Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67131 

TABLE 1 TO § 367.60—FEES UNDER THE UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR REGISTRATION

YEAR 2020 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION YEAR THEREAFTER

Bracket 

Number of commercial 

motor vehicles owned or 

operated by exempt or 

non-exempt motor 

carrier, motor private 

carrier, or freight 

forwarder 

Fee per entity for 

exempt or non-exempt 

motor carrier, motor 

private carrier, or 

freight forwarder 

Fee per entity for broker 

or leasing company 

B1 ................................................................................................ 0–2 ................................. $68 $68 

B2 ................................................................................................ 3–5 ................................. 204 ........................................

B3 ................................................................................................ 6–20 ............................... 407 ........................................

B4 ................................................................................................ 21–100 ........................... 1,420 ........................................

B5 ................................................................................................ 101–1,000 ...................... 6,766 ........................................

B6 ................................................................................................ 1,001 and above ............ 66,072 ........................................

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87 on: December 20, 2018. 

Raymond P. Martinez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28170 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for Trispot Darter 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for trispot darter 

(Etheostoma trisella), a fish species 

found in the Coosa River system in 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. This 

rule adds this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 28, 

2019. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063, and at the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 

Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; 

telephone 251–441–5181. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063, and by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Pearson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 4, 2017, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(82 FR 46183) to list the trispot darter 

as a threatened species under the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please refer to 

that proposed rule for a detailed 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning this species. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we propose to (1) designate critical 

habitat for the trispot darter under the 

Act; and (2) issue a rule under section 

4(d) of the Act that provides measures 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the trispot darter. 

Background 

Please refer to the October 4, 2017, 

proposed rule (82 FR 46183) and the 

Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report 

for a full summary of species 

information. Both documents are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0063, and on the Service’s Southeast 

Region website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/. 

The trispot darter is a freshwater fish 

found in the Coosa River System in the 

Ridge and Valley ecoregion of Alabama, 

Georgia, and Tennessee. This fish has a 

historical range from the middle to 

upper Coosa River Basin with 

collections in the mainstem Coosa, 

Oostanaula, Conasauga, and 

Coosawattee Rivers, and their 

tributaries. Currently, the trispot darter 

is known to occur in four populations 

in the Little Canoe Creek and tributaries 

(Coosa River), Ballplay Creek tributaries 

(Coosa River), Conasauga River and 

tributaries, and Coosawattee River and 

one tributary. 

The trispot darter is a migratory 

species that utilizes distinct breeding 

and non-breeding habitats. From 

approximately April to October, the 

species inhabits its non-breeding 

habitat, which consists of small to 

medium river margins and lower 

reaches of tributaries with slower 

velocities. It is associated with detritus, 

logs, and stands of water willow, and 

the substrate consists of small cobbles, 

pebbles, gravel, and often a fine layer of 

silt. During low flow periods, the darters 

move away from the peripheral zones 

and toward the main channel; edges of 

water willow beds, riffles, and pools; 

and mouths of tributaries. In late fall, 

this migratory species shifts its habitat 

preference and begins movement toward 

spawning areas; this is most likely 

stimulated by precipitation, but 

temperature changes and decreasing 

daylight hours may also provide cues to 

begin migration. Migration into 

spawning areas begins approximately 

late November or early December with 

fish moving from the main channels 

into tributaries and eventually reaching 

adjacent seepage areas where they will 

congregate and remain for the duration 

of spawning, approximately until late 

April. Breeding sites are intermittent 

seepage areas and ditches with little to 

no flow; shallow depths (12 inches (30 

centimeters) or less); moderate leaf litter 

covering mixed cobble, gravel, sand, 

and clay; a deep layer of soft silt over 

clay; and emergent vegetation. Trispot 

darters predominantly feed on mayfly 

nymphs and midge larvae and pupae. 

The trispot darter was first described 

in 1963 from a single specimen 

collected in Cowans Creek in Cherokee 

County, Alabama. This species was 

originally described as a member of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67132 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

subgenus Psychromaster and was later 

moved to the subgenus Ozarka in 1980 

where it remains today. Currently, the 

trispot darter is considered a valid taxon 

(Service 2017, p. 6). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our October 4, 2017, proposed rule 

to list the trispot darter as a threatened 

species (82 FR 46183), we requested that 

all interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by December 

4, 2017. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties, and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. Newspaper 

notices inviting general public comment 

were published in the St. Clair NewsAegis, St. Clair Times, Chattanooga 

Times Free Press, Atlanta Journal 

Constitution, and The Daily Home. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. All substantive information 

provided during the comment period 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or is 

addressed, by topic, below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review actions under the 

Act, we solicited expert opinion from 

four knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with trispot darter and its 

habitat, biological needs, and threats. 

We received responses from two of the 

peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the information contained in 

the SSA Report. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

SSA Report. Peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in the following summary 

and were incorporated into the final 

SSA Report as appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

expressed doubt that hurricanes or other 

large storms can negatively affect stream 

fish communities. 

Our Response: Large storms have been 

found to disturb aquatic habitats to the 

extent that stream fish assemblages have 

been observed to be altered as a result 

(Service 2017, p. 25; Service 2011, p. 9). 

Recovery of stream fish communities to 

assemblages seen before disturbances 

from large storms depends on adjacent 

source populations and the dispersal 

ability of specific species. In the case of 

rare species with isolated populations 

such as the trispot darter, large storms 

that are capable of causing a level of 

disturbance that alters fish communities 

can pose a substantial threat. A more 

thorough discussion of this threat can be 

found in the SSA Report (Service 2017, 

p. 25). 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that not enough information 

was available on the trispot darter to 

infer its historical range. 

Our Response: We are required to use 

the best available commercial and 

scientific information available at the 

time we make our determination. 

Available resources at the time of 

rulemaking have described the range of 

the trispot darter as the upper Coosa 

River system. Based on recorded 

occurrences of the trispot darter in the 

mainstem of the Coosa River and 

tributaries to the Coosa River in 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee, we 

conclude that the historical range 

described as the upper Coosa River 

system is reasonably supported. 

Public Comments 

(3) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern about the presence of 

the Conasauga Shale Field, a natural 

gas-bearing formation, within portions 

of the trispot darter’s range. The 

commenter provided current research 

that demonstrated negative associations 

between hydraulic fracturing (fracking) 

and fish recruitment, and recommended 

the Service evaluate oil and gas 

exploration in the Conasauga Shale 

Field and its influence on trispot darter. 

Our Response: We contacted the 

Alabama State Oil and Gas Board to 

assess the current and future status of 

natural gas exploration and exploitation 

of the Conasauga Shale Field in 

Alabama. Based on our correspondence, 

we find that fracking within the 

Conasauga Shale Field is unlikely to be 

a threat to the trispot darter within the 

foreseeable future. Currently, no new 

drilling permits have been approved, 

and all existing wells have been plugged 

and abandoned. Wells were abandoned 

due to low productivity and low gas 

prices. For these reasons, and because of 

low permeability of the rock formation, 

the Alabama State Oil and Gas Board 

expects that oil and gas extraction is 

unlikely to occur there within the 

foreseeable future. 

(4) Comment: One commenter 

provided additional information on the 

effects of hypolimnetic releases from 

dams on riverine ecosystems and fish 

species present in tailwaters. 

Hypolimnetic refers to the part of a lake 

below the thermocline made up of water 

that is stagnant and of essentially 

uniform temperature except during the 

period of overturn. The commenter also 

noted that dams can create many 

kilometers of unsuitable habitat because 

of changes in the temperature regime 

from hypolimnetic flow releases. 

Decreases in streamflow temperature as 

a result of hypolimnetic releases have 

been shown to adversely affect darter 

species by increasing the probability of 

local extinction in cold waters 

downstream of dams. 

Our Response: We incorporated the 

information from the additional studies 

clarifying the effects of hydropower 

projects on aquatic species and have 

added them to the appropriate sections 

of the SSA Report. We also recognize 

that currently the trispot darter is 

exposed to releases from the Carters 

Reregulation Dam. However, past 

research has found that operation of the 

reregulation dam does not affect the 

system’s ability to provide adequate 

dissolved oxygen for the trispot darter 

(Freeman 2011, p. 10); this system also 

still meets State water quality and 

temperature standards (USACE 2015, p. 

4–13). Therefore, temperature and 

dissolved oxygen alterations are not 

viewed as stressors to the trispot darter 

in the Coosawattee River below the 

Carters Reregulation Dam. 

(5) Comment: One commenter noted 

that the overall condition of the Little 

Canoe Creek Management Unit (MU) is 

ranked as moderate even though six of 

the seven factors considered in the 

ranking scored as ‘‘low’’ in the October 

4, 2017, proposed rule to list the trispot 

darter as a threatened species (82 FR 

46183). 

Our Response: The overall condition 

for the Little Canoe Creek MU presented 

in the proposed rule (see 82 FR 46187) 

and the SSA Report (version 1.0) was in 

error. We have corrected the condition 

rank in this rule and the updated SSA 

Report (version 1.2). However, this 

correction does not change our 

assessment of future conditions in the 

SSA Report, nor our conclusions 

presented in the October 4, 2017, 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public on the 

proposed rule. We did not make any 

substantive changes to this final rule 

after consideration of the comments we 

received. We did update the SSA Report 

(to version 1.2) based on comments and 

some additional information provided, 

as follows: (1) We made many small, 

nonsubstantive clarifications and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67133 

corrections throughout the SSA Report, 

including ensuring consistency of colors 

on maps, providing details about data 

sources used, updating references, and 

making minor clarifications; and (2) we 

included in the updated version of the 

SSA Report the additional information 

we received regarding observations of 

the trispot darter, hypothesized 

historical range of the trispot darter, and 

more detailed life-history data for the 

species. However, the information we 

received during the comment period for 

the proposed rule did not change our 

determination that the trispot darter is 

a threatened species. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

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

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 

50 CFR part 424, set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 

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

species based on (A) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ In determining whether a 

species meets either definition, we must 

evaluate all identified threats by 

considering the expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species— 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary determines whether the 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after conducting this 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

Our assessment evaluated the 

biological status of the species and 

threats affecting its continued existence. 

It was based upon the best available 

scientific and commercial data, 

including the SSA Report (Service 2018, 

entire), and the expert opinion of the 

SSA team members. Please refer to 

chapter 3 of the SSA Report (Service 

2018, pp. 17–25) for a more detailed 

discussion of the factors affecting the 

trispot darter. 

Risk Factors Influencing Viability of 

Trispot Darter 

As discussed above, we considered 

the five factors set forth in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act in assessing whether 

the species meets the definition of an 

endangered or a threatened species. A 

multitude of natural and anthropogenic 

factors may impact the status of species 

within aquatic systems. The largest 

threats to the future viability of the 

trispot darter involve habitat 

degradation from factors influencing 

four habitat elements: Water quality, 

water quantity, instream habitat, and 

habitat connectivity (Factor A). All of 

these factors are exacerbated by the 

effects of climate change (Factor E). A 

brief summary of these primary stressors 

is presented below; for a full description 

of the factors, refer to chapter 4 of the 

SSA Report. 

Hydrologic Alteration 

Activities that lead to hydrologic 

alteration include reservoir construction 

and operation, excessive water 

withdrawals, and an increase in 

impervious surfaces. 

Hydrologic alteration in the system 

occupied by the trispot darter has two 

components: Increases in storm flow 

frequency and intensity, and a decrease 

in base flows, which together create a 

‘‘flashy’’ hydrologic regime. In a natural 

forested system, most rainfall soaks into 

the soil and is carried into nearby 

streams via subsurface flow. Some 

evaporates or transpires, and a relatively 

small amount becomes surface runoff. In 

the trispot darter’s system, which is 

urbanized with large amounts of 

impervious cover such as roads, parking 

lots, and rooftops, this cycle is altered; 

most stormwater hits impervious 

surfaces and becomes runoff, which 

then is channeled quickly to streams via 

stormwater drain pipes or ditches. 

Relatively little infiltrates into the soil. 

As a result, storm flows in the receiving 

stream are higher and more frequent, 

although briefer in duration, and base 

flows are lower, than in natural systems. 

The storm discharge of urban streams 

can be twice that of rural streams 

draining a watershed of similar size, and 

the frequency of channel-forming events 

can be 10 times that of pre-development 

conditions. These ‘‘flashy’’ stream flows 

and frequent, smaller high-flow events 

negatively affect structural habitat on 

which the trispot darter depends. 

Increases in flow frequency or intensity 

can result in channel widening through 

bank erosion or deepening to 

accommodate the additional discharge. 

This results in increased downstream 

sedimentation and unstable beds, both 

of which degrade channel complexity 

and feeding and refugia habitat for fish 

species. Increased storm flows, in 

addition, can cause physical washout of 

eggs and larval fishes, stress on adults, 

and negatively alter the stream’s food 

web, affecting many fish species. There 

is also a decrease in channel complexity 

and a reduction in instream cover and 

natural substrates like boulders, cobble, 

and gravel. 

Reservoirs can substantially alter 

hydrology downstream, especially when 

operated for hydroelectric power 

generation. Hydropeaking dams produce 

high flows only when power generation 

is needed. Hydropeaking dams, Carters 

Dam and Reregulation Dam, exist on the 

Coosawattee River. Rapid flow increases 

and decreases from hydropeaking can 

reduce stream insect abundance, 

potentially decreasing food availability 

for darters. Furthermore, managed rivers 

can exhibit substantially altered and 

novel food webs that affect native 

communities and their ability to 

withstand perturbations. Nonhydropeaking reservoirs, farm ponds, 

amenity lakes, and other impoundments 

may also substantially alter hydrologic 

regimes by storing water during low 

flow periods, effectively dampening 

moderate to high flows and in some 

cases augmenting flows. Fish are 

adapted to the natural seasonal 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67134 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

variations of flow, and alterations to this 

regime affect their life-history strategies. 

Hydrologic alteration can also lead to 

other stressors, such as sedimentation 

and a loss of connected suitable habitat. 

Sedimentation 

Sedimentation can affect fish species 

by degrading physical habitat used for 

foraging, sheltering, and spawning; 

altering food webs and decreasing 

stream productivity; forcing fish to 

change their behaviors; and even 

injuring or killing individual fish. 

Chronic exposure to sediment has been 

shown to have negative impacts to fish 

gills, which in addition to causing gill 

damage can possibly reduce growth 

rates. Sedimentation causes reduced 

visibility, impacting fishes’ abilities to 

feed and interact. 

A wide range of activities (including 

agricultural activities, construction 

activities, some forestry activities if 

certified best management practices are 

not used, and dredging), as well as 

stormwater runoff, unpaved roads, and 

utility crossings, can lead to 

sedimentation within streams. 

Historical land use practices have 

substantially altered hydrological and 

geological processes such that 

sediments continue to be input into 

streams for several decades after those 

activities cease. Examples of these 

activities occurring within the range of 

the trispot darter include urban impacts 

in the Springville, Alabama, and Dalton, 

Georgia, areas; agricultural practices in 

the Conasauga River basin; and 

livestock access to streams in the Little 

Canoe Creek watershed. 

Reduced Connectivity 

Connectivity relates to a species’ 

ability to disperse to and from habitat 

patches. Excess groundwater 

withdrawal, causing sections of streams 

to become dry for parts of the year, can 

reduce connectivity. Dams and 

reservoirs reduce connectivity by 

creating a physical barrier between fish 

populations and by changing habitat 

from flowing streams to standing water, 

which is not suitable habitat for this 

darter. Road crossings, some of which 

have impassible culverts that reduce 

connectivity, are also more prevalent in 

highly populated urban areas. All of 

these factors have occurred or are 

occurring in the range of the trispot 

darter. 

Loss of Riparian Vegetation 

This fish has adapted to occupy 

habitats that are surrounded by 

vegetation, which moderates 

temperature by blocking solar radiation; 

provides a source for terrestrial plant 

material that forms the base of the food 

web and provides shelter and foraging 

habitat for this fish; and helps to 

maintain clear, clean water and 

substrate through filtration. Removal of 

riparian vegetation can destabilize 

stream banks, increasing sedimentation 

and turbidity; increase the contaminants 

and nutrients that enter the water from 

runoff; increase water temperatures and 

light penetration, which also increases 

algae production; and alter available 

habitat by reducing woody plant debris 

and leaf litter, which in turn decreases 

overall stream productivity. All of these 

events decrease habitat suitability for 

the trispot darter. Removal of riparian 

vegetation has occurred where urban 

and agricultural practices are prevalent, 

such as increased development in 

Dalton, Chatsworth, and Ellijay, and 

occurrences of row crops and pastures 

in the Conasauga River basin generally. 

Contaminants 

Contaminants, including metals, 

hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other 

potentially harmful organic and 

inorganic compounds, can be toxic to 

fish and are common in urban streams, 

including those within the range of the 

trispot darter. Exposure to contaminants 

may cause physiological stress to the 

trispot darter as seen in other members 

of the genus Etheostoma, and streams 

affected by multiple sources of 

contaminants may induce higher levels 

of stress on the fish (Diamond et al. 

2016; p. 133). 

Contamination in the mainstem of the 

Coosa River by polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCBs) has been attributed to 

past industrial activity adjacent to the 

river. In the Coosawattee River, PCBs 

caused by nonpoint sources are also 

identified as a source of impairment. 

PCBs have toxic effects to the endocrine 

system, nervous system, reproductive 

system, blood, skin, and liver of 

animals, and have likely impacted the 

trispot darter in both basins. 

Pesticides and herbicides are 

frequently found in streams draining 

agricultural land uses, with herbicides 

being the most commonly detected. 

Many agricultural streams still contain 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethan (DDT) 

and its degradation products. Pesticides 

also are heavily used in urban and 

suburban areas, and many of these find 

their way into streams and groundwater. 

Glyphosates and other inert ingredients 

found in herbicides can be toxic to fish 

and other aquatic organisms, causing 

stress and reduced fitness; herbicide use 

where the trispot darter occurs in the 

Conasauaga River is prevalent and 

increasing. 

Agriculture 

Agriculture is a predominant land use 

within the range of the trispot darter. 

Livestock grazing is prevalent in some 

areas, and poultry farming is also 

common. 

Poultry Litter: Poultry litter is a 

mixture of chicken manure, feathers, 

spilled food, and bedding material that 

frequently is used to fertilize 

pastureland or row crops. Each poultry 

house has an estimated ability to 

produce up to 100 tons of litter a year. 

Surface-spreading of litter results in 

runoff from heavy rains carrying the 

poultry litter into waterways, bringing 

phosphorus and nitrogen from manure 

into nearby streams. Additionally, 

repeated or over application of poultry 

litter can result in phosphorus buildup 

in the soil, which then runs off into 

streams. Excess phosphorus and 

nitrogen in streams increases algae and 

undesirable aquatic plants that rob 

water of oxygen, causing fish kills. 

Poultry litter also contains endocrine 

disruptors, such as estrogen, which have 

been identified as a significant stressor 

within the Conasauga River basin. 

Estrogens have been found in water and 

sediment samples within the watershed 

at concentrations high enough to be 

disruptive to the endocrine system in 

fish. Increased levels of estrogens affect 

reproductive biology and result in 

reduced breeding success. In a recent 

study of endocrine disruptors on fishes 

in the Conasauga River, approximately 

7.5 percent of male fishes surveyed were 

found to have female reproductive cells 

in male reproductive organs. 

Livestock Access to Streams: On many 

farms, livestock is grazed on pastures 

adjacent to streams and rivers, and is 

allowed free access to the water. 

Livestock accessing riparian buffers and, 

subsequently, the stream proper leads to 

habitat destruction and decreased water 

quality. Livestock can destabilize stream 

banks, which, as discussed above, 

creates increased sediment loads within 

small systems. 

Urbanization 

In addition to contributing to 

individual stressors such as changes in 

flow regime and contamination, 

urbanization is anticipated to increase 

the magnitude of nearly all other 

stressors, and thus is expected to affect 

the trispot darter across its range, which 

is close to the growing Atlanta 

metropolitan area, the expanding 

Chattanooga and Birmingham areas, and 

intervening areas with growing human 

populations and increasing 

development. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67135 

Weather Events 

Weather events that affect stream 

flows are considered to be most relevant 

to the species. Broadly, these events 

include extreme storms and droughts. 

Increased flows can cause physical 

washout of eggs and larval fishes, cause 

stress on adults, and alter the 

production in a stream. Within the 

range of the trispot darter, extreme flows 

associated with hurricanes have been 

reported to have negative effects on 

stream fish populations. On the other 

hand, reduced baseflows due to 

droughts can also cause population 

declines, habitat loss, reduced water 

quality (decreased dissolved oxygen and 

temperature alteration) leading to death, 

crowding of individuals leading to 

stress, and decreased reproduction in 

stream fish populations. 

Climate models for the southeastern 

United States project that average 

annual temperatures will increase, cold 

days will become less frequent, the 

freeze-free season will lengthen, 

temperatures exceeding 95 degrees 

Fahrenheit will increase, heat waves 

will become longer, and the number of 

major hurricanes will increase. While 

these climate models predict wide 

variability in weather patterns into the 

future, overall they suggest that the 

region will be subjected to more 

frequent large storms (hurricanes) as 

well as low flows from droughts. 

Other Stressors 

In our analysis of the factors affecting 

these species, we found no evidence of 

population- or species-level impacts 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B). Also, there was no 

evidence of any impacts due to disease 

or predation (Factor C). No existing 

regulatory mechanisms adequately 

address the threats to the trispot darter 

such that it does not warrant listing 

under the Act (Factor D). 

Conservation Actions 

The trispot darter is recognized by 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee as a 

species of concern. This species is listed 

as Priority 2/High Conservation Concern 

by the State of Alabama, endangered by 

the State of Georgia, and threatened by 

the State of Tennessee. Priority 

watersheds within the range of the 

trispot darter have been designated as 

Strategic Habitat Units by the Alabama 

Rivers and Streams Network (ARSN). 

ARSN is an organized partnership of 

state and federal entities as well as 

NGOs and corporations. Currently, the 

trispot darter is found in the Big Canoe 

Creek SHU and the Upper Coosa River 

tributaries SHU. The Strategic Habitat 

Unit project was developed for species 

restoration and enhancement. To work 

towards these goals, a thorough threats 

analysis is conducted in each SHU by 

partners to the ARSN, and the results of 

the threats analyses guide State and 

Federal agencies in prioritizing projects 

that reduce and remove the identified 

threats and ultimately improve habitat 

and water quality for listed and at risk 

species. The Atlantic Coast Conservancy 

holds a tract of land within Ballplay 

Creek that could offer some protection 

in the watershed. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Working Lands 

for Wildlife partnership within the 

basin will help farmers develop and 

implement strategies to improve water 

quality. 

Current Condition of Trispot Darter 

To assess viability for the trispot 

darter, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy 

(together, the 3Rs). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

representation supports the ability of 

the species to adapt over time to longterm changes in the environment (for 

example, climate changes); and 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, hurricanes). In 

general, the more redundant and 

resilient a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the factors influencing the 

species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we used the 3Rs to evaluate 

individual life-history needs of all three 

darters. In the next stage, we assessed 

the historical and current condition of 

each species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at their current conditions. In the final 

stage of the SSA we made predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. This process 

used the best available information to 

characterize viability as the ability of 

each species to sustain populations in 

the wild over time. 

To qualitatively assess resiliency, we 

considered seven components that 

broadly relate to either the physical 

environment (‘‘Habitat Elements’’) or 

characteristics about the population 

specifically (‘‘Population Elements’’). 

Habitat elements consisted of an 

evaluation of physical habitat, 

connectivity, water quality, and 

hydrologic regime. Population elements 

consisted of an estimation of 

approximate abundance, the extent of 

occurrence (total length of occupied 

streams), and an assessment of 

occurrence complexity. Representation 

describes the ability of a species to 

adapt to changing environmental 

conditions over time. For trispot darters 

to exhibit high representation, resilient 

populations should occur in all 

ecoregions to which they are native, and 

maintain some level of connectivity 

between populations. These occupied 

physiographic provinces represent the 

ecological setting in which the darters 

have evolved. Redundancy is 

characterized by having multiple 

resilient and representative populations 

distributed throughout its range. 

Furthermore, these populations should 

maintain natural levels of connectivity 

between them. Connectivity allows for 

immigration and emigration between 

populations and increases the 

likelihood of recolonization should a 

population become extirpated. An 

overall resiliency condition was 

estimated by combining habitat and 

population elements. Population 

elements were weighted two times 

higher than habitat elements because 

they are considered direct indicators of 

population condition. Conditions were 

classified as ‘‘Low’’, ‘‘Moderate’’, or 

‘‘High’’. 

After analyzing current conditions for 

the species, we described how current 

viability of the three darters may change 

over a period of 50 years. As with 

current conditions, we evaluated 

species viability in terms of resiliency at 

the population scale, and representation 

and redundancy at the species scale. In 

the SSA report, we described three 

plausible future scenarios and whether 

there will be a change, from current 

conditions, to resiliency, representation, 

or redundancy under each scenario. 

These scenarios capture the range of 

likely viability outcomes that the trispot 

darter is predicted to exhibit by the end 

of 2070. The future scenarios differ in 

two main elements of predicted change: 

Urbanization and climate. To forecast 

future urbanization, we considered 

future scenarios that incorporate the 

SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, Excluded 

area, Urban area, Transportation, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67136 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Hillside area) model. This model 

simulates patterns of urban expansion 

that are consistent with spatial 

observations of past urban growth and 

transportation networks. Regarding 

climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change utilized a suite of 

alternative scenarios in the Fifth 

Assessment Report to make near-term 

and long-term climate projections. In 

our assessments, we used these 

projections to help understand how 

climate may change in the future and 

what effects may be observed that 

impact the trispot darter. 

Collection records used in the 

analysis were compiled and provided to 

the Service by State partners. These 

records did not exhibit standardization: 

The numbers of individuals collected 

was inconsistently recorded and 

sampling methods varied among 

records. Therefore, we were unable to 

analyze exact numbers collected for 

each record. Instead, abundance was 

estimated for each record categorically. 

According to our analysis, all of the 

current management units (MUs) have 

resiliency ranked as ‘‘low’’ in the 

analysis (see Table 1, below). Ballplay 

Creek MU has a low resiliency because 

of reduced genetic diversity, the 

abundance is qualitatively low, 

reservoirs and poor water quality 

remove connectivity to other MUs, the 

impairment of the Coosa River within 

the watershed, and the extent of the 

occupied habitat is small. The Little 

Canoe Creek MU has a low resiliency to 

stochastic events because water quality 

and abundance are low (although the 

occurrence complexity is high), Coosa 

River reservoirs remove connectivity to 

other MUs, and the extent of the 

occupied habitat is small. Because of the 

PCBs known in the area, the 

Coosawattee River has low resiliency 

due to hydrologic alteration from the 

hydroelectric dam, PCBs in the river 

contributing to low water quality, lower 

abundance of fish per collection record, 

a small and reduced distribution, and 

overall simple occurrence spatial 

arrangement. The Conasauga River MU 

has low resiliency due to low water 

quality in the middle and lower river, 

low abundance of fish per collection 

record, a reduced population, and 

overall simple occurrence spatial 

arrangement. For aquatic species that 

inhabit rivers, complex spatial 

occurrence relates to a species 

occupying multiple tributaries and the 

main-stem river as opposed to only 

inhabiting the main-stem river. A more 

complex and dendritic (tree-like) spatial 

arrangement of occupied habitat will be 

more resilient (Service 2017, p. 27). 

Historically, the trispot darter was 

found from the confluence of Holly 

Creek to Chatsworth, Georgia and is 

now only known from just upstream of 

Chatsworth. Currently, the trispot darter 

occupies approximately 20 percent of its 

historically known range. While it is 

clear the species has lost some of its 

historical range, the best available data 

do not indicate a declining trend in 

abundance in the remaining areas from 

historical to the present. This species is 

rare and difficult to detect. Combined 

with the inconsistent survey 

methodology and lack of standard 

collection records, this creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

A full analysis for each unit’s current 

condition can be found in the SSA 

Report and the proposed rule. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT SPECIES RESILIENCY SUMMARY OF THE TRISPOT DARTER

Approximate 

abundance 

Occurrence 

extent 

Occurrence 

complexity 

Physical 

habitat Connectivity Water quality 

Hydrologic 

regime 

Overall 

condition 

Little Canoe Creek ..... Low ................ Low ............ High ........... Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Ballplay Creek ............ Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Conasauga River ....... Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Coosawattee River ..... Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Moderate .... Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Future Conditions of Trispot Darter 

For the purpose of this assessment, 

we define viability as the ability of the 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. To address uncertainty 

associated with the degree and extent of 

potential future stressors and their 

impacts on species’ requisites, we 

assessed the 3Rs using three plausible 

future scenarios. These scenarios were 

based, in part, on the results of 

urbanization and climate models that 

predict changes in habitat used by the 

trispot darter. The models that were 

used to forecast both urbanization and 

climate change projected 50 years into 

the future (the year 2070). 

For example, in one scenario, current 

environmental regulations and policy, 

land use management techniques, and 

conservations measures remain the 

same over the next 50 years. We 

anticipate the current trend in 

greenhouse gas emissions to continue 

and moderate impacts from extreme 

weather events including intense 

drought, floods, and storm events to 

occur. Rapid urbanization will continue 

at the current estimated rate for the 

Piedmont region of the southeastern 

United States, which will increase 

demand for water resources and 

introduce multiple additional stressors 

into local streams and rivers. Despite an 

overall growth in population and 

increases in developed areas, some 

regions will remain predominantly in 

agriculture and experience associated 

water quality declines. In pace with 

current trends, we anticipate declines in 

habitat and water quantity and quality 

as a result of rapid urbanization, climate 

change, agricultural practices, and an 

overall lack of voluntary conservation 

measures being implemented. Under 

this scenario, two populations, Ballplay 

Creek and Conasauga River, are 

expected to become extirpated, while 

the remaining two, Little Canoe Creek 

and Coosawattee River, are projected to 

persist but in low resiliency condition. 

Because of the expected future 

extirpation of trispot darters predicted 

for Salacoa Creek (Coosawattee 

population) in this scenario, the fish 

would then be found only in the 

Coosawattee River mainstem (no longer 

in any tributaries), making it more 

vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Redundancy decreases to two 

populations (Little Canoe Creek and 

Conasauga), which are completely 

isolated from one another due to the 

Weiss Dam. This means that genetic 

material will not be exchanged, 

reducing adaptive potential of the 

species. In the SSA Report, we describe 

conditions and results for all three 

scenarios that represent the likely range 

of plausible future outcomes for 

development, possible climate changes, 

and the species’ expected response to 

threats. Results for our full future 

condition analysis for the future 

projections are provided in table 2, 

below and are discussed more fully in 

the SSA Report and the proposed rule. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67137 

TABLE 2—FUTURE CONDITION OF THE TRISPOT DARTER BY THE YEAR 2070 UNDER THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS

Management unit Status quo Best case Worst case 

Little Canoe ................................... Low ............................................... Moderate ....................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Ballplay .......................................... Likely Extirpated ........................... Low ............................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Conasauga .................................... Likely Extirpated ........................... Moderate ....................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Coosawattee .................................. Low ............................................... Moderate ....................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the trispot darter. 

Our analysis of the trispot darter’s 

current and future conditions, as well as 

the conservation efforts discussed 

above, show that the population and 

habitat factors used to determine the 

resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy for trispot darter will 

continue to decline such that it is likely 

to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. 

We considered whether the trispot 

darter is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range. The 

current conditions as assessed in the 

SSA Report show extant populations in 

four river systems (MUs) across its 

range, including 65 river miles (105 

river kilometers) of occupied habitat in 

the Conasauga River. The best available 

data do not indicate a declining trend in 

abundance, and it is likely that the low 

abundance (and, therefore, low 

resiliency) indicated in our analysis is 

due to the species being naturally rare 

and difficult to detect. The inconsistent 

survey methodology and lack of 

standard collection records also creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

While threats are currently acting on the 

species and many of those threats are 

expected to continue into the future, we 

did not find that the species is currently 

in danger of extinction throughout its 

range. 

Based on our analysis of plausible 

future conditions of the trispot darter, 

we concluded that the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation will be 

impacted by threats and the species will 

have reduced viability in the foreseeable 

future. While our future scenarios were 

developed using models that predicted 

out 50 years, the short lifespan of the 

species (2 to 3 years) and the lack of 

data and research specific to trispot 

darters regarding evidence of threats 

directly impacting the species creates 

uncertainty when predicting the 

species’ response to threats into the 

future. Forecasting beyond 8 to 10 

generations (i.e., 16 to 24 years) would 

be speculative, and we do not have 

robust population data to support a 

foreseeable future that could accurately 

predict how the trispot darter may 

respond to threats beyond a 20-year 

timeframe. Accordingly, we have 

concluded that approximately 20 years 

is the appropriate foreseeable future for 

the trispot darter. 

Our analysis concludes that 30 years 

beyond our foreseeable future 

timeframe, our range of plausible future 

scenarios predicts the trispot darter may 

continue to persist in as many as all four 

of the populations; however, the entire 

risk profile indicates that all four 

populations could also possibly be 

extirpated in 50 years. It is reasonable 

to assume that at an intermediate 

timeframe of 16 to 24 years, these 

scenarios will not have been realized 

completely; however, many populations 

that persist are likely to have low 

resiliency and continue to face threats. 

Considering this species’ vulnerability 

to a loss of connectivity between 

breeding and nonbreeding habitats, and 

the effect that situation has on 

reproductive success, we expect 

negative impacts to the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species in the foreseeable future. The 

trispot darter’s unique reproductive 

strategy of utilizing distinct areas of 

rivers and streams for breeding and 

nonbreeding habitats makes the loss of 

connectivity especially detrimental to 

viability. A lack of protected lands 

within the current range of the trispot 

darter creates more uncertainty 

regarding land use, threats, and the 

ability of these four populations to 

withstand the expected loss of one or 

two populations. This expected 

reduction in both the number and 

distribution of resilient populations is 

likely to make the species vulnerable to 

catastrophic disturbance. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that the species is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout its range. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the trispot darter is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout its range, 

we find it unnecessary to proceed to an 

evaluation of potentially significant 

portions of the range. Where the best 

available information allows the 

Services to determine a status for the 

species rangewide, that determination 

should be given conclusive weight 

because a rangewide determination of 

status more accurately reflects the 

species’ degree of imperilment and 

better promotes the purposes of the 

statute. In this way, assigning the 

rangewide status to the species (rather 

than potentially assigning a different 

status based on a review of only a 

portion of the range) best implements 

the statutory distinction between 

threatened and endangered species. 

Maintaining this fundamental 

distinction is important for ensuring 

that conservation resources are allocated 

toward species according to their actual 

level of risk. 

We also note that Congress placed the 

‘‘all’’ language before the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ phrase in the 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ This suggests that 

Congress intended that an analysis 

based on consideration of the entire 

range should receive primary focus, and 

thus that the agencies should do a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

analysis as an alternative to a rangewide 

analysis only if necessary. Under this 

reading, we should first consider 

whether listing is appropriate based on 

a rangewide analysis and proceed to 

conduct a ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ analysis if, and only if, a species 

does not qualify for listing as either 

endangered or threatened according to 

the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that this 

interpretation is also consistent with the 

2014 Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its 

Range’’ (SPR Policy) (79 FR 37578; July 

1, 2014). That policy is the subject of 

ongoing litigation, including litigation 

against the Service in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California, which has vacated the 

‘‘significant portion’’ part of the 

Services’ SPR Policy (Desert Survivors v. 

Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– 

01165–JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)). 

However, our approach in this rule, 

explained above, has been reached and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67138 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

applied independently of the SPR 

Policy, and is not inconsistent with the 

court’s holding in Desert Survivors. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required by Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

Recovery Actions 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan identifies site-specific 

management actions that set a trigger for 

review of the five factors that control 

whether a species remains endangered 

or may be reclassified from endangered 

to threatened (‘‘downlisted’’) or 

removed from listing (‘‘delisted’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and other stakeholders) 

are often established to develop 

recovery plans. When completed, the 

recovery outline, draft recovery plan, 

and the final recovery plan will be 

available on our website (http://

www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our 

Alabama Ecological Services field office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the States of 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee will 

be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

the trispot darter. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the trispot darter. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

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

agencies to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we propose to designate critical habitat 

for the trispot darter under the Act. 

Regulatory Provisions 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Service has discretion to issue 

regulations that we find necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species. The 

Act and its implementing regulations set 

forth a series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to threatened 

wildlife. The prohibitions of section 

9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to 

threatened wildlife and codified at 50 

CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 

any of these) threatened wildlife within 

the United States or on the high seas. In 

addition, it is unlawful to import; 

export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, 

or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, for the enhancement of 

propagation or survival, for economic 

hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 

educational purposes, for incidental 

taking, or for special purposes 

consistent with the purposes of the Act. 

There are also certain statutory 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

Section 4(d) of the Act specifies that, 

for threatened species, the Secretary 

shall issue such regulations as he deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. This 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67139 

discretion includes authority to prohibit 

by regulation with respect to a 

threatened species any act prohibited by 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act. At 50 CFR 

17.31(a), the Service, by delegation from 

the Secretary, exercised this discretion 

to extend the take and other 

prohibitions set forth in section 9(a)(1) 

of the Act to all threatened species. The 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31(c), however, 

also provide that the prohibitions 

included at 50 CFR 17.31(a) do not 

apply if the Service promulgates a rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act tailored to 

provide for the conservation needs of a 

specific threatened species. Elsewhere 

in today’s Federal Register, we propose 

to issue a rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’) that is tailored to the 

specific threats to and conservation 

needs of the trispot darter. Until a 4(d) 

rule is made final for this species, all 

prohibitions included at 50 CFR 

17.31(a) apply to the trispot darter. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. Activities that the 

Service believes could potentially harm 

the trispot darter and result in ‘‘take’’ 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species; 

(2) Destruction or alteration of the 

species’ habitat by discharge of fill 

material, dredging, snagging, 

impounding, channelization, or 

modification of natural or artificial wet 

weather conveyances or ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial stream 

channels or banks; 

(3) Destruction of riparian habitat 

directly adjacent to natural or artificial 

wet weather conveyances or ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial stream 

channels that causes significant 

increases in sedimentation and 

destruction of natural stream banks or 

channels; 

(4) Discharge of pollutants into a 

natural or artificial wet weather 

conveyances or ephemeral, intermittent, 

or perennial stream channels, or into 

areas hydrologically connected to a 

natural or artificial wet weather 

conveyances or ephemeral, intermittent, 

or perennial stream channel occupied 

by the species; 

(5) Diversion or alteration of surface 

or ground water flow; and 

(6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in 

violation of label restrictions. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with listing a species as an endangered 

or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

There are no tribal interests affected by 

this rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Darter, trispot’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under FISHES to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

FISHES 

*******

Darter, trispot .................. Etheostoma trisella ......... Wherever found .............. T 83 FR [insert Federal Register page where the 

document begins], 12/28/2018. 

*******


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67140 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: October 25, 2018. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27971 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02] 

RIN 0648–XG695 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

General category quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is transferring 19.5 

metric tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna 

(BFT) quota from the 28.9-mt General 

category December 2019 subquota to the 

January 2019 subquota period (from 

January 1 through March 31, 2019, or 

until the available subquota for this 

period is reached, whichever comes 

first). This action is based on 

consideration of the regulatory 

determination criteria regarding 

inseason adjustments and applies to 

Atlantic tunas General category 

(commercial) permitted vessels and 

Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 

Charter/Headboat category permitted 

vessels with a commercial sale 

endorsement when fishing 

commercially for BFT. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2019, 

through March 31, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin, 978–281–9260, or 

Larry Redd, 301–427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by 

persons and vessels subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 

635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. 

BFT quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

and as implemented by the United 

States among the various domestic 

fishing categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Consolidated 

Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan (2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 

2006), as amended by Amendment 7 to 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

(Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 

2, 2014). NMFS is required under ATCA 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

provide U.S. fishing vessels with a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

ICCAT-recommended quota. 

The base quota for the General 

category is 555.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). 

Each of the General category time 

periods (January, June through August, 

September, October through November, 

and December) is allocated a 

‘‘subquota’’ or portion of the annual 

General category quota. Although it is 

called the ‘‘January’’ subquota, the 

regulations allow the General category 

fishery under this quota to continue 

until the subquota is reached or March 

31, whichever comes first. The baseline 

subquotas for each time period are as 

follows: 29.5 mt for January; 277.9 mt 

for June through August; 147.3 mt for 

September; 72.2 mt for October through 

November; and 28.9 mt for December. 

Any unused General category quota 

rolls forward within the fishing year, 

which coincides with the calendar year, 

from one time period to the next, and 

is available for use in subsequent time 

periods. 

Transfer of 19.5 mt From the December 

2019 Subquota to the January 2019 

Subquota 

Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the 

authority to transfer quota among 

fishing categories or subcategories, after 

considering regulatory determination 

criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). 

NMFS has considered all of the relevant 

determination criteria and their 

applicability to this inseason quota. 

These considerations include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

Regarding the usefulness of 

information obtained from catches in 

the particular category for biological 

sampling and monitoring of the status of 

the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological 

samples collected from BFT landed by 

General category fishermen and 

provided by tuna dealers provide NMFS 

with valuable parts and data for ongoing 

scientific studies of BFT age and 

growth, migration, and reproductive 

status. Additional opportunity to land 

BFT, and potentially over a greater 

portion of the January time period, 

would support the collection of a broad 

range of data for these studies and for 

stock monitoring purposes. 

NMFS also considered the catches of 

the General category quota to date 

(including in December 2018 and during 

the winter fishery in the last several 

years), and the likelihood of closure of 

that segment of the fishery if no 

adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii)). 

Without a quota transfer from December 

2019 to January 2019 for the General 

category at this time, the quota available 

for the January period would be 29.5 mt 

(5.3 percent of the General category 

quota), and participants would have to 

stop BFT fishing activities once that 

amount is met, while commercial-sized 

BFT may remain available in the areas 

where General category permitted 

vessels operate. Transferring 19.5 mt of 

the 28.9-mt quota available for 

December 2019 (with 28.9 mt 

representing 5.2 percent of the General 

category quota) would result in 49 mt 

(8.8 percent of the General category 

quota) being available for the January 

subquota period. This quota transfer 

would provide additional opportunities 

to harvest the U.S. BFT quota without 

exceeding it, while preserving the 

opportunity for General category 

fishermen to participate in the winter 

BFT fishery at both the beginning and 

end of the calendar year. 

Regarding the projected ability of the 

vessels fishing under the particular 

category quota (here, the General 

category) to harvest the additional 

amount of BFT before the end of the 

fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iii)), NMFS 

considered General category landings 

over the last several years. General 

category landings in the winter BFT 

fishery tend to straddle the calendar 

year as BFT may be available in late 

November/December and into January 

of the following year or later. Landings 

are highly variable and depend on 

access to commercial-sized BFT and 

fishing conditions, among other factors. 

Any unused General category quota 

from the January subperiod that remains 

as of March 31 will roll forward to the 

next subperiod within the calendar year 

(i.e., the June-August time period). In 

2018, NMFS transferred 14.3 mt of 

quota from the December 2018 subquota 

to the January 2018 subquota period, 

resulting in a subquota of 39 mt for the 

January 2018 period and a subquota of 

10 mt for the December 2018 period (82 

FR 60680, December 22, 2017). NMFS 

also transferred 10 mt from the Reserve 

to the General category effective 

February 28, resulting in an adjusted 

subquota of 49 mt for the January 2018 

period (83 FR 9232, March 5, 2018), and 

closed the General category fishery for 

the January subquota period effective 

March 2, 2018. Under a one-fish General 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES