not tolerant of siltation and turbidity. Benthic fish, such as the madtom, have disproportionate rates of imperilment and extirpation due to pollution because stream bottoms are often the first habitats affected. Furthermore, the Carolina madtom is classified as an “intolerant” species according to the NC Division of Water Resources, meaning the species is most affected by environmental perturbations (NCDWR 2013, p. 19)
on and turbidity. Benthic fish, such as the madtom, have disproportionate rates of imperilment and extirpation due to pollution because stream bottoms are often the first habitats affected. Furthermore, the Carolina madtom is classified as an “intolerant” species according to the NC Division of Water Resources, meaning the species is most affected by environmental perturbations (NCDWR 2013, p. 19).
All three of the river basins within the range of the Carolina madtom are affected by development, from an average of 7 percent in the Tar River Basin to an average of 13 percent in the Neuse River Basin (based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data). For example, the Neuse River Basin contains one-sixth of the entire State's human population, indicating heavy development pressure on the watershed. The Middle Neuse MU contains 182 impaired stream miles, 9 major discharges, 272 minor discharges, and nearly 4,000 road crossings, all affecting the quality of the habitat for both species. The Middle Neuse is also 31 percent developed, with nearly 8 percent impervious surface, which changes natural streamflow, reduces appropriate stream habitat, and decreases water quality throughout the MU. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to appendices A and D of the SSA reports.
Agricultural Practices: The main impacts to the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom from agricultural practices, not following best management practices (BMPs) for conservation, are caused by nutrient and chemical pollution and by water pumping for irrigation. Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into the water table or groundwater. Confined animal feeding operations and feedlots can cause degradation of aquatic ecosystems, primarily because of manure management issues
sphorus, are the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into the water table or groundwater. Confined animal feeding operations and feedlots can cause degradation of aquatic ecosystems, primarily because of manure management issues. Fertilized soils, manure, and livestock can be significant sources of nitrogen-based compounds like ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to aquatic life if large amounts are
Excessive water withdrawal or water withdrawal done illegally (without the necessary permit, during dry times of year), may cause impacts to the amount of water available to downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and displacement of fish and aquatic salamanders, leading in turn to desiccation and death. According to the 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of the watersheds within the range of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog are affected by agricultural land uses, most with 25 percent or more of the watershed having been converted for agricultural use.
Forest Management: Silvicultural activities, when performed according to strict forest practices guidelines (FPGs) or BMPs, can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems; however, when FPGs/BMPs are not followed, these practices can also contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic systems in the Southeast, including North Carolina. Both small- and large-scale forestry activities have been shown to have a significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of adjacent small streams (Service 2018, p. 41). The clearing of large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems can eliminate shade provided by forest canopies, exposing streams to more sunlight and increasing the in-stream water temperature
oth small- and large-scale forestry activities have been shown to have a significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of adjacent small streams (Service 2018, p. 41). The clearing of large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems can eliminate shade provided by forest canopies, exposing streams to more sunlight and increasing the in-stream water temperature. The increase in stream temperature and light after deforestation alters the macroinvertebrate and other aquatic species richness and abundance composition in streams. As stated above, both the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom are sensitive to changes in temperature, and sustained temperature increases will stress and possibly lead to mortality for these species.
Forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, and this can directly degrade nearby stream environments. Roads can cause point-source pollution and sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling downstream into more sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress and mortality for both species, as discussed in “Development,” above. While BMPs are widely adhered to, they were not always common practice. The most recent surveys of Southeastern U.S. States show that the average implementation rate is at 92 percent, so while improper implementation is rare, it can have drastic negative effects on sensitive aquatic species. Further, many forestry activities do not require a permit for wetland or stream fill.
Systematic Changes
Climate Change: Aquatic systems are encountering changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff as a result of climate change. While both of these species have evolved in habitats that experience seasonal fluctuations in discharge, global weather patterns ( e.g., El Niño or La Niña) can have an impact on the normal regimes
mit for wetland or stream fill.
Systematic Changes
Climate Change: Aquatic systems are encountering changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff as a result of climate change. While both of these species have evolved in habitats that experience seasonal fluctuations in discharge, global weather patterns ( e.g., El Niño or La Niña) can have an impact on the normal regimes. Even during naturally occurring low flow events, amphibians and fish either become stressed because they exert significant energy to move to deeper waters or they may succumb to desiccation. Because low flows in late summer and early fall are stress-inducing, droughts during this time of year result in an increase in stress and, potentially, an increased rate of mortality.
Droughts have impacted all river basins within the range of both species, from an “abnormally dry” ranking for North Carolina in 2001 on the Southeast Drought Monitor scale to the highest ranking of “exceptionally dry” for the entire range of both species in 2002 and 2007. The 2015 drought data indicated that the entire Southeast was under conditions ranging from “abnormally dry” to “moderate drought” or “severe drought.” These data are from the first week in September, which as noted above is a very sensitive time for drought to be affecting both species. The Middle Neuse tributaries of the Neuse River basin had consecutive drought years in the period 2005-2012, indicating sustained stress on the species over a long period of time. Amphibians and fish have limited refugia from disturbances such as droughts and floods, and they are completely dependent on specific water temperatures to complete their physiological requirements. Changes in water temperature lead to stress, increased mortality, and also increase the likelihood of extinction for both species
indicating sustained stress on the species over a long period of time. Amphibians and fish have limited refugia from disturbances such as droughts and floods, and they are completely dependent on specific water temperatures to complete their physiological requirements. Changes in water temperature lead to stress, increased mortality, and also increase the likelihood of extinction for both species. Increases in the frequency and strength of storm events, which are caused by climate change, alter stream habitat, either directly via channelization or clearing of riparian areas or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the channel and cause sediment erosion. The large volumes and velocity of water, combined with the extra debris and sediment entering streams following a storm, stress, displace, or kill Neuse River waterdogs and Carolina madtoms, as well as the host species on which the latter depend.
Invasive Species: There are many areas across North Carolina where invasive species have invaded aquatic communities; are competing with native species for food, light, or breeding and nesting areas; and are impacting biodiversity. The flathead catfish is an invasive species that may have an impact on Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom distribution. The flathead catfish is an apex predator, known to influence native fish populations, including predation on benthic fishes, including madtoms, and it occurs in both the Neuse and Tar River basins. It is not known whether or not this fish also preys on waterdogs, but it is speculated that Neuse River waterdog inactivity during warmer months is in part due to the avoidance of large, predatory fishes (Braswell 2005, p. 870).
Hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata ), an invasive aquatic plant, alters stream habitat, decreases flows, and contributes to sediment buildup in streams (NCANSMPC 2015, p. 57). High sedimentation can cause suffocation and reduce stream flow necessary for madtom survival
River waterdog inactivity during warmer months is in part due to the avoidance of large, predatory fishes (Braswell 2005, p. 870).
Hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata ), an invasive aquatic plant, alters stream habitat, decreases flows, and contributes to sediment buildup in streams (NCANSMPC 2015, p. 57). High sedimentation can cause suffocation and reduce stream flow necessary for madtom survival. Hydrilla occurs in several watersheds where both species occur, and has been recently documented from the Neuse system and the Tar River. While there are no data to indicate that hydrilla currently has population-level effects on these two species, its spread is expected to increase in the future.
Dams and Barriers: Extinction of some North American freshwater fish can be traced to impoundment and inundation of riffle habitats in all major river basins of the central and eastern United States. Upstream of dams, the change from flowing to impounded waters, increased depths, increased buildup of sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen, and the drastic alteration in resident fish populations can threaten the survival of fish and aquatic salamanders and their overall reproductive success. Downstream of dams, fluctuations in flow regimes, minimal releases and scouring flows, seasonal dissolved oxygen depletion, reduced or increased water temperatures, and changes in fish assemblages can also threaten the survival and reproduction of many aquatic species. Dams have also been identified as causing genetic segregation or isolation in river systems—resident fish can no longer move freely through different habitats and may become genetically isolated from other fish populations throughout the river. Even
Energy Production and Mining: The Neuse River waterdog and its habitat face impacts from oil and gas production, coal power, hydropower, and the use of biofuels. Coal mined from other States is used for energy production in North Carolina
s—resident fish can no longer move freely through different habitats and may become genetically isolated from other fish populations throughout the river. Even
Energy Production and Mining: The Neuse River waterdog and its habitat face impacts from oil and gas production, coal power, hydropower, and the use of biofuels. Coal mined from other States is used for energy production in North Carolina. Damage to fish and wildlife from exposure to coal ash slurry ranges from physiological, developmental, and behavioral toxicity to major population- and community-level changes. Coal-combustion residue contamination of aquatic habitats can result in the accumulation of metals and trace elements in larval amphibians, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and vanadium, potentially leading to developmental, behavioral, and physiological effects (Rowe et al. 2002, entire). As recently as October 2016, Neuse River waterdogs in the Neuse River were exposed to coal ash slurry when Hurricane Matthew caused inundation of coal ash storage ponds. Coal-fired power plants pump large volumes of water to produce electricity and aquatic organisms such as larval waterdogs can be pulled in and killed unless measures are sufficient to keep organisms from being impacted. After water is used for electricity production, it is returned to surface waters, but the temperature can be considerably higher than the temperature of the stream, reducing the ability of the species to spawn.
Hydropower as a domestic energy source is becoming more prevalent in North Carolina, including areas where the Neuse River waterdog occurs. Like other impoundments, streams and rivers impounded by hydropower dams are changed from lotic systems to lentic systems, fragmenting habitats and disrupting movements and migrations of fish and other aquatic organisms like the Neuse River waterdog. Downstream water quality can also suffer from low dissolved oxygen levels and altered temperatures
uding areas where the Neuse River waterdog occurs. Like other impoundments, streams and rivers impounded by hydropower dams are changed from lotic systems to lentic systems, fragmenting habitats and disrupting movements and migrations of fish and other aquatic organisms like the Neuse River waterdog. Downstream water quality can also suffer from low dissolved oxygen levels and altered temperatures. In addition, hydropower generation can significantly change flow regimes downstream of hydropower dams, and can affect other riverine processes, such as sediment transport, nutrient cycling, and woody debris transport.
Potential impacts to both species from oil and gas extraction are numerous; they include water quality and water quantity impacts, riparian habitat fragmentation and conversion, increased sand mining (used in oil and gas extraction), and increased road and utility corridors. While oil and gas extraction currently does not, and likely will not, occur in the Tar River Basin due to lack of subsurface shale deposits, impacts from shale gas extraction could occur in the Neuse River Basin (Service 2018, p. 46). Future impacts from oil and gas exploration and production are certain, as North Carolina has recently begun to allow fracking operations to drill for natural gas State-wide.
Synergistic Effects
In addition to individually impacting the species, it is likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on both species. The combined impact of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. For example, in the Middle Neuse MU, there are 182 miles of impaired streams. They have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and contain Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli ). There are 9 major and 272 minor discharges within this MU, along with 287 dams, almost 4,000 road crossings, and droughts recorded for 3 consecutive years in 2008-2010
tressor acting alone. For example, in the Middle Neuse MU, there are 182 miles of impaired streams. They have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and contain Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli ). There are 9 major and 272 minor discharges within this MU, along with 287 dams, almost 4,000 road crossings, and droughts recorded for 3 consecutive years in 2008-2010. For example, if a small but improperly installed culvert at a road crossing prevents fish from moving up or downstream, the fish would not be able to escape to deeper areas of the stream during droughts. Similarly, a discharge into a stream has more impact on aquatic species if there are no precipitation events immediately following to help flush the system. These combinations of stressors on the sensitive aquatic species in this habitat likely impact both species more severely in combination than any one factor alone.
In our analysis of the factors affecting both of these species, we found that there are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately address threats to both species such that they do not warrant listing under the Act (Factor D). We found no evidence of population- or species-level impacts from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B). Nor was there any evidence to support that there are impacts due to disease or predation (Factor C).
Conservation Actions
The Service and State wildlife agencies are working with numerous partners to provide technical guidance and offering conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems in North Carolina. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition; Federal, State, and university biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences; and recently there has been increased interest in efforts to consider captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts
eet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems in North Carolina. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition; Federal, State, and university biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences; and recently there has been increased interest in efforts to consider captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts. However, some of these programs are in their infancy, and none covers enough area to provide species-level protection at a scale such that the species would not warrant listing under the Act.
Future Scenarios
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time. To address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on species' requisites, the 3Rs were assessed using four plausible future scenarios. These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of urbanization and climate models that predict changes in habitat used by the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom. We devised scenarios by eliciting expert information on the primary stressors, urbanization and climate change. The models that were used to forecast both of these factors projected 50 years into the future. Using the best available data to forecast plausible future scenarios allows the Service to determine if a species may become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Relatively long life spans, well-developed downscaled climate models specific to the region, and good growth data available for the Southeast region provide some confidence in the range of outcomes predicted over 50 years. Beyond that timeframe, there is too much uncertainty in threats that will be occurring on the landscape and how the species may respond to those threats. For more detailed information on these models and their projections, please see the SSA reports (Service, 2017)
ion, and good growth data available for the Southeast region provide some confidence in the range of outcomes predicted over 50 years. Beyond that timeframe, there is too much uncertainty in threats that will be occurring on the landscape and how the species may respond to those threats. For more detailed information on these models and their projections, please see the SSA reports (Service, 2017).
In scenario one, the “Status Quo” scenario, factors that influence current populations of the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom were assumed to follow current trends over the 50-year time horizon. Climate “Development.” The “Status Quo” scenario also assumed that current conservation efforts would remain in place but that no new actions would be taken.
In scenario two, the “Pessimistic” scenario, factors that negatively influence Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom populations get worse; reflecting Climate Model RCP8.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), effects of climate change are expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the “Status Quo” scenario. These predicted effects include extreme heat, more storms and flooding, and exacerbated drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Based on the results of the SLEUTH BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, entire), urbanization in the relevant watersheds could expand to triple the amount of developed area, resulting in large increases of impervious surface cover and, potentially, consumptive water use. Increased urbanization and climate change effects are likely to result in increased impacts to water quality, water flow, and habitat connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species restoration under this scenario.
Scenario three is labeled the “Optimistic” scenario, and factors that influence population and habitat conditions of the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom are expected to be somewhat improved. Reflecting Climate Model RCP2.6 (Wayne 2013, p
to water quality, water flow, and habitat connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species restoration under this scenario.
Scenario three is labeled the “Optimistic” scenario, and factors that influence population and habitat conditions of the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom are expected to be somewhat improved. Reflecting Climate Model RCP2.6 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), climate change effects are predicted to be minimal under this scenario and would not include increased temperatures, and storms or droughts are as set forth in the “Status Quo” and “Pessimistic” scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted to have less impact in this scenario, as reflected by effects that are slightly lower than BAU model predictions (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Because water quality, water flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to be less severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the species will maintain or have a slightly positive response. Targeted permanent protection of riparian areas is a potential conservation activity that could benefit these species, and current efforts are considered successful as part of the Optimistic Scenario.
In scenario four, the “Opportunistic” scenario, those landscape-level factors ( e.g., development and climate change) that are influencing populations of the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom get moderately worse, reflecting Climate Change Model RCP4.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11) and SLEUTH BAU (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Effects of climate change are expected to be moderate, resulting in some increased impacts from heat, storms, and droughts (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Urbanization in this scenario reflects the moderate BAU SLEUTH levels, indicating approximately double the amount of developed area compared to current levels
ng Climate Change Model RCP4.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11) and SLEUTH BAU (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Effects of climate change are expected to be moderate, resulting in some increased impacts from heat, storms, and droughts (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Urbanization in this scenario reflects the moderate BAU SLEUTH levels, indicating approximately double the amount of developed area compared to current levels. Overall, it is expected that the synergistic impacts of changes in water quality, flow, and habitat connectivity will negatively affect both species, although current land conservation efforts will benefit the species in some watersheds.
Determination
Neuse River Waterdog
The historical range of the Neuse River Waterdog likely included all 3rd and 4th order streams and rivers throughout the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in nine MUs within three populations. Of those nine occupied MUs, two (22%) are estimated to have high resiliency, two (22%) moderate resiliency, and five (56%) low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one of three populations (the Tar population) was estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (the Neuse and Trent populations) were characterized by low resiliency. In short, 60 percent of streams that were once part of the species' range are estimated to be in low condition or likely extirpated. The species is known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, but it has lost physiographic representation with an estimated 43 percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 13 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
The Neuse River waterdog faces threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E)
rcent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 13 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
The Neuse River waterdog faces threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E). Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future scenarios of Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest reduced viability into the future. Under Scenario 1, the “Status Quo” option, a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy is expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no MUs would remain in high condition, two in moderate condition, four in low condition, and three MUs would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in the Tar Population and two in the Neuse Population. Representation would also be reduced, primarily with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
Under scenario two, the “Pessimistic” option, we predicted substantial losses of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in one population, and the resiliency of that population is expected to be low. Several (5) MUs were predicted to be extirpated, and, of the remaining four MUs, all would be in low condition. All measures of representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Neuse River waterdog populations underrepresented in river basin and physiographic variability.
Under scenario three, the “Optimistic” option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy than was estimated under the Status Quo or Pessimistic options
low condition. All measures of representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Neuse River waterdog populations underrepresented in river basin and physiographic variability.
Under scenario three, the “Optimistic” option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy than was estimated under the Status Quo or Pessimistic options. Three MUs would be in high condition, one in moderate condition, and the remaining five would be in low condition. Despite predictions of population persistence in the Neuse and Trent River Basins, these populations are expected to retain only low levels of resiliency, thus levels of representation are also predicted to decline under this scenario.
Finally, under scenario four, the “Opportunistic” option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. One MU would be in high condition, three would be in moderate condition, three in low condition, and two would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced with the loss of the Trent population. Under the Opportunistic scenario, representation is predicted to be reduced with 67 percent of formerly occupied river basins remaining occupied and with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic Regions. Both the
Table 2—Predicted Neuse River Waterdog Population Conditions Under Each of Four Plausible Scenarios Populations: Management units Future scenarios of population conditions Current #1 Status quo #2 Pessimistic #3 Optimistic #4 Opportunistic Tar: Upper Tar Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated. Tar: Middle Tar Moderate Low Low High Moderate. Tar: Lower Tar High Moderate Low High Moderate. Tar: Sandy-Swift High Moderate Low High High. Tar: Fishing Ck Low Low Low Moderate Moderate. Neuse: Upper Neuse Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Low. Neuse: Middle Neuse Low Low Likely Extirpated Low Low. Trent Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated
w Likely Extirpated. Tar: Middle Tar Moderate Low Low High Moderate. Tar: Lower Tar High Moderate Low High Moderate. Tar: Sandy-Swift High Moderate Low High High. Tar: Fishing Ck Low Low Low Moderate Moderate. Neuse: Upper Neuse Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Low. Neuse: Middle Neuse Low Low Likely Extirpated Low Low. Trent Low Likely Extirpated Likely Extirpated Low Likely Extirpated. Carolina Madtom
The historical range of the Carolina madtom included 3rd and 4th order streams and rivers in the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in 11 MUs within 3 former populations, the Tar, Neuse, and Trent. The Carolina madtom is presumed extirpated from 64 percent (7) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the four MUs that remain occupied, one is estimated to have high resiliency, one with moderate resiliency, one with low resiliency, and one with very low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, the Tar population is estimated to have moderate resiliency, the Neuse population is characterized by very low resiliency, and the Trent population is presumed to be extirpated. Of streams that were once part of the species' range, 82 percent are estimated to be in low condition or likely extirpated. Once known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, the species has also lost substantial physiographic representation with an estimated 44 percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 86 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
Estimates of current resiliency for Carolina madtom are low, as are estimates for representation and redundancy. The Carolina madtom faces a variety of ongoing threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). This species also faces the threat of predation from the invasive flathead catfish (Factor C). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and climate change (Factor E)
e Carolina madtom faces a variety of ongoing threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). This species also faces the threat of predation from the invasive flathead catfish (Factor C). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and climate change (Factor E). Given current rates of resiliency, populations are vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We considered whether the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom meet either of these definitions, and find that Neuse River waterdog meets the definition of a threatened species, and Carolina madtom meets the definition of an endangered species.
Neuse River waterdog. Our analysis of the species' current and future conditions, as well as the conservation efforts discussed above, show that the population and habitat factors used to determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for Neuse River waterdog will continue to decline so it is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of the range within the foreseeable future.
First, we considered whether the Neuse River waterdog is presently in danger of extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the Neuse River waterdog SSA report show that the species exists in nine MUs over three different populations (river systems) over a majority (65 percent) of the species' historical range
eable future.
First, we considered whether the Neuse River waterdog is presently in danger of extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the Neuse River waterdog SSA report show that the species exists in nine MUs over three different populations (river systems) over a majority (65 percent) of the species' historical range. The Neuse River waterdog still exhibits representation across both physiographic regions, and extant populations remain across the range. In short, while the primary threats are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. However, according to our assessment of plausible future scenarios, the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Fifty years was considered “foreseeable” in this case because it included projections from both available models, and Neuse River waterdogs are a long-lived and slow-growing species. We can reasonably rely on the future of 50 years as presented in the models of predicted urbanization and climate change, and predict how those threats will affect the status of the species over that timeframe.
As discussed above, the range of plausible future scenarios of Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest reduced viability into the future. Both the optimistic and opportunistic scenarios were determined to be “unlikely” in the analysis, while the most likely scenarios were status quo and pessimistic. Under either of these more likely scenarios, resiliency is low in most of the remaining populations, and many populations are likely extirpated so that redundancy and representation are significantly reduced
ed viability into the future. Both the optimistic and opportunistic scenarios were determined to be “unlikely” in the analysis, while the most likely scenarios were status quo and pessimistic. Under either of these more likely scenarios, resiliency is low in most of the remaining populations, and many populations are likely extirpated so that redundancy and representation are significantly reduced. This expected reduction in both the number and
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Neuse River waterdog is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the range. Where the best available information allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a “significant portion of its range” analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened according to the “all” language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are proposing to list the Neuse River waterdog as a threatened species across its entire range in accordance with sections 3 and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Carolina madtom
018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are proposing to list the Neuse River waterdog as a threatened species across its entire range in accordance with sections 3 and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Carolina madtom. The current conditions as assessed in the Carolina madtom SSA report show that 64 percent of the management units over three populations (river systems) are presumed extirpated. The Carolina madtom currently has two of three remaining populations, but one of those populations (Neuse) is characterized by “very low” resiliency. Once known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, the species has also lost substantial physiographic representation with an estimated 44 percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 86 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds. Resiliency, redundancy, and representation are all at levels that put the species at risk of extinction throughout its range now. We conclude that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Carolina madtom because the threats are ongoing currently and are expected to continue or worsen into the future. Because the species is already in danger of extinction throughout its range, a threatened status is not appropriate.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Carolina madtom is in danger of extinction throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the range
ened status is not appropriate.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Carolina madtom is in danger of extinction throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the range. Where the best available information allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a “significant portion of its range” analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened according to the “all” language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Carolina madtom as an endangered species across its entire range in accordance with sections 3 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
tion, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries, and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Plants (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress
one to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Plants (“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 outlines, draft recovery plans, and the final recovery plans will be available on our website ( http://www.fws.gov/endangered ), or from our Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration ( e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts http://www.fws.gov/grants .
Although the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for these species
deral lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts http://www.fws.gov/grants .
Although the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq
rvice.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Neuse River Waterdog
Background
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary has the discretion to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit, by regulation with respect to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. The same prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally
he United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
In accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, the regulations implementing the Act include a provision that generally applies to threatened wildlife the same prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife (50 CFR 17.31(a), 17.32). However, for any threatened species, the Service may instead develop a protective regulation that is specific to the conservation needs of that species. Such a regulation would contain all of the protections applicable to that species (50 CFR 17.31(c)); this may include some of the general prohibitions and exceptions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but would also include species-specific protections that may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. For the reasons discussed below, the Service has determined to develop a specific rule under section 4(d) for the Neuse River waterdog.
Proposed 4(d) Rule
Under this proposed 4(d) rule, all prohibitions and provisions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act would apply to the Neuse River waterdog, except that the following actions would not be prohibited:
(1) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species.
section 9(a)(1) of the Act would apply to the Neuse River waterdog, except that the following actions would not be prohibited:
(1) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species.
(2) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way would offer suitable habitats for the Neuse River waterdog and contain stable channel features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors.
(3) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species
lides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors.
(3) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). These methods would not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
(4) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that:
(a) Implement highest standard best management practices (BMPs), particularly for Streamside Management Zones, stream crossings, and forest roads; and
(b) Comply with forest practice guidelines related to water quality
These BMPs are publicly available on websites for these organizations, and can currently be found below:
http://www.ncasi.org/Downloads/Download.ashx?id=10204 http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ https://us.fsc.org/download.fsc-us-forest-management-standard-v1-0.95.htm https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-standards These actions and activities may have some minimal level of mortality, harm, or disturbance to the Neuse River waterdog, but are not expected to adversely affect the species' conservation and recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance
ons and activities may have some minimal level of mortality, harm, or disturbance to the Neuse River waterdog, but are not expected to adversely affect the species' conservation and recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance. The activities exempted from prohibition in this rule will correct some of these problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species. These provisions are necessary because, absent protections, the species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Additionally, these provisions are advisable because the species needs active conservation to improve the quality of its habitat. By exempting some of the general prohibitions of section 9(a)(1), these provisions can encourage cooperation by landowners and other affected parties in implementing conservation measures. This will allow for use of the land while at the same time ensuring the preservation of suitable habitat and minimizing impact on the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act
with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species proposed for listing.
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act for Carolina madtoms and the proposed 4(d) rule above for Neuse River waterdog; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of fill material, dredging, snagging, impounding, channelization, or modification of stream channels or banks;
(3) Destruction of riparian habitat directly adjacent to stream channels that causes significant increases in sedimentation and destruction of natural stream banks or channels;
(4) Discharge of pollutants into a stream or into areas hydrologically connected to a stream occupied by the species;
(5) Diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow; and
(6) Pesticide/herbicide 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 Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
III. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
rected to the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
III. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as: An area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary ( i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis ( e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and 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
sary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 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 consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
sted species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 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
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. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species by considering the life-history, status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available
nd, as a result, the development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species
tific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome
e 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.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”
As discussed above, we did not identify any imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism for either the Neuse River waterdog or the Carolina madtom, and there is no indication that identification and mapping of critical habitat is likely to initiate any such threats. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the species, if there are benefits to the species from a critical habitat designation, a finding that designation is prudent is appropriate
iver waterdog or the Carolina madtom, and there is no indication that identification and mapping of critical habitat is likely to initiate any such threats. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the species, if there are benefits to the species from a critical habitat designation, a finding that designation is prudent is appropriate.
The potential benefits of designation may include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the protected species. Because designation of critical habitat would not likely increase the degree of threat to these species and may provide some measure of benefit, designation of critical habitat is prudent for both the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for both species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
bitat is prudent for both the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for both species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of both species and habitat characteristics where the species are located. We find that this information is sufficient for us to conduct both the biological and economic analyses required for the critical habitat determination. Therefore, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (o

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [84 FR 409 Freedom of Information Act Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00264.md)
- [84 FR 409 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00256.md)
- [84 FR 578 Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2019](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00219.md)
- [84 FR 621 Safety Zone; Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, CNMI](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00563.md)
- [84 FR 643 Television Broadcast Services; Cookeville and Franklin, Tennessee](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00606.md)
- [84 FR 1014 Guidance Related to Section 951A (Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income); Hearing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00619.md)
- [84 FR 1025 Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00658.md)
- [84 FR 1412 Revisions to the Filing Process for Commission Forms](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00460.md)
- [84 FR 1420 Arbitration Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_C1-2018-27759.md)
- [84 FR 1570 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production Residual Risk and Technology Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2018-28322.md)
- [84 FR 1690 Indian Country: Air Quality Planning and Management; Federal Implementation Plan for the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Washington; Redesignation to a PSD Class I Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-00935.md)
- [84 FR 2071 Rulemaking Petition: Advisory Opinion Procedures; Extension of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-01192.md)
- [84 FR 2109 Air Plan Approval; NC: Readoption of Air Quality Rules and Removal of Oxygenated Gasoline Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-01112.md)
- [84 FR 2116 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Vasquez Boulevard and I-70 Superfund Site](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-01318.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2019-10379. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.