Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18087 

(d) Performance standard for 

automated inspection measurement 

system. The automated inspection 

measurement system must be capable of 

measuring and processing rail seat 

deterioration requirements that specify 

the following: 

(1) An accuracy, to within 1⁄8 of an 

inch; 

(2) A distance-based sampling 

interval, which shall not exceed five 

feet; and 

(3) Calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

seat deterioration. 

(e) Exception reports to be produced 

by system; duty to field-verify 

exceptions. The automated inspection 

measurement system shall produce an 

exception report containing a systematic 

listing of all exceptions to 

§ 213.109(d)(4), identified so that an 

appropriate person(s) designated as 

fully qualified under § 213.7 can fieldverify each exception. 

(1) Each exception must be located 

and field-verified no later than 48 hours 

after the automated inspection. 

(2) All field-verified exceptions are 

subject to all the requirements of this 

part. 

(f) Recordkeeping requirements. The 

track owner shall maintain and make 

available to FRA a record of the 

inspection data and the exception 

record for the track inspected in 

accordance with this paragraph for a 

minimum of two years. The exception 

reports must include the following: 

(1) Date and location of limits of the 

inspection; 

(2) Type and location of each 

exception; 

(3) Results of field verification; and 

(4) Remedial action if required. 

(g) Procedures for integrity of data. 

The track owner shall institute the 

necessary procedures for maintaining 

the integrity of the data collected by the 

measurement system. At a minimum, 

the track owner shall do the following: 

(1) Maintain and make available to 

FRA documented calibration procedures 

of the measurement system that, at a 

minimum, specify an instrument 

verification procedure that ensures 

correlation between measurements 

made on the ground and those recorded 

by the instrumentation; and 

(2) Maintain each instrument used for 

determining compliance with this 

section such that it accurately measures 

the depth of rail seat deterioration in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. 

(h) Training. The track owner shall 

provide annual training in handling rail 

seat deterioration exceptions to all 

persons designated as fully qualified 

under § 213.7 and whose territories are 

subject to the requirements of § 213.234. 

At a minimum, the training shall 

address the following: 

(1) Interpretation and handling of the 

exception reports generated by the 

automated inspection measurement 

system; 

(2) Locating and verifying exceptions 

in the field and required remedial 

action; and 

(3) Recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7666 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0071; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018—AW95 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Okaloosa Darter From Endangered to 

Threatened and Special Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

reclassifying the Okaloosa darter 

(Etheostoma okaloosae) from 

endangered to threatened under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

endangered designation no longer 

correctly reflects the current status of 

this fish due to a substantial 

improvement in the species’ status. This 

action is based on a thorough review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data, which indicate a 

substantial reduction in threats to the 

species, a significant habitat restoration 

in most of the species’ range, and a 

stable or increasing trend of darters in 

all darter stream systems. We also 

establish a special rule under section 

4(d) of the Act. This special rule allows 

Eglin Air Force Base to continue 

activities with a reduced regulatory 

burden and will provide a net benefit to 

the Okaloosa darter. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 2, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Panama 

City Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama 

City, FL 32405. 

You may obtain copies of this final 

rule from the address above, by calling 

850/769–0552, or at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Imm, Field Supervisor, at the Panama 

City Field Office (see ADDRESSES) 

(telephone 850/769–0552; facsimile 

850/763–2177). Individuals who are 

hearing-impaired or speech-impaired 

may call the Federal Information Relay 

Service at 800/877–8339 for TTY 

assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

We proposed listing the Okaloosa 

darter as endangered on January 15, 

1973 (38 FR 1521) and listed the species 

as endangered under the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 

14678) due to its extremely limited 

range, habitat degradation, and apparent 

competition from a possibly introduced 

related species, the brown darter. We 

completed a recovery plan for the 

species on October 23, 1981, and a 

revised recovery plan on October 26, 

1998. 

On June 21, 2005, we provided notice 

in the Federal Register that we were 

initiating a 5-year status review under 

the Act for the Okaloosa darter (70 FR 

35689).The 5-year status review was 

completed in July 2007, and is available 

on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/ 

okaloosa_darterfinal.pdf. 

On February 2, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule to reclassify the Okaloosa 

darter from endangered to threatened 

and a proposed special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act (75 FR 5263). We 

requested that all interested parties 

submit comments and information 

concerning the proposed reclassification 

of the Okaloosa darter. We provided 

notification of the publication of the 

proposed rule through e-mail, facsimile, 

telephone calls, letters, and news 

releases sent to the appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies; county 

governments; elected officials; media 

outlets; local jurisdictions; scientific 

organizations; interest groups; and other 

interested parties. We also posted the 

proposed rule on the Service’s Panama 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

City Field Office Internet Web site 

following the rule’s publication. We 

accepted public comments on the 

proposed rule for 60 days, ending April 

5, 2010. 

Background 

The Okaloosa darter, Etheostoma 

okaloosae, is a member of the family 

Percidae. It is a small, perch-like fish 

(maximum size is 49 millimeters (mm) 

(1.93 inches (in.)) Standard Length) that 

is characterized by a well-developed 

humeral spot, a series of five to eight 

rows of small spots along the sides of 

the body, and the first anal spine being 

longer than the second. General body 

coloration varies from red-brown to 

green-yellow dorsally, and lighter 

ventrally, although breeding males have 

a bright orange submarginal stripe on 

the first dorsal fin (Burkhead et al. 1992, 

p. 23). 

The endemic Okaloosa darter is 

known to occur in only six clear stream 

systems that drain into two 

Choctawhatchee Bay bayous in Walton 

and Okaloosa Counties in northwest 

Florida. Okaloosa darters are currently 

found in the tributaries and the main 

channels of the following six streams: 

Toms, Turkey, Mill, Swift, East Turkey, 

and Rocky Creeks. Approximately 90 

percent of the 457 square kilometer (176 

square mile) watershed drainage area 

that historically supported the Okaloosa 

darter is under the management of Eglin 

Air Force Base (AFB), and we estimate 

that 98.7 percent of the stream length in 

the darter’s current range is within the 

boundaries of Eglin AFB. Eglin AFB 

encompasses the headwaters of all six of 

these drainages, and the remainder of 

the these streams flow out of Eglin AFB 

into the urban complex of the Cities of 

Niceville and Valparaiso (USAF 2006, p. 

3–1). 

Longleaf pine-wiregrass-red oak 

sandhill communities dominate the 

vegetation landscape in Okaloosa darter 

watershed basins. These areas are 

characterized by high sand ridges where 

soil nutrients are low and woodland fire 

is a regular occurrence. Where water 

seeps from these hills, acid bog 

communities develop of Sphagnum sp. 

(sphagnum moss), Sarracenia sp. 

(pitcher plants), and other plants 

adapted to low nutrient soils. In other 

areas, the water emerges from seepage 

springs directly into clear flowing 

streams where variation of both 

temperature and flow is moderated by 

the deep layers of sand. The streams 

support a mixture of Mayaca fluviatilis 

(bog moss), Scirpus etuberculatus 

(bulrush), Orontium aquaticum (golden 

club), Sparganium americanum (burrweed), Potamogeton diversifolius 

(pondweed), Eleocharis sp. (spikerush), 

and other aquatic and emergent plants. 

Okaloosa darters typically inhabit the 

margins of moderate- to fast-flowing 

streams where detritus, root mats, and 

vegetation are present. Historic densities 

averaged about two darters per meter 

(3.28 feet) of stream length while more 

recent abundance estimates show an 

increase to an average of 2.9 darters per 

meter (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 3; 

USAF 2006, p. 3–1). They are only 

rarely collected in areas where there is 

no current or in open sandy areas in the 

middle of the stream channel. The 

creeks with Okaloosa darters are 

generally shaded over most of their 

courses, with temperatures ranging from 

7 to 22 degrees Celsius (°C) (44 to 72 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) in the winter 

(Tate 2008, pers. comm.; Jelks 2010, 

pers. comm.) to 22 to 29 °C (72 to 84 °F) 

in the summer (Mettee and Crittenden 

1977, p. 5; Jelks 2010, pers. comm). 

Okaloosa darters feed primarily on fly 

larvae (Diptera sp.), mayfly nymphs 

(Ephemeroptera sp.), and caddis fly 

(Trichoptera sp.) larvae (Ogilvie 1980, 

as referenced in Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 

26). The breeding season extends from 

late March through October, although it 

usually peaks in April. Spawning pairs 

have been videographed attaching one 

or two eggs to vegetation, and observed 

attaching eggs to woody debris and root 

mats (Collete and Yerger 1962, p. 226; 

Burkhead et al. 1994, p. 81). Ogilvie 

(1980, as referenced in Burkhead et al. 

1992, p. 26) found a mean of 76 ova 

(unfertilized eggs) and 29 mature ova in 

201 female Okaloosa darters, although 

these numbers may under-represent 

annual fecundity as the prolonged 

spawning season is an indication of 

fractional spawning (eggs develop and 

mature throughout the spawning 

season). Estimates of longevity range 

from 2 to 5 years (Burkhead et al. 1992, 

p. 27; Jordan 2010, pers. comm.). 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. The Act directs that, to the 

maximum extent practicable, we 

incorporate into each plan: 

(1) Site-specific management actions 

that may be necessary to achieve the 

plan’s goals for conservation and 

survival of the species; 

(2) Objective, measurable criteria, 

which when met would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Act, that 

the species be removed from the list; 

and 

(3) Estimates of the time required and 

cost to carry out the plan. 

However, revisions to the list (adding, 

removing, or reclassifying a species) 

must reflect determinations made in 

accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 

4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires 

that the Secretary determine whether a 

species is endangered or threatened (or 

not) because of one or more of five 

threat factors. Therefore, recovery 

criteria must indicate when a species is 

no longer endangered or threatened by 

any of the five factors. In other words, 

objective, measurable criteria, or 

recovery criteria contained in recovery 

plans, must indicate when we would 

anticipate an analysis of the five threat 

factors under 4(a)(1) would result in a 

determination that a species is no longer 

endangered or threatened. Section 4(b) 

of the Act requires the determination 

made be ‘‘solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available.’’ 

Thus, while recovery plans are 

intended to provide guidance to the 

Service, States, and other partners on 

methods of minimizing threats to listed 

species and on criteria that may be used 

to determine when recovery is achieved, 

they are not regulatory documents and 

cannot substitute for the determinations 

and promulgation of regulations 

required under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. Determinations to remove a species 

from the list made under section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act must be based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of the determination, 

regardless of whether that information 

differs from the recovery plan. 

In the course of implementing 

conservation actions for a species, new 

information is often gained that requires 

recovery efforts to be modified 

accordingly. There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all criteria being fully met. For example, 

one or more recovery criteria may have 

been exceeded while other criteria may 

not have been accomplished, yet the 

Service may judge that, overall, the 

threats have been minimized 

sufficiently, and the species is robust 

enough, that the Service may reclassify 

the species from endangered to 

threatened or perhaps delist the species. 

In other cases, recovery opportunities 

may have been recognized that were not 

known at the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. These opportunities may be 

used instead of methods identified in 

the recovery plan. 

Likewise, information on the species 

may be learned that was not known at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18089 

the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Overall, recovery of species is 

a dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management, planning, implementing, 

and evaluating the degree of recovery of 

a species that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan. 

Thus, while the recovery plan 

provides important guidance on the 

direction and strategy for recovery, and 

indicates when a rulemaking process 

may be initiated, the determination to 

remove a species from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

is ultimately based on an analysis of 

whether a species is no longer 

endangered or threatened. The 

following discussion provides a brief 

review of recovery planning for the 

Okaloosa darter as well as an analysis of 

the recovery criteria and goals as they 

relate to evaluating the status of the 

species. 

The recovery plan for the Okaloosa 

darter was approved on October 23, 

1981 (Service 1981, 18 pp.), and revised 

on October 26, 1998 (Service 1998, 42 

pp.). The recovery plan identifies a 

recovery objective of downlisting, and 

eventually delisting, the Okaloosa darter 

by enabling wild populations capable of 

coping with natural habitat fluctuations 

to persist indefinitely in the six stream 

systems they inhabit by restoring and 

protecting stream habitat, water quality, 

and water quantity. The Okaloosa darter 

may be considered for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(downlisted) when: 

(1) Instream flows and historical 

habitat of stream systems have been 

protected through management plans, 

conservation agreements, easements, or 

acquisitions (or a combination of these); 

(2) Eglin AFB has and is 

implementing an effective habitat 

restoration program to control erosion 

from roads, clay pits, and open ranges; 

(3) The Okaloosa darter population is 

stable or increasing and comprised of 

two plus age-classes in all six stream 

systems for 5 consecutive years; 

(4) The range of the Okaloosa darter 

has not decreased at all historical 

monitoring sites; and 

(5) No foreseeable threats exist that 

would impact the survival of the 

species. 

For more information on the recovery 

plan for the Okaloosa darter, a copy of 

the plan is posted on our Web site at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/ 

970407.pdf. 

Each of the above criteria for 

downlisting the Okaloosa darter to 

threatened has been met, as described 

below. 

Downlisting Criterion (1): Instream flows 

and historical habitat of stream systems have 

been protected through management plans, 

conservation agreements, easements, or 

acquisitions (or a combination of these). 

The management plans of several 

agencies apply to streams in the range 

of the Okaloosa darter and are being 

implemented to protect this fish’s water 

quality and quantity and its overall 

habitat. Probably the most influential of 

these is Eglin’s integrated natural 

resources management plan (INRMP) 

(USAF 2007; USAF 2009), including the 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Component Plan (USAF 2006). The 

INRMP is updated annually and reconfirmed every 5 years in consultation 

with the Service and the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC) (see Factor D. under the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section, below, for further detail 

and description of Department of 

Defense (DOD) protections, and the 

Available Conservation Measures 

section, below, for Act protections). The 

INRMP defines goals and specific 

objectives for managing natural 

resources on the base. The primary goal 

of Okaloosa darter management on Eglin 

AFB is to provide the highest level of 

capability and flexibility to the military 

testing and training mission while 

meeting the legal requirements of the 

Act, the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other 

applicable laws. Another goal of the 

2009 INRMP is to maintain or restore 

hydrologic processes in streams, 

floodplains, and wetlands when 

feasible. The specific objectives of 

Okaloosa darter management on Eglin 

AFB include: 

(1) Downlist the Okaloosa darter from 

endangered to threatened by the end of 

2010, and delist the darter by the end of 

2015; 

(2) Annually restore 2 fish passage 

barriers from the 20 identified sites in 

Okaloosa darter drainages as funding 

allows; 

(3) Develop a public information and 

awareness program for endangered and 

threatened species on Eglin AFB that 

have greater potential to be impacted by 

public activities, such as Okaloosa 

darters; 

(4) Complete a program by 2010 that 

would include an Air Armament 

Academy (A3) class (combined with 

Endangered Species Act class), 

informational brochures, and portable 

display boards; 

(5) Cooperate with the City of 

Niceville, Okaloosa County, and private 

landowners adjacent to Eglin AFB to 

recover the Okaloosa darter; 

(6) Identify and rehabilitate 150 soil 

erosion sites that have the potential to 

impact endangered and threatened 

species (Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus desotoi) and Okaloosa 

darter) habitat by 2011; and 

(7) Train and use Okaloosa darter 

monitoring crews and aquatic 

monitoring crews to survey and report 

the presence of invasive, nonnative 

plants and animals during their regular 

monitoring activities and treat invasive, 

nonnative plants as necessary. 

Instream flows and historical habitat 

have been protected through Eglin 

AFB’s removal of fish passage barriers 

(INRMP Objective 2) and rehabilitation 

of soil erosion sites that are impacting 

endangered and threatened species 

(INRMP Objective 6). Further recovery 

efforts to benefit stream flows and 

historic habitat have been planned, 

including training darter monitoring 

crews to report invasive species found 

during regular survey efforts (INRMP 

Objective 7). 

In 2005, the Service, Eglin’s Natural 

Resources Branch, The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC), and the FWC 

signed an agreement to cooperate in the 

stewardship of aquatic systems on lands 

of the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem 

Partnership (GCPEP) in western Florida. 

GCPEP’s Aquatic Team agreed to 

initially assign priority to strategies and 

projects that contribute to the recovery 

of the Okaloosa darter. We are working 

with GCPEP to use stream restoration 

techniques and management actions 

that have been established for Okaloosa 

darter watersheds on partner lands. 

The Three Rivers Resource 

Conservation and Development Council 

(Council) is a nonprofit organization set 

up to conserve the natural resources for, 

and to improve the overall economic 

condition of, rural and urban citizens. 

The Council is composed of 

representatives from the county 

Commissions and Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts, and includes 

three members at large from Escambia, 

Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, 

Washington, and Holmes Counties in 

Florida. The Council has developed an 

Area Plan (2003–2008), which includes: 

(1) A natural resources goal of 

encouraging proper management use 

and protection of the natural resource 

base; 

(2) An objective to assist local military 

bases in conservation planning efforts; 

(3) A strategy to continue a non-point 

project to control erosion with Eglin 

AFB; and 

(4) A strategy for habitat restoration, 

including four recently completed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

projects that replaced or rehabilitated 

undersized or improperly placed 

culverts as well as eliminated 

sedimentation from roadway runoff. 

The Eglin golf course dominates land 

use in the Mill Creek Basin. Along with 

West Long Creek in the Rocky Creek 

Basin, these are the same drainages 

where monitoring suggests darter 

numbers have been declining in recent 

years. The Service and Eglin AFB have 

recently completed a habitat restoration 

project in the portion of Mill Creek that 

runs through the Eglin golf course. Work 

is ongoing to assess causes of declines 

in East Turkey and West Long Creeks. 

The Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance 

(a citizen’s group), along with 

supporting State and Federal agencies, 

is implementing a program called 

‘‘Breaking New Ground,’’ which is a set 

of place-based air and watershed action 

plans for the Choctawhatchee River and 

Bay watershed. These plans address 

water quality monitoring, point and 

non-point source pollution, growth 

management, water supply, education, 

and citizen involvement in all 

Choctawhatchee Bay watersheds, 

including the darter drainages. This 

planning effort has resulted in the 

funding of studies to assess point and 

non-point source water pollution in the 

basin, including darter watersheds, and 

is expected to continue to assist in 

identifying and addressing potential 

long-term water quality and supply 

issues in the watershed, which is a 

positive step towards securing 

permanent protections for Okaloosa 

darter water quality and quantity. 

In addition, the Northwest Florida 

Water Management District (NWFWMD) 

(in conjunction with the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) has a Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Plan that 

addresses water issues in the 

Choctawhatchee River and Bay System, 

including the projected water supply 

needs of the coastal portions of 

Okaloosa and Walton Counties. 

Protecting water-dependent endangered 

species and their habitats are integral 

components of the SWIM Plan. In its 

water supply plan for the counties that 

encompass the range of the darter, the 

NWFWMD examines the water sources 

that could supply growing human water 

demands in the region (Bartel et al. 

2000). Depending on its magnitude and 

spatial distribution, substantial new use 

of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer could 

diminish stream flow in the darter 

streams; however, the potential well 

fields that the NWFWMD identified are 

located south and west of the darter 

drainages. 

The opportunities for easements or 

acquisitions or both to protect the 

Okaloosa darter are limited, because 

over 90 percent of its historic range is 

on Federal land. The Service is 

currently working with FWC and a 

private landowner to secure a 

conservation easement for the portion of 

East Turkey Creek between the Eglin 

AFB boundary and Choctawhatchee 

Bay. This easement would help to 

secure nearly all of East Turkey Creek 

inhabited by Okaloosa darters outside 

the boundaries of Eglin AFB. Because 

Eglin AFB and others have 

demonstrated a commitment to recovery 

of the Okaloosa darter through natural 

resources management planning and 

coordination with the Service, we 

consider this downlisting criterion to be 

satisfied. 

Downlisting Criterion (2): Eglin AFB has 

(and is implementing) an effective habitat 

restoration program to control erosion from 

roads, clay pits, and open ranges. 

Accomplishments have been made in 

recovering Okaloosa darter habitat, and 

the Service continues to work with 

Eglin AFB, the City of Niceville, and 

Okaloosa and Walton Counties to 

restore additional habitat through the 

removal and replacement of road 

crossings and impoundments 

throughout the darter’s range. 

Eglin AFB is implementing an 

effective habitat restoration program to 

control erosion from roads, borrow pits 

(areas where materials like sand or 

gravel are removed for use at another 

location), and cleared test ranges. Since 

1995, Eglin AFB has restored 317 sites 

covering 196.2 hectares (ha) (484.8 acres 

(ac)) that were eroding into Okaloosa 

darter streams. All 38 borrow pits 

within Okaloosa darter drainages are 

now stabilized (59.3 ha; 146.5 ac) 

(USAF 2005, p. 3–18). The other 279 

sites (136.9 ha; 338.3 ac) included in the 

total area are characterized as non-point 

sources (pollution created from larger 

processes and not from one 

concentrated point source, like excess 

sediment from a construction site 

washing into a stream after a rain) of 

stream sedimentation. Eglin AFB 

estimates that these efforts have reduced 

soil loss from roughly 69,000 tons per 

year in darter watersheds in 1994, to 

approximately 2,500 tons per year in 

2010 (Pizzolato 2010, pers. comm.). As 

of 2006, Eglin AFB had completed about 

95 percent of the erosion control 

projects identified for the darter 

watersheds (USAF 2006, p. 3–5). 

Restoration activities began earlier in 

the Boggy Bayou drainages. 

Accordingly, darter numbers increased 

in the Boggy Bayou drainages earlier 

than in the Rocky Bayou drainages. 

Increases in darter numbers over the 

past 10 years generally track the 

cumulative area restored during that 

timeframe (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 9). 

Many road crossing structures have 

been eliminated as part of Eglin AFB’s 

restoration activities. Of the 152 road 

crossings that previously existed in 

Okaloosa darter drainages, 57 have been 

eliminated: 28 in Boggy Bayou streams, 

and 29 in Rocky Bayou streams. Most of 

these were likely barriers to fish passage 

or problems for stream channel stability, 

and removing them has improved 

habitat and reduced population 

fragmentation. We have determined that 

21 of the remaining road crossings are 

barriers to fish passage. Many of these 

are culverts with the downstream end 

perched above the stream bed, 

precluding the upstream movement of 

fish during normal and low-flow 

conditions. Ten of the 21 barriers are of 

little to no adverse consequence to 

darter habitat connectivity because they 

occur on the outskirts of the current 

range or are immediately adjacent to 

another barrier or impoundment. 

However, darters downstream of the 11 

remaining barriers cannot move 

upstream during normal and low-flow 

conditions. To date, 7 of these have 

been removed or replaced with 

appropriate structures and the 

remaining 4 will be removed in 2011. 

Impoundments may also fragment 

darter habitat and populations. As of 

2005, there were 32 impoundments 

within the darter’s range. Most of these 

are the result of beaver activity at roadstream crossings, and some are located 

within reaches from which darters are 

extirpated or in headwater regions of 

streams where darters are typically 

found only in low densities. As part of 

the road-stream crossing rehabilitation 

work, Eglin has prioritized restoration 

or replacement of road-stream crossings 

where beaver activity has impounded 

stream flow. Major projects under this 

program include multi-partner stream 

restoration efforts in Little Rocky Creek 

and Toms Creek. These projects 

required removal of historical railroad 

crossings that had been impounded by 

beavers and included greater than 100 

meters of natural channel design and 

construction. 

Manmade structures accounted for 12 

of the 32 impoundments in Okaloosa 

darter watersheds. Working with the 

Service, the Council, FWC, and the MidBay Bridge Authority (MBBA), Eglin 

AFB has removed six recreational 

impoundments, including all 

impoundments in the Turkey Creek 

watershed. Two major stream 

restoration projects have been 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18091 

conducted on Eglin AFB, both utilizing 

natural channel design to eliminate 

impoundments and fish passage barriers 

while promoting public recreation. 

In FY 2007, Eglin AFB restored 

portions of Mill Creek within the Falcon 

and Eagle golf course. Staff from Eglin 

Natural Resources, the Eglin golf course, 

and the Service determined that it was 

feasible to restore all impoundments 

upstream of Plew Lake, the largest 

impoundment on the system, to freeflowing streams and to remove all but 

one of the culverts that convey the 

stream underneath fairways on the golf 

course. Present in the smallest of the six 

darter watersheds, the darter population 

in Mill Creek is probably most 

vulnerable to extirpation. Within one 

year of completion, Okaloosa darters 

had colonized the entire restoration 

project and recruitment had been 

observed. We anticipate that restoration 

at Mill Creek will help maintain a viable 

population in the Mill Creek system. 

In 2009, a partnership including Eglin 

AFB, the Service, FWC, and MBBA 

initiated a restoration of Anderson Pond 

and the adjacent campground and 

recreation area. As part of this project, 

the impoundment was removed, and 

over 1000 meters of stream channel 

were constructed. A new pond was 

excavated in a portion of the original 

impoundment to accommodate fishing 

and other recreational activities. This 

project has reconnected darters isolated 

in the headwater reaches of Anderson 

Branch with the Turkey Creek 

population and re-established habitat 

for an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 darters. 

Both the Mill Creek and Anderson Pond 

projects accomplished stream 

restoration while promoting outdoor 

recreation and education opportunities 

for the public. 

Based on the observations shared 

above, Eglin AFB has effectively 

implemented this downlisting criterion 

and continues to make additional 

progress in reducing remaining erosion 

problems on the base. These actions 

appear to be associated with identifiable 

increases in Okaloosa darter numbers 

and occupied range. We will continue to 

partner with Eglin AFB to find similar 

opportunities like Mill Creek and 

Anderson Pond to restore habitat. 

Because Eglin AFB and others have 

demonstrated a commitment to recovery 

of the Okaloosa darter through natural 

resources management planning and 

coordination with the Service, we 

consider this downlisting criterion to be 

satisfied. 

Downlisting Criterion (3): Okaloosa darter 

population is stable or increasing and 

comprised of two plus age-classes in all six 

stream systems for 5 consecutive years. 

We had no estimate of population size 

at the time of listing, although the 

historic range of the Okaloosa darter is 

fairly well documented. Relative 

abundance estimates were determined 

annually from 1987–88 to 1998 at Eglin 

AFB. Bortone (1999, p.15) compared the 

relative abundance (number per 

sampling hour) of darters at 16 to 18 

stations over 10 sampling seasons. The 

mean number of Okaloosa darters per 

sample (in those samples that yielded 

darters) was slightly lower in the earlier 

sampling period (1987 to1991), higher 

during the middle sampling years (1992 

to 1997), and distinctly lower in 1998 

and 1999. Bortone (1999, p. 9) 

concluded that this may not have 

indicated an overall trend in the 

reduction in Okaloosa darters as much 

as it may be indicative of changes that 

specifically reduced preferable habitat 

and increased sampling effectiveness at 

certain sites, as several sites were 

altered by beaver activity while others 

became more rooted with undergrowth. 

Generally, the data do not indicate any 

overall major trends in decline or 

increase during the 10-year sampling 

period (Bortone 1999, p.10). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and Loyola University New Orleans has 

surveyed between 12 and 60 sites for 

Okaloosa darters annually since 1995 

(Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 2). Their 

methodology has evolved into counting 

darters in 20-m (66-ft) segments using 

mask and snorkel visual surveys, and 

includes collection of habitat conditions 

such as water depth, stream discharge, 

substrate type, and canopy cover. 

Collectively, Jordan and Jelks’ data 

show an almost tripling of darter 

numbers in a 10-year timeframe, from 

an average of about 20 darters per 20- 

m (66-ft) segment sampled in 1995, to 

about 55 darters per segment in 2004. 

Dips in Okaloosa darter densities 

occurred in 2001–02 and in 2009, which 

corresponded with years of regional 

drought conditions. Even during these 

years, however, darter numbers were 

almost double those of 1995 and 1996. 

The current rangewide total 

population estimate, estimated by 

applying Jordan and Jelks (2004, p. 3) 

study area-wide density estimate of 3.1 

darters per meter (m) (or per 3.28 feet) 

to our estimates of occupied stream 

length in each of the six Okaloosa darter 

basins, is 802,668 darters with an 

estimated 625,279 mature individuals 

(Service 2007, Table 2). In order to 

expand the surveyed range of the 

species, 69 sites were seine surveyed in 

50-m (164-ft) segments by the Service in 

2004–05, with many of those being 

outside the area surveyed by Jordan and 

Jelks (2004). Observed segment densities 

were transformed to local abundance 

estimates based upon the Jordan et al. 

(2008, pp. 316–318) comparison of seine 

versus visual counts and depletion 

sampling. These surveys produced an 

overall density estimate of 1.28 darters 

per meter (or per 3.28 ft) and an 

abundance estimate of 259,355 mature 

individuals (Service 2007, Table 3). This 

estimate is very conservative because 

seining typically only recovers about a 

third of the Okaloosa darters detected 

visually (Jordan et al. 2008, p. 318) For 

more information on sampling methods, 

see the Service’s 2007 5-year status 

review of the Okaloosa darter (Service 

2007). 

Standardized sampling since the 

status review continues to show robust 

numbers of Okaloosa darters. A visual 

survey conducted in 2009 showed an 

average density of 3.1 ± 2.3 Okaloosa 

darters per linear meter (Jelks pers. 

comm. 2010). 

Downlisting criterion number (3) is 

further defined in Appendix A of the 

Okaloosa darter recovery plan to 

include a specific standardized 

sampling methodology. An operational 

definition of a ‘‘stable’’ population is 

also provided in Appendix A of the 

recovery plan. The definition of a 

‘‘stable’’ population applies to 26 longterm monitoring sites and has three 

parts: 

(1) Okaloosa darter numbers remain 

above 1.75 standard deviations below 

the cumulative long-term average at 

each of the monitoring sites; 

(2) The long-term trend in the average 

counts at each monitoring site is 

increasing, or neutral; and 

(3) The range that the species inhabits 

is not decreased by more than a 500- 

meter (1,640.4-ft) stream reach within 

any of the six stream systems. 

Although the darter meets the 

criterion for a stable population, the 

validity of the criteria in the operational 

definition of ‘‘stable’’ has come into 

question since 1998, when the recovery 

plan was prepared. As identified in our 

2007 5-year status review of the 

Okaloosa darter (Service 2007, p. 6), 

monitoring has shown that natural 

variation coupled with sampling 

method (seining versus visual survey) 

might result in a variation greater than 

1.75 standard deviations while still 

maintaining a stable or increasing trend. 

Therefore, we have found that this 

operational definition may no longer 

reflect the true status of the species. We 

plan to revise the recovery criteria to 

incorporate advances in population 

assessment that use variation at specific 

localities while incorporating 

adjustments for sampling error. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Current estimates of Okaloosa darter 

numbers were calculated using two 

different methods of standardizing 

monitoring and survey data. The first 

method used visual surveys in 28 20-m 

(66-ft) segments of stream encompassing 

the six principal basins; a study areawide density estimate was applied to 

the known occupied stream length for a 

2004 total population estimate of 

802,668 darters with 95 percent 

confidence interval (CI) ranging from 

503,457 to 1,323,597 (Service 2007, 

Table 2). The second method 

transformed seine sample density 

estimates to local abundance estimates, 

based upon the Jordan et al. (2008) 

comparison of seine versus visual 

counts and depletion sampling, to 

calculate a 2004–05 population estimate 

of 259,355 with 95 percent CI ranging 

from 216,120 to 302,590 darters (Service 

2007, Table 3). Acknowledging the 

greater error likely associated with the 

seine-based calculations, they provide a 

more conservative population estimate; 

however, both estimates are large given 

the naturally small range of the species. 

As identified in our 2007 5-year status 

review (Service 2007, p. 6–7), the longterm trend in the average counts at each 

monitoring site indicated that the four 

smallest darter watersheds (Toms, Swift, 

Mill, and East Turkey), as well as West 

Long Creek and East Long Creek, were 

decreasing while the watersheds of 

Rocky Creek and Turkey Creek were 

increasing. However, sampling 

conducted since restoration activities on 

Mill Creek were completed indicates 

that darter numbers are now increasing. 

Using the estimated length of occupied 

habitat for these creeks, darter numbers 

are stable or increasing in 86 percent of 

their current range and decreasing in 14 

percent of their current range. All of the 

declining trends were sampled by 

seining, not visual surveys, and may 

reflect variable sampling efficiency over 

time. For example, one site has become 

almost impossible to seine due to the 

exposure of tree roots resulting from 

stream bed degradation. Because seining 

detects only about 32 percent as many 

Okaloosa darters as visual surveys 

(Jordan et al. 2008, p. 313), the longterm trends in darter counts at sites 

sampled by seine may not reflect actual 

trends. Furthermore, there appears to be 

a reduction in numbers at many of the 

sites in 1998 to 2000, prior to which 

counts appear to be relatively consistent 

or generally increasing, which 

correspond to a drought that began in 

1998. Following 1998, the darter counts 

at these sites follow a stable or 

increasing trend at reduced densities 

(Service 2007, Figure 6). Because 

recovery criteria were based on data 

collected in years with normal rainfall, 

variation associated with droughts 

could not be accounted for and strict 

interpretation of criteria is likely not 

biologically appropriate. 

The range of the Okaloosa darter is 

represented as the cumulative stream 

length of occupancy in a basin. 

However, the annual monitoring 

identified in the recovery plan is not 

specifically designed to measure the 

length of a range reduction. Therefore, 

we are unable to determine whether part 

(3) of the operational definition of 

‘‘stable’’ (A population will be 

considered stable if * * * (3) the range 

that the species inhabits is not 

decreased by more than a 500-meter 

(1,640.4-ft) stream reach within any of 

the six stream systems) has been met. 

Further, as noted previously, seining 

has been shown to detect only about 32 

percent as many darters as visual 

surveys (Jordan et al. 2008, p. 313), 

increasing the probability of incorrectly 

concluding that darters are absent when 

using this survey method. Therefore, we 

do not feel that this aspect of the 

definition of ‘‘stable’’ is appropriate. 

Okaloosa darters population numbers 

have increased since 1995, and have 

remained consistently stable at all sites 

where current sampling techniques are 

utilized. Annual population monitoring 

by USGS and Loyola University New 

Orleans has detected young-of-the-year 

and adult fish in all six stream systems 

for the past 13 years (Service 2007). 

Okaloosa darters appear to have 

expanded their range in Mill Creek 

following habitat restoration activities 

in 2007, and have been collected in the 

southern/western tributary of Toms 

Creek previously thought to be 

uninhabited. We have not observed 

extirpation at any of the monitoring 

sites since 1998, and sampling 

conducted in 2009 continues to show 

robust numbers of Okaloosa darters. 

Acknowledging the limitations in the 

criteria outlined in Appendix A of the 

recovery plan, we consider this 

downlisting criterion to be satisfied. 

Downlisting Criterion (4): The range of the 

Okaloosa darter has not decreased at all 

historical monitoring sites. 

As noted above, trends in the range of 

the Okaloosa darter are difficult to 

interpret. Darters have expanded their 

range in Mill Creek as a result of habitat 

restoration. A recent collection of 

darters from the southern/western 

tributary of Toms Creek may represent 

an additional range expansion; however, 

additional field surveys will be 

necessary to determine the extent and 

stability of the occupied habitat. If 

Okaloosa darters are established in this 

tributary, this would represent a range 

expansion of about 2.25 kilometers (1.4 

miles). The Okaloosa darter has been 

extirpated from about 9 percent of the 

402 km (249.8 mi) of streams that 

comprise its total historical range. 

Nearly all of these impacts occurred 

prior to the original recovery plan in 

1984, and most were likely prior to the 

species listing in 1973. The Swift Creek 

monitoring site is the only established 

monitoring site where an extirpation 

appears to have occurred. This is 

evidenced by a single collection of 2 

individuals in 1987; otherwise Okaloosa 

darters have not been collected at this 

site. Because local extirpation occurred 

more than 20 years ago, the darter has 

expanded its range in Mill Creek and 

Toms Creek, and we have not witnessed 

a reduction in range since the revision 

of the recovery plan in 1998, we 

consider this criterion to be met. 

Downlisting Criterion (5): No foreseeable 

threats exist that would impact the survival 

of the species. 

At this stage of the recovery of 

Okaloosa darter, threats remain under 

Listing Factor A: the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range. Resource stewardship on Eglin 

AFB is generally reducing the threat of 

habitat destruction and range reduction 

from sedimentation from unpaved roads 

and areas adjacent to poorly designed or 

maintained paved roads. As of 2006, 

about 95 percent of the erosion control 

projects identified in darter watersheds 

had been completed (USAF 2007, pp. 3– 

5). Eglin AFB is continuing to fund 

these projects to completely eliminate 

the threat. We will continue to work 

with Eglin AFB to remove remaining 

erosion sources or point and non-point 

pollution sources in Okaloosa darter 

habitat. In addition, stream restoration 

projects have been completed, and new 

projects are being considered on Eglin 

AFB. We will work with Elgin AFB to 

ensure Okaloosa darter habitat is 

protected. 

Although water quality issues 

associated with the Niceville landfill 

and sprayfield continue to threaten the 

darter, they are being examined in a 

research project, which began in 2007. 

We recently worked with the City of 

Niceville to improve its wastewater 

collection system and install more 

appropriate culverts at a number of road 

crossings. In addition, as stated above, 

a few of the Okaloosa darter’s streams 

have been indicated as potentially 

impaired due to biological indicators. 

We will continue to work with Eglin 

AFB and the city of Niceville to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18093 

determine the causes of impairment and 

remove them. 

Proposed plans to assign additional 

military forces to Eglin AFB may alter 

the military mission and could 

potentially impact Okaloosa darter 

populations; however, we do not 

anticipate any increase in threats from 

this action as the new ranges have been 

moved outside of Okaloosa darter 

habitat. Eglin AFB has also agreed to 

provide a 300-ft. buffer along all darter 

streams when conducting any troop 

maneuvers. On the smaller creeks, 

where we noted a general long-term 

decline in average counts, we will 

continue to investigate using survey 

protocols whether habitat attributes at 

these sites are the cause. 

The Okaloosa darter was listed in 

1973 as an endangered species. At the 

time of listing, the species faced 

significantly greater threats than it does 

today, as evidenced by the numerous 

recovery actions to date that have 

improved and restored its habitat 

conditions. These recovery actions 

include completing 95 percent of the 

erosion control projects identified in 

darter watersheds, thereby significantly 

reducing the most intense threat to the 

species (see the Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species section below for 

further details). Now, more than 35 

years after it was listed under the Act, 

the Okaloosa darter’s overall status has 

improved. Given that the threats to the 

species have been significantly reduced, 

we have determined that the Okaloosa 

darter has recovered to the point where 

it now meets the definition of a 

threatened species—one that is ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ In 

other words, although some threats to 

the Okaloosa darter continue to exist, 

these threats are not likely to cause the 

species to become extinct throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range 

within the foreseeable future. Data 

collected on the distribution and 

abundance of the species indicate that 

the species’ range has expanded and 

overall population numbers are 

increasing. The Okaloosa darter has met 

all five downlisting criteria in its 

recovery plan. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

During the 60-day comment period on 

the proposed rule, which began on 

February 2, 2010, and ended on April 5, 

2010 (75 FR 5263), we received only 

two written comments, both of which 

supported both reclassification of the 

Okaloosa darter from endangered to 

threatened and the special rule. The 

proponents of the reclassification 

included the FWC and TNC. We 

received no public hearing requests. In 

accordance with our peer review policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited independent 

opinions from three knowledgeable 

individuals who have expertise with the 

species and the geographic region where 

the species occurs and are familiar with 

conservation biology principles. We 

received comments from all three of the 

peer reviewers. The reviewers were 

affiliated with the State of Florida, a 

Louisiana university, and a Federal 

Government agency. Reviewers 

provided additional factual information, 

as well as minor corrections and input 

on our interpretation of existing 

information. In general, all peer 

reviewers concurred with the 

downlisting of the Okaloosa darter to 

threatened status and the special rule. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the proposed 

reclassification. Substantive comments 

we received during the comment period 

have been addressed below and, where 

appropriate, incorporated directly into 

this final rule. The comments are 

grouped below according to peer review 

or public comments. 

Peer Review/State Comments 

(1) Comment: One reviewer expressed 

concern for the population of Okaloosa 

darters in Shaw Still Branch, a tributary 

to Swift Creek, due to isolation resulting 

from College Pond and habitat 

degradation. 

Response: We agree that the 

population in Shaw Still Branch should 

be closely monitored and that 

restoration of College Pond should be 

considered; however, the Okaloosa 

darter population and suitable habitat 

persist in this stream. In addition, there 

has been a stable or increasing trend of 

darters in all darter stream systems, 

including Swift Creek. We do not feel 

that the genetic isolation of the Shaw 

Still Branch darter population precludes 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened, which is based on an 

assessment of the species’ status and 

threats as a whole. 

(2) Comment: Two reviewers 

expressed concern over the Mid-Bay 

Bridge Connector Road and long-term 

secondary and cumulative effects to the 

Okaloosa darter. 

Response: We recently completed 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act on this road project and have 

updated the discussion of this project in 

this rule (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species; Factor A. 

discussion). We found that the proposed 

Mid-Bay Bridge Connector Road is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Okaloosa darter. There 

are many conservation measures in 

place to minimize the impacts of the 

roadway, and the potential secondary 

and cumulative effects will be 

minimized through efforts to work with 

with private property owners to protect 

floodplain and riparian habitat and 

reduce threats along Okaloosa darter 

streams. Given the specific extensive 

conservation measures included in the 

project, we do not consider the Mid-Bay 

Bridge Connector Road to be a 

significant threat to Okaloosa darters. 

(3) Comment: Although the sand and 

gravel aquifer that feeds the darter 

drainages is not currently used for 

human consumption, one reviewer 

expressed concern that plans for 

wellfields have been proposed within 

Okaloosa darter drainages. 

Response: We are not aware of any 

proposals to directly use the sand and 

gravel aquifer for human consumption. 

The NWFWMD has recently announced 

plans for an offline reservoir in the 

Shoal River (Yellow River watershed) to 

supply drinking water to Okaloosa 

County. This action will use surface 

water and is outside the primary 

recharge area for streams inhabited by 

the Okaloosa darter; therefore, we 

believe there will be little to no impact 

on Okaloosa darters related to this 

offline reservoir. Eglin AFB, the cities of 

Niceville and Valparaiso, and Okaloosa 

County have not indicated plans to 

establish wellfields in the foreseeable 

future. 

(4) Comment: One reviewer expressed 

concern that the proposed rule 

recommended delisting by 2012. 

Response: The proposed rule actually 

noted that Eglin AFB’s INRMP goals for 

darter management recommended 

delisting by 2012. The proposed rule 

was updated to reflect the most recent 

annual update of the INRMP, which 

now recommends delisting by 2015. In 

any case, this is Eglin AFB’s 

recommendation, and does not reflect 

the views of the Service. A 

determination to remove a species from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife is made by the 

Service and is based on an analysis of 

whether a species is no longer 

endangered or threatened. 

(5) Comment: One reviewer was 

concerned that our population estimate 

was inflated because we assumed that 

all stream segments within the six darter 

drainages are suitable for Okaloosa 

darters. 

Response: We did not assume that all 

stream segments within the six 

Okaloosa darter drainages are suitable 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

for Okaloosa darters when we derived 

the population estimate of 802,668 

darters. A complete description of the 

methods we used to derive the amount 

of suitable habitat can be found in 

Service 2007, pages 16–18. In general, 

we calculated the total stream length 

within the Okaloosa darter drainages 

and then subtracted the impoundments 

and the segments that we believe no 

longer support Okaloosa darters from 

total stream length. However, we still 

believed that not all portions of the 

remaining stream length were 

necessarily suited for Okaloosa darters. 

To correct for this bias, we applied 

darter/habitat relationships to estimate 

the proportion of potential habitat that 

may be occupied. We estimated that for 

the roughly 365 km of potential darter 

habitat, about 261 km would be 

occupied, and estimated the population 

accordingly. 

(6) Comment: One reviewer noted that 

the fixed station sampling methodology 

may only be capturing a localized 

density increase, not a true population 

increase. 

Response: We agree with the reviewer 

that alternative study designs to fixed 

station sampling, such as random site 

selection, can provide more robust 

conclusions about population trends. 

The critique of fixed site sampling is 

that nonrepresentative data may be 

collected, thereby increasing the chance 

of incorrect conclusions. In the case of 

fixed station sampling of Okaloosa 

darters, we believe the chances of 

collecting nonrepresentative data are 

fairly low. The fixed stations occur 

across multiple sites in all six darter 

drainages. The number of sites has been 

high, with anywhere from 12 to 60 sites 

sampled annually since 1995, and 

collectively these data show an almost 

tripling of darter numbers in a 10-year 

timeframe. In addition, Okaloosa darters 

appear to have expanded their range in 

Mill Creek and possibly in a tributary of 

Toms Creek previously thought to be 

uninhabited. Therefore, we believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that the overall 

increasing trend in the fixed station 

sampling data is likely reflecting an 

increase in the Okaloosa darter 

population as a whole. 

(7) Comment: One reviewer was 

concerned that the Service redefined 

recovery criteria so as to minimize the 

importance of population declines and 

extirpations in areas outside of Eglin 

AFB in order to expedite the 

reclassification process. 

Response: This comment was first 

directed at the language under the 

Recovery section of the proposed rule 

(75 FR 5265; February 2, 2010) that 

describes how precise attainment of all 

recovery criteria is not a prerequisite for 

downlisting. In addition, within each 

recovery criterion, the reviewer believes 

we have redefined the Okaloosa darter 

population to be those darters on Eglin 

AFB and thereby implied that the 1.3 

percent of the current geographic range 

that is outside of Eglin AFB is of 

marginal importance. We do not agree 

with this comment because we manage 

the Okaloosa darter as a whole across its 

range and have to address its status and 

threats it faces across its range. A 

determination to reclassify a species’ 

status on the Federal List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife is ultimately 

based on an analysis of whether a 

species is no longer endangered or no 

longer threatened. Based on the best 

available scientific information, the 

population as a whole has increased, 

and its threats have decreased within 

98.7 percent of its current range and 90 

percent of its historic range. We agree 

with the reviewer that the populations 

of Okaloosa darters outside of Eglin AFB 

are important to the overall population 

resiliency and for full recovery and 

delisting of the species. 

(8) Comment: One reviewer expressed 

concern that we did not use the best 

scientific data available because we did 

not rely on a recent unpublished study 

on the degree of genetic distinction in 

Okaloosa darters among streams. The 

study found that each of the six 

Okaloosa darter drainages support 

genetically unique populations. The 

reviewer felt that the populations 

outside Eglin AFB in Mill, Swift, and 

East Turkey creeks are in danger of 

extinction and recommended that the 

Service consider reclassifying only 

populations of Okaloosa darters in the 

Toms, Turkey, and Rocky creek 

drainages and leave populations in the 

Mill, Swift, and East Turkey creek 

drainages as endangered. 

Response: We did not include the 

findings of this study in our analysis 

because at the time the proposed rule 

was published, this study was not 

available. The authors only very 

recently completed a final report and 

submitted it for publication in a peerreviewed journal (Austin et al. 2010, 

unpublished data). In summary, the 

authors conducted mitochondrial and 

nuclear DNA analyses to determine the 

degree of genetic distinction among 

streams. They found that Toms Bayou, 

Boggy Bayou, and Rocky Bayou are 

three evolutionarily significant units 

and, to a lesser extent than the bayous, 

all six streams are genetically unique. 

They also found that robust historical 

genetic estimates of abundance and 

recent census estimates support the 

decision to reclassify the Okaloosa 

darter to threatened. 

Based on the subtly different genetic 

characteristics of these six streams, it is 

conceivable that extirpation of Okaloosa 

darters in any of the six streams would 

result in a loss of genetic variation. 

While we acknowledge there have been 

localized declines in the populations in 

Mill, Swift, and East Turkey creeks, we 

do not agree that darters are in danger 

of extirpation from these creeks. Darter 

populations in Mill Creek have been 

increasing since restoration was 

completed, and we expect this 

restoration will result in a viable, 

sustainable population. In addition, 

significant parts of all three of these 

streams are located on Eglin AFB, where 

resource stewardship and protection is 

generally reducing the threat of habitat 

destruction and range reduction. 

Outside of Eglin’s borders, we are 

working with the City of Niceville and 

private landowners to reduce threats to 

Okaloosa darters. The status of the 

species as a whole has improved and 

threats have decreased in all six 

streams. We will continue to work with 

the authors as we work towards 

recovery of the Okaloosa darter. 

(9) Comment: One reviewer disagreed 

with how we defined ‘‘significant 

portion of the range,’’ noting that if we 

considered the six drainages separately 

based on genetic differences noted in 

Austin et al. (2010, unpublished data), 

there is considerable likelihood that 

Okaloosa darter is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range due to the more pronounced 

threat in the areas outside of Eglin AFB. 

Response: The Okaloosa darter was 

listed due to threats across its entire 

range. In our evaluation of significant 

portion of the range for this species, we 

assessed threats across the landscape to 

determine if any areas were 

experiencing unique impacts. We then 

determined if those areas were 

significant to the species as a whole as 

further described below in the 

Significant Portion of the Range section 

of this rule. In evaluating this comment, 

we determined that, although each 

drainage may possess slightly different 

genetics (Austin et al. 2010, 

unpublished data), the drainages are all 

subject to similar threats. The area 

outside of the Eglin AFB was not 

considered a significant portion of the 

range, because this area is small and is 

similar in structure to habitat found 

throughout the rest of the species’ range. 

We have determined that there are no 

portions of the range that qualify as a 

significant portion of the range for the 

darter. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18095 

(10) Comment: One reviewer 

disagrees that almost all of the human 

activities that may affect the existing 

darter population are Federal actions. 

Response: Of the darter’s current 

range, 98.7 percent is on Federal lands, 

and the remaining 1.3 percent occurs 

downstream of the boundaries of Eglin 

AFB. We agree that there are human 

activities that impact the darter in the 

1.3 percent of the darter’s range outside 

of Eglin AFB; however, almost all of the 

darter’s range is within Federal lands 

and subject to Federal statutes and 

regulations, including the Sikes Act and 

Sikes Improvement Act, the Act, and the 

CWA, as well as other applicable State 

laws. Furthermore, any State, local, and 

private projects outside of Eglin AFB 

that use Federal funds or require 

Federal permits must undergo section 7 

consultation under the Act. 

(11) Comment: One reviewer 

expressed concern for delisting by 

asking how the Okaloosa darter can be 

delisted given that the species was 

primarily listed due to a restricted 

geographic range and that will never 

change. 

Response: The Service is not 

considering delisting the species at this 

time. The determination to remove a 

species from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is 

based on an analysis of whether a 

species is no longer endangered or 

threatened by any of the five factors: (1) 

Habitat modification, destruction, or 

curtailment; (2) overutilization of the 

species for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 

disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. The 

Okaloosa darter was initially listed not 

only due to its restricted range but also 

because of habitat degradation from 

roads, dams, and land clearing, and the 

threat of competition with brown 

darters. Delisting the species would 

involve a full assessment of these and 

other threats impacting the Okaloosa 

darter in consideration of its restricted 

range. As discussed throughout this 

rule, there has been a substantial 

reduction in threats to the species’ 

habitat, and brown darters do not 

appear to be a significant threat to its 

recovery. There are still actions needed 

for the Okaloosa darter to continue to 

recover, including cooperative 

agreements to protect and restore 

habitat, water quality, and water 

quantity outside of Eglin AFB, and the 

continued improvement and 

maintenance of water quality and 

riparian habitat on Eglin AFB. 

(12) Comment: One reviewer 

expressed concern regarding the 

enforcement of the Act as it relates to 

Okaloosa darter in areas that occur 

outside of Eglin AFB. 

Response: All State, local, and private 

projects outside of Eglin AFB that use 

Federal funds or require Federal permits 

(for example CWA section 404 dredgeand-fill permits) must undergo section 7 

consultation under the Act. In addition, 

under section 9 of the Act, ‘‘take’’ 

(defined as to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct in section 3(19) of the Act) 

will still be prohibited on private lands 

as it was when the species was listed as 

endangered. The special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act does not remove 

the prohibitions against take outside of 

Eglin AFB’s habitat restoration projects. 

The Service also works proactively with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and private 

landowners to facilitate darter habitat 

restoration off of Eglin AFB. 

Public Comments 

The following public comment 

addresses issues that were not raised by 

the peer reviewers. If an issue brought 

up by a peer reviewer was also raised 

by the public, it is discussed above in 

the peer review comment section rather 

than below. 

(13) Comment: In relation to 

additional subpopulations of Okaloosa 

darters, one commenter suggested we 

conduct an assessment of other stream 

systems within the Rocky Bayou 

drainage that may have historically 

contained the Okaloosa darter. The 

commenter also described a stream 

restoration project in Puddin Head Lake, 

a steephead stream system adjacent to 

the Rocky Creek watershed, noting that 

this stream may have historically 

contained Okaloosa darters and 

recommended that the Service consider 

this stream restoration project as a 

current activity that may benefit the 

Okaloosa darter. 

Response: We agree and plan to 

evaluate other streams within all three 

bayous that may have historically 

contained Okaloosa darters to locate 

suitable habitat and possible additional 

populations. Okaloosa darters do not 

occur in Puddin Head Lake, but we plan 

to evaluate restored habitat within the 

Puddin Head stream and other locations 

that may have historically contained 

Okaloosa darters as potential sites for 

reintroduction. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, or removing species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the 

‘‘species’’ is determined, we then 

evaluate whether that species may be 

endangered or threatened because of 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Those 

factors are: (1) Habitat modification, 

destruction, or curtailment; (2) 

overutilization of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. We must consider 

these same five factors in reclassifying 

or delisting a species. Listing, 

reclassifying, or delisting may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, either singly or in 

combination. 

For species that are already listed as 

endangered or threatened, this analysis 

of threats is an evaluation of both the 

threats currently facing the species and 

the threats that are reasonably likely to 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future following the delisting or 

downlisting. 

The following threats analysis 

examines the five factors currently 

affecting, or that are likely to affect, the 

Okaloosa darter within the foreseeable 

future. For the purposes of this analysis, 

we will first evaluate whether the 

currently listed species, the Okaloosa 

darter, should be considered 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range. Then we will consider whether 

there are any portions of the species’ 

range where it is in danger of extinction 

or likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The Okaloosa darter was listed under 

the Act in 1973, because of its extremely 

limited range and potential problems 

resulting from erosion, water 

impoundment, and competition with 

brown darters. The Okaloosa darter has 

been extirpated from about 9 percent of 

the 402 km (249.8 mi) of streams that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

comprise its total historical range. This 

historic loss of range is most likely due 

to physical and chemical habitat 

degradation from sediment and 

pollutant loading and the urbanization 

of the City of Niceville coupled with 

historic impacts originating on what is 

now Eglin AFB. Recent surveys in a 

southern/western tributary of Toms 

Creek, however, have established the 

darter’s presence in a stretch of stream 

previously thought to be uninhabited. 

At present, all but 5 km (3.1 mi), or 1.3 

percent, of the current range is also 

currently within Eglin AFB. 

Sedimentation and Erosion 

Sediment loading is perhaps the most 

intense and uniform factor continuing to 

threaten the Okaloosa darter. A report 

(Rainer et al. 2005, pp. 3–13) identified 

the following primary sources of 

sediment to aquatic ecosystems on Eglin 

AFB: accelerated streamside erosion, 

borrow pits, developed areas, land test 

areas, silviculture, and roads. Of these, 

the stream crossings of unpaved roads 

and subsequent bank erosion probably 

have the greatest impact because of their 

distribution on Eglin AFB, relative 

permanence as base infrastructure, and 

long-term soil disturbance 

characteristics. The largest remaining 

source of sediment input to darter 

streams is the unpaved road network. 

As of 2005, 87 percent (4,348 km or 

2,701.7 mi) of Eglin’s road network was 

unpaved. 

As of 2010, Eglin AFB had completed 

about 95 percent of the erosion control 

projects identified in darter watersheds, 

substantially reducing runoff and 

sedimentation within the road network 

(USAF 2006, pp. 3–5; Pizzolato 2010, 

pers. comm.). From 1995 to 2004, 317 

borrow pits and non-point erosion sites 

(485 ac) were rehabilitated and 

maintained. Although most of the 

erosion control projects have already 

been completed, Eglin has a continuing 

objective of identifying and 

rehabilitating an additional 150 soil 

erosion sites beyond the 317 sites that 

have already been restored. These soil 

erosion sites have the potential to 

impact endangered and threatened 

species like the listed Okaloosa darter. 

These remaining soil erosion sites pose 

a continuing threat to the darter and its 

habitat. For example, five road crossings 

in the Turkey Creek drainage have 

repeatedly exceeded State water quality 

standards for turbidity. Recent funding 

has been secured to replace or eliminate 

the remaining road-stream crossings 

identified as impairing waterways 

within the range of the Okaloosa darter 

on Eglin AFB. These projects are 

currently being designed or awaiting 

permits, and all are scheduled for 

construction in 2011. 

Of the 153 road crossings that 

previously existed in Okaloosa darter 

drainages, 57 have been eliminated: 28 

in Boggy Bayou streams, and 29 in 

Rocky Bayou streams. Eglin AFB 

estimates that these and other 

restoration efforts have reduced soil loss 

from roughly 69,000 tons per year in 

darter watersheds in 1994, to 

approximately 2,500 tons per year in 

2010 (Pizzolato 2010, pers. comm.). 

Borrow pits were a major source of 

sediment loading to darter streams cited 

in the 1998 darter recovery plan. At that 

time, 29 of 39 borrow pits located 

within or immediately adjacent to 

Okaloosa darter drainages had been 

restored so that they no longer posed 

sedimentation threats. As of 2004, all of 

the remaining borrow pits within 

Okaloosa darter drainages have been 

restored and no longer pose 

sedimentation threats (Rainer et al. 

2005, pp. 3–18). 

While sedimentation and erosion 

problems still exist on Eglin AFB, they 

have been significantly reduced through 

improvements such as bottomless 

culverts, bridges over streams, and bank 

restoration and revegetation. There are 

other areas where sedimentation 

remains a higher magnitude threat to the 

continued existence of the Okaloosa 

darter. Primarily in the downstreammost portion of the darter’s range, urban 

development and construction activity 

pose a threat to the darter due to poor 

stormwater runoff control and 

ineffective pollution prevention 

measures that degrade habitat and may 

pose potential barriers to movement 

between basins. This threat is present 

primarily in the 5 km (3.1 mi) of historic 

habitat located outside of Eglin AFB. 

With improvement and reduction of 

sediment erosion on Eglin AFB (98.7 

percent of the darter’s current range), we 

believe that we can continue to work 

with off-base partners in recovery efforts 

that will enable delisting of this fish. 

Road Development Projects 

Additionally, road development 

projects present new potential threats 

that may negatively impact the Okaloosa 

darter. The Northwest Florida 

Transportation Corridor Authority has 

proposed a new, high-speed, toll bypass 

road that crosses Eglin AFB, extending 

from U.S. 331 in Walton County to SR 

87 in Santa Rosa County. It includes the 

MBBA’s Mid-Bay Bridge Connector 

Road, a new road from the northern 

terminus of the Mid-Bay Bridge to SR 85 

north of Niceville. In addition, the 

Florida Department of Transportation is 

planning a capacity improvement 

project to expand SR 123 from two to 

four lanes across Toms and Turkey 

creeks. However, the roads would not 

prevent implementation of management 

actions for the Okaloosa darter in Eglin 

AFB’s INRMP, which will continue to 

provide a benefit to the darter. 

Eglin AFB has granted the MBBA 

conceptual agreement for the Mid-Bay 

Bridge Connector Road, and 

construction of Phase I of the project has 

begun. Although the remaining phases 

of the project cross darter drainages, the 

agreement includes 19 stipulations that 

will minimize impacts to darter 

drainages. For example, the project will 

use environmentally-sensitive bridge 

construction techniques, and 

conservation measures that minimize 

erosion and ground disturbance at each 

stream crossing and that maintain 

stream channel stability. By designing 

the bridges to maintain natural stream 

geomorphology, and with the use of 

appropriate methods to stabilize stream 

banks and erosion control measures 

along the stream, we do not anticipate 

long-term erosion and degradation of 

darter habitat. 

The project also includes specific 

stream restoration projects to improve 

currently degraded habitat conditions in 

Okaloosa darter basins including Mill 

Creek, Swift Creek, East Turkey Creek, 

Turkey Creek, and Toms Creek. 

Importantly, the potential secondary 

and cumulative effects of a new 

roadway, including threats to Okaloosa 

darter from new development, will be 

addressed through discussions with 

private property owners regarding 

easements and agreements to protect 

floodplain and riparian habitat and 

reduce threats along Okaloosa darter 

streams. 

We recently completed consultation 

under the Act on this project and found 

that the proposed Mid-Bay Bridge 

Connector Road is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Okaloosa darter. Most direct and 

indirect effects will occur within the 

122-meter (400-foot) study corridor and 

are considered temporary and 

reversible. Given the specific extensive 

conservation measures included in the 

project, we do not consider the Mid-Bay 

Bridge Connector Road to be a 

significant threat to Okaloosa darters. As 

plans progress for the other road 

projects, the applicants will need to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act to avoid and minimize 

impacts to the Okaloosa darter and other 

federally protected species, and assure 

that the species’ continued existence 

and recovery is not jeopardized. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18097 

Elgin AFB and Its Programs 

Eglin AFB is a military training 

facility and is divided into 37 land test 

areas where weapons testing and 

training operations are conducted, 12 of 

which are wholly or partially within 

darter drainages (SAIC 2001, pp. 2 and 

7). Eglin AFB maintains large portions 

of the test areas in an early stage of plant 

succession with few mature trees and 

varying degrees of soil disturbance as a 

result of maintenance or military 

missions. Since 1998, only one section 

7 consultation with Eglin AFB (related 

to test area activities) has resulted in the 

issuance of an incidental take statement. 

There is a proposal to increase the 

military personnel and use at Eglin AFB 

through the 2005 Defense Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The 

BRAC action involves establishing the 

Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Training 

Center and relocating the Army 7th 

Special Forces Group (Airborne) to 

Eglin AFB, increasing the number of 

personnel present on base, the number 

of test ranges, and the frequency of test 

area activities. The Service has provided 

preliminary comments on the military’s 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

completed a formal consultation for 

other species but not the Okaloosa 

darter. We do not anticipate any 

increase in threats to the Okaloosa 

darter from this action, as the new 

ranges have been moved outside of 

Okaloosa darter habitat and Eglin AFB 

has agreed to provide a 300-ft. buffer 

along all darter streams when 

conducting any troop maneuvers. 

While poorly designed silvicultural 

programs can result in accelerated soil 

erosion and stream sedimentation, Eglin 

AFB has designed its silviculture 

program within darter habitat to avoid 

and minimize impacts to the aquatic 

ecosystems such that the program is not 

likely to adversely affect the Okaloosa 

darter. 

Pollution 

Pollution other than sedimentation 

poses a potential threat to darters in six 

stream segments. While no streams in 

the darter’s range are designated by DEP 

as impaired, 6 of the 13 segments 

sampled using three biological 

indicators were considered potentially 

impaired and are on the ‘‘3c planning 

list,’’ which means that ‘‘enough data 

and information are present to 

determine that one or more designated 

uses may not be attained according to 

the Planning List methodology.’’ One 

stream site has been characterized as 

‘‘severely limited by pollutants from the 

landfill.’’ 

Using comparable aquatic insect 

sampling methods, the Service (Thom 

and Herod 2005, Table 4–1) found 12 

out of the 42 sites sampled within the 

darter’s range to be impaired. An 

impaired water body is one where the 

biological integrity of the system as 

determined through indicators has been 

compromised because of pollutants, 

indicating that Okaloosa darter habitat 

is degraded. Based on these data, it 

appears likely that the wastewater 

treatment sprayfields located near the 

headwaters of East Turkey Creek and 

Swift Creek are adversely affecting 

water quality. Although water quality 

issues associated with the Niceville 

landfill and sprayfield continue to 

threaten the darter, they are being 

examined in a research project. 

Water Withdrawals 

Water withdrawals for human 

consumption in and around the range of 

the Okaloosa darter are presently served 

by wells that tap the Floridan Aquifer, 

which is declining substantially in the 

most populated areas near the coast. 

However, at this time, there is no 

evidence that pumping from the 

Floridan Aquifer has reduced flows in 

darter streams. The darter drainages are 

spring-fed from a shallow sand and 

gravel aquifer that is not used for human 

consumption. Additionally, the low 

permeability of the Pensacola Clay 

confining bed probably severely limits 

hydraulic connectivity between the two 

aquifers (Fisher et al. 1994, p. 86). 

Therefore, we do not anticipate that 

local population growth would 

adversely affect water flows in the 

darter’s drainages. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). 

Numerous long-term changes have been 

observed including changes in arctic 

temperatures and ice, and widespread 

changes in precipitation amounts, ocean 

salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of 

extreme weather including droughts, 

heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the 

intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 

2007b, p. 7). While continued change is 

certain, the magnitude and rate of 

change is unknown in many cases. 

The currently occupied range of the 

darter is restricted to approximately 402 

km (249.8 mi) of streams in Walton and 

Okaloosa Counties, Florida. While we 

acknowledge the general scientific 

consensus that global scale increases in 

temperatures have occurred, we do not 

have sufficient data to determine that 

climate change poses a significant threat 

to the Okaloosa darter. Streams within 

the Okaloosa darter’s range are springfed, and thus many are thermally 

moderated. However, thermal mediation 

varies considerably among nearby 

Okaloosa darter streams (Jordan 2010, 

pers. comm.), and some streams that 

support Okaloosa darters may be 

affected by increases in air temperature. 

We lack the data to evaluate whether 

increased temperatures in some streams 

will adversely affect Okaloosa darters. 

The information currently available on 

the effects of climate change and the 

available climate change models do not 

make sufficiently accurate estimates of 

location and magnitude of effects at a 

scale small enough to apply to the range 

of the Okaloosa darter. At present, we 

have insufficient data to determine that 

climate changes observed to date have 

had any adverse impact on the Okaloosa 

darter or its habitat. 

Summary of Factor A 

About 51,397 hectares (127,000 acres), 

or 457 square kilometers (176 square 

miles), of the darter’s drainage basins 

(90 percent) are managed by Eglin AFB, 

while 485.6 hectares or 12,000 acres (10 

percent) of the drainage basins are 

situated within the Niceville-Valparaiso 

urban complex. Urban runoff continues 

to degrade darter habitat in 1.3 percent 

of the linear stream distance that occurs 

outside of Eglin AFB through pollution 

and sedimentation. Additionally, there 

is a continued threat of further 

development in the darter’s drainages 

outside of Elgin AFB. 

The military mission or mandate of 

Eglin AFB, which holds 98.7 percent of 

the darter’s current range and 90 percent 

of the drainage basins for the darter, will 

lead to foreseeable actions that could 

impact the darter’s range. Potential 

impacts resulting from a road 

development project within the darter’s 

range have been minimized, and that 

project is not considered a significant 

threat to the species. However, the 

growing coastline human population in 

Florida that is pressing into the 

boundaries of Eglin AFB will have 

foreseeable needs that could cross Eglin 

AFB’s boundaries and impact the 

darter’s range. 

Stream sedimentation and erosion 

control problems still exist on Eglin 

AFB, and we will continue to 

cooperatively work with our partner to 

resolve these. Habitat restoration efforts 

completed on the base to date have 

reduced 95 percent of the sedimentation 

into streams occupied by the Okaloosa 

darter, nearly eliminating the largest 

threat to the species. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

At present, we do not have data to 

indicate that climate change poses a 

significant threat to the Okaloosa darter. 

Okaloosa darter populations are stable 

or increasing in the majority of the 

species’ range. The current rangewide 

population is estimated at 802,668 

darters with an estimated 625,279 

mature individuals (Service 2007, Table 

2). Therefore, we believe the rangewide 

threat of habitat destruction, 

modification, or fragmentation over this 

large area from sources like 

sedimentation and pollution has been 

reduced to a point where the Okaloosa 

darter no longer meets the definition of 

an endangered species. We find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range is not likely to place the 

Okaloosa darter in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. However, although the threats 

under this factor have been reduced, 

they have not been entirely eliminated. 

Accordingly we find that the Okaloosa 

darter meets the definition of a 

threatened species because it is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not, nor has it ever been, a 

significant threat to the Okaloosa darter 

anywhere within the species’ range. 

Any utilization for recreational 

purposes is limited to the occasional 

mistaken use as a bait fish. Therefore, 

we find that this factor is not likely to 

cause the Okaloosa darter to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We do 

not have any data to suggest that this 

threat will increase in any portion of the 

darter’s range now or within the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Neither disease nor predation is 

considered a threat to the Okaloosa 

darter. The six basins of the darter’s 

range are relatively free of introduced 

aquatic predators, and the native 

predators, such as the largemouth bass, 

are relatively low in numbers due to the 

generally low productivity of the 

groundwater-fed streams. We have no 

indications that terrestrial predation is a 

problem. It is possible that diseases or 

parasites were indirectly associated 

with the extirpation of the darter from 

various stream segments as a result of 

physical or chemical habitat 

degradation. However, apart from this 

potential association, we do not 

otherwise suspect that disease or 

predation unduly limits the distribution 

or abundance of the darter. Therefore, 

we find that this factor is not likely to 

cause the Okaloosa darter to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We do 

not have any data to suggest that this 

threat will increase in any portion of the 

darter’s range now or within the 

foreseeable future; however, vigilance 

for nonindigenous predators is needed 

as potential introductions of flathead 

catfish or cichlids might prove to be 

problems for the Okaloosa darter in the 

future. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Act requires that any State, local, 

and private project outside of Eglin AFB 

that uses Federal funds or requires a 

Federal permit must undergo section 7 

consultation to ensure that the species 

is not jeopardized. In addition, the State 

of Florida has listed the Okaloosa darter 

as an endangered species under its 

protected species statute since 1976. 

Recently, the FWC incorporated the 

IUCN Red List Criteria (http:// 

www.iucnredlist.org) in its procedures 

for classifying species (Florida 

Administrative Code 68A–27.0012), but 

the FWC has not yet evaluated the 

Okaloosa darter using the new 

procedures (Knight 2010, pers. comm.). 

Our application of the Red List Criteria 

classifies the darter as ‘‘near threatened’’ 

(Service 2007, p. 43). 

In addition, land management on 

DOD lands is governed by the Sikes Act 

(16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) and the Sikes 

Improvement Act, which provide for the 

conservation and rehabilitation of 

natural resources and require DOD to 

periodically prepare an INRMP in 

consultation with the Service and the 

applicable State wildlife agency. 

Because the Okaloosa darter’s current 

range occurs almost exclusively on 

Eglin AFB, the species is afforded 

considerable protections from largescale habitat disturbance. Its habitat is 

further conserved and rehabilitated, 

through fish and wildlife and land 

management actions, consistent with 

the use of the military installation, as 

required by the Sikes Act, as amended 

by the Sikes Act Improvement Act. 

Federal actions must also comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the CWA, and applicable State laws. 

These laws also help with avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to the Okaloosa 

darter and its habitat. 

Department of Defense Instruction 

(DODI) 4715.3, Environmental 

Conservation Program, is the 

overarching instruction for DOD natural 

and cultural resources management, and 

is the primary agent for implementing 

policy (including the Sikes Act), 

assigning responsibility, and prescribing 

procedures for the integrated 

management of natural and cultural 

resources on DOD properties. In 

compliance with these programs, Eglin 

AFB has taken a proactive role in the 

recovery of the Okaloosa darter by 

managing its lands to provide for the 

recovery of the darter and assuring that 

the species’ recovery is integrated with 

the military training purposes of the 

base. 

Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32– 

70, Environmental Quality, establishes 

policy to responsibly manage natural 

and cultural resources on Air Force 

properties, clean up past environmental 

damage, meet current environmental 

standards, plan future activities to 

minimize impacts, and eliminate 

pollution from Air Force activities 

whenever possible. Under this 

Directive, an Air Force Environmental 

Quality Program was developed. This 

program includes the following 

activities: Cleanup, compliance, 

conservation, and pollution prevention. 

Additionally, this directive states that 

the Air Force will pursue adequate 

funding to meet environmental legal 

obligations. Compliance with this 

directive has resulted in funding and 

implementation of considerable erosion 

control measures and fish barrier 

removals, which have significantly 

reduced runoff and sedimentation in 

Okaloosa darter streams and expanded 

the range of the species. 

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32–7064, 

Integrated Natural Resources 

Management, implements AFPD 32–70 

and DODI 4715.3. This instruction 

provides details on how to manage 

natural resources on Air Force 

installations to comply with applicable 

Federal, State, and local laws and 

regulations. The current INRMP and 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Component Plan for Eglin AFB identify 

management practices to benefit the 

Okaloosa darter. The purpose of the 

INRMP for Eglin AFB is to provide 

interdisciplinary strategic guidance for 

the management of the base’s natural 

resources, while the primary objective 

of the Air Force Natural Resources 

Program is to ensure continued access to 

land and air space required to 

accomplish the Air Force mission while 

maintaining these resources in a healthy 

condition. The INRMP for Eglin AFB 

facilitates compliance with Federal, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18099 

State, and local environmental 

requirements. These requirements deal 

with analysis of: Potential 

environmental impacts, water and air 

quality, wetlands, endangered species, 

marine mammals, migratory birds, other 

wildlife, forest and fire management, 

and public access and recreation. The 

INRMP and Threatened and Endangered 

Species Component Plan also identify 

conservation objectives for the Okaloosa 

darter as described under Downlisting 

Criterion 1 under item (2) in the 

Recovery section above. 

Summary of Factor D 

We estimate that 98.7 percent of the 

darter’s current range is within the 

boundaries of Eglin AFB; the remaining 

1.3 percent of the range is downstream 

of Eglin AFB. For this reason, almost all 

human activities that may affect the 

existing darter population are Federal 

actions, including actions implemented, 

funded, or approved by the DOD. The 

INRMP prepared for Eglin AFB under 

the Sikes Act and Sikes Improvement 

Act requires habitat improvements that 

will continue to benefit the darter. 

Federal actions must also comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the CWA, and applicable State laws. 

These regulatory mechanisms will 

remain in place when the Okaloosa 

darter is downlisted to threatened. 

Therefore, the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are substantial, and they 

will be adequate to protect the darter 

and its habitat in the majority of its 

range now and within the foreseeable 

future. We do not have any data to 

suggest that this threat will increase in 

any portion of the darter’s range now or 

within the foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting The Species’ 

Continued Existence 

Okaloosa darters were not adversely 

affected by the active hurricane and 

storm seasons of 2004 and 2005, which 

brought numerous severe storm events 

to the southern boundaries of Eglin AFB 

(Jordan and Jelks 2009, p. 9). Darter 

numbers declined slightly during the 

recent 2007–2008 drought affecting 

much of Florida; however survey data 

from previous droughts suggest 

resilience to these events with elevated 

recruitment during wet years (Jordan 

and Jelks 2009, p. 2). 

Two natural factors are identified in 

the recovery plan as possibly affecting 

the Okaloosa darter: the brown darter as 

an introduced competitor species, and 

the beaver as an agent adversely 

modifying darter habitat. 

Brown Darter 

In 1964, a potential competitor of the 

Okaloosa darter, the brown darter 

(Etheostoma edwini), was found in the 

lower reaches of Swift Creek. The brown 

darter is a widespread species in 

drainages that surround the streams 

containing the Okaloosa darter, but had 

not previously been documented in any 

Okaloosa darter drainages. Early 

indications were that the brown darter 

may have been introduced into 

Okaloosa darter drainages from releases 

from bait buckets by fishermen or by 

incidental stocking with game fish from 

fish hatcheries (Burkhead et al. 1992, 

pp. 23–30). Others thought that brown 

darters dispersed from Eagle Creek 

along the shoreline of Choctawhatchee 

Bay and were simply overlooked in 

early collections (Jelks 2010, pers. 

comm.). Recent genetics analyses of the 

brown darter shows high genetic 

structure, and little support for 

introductions from eastern Florida 

(Austin 2007, pers. comm.), supporting 

the theory that they were overlooked in 

early collections. 

Although annual monitoring (1995– 

2004) of Okaloosa and brown darter 

populations shows a weak negative 

correlation between the abundance of 

the two species, the relative abundance 

of Okaloosa darters at sites where both 

species occur has generally increased or 

remained constant in this timeframe, 

and the range of the brown darter has 

not expanded (Jordan and Jelks 2004, p. 

3). Earlier comparisons of microhabitat 

use found little evidence of competitive 

displacement (Burkhead et al. 1994, p. 

60). Therefore, at this time, we do not 

believe the brown darter is an 

introduced species or that it poses a 

significant threat to the recovery of the 

Okaloosa darter because it has not been 

shown to impair Okaloosa darter 

populations. 

Beavers 

Okaloosa darters do not appear to 

tolerate impounded conditions and are 

generally absent in the relatively still 

water upstream of manmade dams, 

beaver dams, culverts, and other 

instream obstructions that act like dams. 

Jordan and Jelks (2004, p. 29) observed 

the effects of a beaver dam and a culvert 

at two locations on Rogue Creek that 

supported Okaloosa darters before these 

structures were placed in the stream. 

Both structures had similar effects on 

darters and important darter habitat 

features, including increased water 

temperature, accumulation of flocculent 

substrate, loss of typical microhabitat 

features, and virtual elimination of 

darters in the impounded areas. 

However, Jordan and Jelks (2004, p. 29) 

also observed that darters returned to 

these locations within a year following 

removal of the beaver dam and the 

culvert, the former by Eglin AFB 

resource managers and the latter by a 

hurricane. 

Because beavers often alter areas in a 

manner contrary to human intentions 

for those areas, and also because beaver 

ponds displace Okaloosa darter habitat, 

resource managers, with the assistance 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Wildlife Services, control beaver 

numbers in some areas on Eglin AFB 

(USAF 2007, pp. 1–6). Although a 

nuisance in the urban environment, 

beavers are a natural feature of the 

landscape in the range of the Okaloosa 

darter. It is possible that impacts from 

beavers may be more pronounced than 

they were historically given that the 

natural predators of beavers may be 

greatly reduced. Beaver dams are also 

problematic when they are constructed 

upstream of poorly designed river 

crossings and culverts because they 

result in more permanent 

impoundments. 

While the waters impounded behind 

a beaver dam do not support Okaloosa 

darters, darter densities in ‘‘beaver 

meadows’’ were among the highest 

observed in monitoring surveys. Beaver 

meadows occur in the vicinity of beaver 

ponds where the dam and pond induces 

the stream to assume a braided (multichannel) form, sometimes in the pond 

itself following dam blowout or 

removal. Floodplain trees are killed by 

the year-round high water level 

maintained near the pond and by the 

beavers themselves, and herbaceous 

vegetation thrives in the resulting open 

canopy, which apparently creates 

favorable habitat conditions for the 

darter as aquatic macrophytes thrive 

under the open canopy and in higher 

nutrient substrates. We suspect that a 

beaver meadow supports as many or 

more darters than were displaced from 

the beaver pond itself. 

Beaver dams are not permanent 

structures and may be broken by the 

high flows associated with hurricanes 

and other major storm events. The 

organic matter that accumulates in a 

beaver pond is suddenly released when 

the dam blows out, which provides a 

pulse of nutrients in the otherwise 

nutrient-poor darter streams. The pond 

is gone immediately, of course, and over 

time the braided channel through the 

beaver meadow returns to a single 

channel form. This channel is 

eventually shaded by riparian trees and 

shrubs, and the concentrated patch of 

darter habitat that the meadow provided 

is also gone. Given the balance of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

effects beavers have on their habitats, 

we do not know at this time whether 

their numbers pose a threat to Okaloosa 

darters. However, even if they do pose 

localized impacts, we do not believe 

these to be significant to the Okaloosa 

darter rangewide. 

Summary of Factor E 

Okaloosa darters appear not to be 

affected by hurricanes and seem to be 

resilient to droughts. While brown 

darters may not impact the Okaloosa 

darter and beavers may pose only 

localized impacts, there is no evidence 

indicating that these impacts are 

significantly affecting the species on a 

rangewide or population level. 

Therefore, we find that this factor is not 

likely to cause the Okaloosa darter to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. We do 

not have any data to suggest that this 

threat will increase in any portion of the 

darter’s range now or within the 

foreseeable future. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

In developing this rule, we have 

carefully assessed the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding the 

threats facing this species, as well as the 

ongoing conservation efforts. 

Under section 3 of the Act, a species 

is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and is ‘‘threatened’’ 

if it is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. For the purposes of this rule, 

the word ‘‘range’’ refers to the range in 

which the species currently exists, and 

the word ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value 

of that portion of the range being 

considered to the conservation of the 

species. The ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the 

period of time over which events or 

effects reasonably can or should be 

anticipated, or trends extrapolated. 

As identified above, only one of the 

five listing factors currently poses a 

known threat to the Okaloosa darter, 

namely, Factor A—the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. Eglin 

AFB manages the vast majority of the 

Okaloosa darter’s current range, 98.7 

percent. We have seen substantial 

progress on Eglin AFB addressing 

threats to the darter’s habitat under the 

base’s INRMP and general ongoing 

habitat restoration. Resource 

stewardship on Eglin AFB is generally 

reducing the threat of habitat 

destruction and range reduction (for 

example, restoring erosive, near-stream 

borrow pits). Eglin AFB is addressing 

the threat of sedimentation from 

unpaved roads and from areas adjacent 

to poorly designed and maintained 

paved roads. Similarly, restoration of 

Mill Creek on the Eglin Golf Course, 

which had been substantially altered by 

culverts and manmade impoundments, 

has been completed. As the smallest of 

the six darter watersheds, the darter 

population in Mill Creek is probably 

most vulnerable to extirpation. We 

anticipate that restoration at Mill Creek 

will secure a viable population in this 

system. Eglin has worked diligently to 

generally improve habitat quality within 

its boundaries. Outside of Eglin’s 

borders, we have been working with the 

City of Niceville to improve their 

wastewater collection system and install 

more appropriate culverts at a number 

of road crossings. However, additional 

improvements are necessary before this 

threat of sedimentation and pollution is 

completely removed. 

Brown darters and habitat loss from 

beaver activity were identified as other 

natural and manmade factors affecting 

the continued existence of darters. After 

several years of monitoring and recent 

genetics work, it does not appear that 

the brown darter is either expanding its 

range or displacing Okaloosa darters in 

most sympatric areas. The overall effect 

of beaver activity on the darter is poorly 

understood. However, even if brown 

darters and habitat loss from beaver 

activity do pose localized threats, we do 

not believe these to be significant to the 

Okaloosa darter rangewide. 

The 1998 Recovery Plan for the 

Okaloosa darter identifies five 

downlisting criteria. We believe that the 

intent of all five of the downlisting 

criteria have been fulfilled; however, the 

delisting criteria have not been met at 

this time. Specifically, while 

significantly reduced, sedimentation 

and pollution, as well as development, 

remain a threat in portions of the 

darter’s range. 

Based on the analysis above and given 

the substantial reduction in threats to its 

habitat, the Okaloosa darter does not 

currently meet the definition of 

endangered in that it is not ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Instead, 

it meets the definition of threatened in 

that it is ‘‘likely to become endangered 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range.’’ 

Actions still needed for the Okaloosa 

darter to continue to recover (for 

example, actions to remove threats to 

the point that the species no longer 

meets the definition of threatened) 

include: 

(1) Cooperative agreements to protect 

and restore habitat, water quality, and 

water quantity for the Okaloosa darter 

outside of Eglin AFB to protect the 

species in the foreseeable future; and 

(2) Improved and maintained water 

quality and riparian habitat on Eglin 

AFB, minimizing erosion at clay pits, 

road crossings, and steep slopes to the 

extent that resembles historic, 

predisturbance conditions. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Having determined that the Okaloosa 

darter is no longer endangered 

throughout its range as a consequence of 

the threats evaluated under the five 

factors in the Act, we must next 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of its range where 

the species is currently endangered. A 

portion of a species’ range is significant 

if it is part of the current range of the 

species and is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

The first step in determining whether 

a species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range is to identify any 

portions of the range that warrant 

further consideration. The range of a 

species can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and endangered. To identify only those 

portions that warrant further 

consideration, we determine whether 

there is substantial information 

indicating that: (1) The portions may be 

significant, and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction there. In 

practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

range that are not significant to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify any portions that 

warrant further consideration, we then 

determine whether in fact the species is 

endangered in any significant portion of 

its range. Depending on the biology of 

the species, its range, and the threats it 

faces, it may be more efficient for the 

Service to address the significance 

question first, and in others the status 

question first. Thus, if the Service 

determines that a portion of the range is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18101 

not significant, the Service need not 

determine whether the species is 

endangered there. Conversely, if the 

Service determines that the species is 

not endangered in a portion of its range, 

the Service need not determine if that 

portion is significant. 

The threats identified above are fairly 

uniform throughout the range of the 

Okaloosa darter. In a small percentage of 

the range that occurs outside the Eglin 

AFB (10 percent of the drainage area, 

and 1.3 percent of the instream habitat), 

the threat of urbanization is more 

pronounced. However, this is a small 

portion of the total range of the species, 

is similar to the rest of the species’ 

habitat, and does not appear in other 

ways to have a significant impact on the 

overall status of the species. Therefore, 

we have determined that there are no 

portions of the range that qualify as a 

significant portion of the range in which 

the darter is in danger of extinction. 

In summary, the threats to Okaloosa 

darter habitat have been significantly 

reduced as a result of Eglin AFB 

implementing habitat improvement 

measures on the AFB’s lands. Okaloosa 

darter populations remain stable 

throughout most of their range, and 

have even expanded their range in some 

areas. Based on the darter’s improved 

status throughout its range and the 

reduction in threats, we have 

determined that none of the threats 

result in the darter being in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. However, certain 

threats to the darter and its habitat 

remain. We have determined that, based 

on the status of the species and these 

remaining threats, the Okaloosa darter 

meets the definition of threatened in 

that it is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we are reclassifying the 

darter’s status from endangered to 

threatened under the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing increases 

public awareness of threats to the 

Okaloosa darter, and promotes 

conservation actions by Federal, State, 

and local agencies; private 

organizations; and individuals. The Act 

provides for possible land acquisition 

and cooperation with the State, and 

provides for recovery planning and 

implementation. The protection 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against taking and harm are 

discussed, in part, below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to the 

Okaloosa darter. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a Federal 

action may affect the Okaloosa darter or 

its habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must consult with the Service to 

ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agency is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Okaloosa darter. Federal 

agency actions that may require 

consultation include: Eglin AFB mission 

activities, new construction, culvert 

replacements, stream restoration, 

sediment control projects, vegetation 

control, and right-of-way permitting for 

pipelines and cables; U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers involvement in projects 

such as dredge-and-fill permits for 

roads, bridges, and culverts; and Federal 

Highway Administration road projects. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

take (includes harm, harass, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct), import or export, ship in 

interstate 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 in violation of the Act. Certain 

exceptions apply to Service agents and 

agents of State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

species under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits are 

codified at 50 CFR part 13 and at 50 

CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife 

species. Such permits are available for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in the course of 

otherwise lawful activities. For 

threatened species, permits are also 

available for zoological exhibition, 

educational purposes, or special 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. 

Because the Okaloosa darter’s extant 

range occurs almost exclusively on 

Eglin AFB, the species is afforded 

considerable protections from largescale habitat disturbance. Those 

protections have already been discussed 

under Factor D. above, and are added 

here by reference. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities will constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act and applicable 

regulations should be directed to Don 

Imm, Field Supervisor, Panama City 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 

copies of the regulations regarding listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits may be addressed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Division, 1875 

Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, 

GA 30345; telephone (404) 679–7313; 

facsimile (404) 679–7081. 

Special Rule 

The information presented above 

generally applies to threatened species 

of fish and wildlife. However, the 

Service has the discretion under section 

4(d) of the Act to issue special 

regulations for a threatened species that 

are necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. Threatened 

species implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 17.31 incorporate the prohibitions 

of section 9 of the Act for endangered 

species, except when a ‘‘special rule’’ is 

promulgated under section 4(d) of the 

Act for a particular threatened species. 

A special rule for a particular threatened 

species defines the specific take 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

for that species rather than 

incorporating all of the prohibitions of 

section 9 of the Act. The prohibitions 

under section 9 of the Act currently 

make it illegal to import, export, take, 

possess, deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, ship in interstate commerce, 

or sell or offer for sale in interstate or 

foreign commerce species listed under 

the Act. Take, as defined in section 3 of 

the Act, means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Threatened species that 

have special rules under section 4(d) of 

the Act are listed in our regulations at 

50 CFR 17.40 through 17.48. 

Because we originally listed the 

Okaloosa darter as endangered, we did 

not promulgate a special rule. However, 

now that we are reclassifying the darter 

to threatened status, a special rule is 

appropriate to provide for the continued 

conservation of the species. Therefore, a 

special rule is included as part of this 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened status. 

Although the range of the species is 

small, it is almost entirely (98.7 percent) 

on Eglin AFB Federal lands. Darter 

drainages comprise 24 percent of Eglin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

AFB, subjecting almost all actions 

undertaken on 24 percent of the base to 

the interagency cooperation 

requirements of section 7 of the Act, 

including habitat management and 

restoration specifically targeted at darter 

conservation and as required by the 

Sikes Act and Sikes Improvement Act 

through the Eglin INRMP. This special 

rule: 

(1) Recognizes the positive recovery 

efforts and accomplishments of Eglin 

AFB and the DOD in recovering the 

Okaloosa darter to the extent that the 

darter no longer meets the definition of 

endangered; 

(2) Provides increased regulatory and 

mission flexibility for Eglin AFB; 

(3) Helps streamline or eliminate 

review and permitting requirements for 

habitat management and restoration 

activities, thus providing a net benefit to 

the Okaloosa darter; and 

(4) Enables the Service and Eglin AFB 

to better target limited resources to 

other, more vulnerable areas or species. 

Therefore, under section 4(d) of the 

Act, we determine, through this special 

rule, that it is necessary and advisable 

to provide for the conservation of the 

Okaloosa darter by allowing the take in 

accordance with applicable Federal, 

State, and local laws, during the 

following activities on Eglin AFB that 

are consistent with a Service-approved 

INRMP and the Threatened and 

Endangered Species Component Plan: 

(1) Prescribed fire for land 

management to promote a healthy 

ecosystem; 

(2) Instream habitat restoration; 

(3) Unpaved range road stabilization; 

(4) Removal or replacement of 

culverts for the purpose of road 

decommissioning, improving fish 

passage, or enhancing stream habitat; 

and 

(5) Scientific research and monitoring 

activities consistent with an approved 

Okaloosa darter recovery plan, or 

otherwise approved by the Service, both 

on and off of Eglin AFB. 

All other activities resulting in take of 

Okaloosa darter remain prohibited. 

This special rule provides for the 

continued conservation of Okaloosa 

darter by reducing the regulatory burden 

under the Act, and thereby encouraging 

further recovery efforts on DOD lands. 

Minor adverse impacts to the Okaloosa 

darter that are consistent with 

provisions of this final 4(d) special rule 

will not appreciably diminish the 

likelihood of recovery of the Okaloosa 

darter. 

Effects of This Rule 

This rule will revise our regulations at 

50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the 

Okaloosa darter from endangered to 

threatened throughout its range on the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. This rule formally 

recognizes that this species is no longer 

in imminent danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. However, this reclassification 

does not significantly change the 

protection afforded this species under 

the Act. The regulatory protections of 

section 9 and section 7 of the Act 

remain in place. Anyone taking, 

attempting to take, or otherwise 

possessing an Okaloosa darter, or parts 

thereof, in violation of section 9 of the 

Act is still subject to a penalty under 

section 11 of the Act, unless their action 

is covered under a special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. Under section 7 

of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure 

that any actions they authorize, fund, or 

carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Okaloosa 

darter. 

Recovery actions directed at the darter 

will continue to be implemented as 

outlined in the recovery plan for the 

Okaloosa darter (Service 1998), 

including: 

(1) Restoring and protecting habitat in 

the six Okaloosa darter stream 

watersheds; 

(2) Protecting water quality and 

quantity in the six Okaloosa darter 

streams; 

(3) Monitoring and annually assessing 

populations and habitat conditions of 

Okaloosa and brown darters, and water 

quality and quantity in the streams; and 

(4) Establishing a public information 

and education program and evaluating 

its effectiveness. 

Required Determinations 

Section 7 Consultation 

A special rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act is included in this downlisting 

rule. The Service is not required to 

consult on this rule under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. The development of 

protective regulations for a threatened 

species are an inherent part of the 

section 4 listing process. The Service 

must make this determination 

considering only the ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ A necessary 

part of this listing decision is also 

determining what protective regulations 

are ‘‘necessary and advisable to provide 

for the conservation of [the] species.’’ 

Determining what prohibitions and 

authorizations are necessary to conserve 

the species, like the listing 

determination of whether the species 

meets the definition of endangered or 

threatened, is not a decision that 

Congress intended to undergo section 7 

consultation. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment, or an Environmental 

Impact Statement, as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), in connection with regulations 

adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. 

We published a notice outlining our 

reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of the references used 

to develop this rule is available upon 

request from Don Imm, Field 

Supervisor, Panama City Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Karen Herrington of the Panama City 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

We amend part 17, subchapter B of 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law 

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Darter, Okaloosa’’ under 

‘‘FISHES’’ in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18103 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

FISHES ................................. ................................. ................................. .................... .................... ....................

*******

Darter, Okaloosa ..... Etheostoma 

okaloosae.

U.S.A. (FL) .............. Entire ....................... T 6, 787 NA 17.44(bb) 

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.44 by adding a 

paragraph (bb) to read as follows: 

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes. 

* * * * * 

(bb) Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma 

okaloosae). 

(1) Except as noted in paragraphs 

(bb)(2) and (bb)(3) of this section, all 

prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 

exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 apply to the 

Okaloosa darter. 

(i) No person may possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export, by any means whatsoever, any 

Okaloosa darters taken in violation of 

this section or in violation of applicable 

State fish and wildlife conservation 

laws or regulations. 

(ii) It is unlawful for any person to 

attempt to commit, solicit another to 

commit, or cause to be committed, any 

offense listed in this special rule. 

(2) The following activities, which 

may result in incidental take of the 

Okaloosa darter, are allowed on Eglin 

Air Force Base (AFB), provided that the 

activities occur in accordance with 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

laws, and are consistent with a Serviceapproved Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan by Eglin AFB and 

with Eglin AFB’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species Component Plan: 

(i) Prescribed fire for land 

management to promote a healthy 

ecosystem; 

(ii) Instream habitat restoration; 

(iii) Unpaved range road stabilization; 

and 

(iv) Removal or replacement of 

culverts for the purpose of road 

decommissioning, improving fish 

passage, or enhancing stream habitat. 

(3) Scientific research and monitoring 

activities that may result in incidental 

take of the Okaloosa darter are allowed, 

provided these activities are consistent 

with a Service-approved Okaloosa 

darter recovery plan, or otherwise 

approved by the Service, whether those 

activities occur on or off of Eglin AFB. 

(4) Take caused by any activities not 

listed in paragraph (bb)(2) and (bb)(3) of 

this section is prohibited. 

Dated: March 21, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7668 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES