12056 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Acceptance of payment from a 

non–Federal source for travel expenses 

(see chapter 304 of this title); and 

(d) Travel expenses related to 

attendance at a conference. 

Appendix C to Chapter 301 

■ 49. Amend appendix C to chapter 301 

by— 

■ a. Revising the entry for 

‘‘Transportation Method Indicator’’ in 

the table for ‘‘Commercial 

Transportation Information’’; and 

revising the entry for ‘‘Transportation 

Method Indicator’’ in the table ‘‘Travel 

Expense Information’’. The revisions 

read as follows: 

Appendix C to Chapter 301—Standard 

Data Elements for Federal Travel 

[Traveler Identification] 

* * * * * 

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION

Group name Data elements Description 

*******

Transportation Method Indicator .... Air (other than coach class) .......... Common carrier used as transportation to TDY location.

Air (coach class).

Non-contract Air, Train, Other.

* * * * * * * 

TRAVEL EXPENSE INFORMATION

Group name Data elements Description 

*******

Transportation Method Indicator .... Air (other than coach class) .......... The amount of money the transportation actually cost the traveler, entered according to method of transportation. 

Air (coach class).

Non-contract Air, Train.

Other .............................................. Bus or other form of transportation. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 304–3—EMPLOYEE 

RESPONSIBILITY 

■ 50. The authority citation for part 

304–3 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353. 

■ 51. Revise § 304–3.9 to read as 

follows: 

§ 304–3.9 May I use other than coach class 

accommodations on common carriers when 

a non-Federal source pays in full for my 

common carrier expenses to attend a 

meeting? 

Yes, you may use other than coach 

class accommodations on common 

carriers if you meet one of the criteria 

contained in § 301–10.103 of this title, 

and are authorized to do so by your 

agency in accordance with § 304–5.5 of 

this chapter. 

PART 304–5—AGENCY 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

■ 52. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 304–5 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353. 

■ 52. Amend § 304–5.5 by revising the 

section heading, introductory text, and 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 304–5.5 May we authorize an employee 

to use other than coach class 

accommodations on common carriers if we 

accept payment in full from a non-Federal 

source for such transportation expenses? 

Yes, you may authorize an employee 

to use other than coach class 

accommodations on common carriers as 

long as the: 

* * * * * 

(c) Travel meets at least one of the 

conditions in § 301–10.103 of this title. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03068 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BF56 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Relict Darter From Endangered to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft recovery plan and request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify (downlist) the relict darter 

(Etheostoma chienense) from 

endangered to threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The relict darter is a fish 

species that occupies the Bayou de 

Chien stream system in western 

Kentucky. Our evaluation of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information indicates that the species’ 

status has improved such that it is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but that it is still likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. We 

also propose a rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act that provides for the 

conservation of the relict darter. In 

addition, we announce the availability 

of the draft recovery plan for the relict 

darter. The draft recovery plan includes 

specific recovery objectives and criteria 

based on the species status assessment. 

We request review of this proposal and 

of the draft recovery plan and comment 

from local, State, and Federal agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, Tribes, 

and the public. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12057 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 2, 2022. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by April 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

This proposed rule and supporting 

documents, including the 5-year review, 

the draft recovery plan, and the species 

status assessment (SSA) report, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021– 

0093. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office, 330 

West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, 

KY 40601; telephone 502–695–0468. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered species (in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). The 

relict darter (Etheostoma chienense) is 

listed as endangered, and we are 

proposing to reclassify (downlist) the 

relict darter as threatened because we 

have determined it is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Reclassifying a species as a threatened 

species can be completed only by 

issuing a rulemaking. 

What this document does. This 

rulemaking proposes to reclassify the 

relict darter from endangered to 

threatened (i.e., to ‘‘downlist’’ the 

species), with a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act (hereafter ‘‘a 4(d) 

rule’’), based on the species’ current 

status, which has been improved 

through implementation of conservation 

actions. This document also announces 

the availability of the draft recovery 

plan for the relict darter. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We may reclassify a species if 

the best available commercial and 

scientific data indicate the species no 

longer meets the applicable definition in 

the Act. We have determined that the 

relict darter is no longer in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and, therefore, does 

not meet the definition of an 

endangered species. However, it is still 

affected by the following current and 

ongoing threats to the extent that the 

species meets the definition of a 

threatened species under the Act: 

• Habitat destruction and 

modification caused by sedimentation, 

stream channelization, removal of 

riparian vegetation, drainage of riparian 

wetlands, and point and nonpoint 

source discharges. 

• Drought, accidental spills, and 

catastrophic events. 

• Low genetic diversity resulting in 

reduced adaptive capacity and the 

inability to withstand stochastic 

disturbances. 

• Effects from climate change that are 

likely to exacerbate the impacts of 

drought, hurricanes, and flooding 

associated with storms and hurricanes 

in the future. 

Proposed section 4(d) rule. Under 

section 4(d) of the Act, we propose to 

prohibit all take of the relict darter and 

specifically tailor the incidental take 

exceptions under section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act to the species to provide protective 

mechanisms to State and Federal 

partners so that they may continue with 

certain activities that are not anticipated 

to cause direct injury or mortality to the 

relict darter and that will facilitate the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

reclassify the relict darter as a 

threatened species. 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of the relict darter. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to the relict darter, 

including the species’ ability to survive 

catastrophic events, sediment and 

pollution tolerance, and potential 

impacts of low effective population size 

and low genetic diversity. 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat use of the 

relict darter. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the relict 

darter that may have adverse impacts or 

beneficial effects on the species. 

(6) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the relict darter and 

that the Service can consider in 

developing a 4(d) rule for the species. 

(7) Information concerning the extent 

to which we should include any of the 

section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or 

whether any other forms of take should 

be excepted from the prohibitions in the 

4(d) rule. 

(8) We also request comments on the 

draft recovery plan, which is a separate 

effort from the proposed rulemaking. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

proposed rule to reclassify the relict 

darter without providing supporting 

information, although noted, will not be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12058 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

considered in making a determination 

on the reclassification, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

and draft recovery plan by one of the 

methods listed in ADDRESSES. We 

request that you send comments only by 

the methods described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species should remain listed as 

endangered instead of being reclassified 

as threatened, or we may conclude that 

the species no longer warrants listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In addition, we may 

change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions if we conclude it is 

appropriate in light of comments and 

new information received. For example, 

we may expand the prohibitions to 

include prohibiting additional activities 

if we conclude that those additional 

activities are not compatible with the 

conservation of the species. Conversely, 

we may establish additional exceptions 

to the prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

within the range of the species at least 

15 days before the hearing. For the 

immediate future, we will provide these 

public hearings using webinars that will 

be announced on the Service’s website, 

in addition to the Federal Register. The 

use of these virtual public hearings is 

consistent with our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

relict darter. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994), our August 22, 2016, Director’s 

Memo on the Peer Review Process, and 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

December 16, 2004, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(revised June 2012), we solicited 

independent scientific reviews of the 

information contained in the relict 

darter SSA report. We sent the SSA 

report to three independent peer 

reviewers and received three responses. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found as part of the 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021– 

0093. The SSA report was also 

submitted to our Federal and State 

partners for scientific review. We 

received review comments from four 

partners, including the Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Resources (KDFWR), the Office of 

Kentucky Nature Preserves (OKNP), the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC). In preparing this proposed rule, 

we incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the final 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this proposed rule and the draft 

recovery plan. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The relict darter was proposed for 

listing as an endangered species on 

December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58774). On 

December 27, 1993 (58 FR 68480), we 

finalized the listing as endangered due 

to impacts from water quality and 

habitat deterioration resulting from 

stream channelization, siltation 

contributed by poor land use practices, 

and water pollutants. Designation of 

critical habitat was found to be not 

prudent based on the determination that 

a critical habitat designation was 

unlikely to benefit the relict darter and 

that designation of critical habitat could 

further threaten the species by exposing 

the species to increased collection and 

threat of vandalism. 

On July 31, 1994, we published a 

technical/agency draft recovery plan for 

the relict darter, which was not 

finalized. In 2019, as part of the 

Department of the Interior’s agency 

priority goal effort, we initiated 

preparation of a revised draft recovery 

plan for the relict darter. The current 

draft (Service 2020b, entire) is available 

for review at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093. 

We have completed two 5-year 

reviews for the relict darter. In the 

August 9, 2013, 5-year review, we 

concluded that no change in relict 

darter status was warranted. However, 

the August 30, 2019, our 5-year review 

recommended downlisting the relict 

darter from endangered to threatened 

status based on population size, 

evidence of reproduction, discovery of a 

new population, and improved habitat 

conditions. 

Proposed Reclassification 

Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the relict 

darter’s taxonomy, life history, and 

ecology is presented in the SSA report 

(Service 2020a, pp. 8–15) and is 

summarized below. 

Species Information 

The relict darter is a small, narrowly 

endemic, benthic fish that occupies the 

Bayou de Chien stream system in 

western Kentucky. It can be 

distinguished from other darters by the 

number of dorsal fin rays (bony or 

cartilaginous spines of first and second 

fins along top of body), its breeding 

behavior (egg-clustering with parental 

care), and the color and morphology of 

the dorsal fins of breeding males. 

Females and nonbreeding males have 

light-tan-colored backs and sides, with 

brown mottling and six to eight dark 

brown saddles. They have white, 

unmarked undersides. Breeding males 

have gray to dark brown sides and backs 

and light tan undersides (Page et al. 

1992, p. 628). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12059 

Taxonomy 

The relict darter, Etheostoma 

chienense, is a member of the Class 

Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes), Order 

Perciformes, Family Percidae (perches), 

and Tribe Etheostomatini (darters) 

(Etnier and Starnes 1993, pp. 18–25, 

440–441). The relict darter was first 

discovered in the Bayou de Chien 

system in 1975 (Webb and Sisk 1975), 

reported as E. squamiceps, but it was 

not recognized as a distinct species and 

described until 1992. 

Genetics 

A population bottleneck and 

subsequent genetic drift likely explain 

the species’ low genetic diversity and 

low effective population size, which is 

estimated at a mean of 221.5 

individuals, lower than what is usually 

sufficient (500) to retain a species’ 

evolutionary potential (Soule 1980, pp. 

151–169; Kattawar and Piller 2020, 

entire). Agricultural expansion within 

the Bayou de Chien system during the 

early to mid-20th century, including 

widespread channelization and 

straightening of stream channels, likely 

led to a sharp reduction in the size of 

the relict darter population. Populations 

have likely stabilized some over time, 

but the effects of a population 

bottleneck and subsequent genetic drift 

appears to have led to low levels of 

genetic diversity across the range. 

Recent field surveys (2010–2019) 

suggest that relict darters in Little Bayou 

de Chien are isolated from the rest of the 

system; however, analyses indicate a 

single panmictic population, where 

random mating occurs among all 

individuals in the Bayou de Chien 

system (i.e., individuals can interbreed 

without restrictions) (Kattawar and 

Piller 2020, entire). 

Distribution 

The relict darter’s historical range 

included the Bayou de Chien stream 

system, a 554-kilometer2 (km2) (214- 

mile2 (mi2)) watershed located within 

the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains 

ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002, entire) in 

Fulton, Graves, and Hickman Counties, 

Kentucky (Webb and Sisk 1975, entire; 

Warren et al. 1994, entire; Piller and 

Burr 1998, entire). Bayou de Chien is a 

low-gradient, sand, gravel, and siltbottomed stream that begins in 

southwestern Graves County and flows 

westward approximately 47 km (29.2 

mi) through Hickman and Fulton 

Counties, before ultimately emptying 

into Obion Creek near Hickman, 

Kentucky. All but the terminal 8–10 km 

(5.0–6.2 mi) of Bayou de Chien have 

been subjected to extensive 

channelization, and the dominant land 

use is row-crop agriculture (Webb and 

Sisk 1975, p. 63). Currently, the relict 

darter continues to occupy portions of 

the Bayou de Chien system in Fulton, 

Graves, and Hickman counties, 

Kentucky. The species is represented by 

two geographically isolated populations: 

Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek and 

Little Bayou de Chien (Service 2020a, p. 

20). 

Habitat 

The species typically occupies slowflowing runs, glides, or pools of small to 

medium-sized, lowland streams with 

sand and gravel substrates. In these 

habitats, the species is most commonly 

observed near cover, such as undercut 

banks, woody debris piles, or snags. An 

abundance of woody debris provides a 

sufficient supply of spawning substrates 

and, consequently, the highest mean 

densities of the species (Service 2020a, 

p. 10). 

Biology 

The species feeds primarily on midge 

larvae and other small invertebrates. 

Spawning occurs from mid-March to 

early June, and the species has a 

maximum lifespan of 3 to 4 years. Like 

all members of the Etheostoma 

squamiceps complex, females deposit 

eggs on the undersides of submerged 

objects, and egg clusters are guarded by 

the male until hatching occurs (Service 

1994, p. 7). During a 1999 survey, most 

nests were located on natural materials 

such as small rocks, woody debris, and 

live tree roots, but 37 percent of nests 

were found on anthropogenic materials 

such as rubber tires, plastic, roof 

shingles, glass, concrete blocks, metal 

road signs, and concrete slabs (Piller 

and Burr 1999, pp. 147–151). 

The species was characterized as 

uncommon or rare at most collection 

sites in the 1990s, generally consisting 

of 1–23 individuals per site (Piller and 

Burr 1998, pp. 66–71). Recent surveys 

indicate the species continues to be rare 

in some reaches but is more common in 

others. Generally, the greatest number of 

darters per sampling reach and the 

highest mean densities (0.43 darters/ 

square meter) have been observed in 

Jackson Creek and an approximately 

22.6-km (14.1-mi) reach of Bayou de 

Chien (0.30 darters/square meter), 

extending from just downstream of the 

U.S. 51 bridge crossing in Hickman 

County upstream to the Pea Ridge Road 

bridge crossing in Graves County 

(Service 2020a, Appendix A). 

Recovery Criteria From Draft Recovery 

Plan (2020) 

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. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include 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 Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The revised draft recovery plan for the 

relict darter (Service 2020b, p. 4) states 

that the goal of the recovery plan is to 

ensure the long-term viability of the 

relict darter in the wild to the point that 

it can be removed from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The draft plan provides two recovery/ 

delisting criteria for the relict darter. 

Both of the recovery criteria have been 

partially met. The following discussion 

provides an assessment of the recovery 

criteria as they relate to evaluating the 

status of this species. We are seeking 

review and comment of the draft 

recovery plan from local, State, and 

Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, Tribes, and the public 

(see ADDRESSES and reference Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093). 

Recovery Criterion 1 

Criterion 1 states that relict darter 

populations occupying at least five 

streams, including the Bayou de Chien 

mainstem, Jackson Creek, Little Bayou 

de Chien, South Fork Bayou de Chien, 

and one other Bayou de Chien tributary 

exhibit stable or increasing population 

trends, natural recruitment, and 

multiple age classes. 

Populations that exhibit a stable or 

increasing trend, natural recruitment, 

and multiple age classes have higher 

resiliency and are better able to 

withstand stochastic disturbance. The 

presence of sufficiently resilient 

populations in multiple tributaries 

increases the species’ redundancy, 

thereby reducing its vulnerability to 

catastrophic events. Conservation of 

existing relict darter populations in the 

Bayou de Chien and Little Bayou de 

Chien watersheds will also help to 

maintain the species’ current 

representation, which although 

currently low, maintenance will 

therefore not reduce the species’ ability 

to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions. 

The Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek 

population of relict darter occupies at 

least six streams, including Bayou de 

Chien, Jackson Creek, Little Bayou de 

Chien, South Fork Bayou de Chien, 

Cane Creek, and Sand Creek (Service 

2020a, p. 20). However, only two of 

these streams have exhibited stable or 

increasing population trends, 

recruitment, and multiple age classes— 

Jackson Creek and Bayou de Chien. 

Recent surveys (2017–2018) indicate 

that estimates of relict darter 

abundance, mean density, and 

population size continue to be greatest 

in Jackson Creek and middle to 

headwater reaches of Bayou de Chien 

(Service 2020a, pp. 35–36). There is also 

evidence of reproduction and 

recruitment in Bayou de Chien and 

Jackson Creek streams, and these trends 

have remained relatively constant or 

have improved based on surveys 

completed in the past decade (Service 

2019, p. 22). Therefore, we conclude 

that this recovery criterion has been 

partially met. 

Recovery Criterion 2 

Criterion 2 states that threats have 

been addressed and/or managed in these 

watersheds to the extent that the species 

will maintain resiliency into the 

foreseeable future. 

Under this criterion, cooperative 

conservation efforts by the Service and 

its partners will reduce existing threats 

posed by habitat disturbance, range 

curtailment, and past inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms. These threats 

must be reduced to the extent that there 

is a reasonable expectation the species 

will maintain resiliency into the 

foreseeable future. Evidence of threat 

reduction will be demonstrated by the 

species’ improved resiliency and 

redundancy across its range. 

Since 2002, we have worked with 

multiple agencies and private partners 

(e.g., NRCS, KDFWR, and TNC) to 

implement conservation actions for the 

relict darter in the Bayou de Chien 

system (Service 2020a, p. 29). Our 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) 

Program has taken the lead role in this 

effort by providing technical and 

financial assistance to agencies and 

numerous private landowners. PFW 

biologists have focused their efforts on 

the use of best management practices 

(BMPs) and instream conservation 

practices that enhance and restore 

riparian habitats and the instream 

habitats used by the relict darter. PFW 

projects have included a culvert 

removal in the headwaters of Bayou de 

Chien, installation of livestock alternate 

watering systems, placement of artificial 

spawning structures in Bayou de Chien 

and Jackson Creek, installation of 

livestock exclusion fencing along 

several km of Bayou de Chien and 

Jackson Creek, and restoration of over 

20.2 hectares (50 acres) of native grasses 

and wildflowers within riparian areas. 

In addition to these efforts, PFW 

biologists have provided over 10 years 

of technical assistance to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Wetland 

Reserve Easement Program, for projects 

within the Bayou de Chien system 

(Radomski 2019, pers. comm.). 

While some of the stream habitats 

within the Bayou de Chien watershed 

have improved since the time of the 

listing of the relict darter, the 

improvements are often localized, and 

several threats remain. The species 

continues to be impacted by 

sedimentation, pollution, a limited 

range and linear distribution, and low 

genetic diversity (Service 2020a, pp. 37– 

38). Therefore, we consider this 

recovery criterion to be partially met. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

endangered species as a species that is 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range, and a 

threatened species as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

because of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could affect 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 consider these same five 

factors in reclassifying a species from 

endangered to threatened (50 CFR 

424.11(c)–(e)). 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12061 

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 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be 

reclassified as a threatened species 

under the Act. It does, however, provide 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. 

To assess relict darter viability, we 

used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain its populations over time, 

even under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the species’ 

ecological and life-history needs. The 

next stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of the species to 

sustain its populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0093 on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and we evaluate threats 

influencing the species’ current and 

future condition. These assessments 

allow us to assess the species’ overall 

viability and the risks to that viability. 

Factors Influencing Relict Darter 

Viability 

At the time of listing in 1993, the 

relict darter was known only from the 

Bayou de Chien mainstem and Jackson 

Creek, but it was later discovered in the 

Little Bayou de Chien in 2017 (Service 

2019, p. 11). Threats to the species at 

the time of listing were water quality 

and habitat deterioration resulting from 

stream channelization, siltation 

contributed by incompatible land use 

practices, and water pollutants from 

waste discharges. Relict darter 

distribution was reduced by these 

factors, and because the species was 

known to inhabit only limited areas and 

known to spawn in only one small 

tributary, it was deemed vulnerable to 

extirpation from toxic chemical spills 

(58 FR 68481, December 27, 1993). 

Additionally, because of its small 

population size, the species’ long-term 

genetic viability was determined 

questionable at the time of listing. 

While the relict darter’s viability has 

improved over time (see Conservation 

Efforts), three major factors are 

influencing the viability of the species 

now and are expected to affect it into 

the future: Habitat loss and degradation, 

restricted range/isolation, and climate 

change. Habitat loss and degradation 

resulting from siltation, channelization/ 

riparian vegetation removal, drainage of 

riparian wetlands, and water quality 

degradation (pollution) (Factor A) pose 

the largest risk to the current and future 

viability of the relict darter. Other 

potential stressors to the species are the 

restricted range of the species and 

climate change (Factor E). We find the 

species does not face threats from 

overutilization (Factor B), disease or 

predation (Factor C), or invasive species 

(Factor E). A brief summary of relevant 

stressors is presented below; for a full 

description, refer to chapter 3 of the 

SSA report (Service 2020a, entire). 

Siltation 

Siltation is the process whereby 

excess sediments are suspended or 

deposited in a stream. Excessive levels 

of sediment accumulate and cover the 

stream bottom, filling the interstitial 

spaces with finer substrates and 

homogenizing and decreasing the 

available habitat for fishes. In severe 

cases, sediment can bury larger 

substrate particles such as gravel and 

cobble, as well as woody debris. 

Siltation can abrade or suffocate fish 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12062 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

gills, eggs, and larvae; reduce disease 

tolerance; degrade or destroy spawning 

habitats, affecting egg, larval, and 

juvenile development; modify migration 

patterns; reduce food availability 

through the blockage of primary 

production; and reduce foraging 

efficiency (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, 

pp. 285–294; Waters 1995, pp. 5–7; 

Wood and Armitage 1997, pp. 211–212; 

Meyer and Sutherland 2005, pp. 2–3). 

Thus, siltation is a threat to all life 

stages of relict darter. In addition, relict 

darter spawning substrates are usually 

the undersides of fixed objects (e.g., 

wood, tree roots, cobble, tires) and are 

vulnerable to the effects of siltation (i.e., 

embeddedness, or being completely 

covered in sediment) (Service 2020a, p. 

14). 

Sediment (siltation) is one of the most 

common stressors of aquatic 

communities in the Bayou de Chien 

system (Kentucky Division of Water 

(KDOW) 2018, pp. 43–45). The primary 

sources of sediment are as agriculture 

(crop production) and habitat impacts 

(channel erosion/incision from 

upstream hydromodifications, dredging, 

and loss of riparian habitat). The Bayou 

de Chien system is extensively farmed 

(e.g., row crops and livestock), and a 

large portion of the system has been 

deforested. These land use practices 

result in a high silt load within the 

system that continues to degrade 

habitats and impact the species. 

Croplands have the potential to 

contribute large sediment loads during 

storm events, thereby causing increased 

siltation and potentially introducing 

harmful agricultural pollutants such as 

herbicides and pesticides. Unrestricted 

livestock access to streams has the 

potential to cause siltation and other 

habitat disturbance (Fraley and Ahlstedt 

2000, pp. 193–194). Grazing may reduce 

water infiltration rates and increase 

stormwater runoff; trampling and 

vegetation removal increase the 

probability of erosion and siltation 

(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 103). 

Physical habitat disturbance from 

sedimentation is less common in 

Jackson Creek than in other portions of 

the Bayou de Chien system. 

Several streams within the Bayou de 

Chien system have been identified as 

impaired due to siltation and have been 

included by the State of Kentucky on its 

list of impaired waters required under 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) (KDOW 2018, pp. 

43–45). Portions of several streams 

occupied by the relict darter are on this 

list, including Cane Creek (stream km 0– 

8.5 (stream mi 0–5.3)) in Hickman 

County, Little Bayou de Chien (stream 

km 1.8–3.8 and 18.8–22.5 (stream mi 

1.1–2.4 and 11.7–14.0)) in Fulton and 

Hickman Counties, and South Fork 

Bayou de Chien (stream km 0–12.6 

(stream mi 0–7.8)) in Graves County. 

Channelization/Riparian Vegetation 

Removal 

Stream channelization is a common 

practice used to reduce the effects of 

flooding, increase the drainage rate of 

agricultural land, and maximize the 

amount of tillable land (Piller and Burr 

1998, p. 65). These modified channels 

are often managed through vegetation 

removal and dredging to improve flood 

conveyance or through placement of 

quarried stone or gabion baskets to 

protect against bank erosion (Allan and 

Castillo 2007, p. 327). 

Historically, Bayou de Chien was 

presumably a free-flowing stream with 

alternating areas of riffles, runs, and 

pools. Since that time, many stream 

reaches within the system have been 

channelized and converted to deep 

ditches with uniform depth, velocity, 

and substrate (Piller and Burr 1998, p. 

71). Channelization has impacted the 

Bayou de Chien system by changing 

stream flow patterns including reducing 

instream flows (especially during drier 

periods) that stress relict darters, 

decreasing aquatic habitat complexity, 

which affects sheltering and feeding for 

relict darters, and reducing stream bank 

and floodplain (riparian) vegetation 

(Piller and Burr 1998, p. 71), which 

affects relict darter feeding and breeding 

resource needs. Channelized reaches 

have higher stream velocities and shear 

stress (a measure of the force of water 

against the channel boundary) during 

high flow periods (which leads to 

channel instability and bank erosion), 

less instream cover and habitat for 

aquatic organisms including relict darter 

(decreased habitat complexity), less 

riparian vegetation and correspondingly 

reduced canopies (reduced shade and 

reduced woody debris input), and below 

normal flows during drier periods 

(Warren et al. 1994, p. 24; Piller and 

Burr 1998, p. 71). Thus, the relict darter 

is susceptible to impacts from 

channelization and reductions in 

riparian vegetation because these 

stressors affect flows, habitat 

complexity, and instream temperatures 

and reduce the amount of woody 

material, thus affecting sheltering and 

reproduction needs of the species. 

The reduction or loss of riparian 

vegetation contributes to siltation 

through bank destabilization and the 

removal of submerged root systems that 

help to hold sediments in place while 

providing habitat for relict darters and 

their macroinvertebrate prey (Barling 

and Moore 1994, p. 544; Beeson and 

Doyle 1995, p. 989; Allan 2004, p. 262; 

Hauer and Lamberti 2006, pp. 721–723; 

Minshall and Rugenski 2006, pp. 721– 

723). Removal of riparian vegetation can 

also reduce the stream’s capacity for 

trapping and removing contaminants 

and nutrients from runoff; increase solar 

exposure, resulting in higher water 

temperatures; increase algal abundance 

(primary production); and reduce inputs 

of woody debris and leaf litter, thereby 

reducing food sources for relict darters 

and lowering overall stream production 

(Brazier and Brown 1973, p. 4; Karr and 

Schlosser 1978, p. 231; Peterjohn and 

Correll 1984, p. 1473; Osborne and 

Kovacic 1993, p. 255; Barling and Moore 

1994, p. 555; Vought et al. 1994, p. 346; 

Allan 1995, p. 109; Wallace et al. 1999, 

p. 429; Pusey and Arthington 2003, p. 

4). Where a reduction or loss of riparian 

vegetation occurs, these impacts 

negatively affect the quality of habitat 

available to the relict darter for 

breeding, feeding, and sheltering. 

Drainage of Riparian Wetlands 

With increased agricultural activity in 

the Bayou de Chien basin over the last 

century, much of the basin’s vegetation 

has been cleared, and many riparian 

wetlands have been drained to make 

additional lands available for farming 

(Piller and Burr 1998, p. 65). This 

situation has caused an overall 

reduction in the groundwater level and 

base flows within Bayou de Chien and 

its tributaries. Many small streams in 

the system have completely dried or 

consisted of isolated pools by the early 

fall months (Warren et al. 1994, p. 24). 

These conditions serve to isolate 

populations and subject both the adult 

and juvenile relict darters to increased 

pressure from predators (Service 1994, 

p. 14). Dispersal of the species upstream 

of the Jackson Creek area or into many 

downstream tributaries may be limited 

by instream flow conditions (Warren et 

al. 1994, p. 24). 

Water Quality Degradation (Pollution) 

Information is lacking on the relict 

darter’s tolerance to specific pollutants, 

but a variety of contaminants continue 

to degrade stream water quality within 

the Bayou de Chien drainage, and these 

pollutants may affect the relict darter. 

Several point-source and nonpointsource pollutants to aquatic life occur in 

the Bayou de Chien (Service 2020a, 

Appendix B) (KDOW 2018, pp. 43–45). 

These pollutants include copper, iron, 

lead, excess nutrients (total nitrogen and 

phosphorus), and eutrophication 

originating from two suspected 

sources—municipal point source 

discharges (e.g., sewage treatment) and 

agriculture (e.g., crop production and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12063 

animal feeding operations). Portions of 

four streams that are occupied by relict 

darter, specifically Bayou de Chien, 

Cane Creek, Little Bayou de Chien, and 

South Fork Bayou de Chien, were 

identified as impaired due to these 

pollutants (KDOW 2018, pp. 43–45). 

The impacts of copper, lead, and iron 

inputs are unknown, but nutrient inputs 

and eutrophication can lead to excessive 

algal growths and instream oxygen 

deficiencies that can seriously impact 

aquatic species, including the relict 

darter. 

Currently, 13 National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System permits 

have been issued authorizing the 

discharge of pollutants within portions 

of the Bayou de Chien system 

(Fredenberg 2018, pers. comm.; Service 

2020a, p. 27). Two sewage treatment 

plants, the City of Fulton Treatment 

Works (Kentucky Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (KPDES) 

#KY0026913) and the Hickman East 

Sewage Treatment Plant (KPDES 

#KY0028436), discharge treated 

wastewater directly into Bayou de 

Chien. Between January 2010 and April 

2020, the Fulton facility received 13 

violation notices from KDOW. The 

notices were issued for permit 

exceedances of a variety of chemical 

parameters (e.g., Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids 

(TSS), pH) and for failures to meet 

certain monitoring requirements 

associated with the permit (Service 

2020a, Appendix C). Insufficient 

treatment of wastewater could harm 

relict darter populations by introducing 

pollutants (e.g., metals, bacteria) and 

altering water quality conditions (e.g., 

decreased oxygen levels, elevated pH). 

The Bayou de Chien system is also 

affected by nonpoint-source pollutants, 

arising from a variety of diffuse sources. 

Examples of nonpoint-source pollutants 

include sediment (e.g., stormwater 

runoff from driveways, fields, 

construction sites), raw sewage (e.g., 

septic tank leakage, straight pipe 

discharges), animal waste from 

livestock, fertilizers, pesticides, 

herbicides, and road salt (KDOW 2013, 

pp. 19–21; KDOW 2018, pp. 43–45). 

Nonpoint-source pollutants can cause 

excess nutrification (increased levels of 

nitrogen and phosphorus), excessive 

algal growths that clog the waterway 

and affect swimming capability and 

visual predation, instream oxygen 

deficiencies that affect oxygen intake by 

relict darters, and other changes in 

water chemistry that can impact aquatic 

species such as the relict darter. 

Nonpoint-source pollution from land 

surface runoff can originate from 

virtually any land use activity and has 

been correlated with impervious 

surfaces and storm water runoff (Allan 

2004, pp. 266–267). Pollutants may 

include sediments, fertilizers, 

herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, 

septic tank and gray water leakage, 

pharmaceuticals, and petroleum 

products. These pollutants tend to 

increase concentrations of nutrients and 

toxins in the water and alter the 

chemistry of affected streams such that 

the habitat and food sources for species 

like the relict darter are negatively 

impacted. 

Due to its linear distribution within 

the Bayou de Chien mainstem and 

Jackson Creek, the relict darter 

continues to be vulnerable to accidental 

chemical or animal waste spills and 

releases that may result from traffic 

accidents, agricultural activities, or 

permitted discharges (Warren et al.1994, 

p. 24). Events of this kind have affected 

other aquatic communities in the 

Southeastern United States during the 

recent past (Ahlstedt et al. 2016, pp. 8– 

9), so similar events have the potential 

to affect relict darter populations in the 

Bayou de Chien system. These events 

could have devastating effects on darters 

in these reaches (Piller and Burr 1996, 

p. 74) and could pose a threat to the 

long-term viability of the species. 

Restricted Range/Isolation 

The relict darter has always had a 

limited geographic range, currently 

consisting of approximately 52.5 stream 

km (32.7 stream mi) within a single 

stream system in western Kentucky 

(Bayou de Chien system). The species 

was characterized as uncommon or rare 

at most collection sites in the 1990s 

(Piller and Burr 1998, pp. 66–71), and 

recent surveys indicate the species 

continues to be rare in some reaches but 

is more common in others. 

The species’ restricted range and low 

abundance in some reaches (e.g., Little 

Bayou de Chien and Cane Creek) make 

it more vulnerable to extirpation from 

toxic chemical spills, habitat 

modification, degradation from land 

surface runoff (nonpoint-source 

pollution), and natural catastrophic 

changes to their habitat (e.g., flood 

scour, drought). In particular, recent 

survey data indicate that the relict 

darter’s most successful reproduction 

occurs in Jackson Creek and middle and 

headwater reaches of Bayou de Chien, 

which are vulnerable to stochastic 

events, such as a single toxic chemical 

spill or an extreme weather event such 

as a drought or flash flood. These events 

could have devastating effects on darters 

in these reaches (Piller and Burr 1996, 

p. 74) and could pose a threat to the 

long-term viability of the species. 

The relict darter is represented by two 

geographically isolated populations: 

Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek and 

Little Bayou de Chien (Service 2020a, p. 

20). The fact that the Little Bayou de 

Chien population is small and isolated 

from the larger Bayou de Chien/Jackson 

Creek population makes it more 

vulnerable to stochastic and 

catastrophic events, thus affecting 

overall relict darter viability. 

Climate Change 

Species that are dependent on 

specialized habitat types, limited in 

distribution, or at the extreme periphery 

of their range may be most susceptible 

to the impacts of climate change (Byers 

and Norris 2011, pp. 18–19); however, 

while continued change is certain, the 

magnitude and rate of change is 

unknown in many cases. Climate 

change has the potential to increase the 

vulnerability of the relict darter to 

random catastrophic events 

(McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6060–6074; 

Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145–148). An 

increase in both severity and variation 

in climate patterns is expected; extreme 

floods, strong storms, and droughts will 

become more common (Cook et al. 2004, 

pp. 1015–1018; Ford et al. 2011, p. 

2065; Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2014, pp. 58–83). 

Frequency, duration, and intensity of 

droughts are likely to increase in the 

Southeast as a result of global climate 

change (Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145– 

148). Stream temperatures in the 

Southeast have increased roughly 0.2– 

0.4 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.4–0.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) per decade over the 

past 30 years, and as air temperature is 

a strong predictor of water temperature, 

stream temperatures are expected to 

continue to rise (Kaushal et al. 2010, p. 

465). Predicted impacts of climate 

change on fishes include disruption to 

their physiology (such as temperature 

tolerance, dissolved oxygen needs, and 

metabolic rates), life history (such as 

timing of reproduction, growth rate), 

and distribution (range shifts, migration 

of new predators) (Jackson and Mandrak 

2002, pp. 89–98; Heino et al. 2009, pp. 

41–51; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp. 

350–351; Comte et al. 2013, pp. 627– 

636). 

Estimates of the effects of climate 

change using available climate models 

typically lack the geographic precision 

needed to project the magnitude of 

effects at a scale small enough to 

discretely apply to the range of a given 

species. However, data on recent trends 

and projected changes for Kentucky 

(Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1–19), and, 

more specifically, the Bayou de Chien 

system (Alder and Hostetler 2017, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12064 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

entire) provide some insight for 

evaluating the potential impacts of 

climate change to the relict darter. 

Different emission scenarios have been 

used to calculate estimates of average 

annual increases in maximum and 

minimum air temperature, precipitation, 

snowfall, and other variables (Alder and 

Hostetler 2017, entire). These scenarios, 

called representative concentration 

pathways (RCPs), are plausible 

pathways toward reaching a target 

radiative forcing (the change in energy 

in the atmosphere due to greenhouse 

gases) by the year 2100 (Moss et al. 

2010, p. 752). Depending on the chosen 

model and emission scenario (RCP8.5 

(high) vs. 4.5 (moderate)), annual mean 

maximum air temperatures for the 

Bayou de Chien system are expected to 

increase by 2.3–3.4 °C (4.1–6.1 °F) by 

2074, while precipitation models 

predict that the Bayou de Chien system 

will experience a slight increase in 

annual mean precipitation (0.5 

centimeters/month (0.2 inches/month)) 

through 2074 (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1– 

19; Alder and Hostetler 2016, pp. 1–9). 

There is uncertainty about the specific 

effects of climate change (and their 

magnitude) on the relict darter; 

however, climate change is almost 

certain to affect aquatic habitats in the 

Bayou de Chien system of western 

Kentucky through increased water 

temperatures and more frequent 

droughts (Alder and Hostetler 2017, 

entire), and species with limited ranges, 

fragmented distributions, and small 

population size, such as the relict 

darter, are thought to be especially 

vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change (Byers and Norris 2011, pp. 18– 

19). Thus, we consider climate change 

to be a threat to the relict darter. 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The relict darter and its habitats are 

afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Clean Water Act, Kentucky’s Forest 

Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS 

§§ 149.330–355), Kentucky’s Agriculture 

Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS 

§§ 224.71–140), and additional 

Kentucky statutes and regulations 

regarding natural resources and 

environmental protection (KRS § 224; 

401 KAR §§ 5:026, 5:031). While it is 

clear that the protections afforded by 

these statutes and regulations have not 

prevented the degradation of some 

habitats used by the relict darter, the 

species has undoubtedly benefited from 

improvements in water quality and 

habitat conditions stemming from these 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Conservation Efforts 

The relict darter is listed as 

endangered in Kentucky (OKNP 2019, p. 

16), making it unlawful to take the 

species or damage its habitat without a 

State permit. Additionally, the relict 

darter is identified as a species of 

greatest conservation need in the 

Kentucky Wildlife Action Plan (KDFWR 

2013, Chapter 2), which outlines actions 

to promote species conservation. 

Since listing the species, the Service 

has worked with multiple agencies and 

private partners (e.g., NRCS, KDFWR, 

and TNC) to implement conservation 

actions for the relict darter in the Bayou 

de Chien system. The Service’s PFW 

Program has taken the lead role in this 

effort by providing technical and 

financial assistance to agencies and 

numerous private landowners. PFW has 

focused its efforts on the use of best 

management practices (BMPs) and 

instream conservation practices that 

enhance and restore riparian and 

instream habitats used by the relict 

darter. PFW projects have included a 

culvert removal in the headwaters of 

Bayou de Chien, installation of livestock 

alternate watering systems, placement of 

artificial spawning structures in Bayou 

de Chien and Jackson Creek, installation 

of livestock exclusion fencing along 

several kilometers of Bayou de Chien 

and Jackson Creek, and restoration of 

more than 20.2 hectares (50 acres) of 

native grasses and wildflowers within 

riparian areas. In addition to these 

efforts, PFW biologists have provided 

over 10 years of technical assistance to 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Wetland Reserve Easement Program, for 

projects within the Bayou de Chien 

system (Radomski 2019, pers. comm.). 

These efforts have resulted in 

permanent easements covering more 

than 1,700 acres (688 hectares) in the 

upper Bayou de Chien system (Morris 

2020, pers. comm.). These easements 

will benefit the relict darter through 

sediment and nutrient reduction, 

shading of stream corridors (via riparian 

plantings), hydrological restoration (via 

plugging of agricultural ditches and 

improved groundwater connections), 

and general habitat creation, or wetland 

restoration. 

Species Viability 

For relict darter populations to be 

sufficiently resilient, the needs of 

individuals (slow-flowing riffles and 

pools, appropriate substrate, food 

availability, water quality, and aquatic 

vegetation or large woody debris for 

cover) must be met at a larger scale. 

Stream reaches with suitable habitat 

must be large enough to support an 

appropriate number of individuals to 

avoid issues associated with small 

population size, such as inbreeding 

depression and the Allee effect (low 

population density reducing the 

probability of encountering mates for 

spawning). Connectivity of stream 

reaches allows for immigration and 

emigration between populations and 

increases the likelihood of 

recolonization should a population be 

lost. At the species level, the relict 

darter needs well-distributed healthy 

populations to withstand environmental 

stochasticity (resiliency) and 

catastrophes (redundancy) and adapt to 

biological and physical changes in its 

environment (representation). To 

evaluate the current and future viability 

of the relict darter, we assessed a range 

of conditions to allow us to estimate the 

species’ resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy. 

We delineated analytical units 

(populations) by dividing the relict 

darter’s range into two units (Bayou de 

Chien/Jackson Creek and Little Bayou 

de Chien) based on known occurrence 

records, the substantial distance (18.3 

kilometers (km) (11.4 miles (mi)) 

separating known occurrence records in 

both watersheds, and unsuitable habitat 

conditions in downstream reaches of 

both watersheds. 

To assess resiliency, we evaluated 

four components that relate to the 

species’ habitat or its population 

demography: Physical habitat, water 

quality, mean density, and occurrence 

complexity. We assessed habitat using 

two components describing physical 

habitat quality and water quality. The 

demographic condition was assessed 

using mean density and occurrence 

complexity. We established parameters 

for each condition category by 

evaluating the range of existing data and 

separating those data into categories 

based on our understanding of the 

species’ demographics and habitat (table 

1, below). Individual component scores 

were combined and averaged to produce 

an overall condition score for each 

population. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12065 

TABLE 1—COMPONENT CONDITIONS USED TO ASSESS RESILIENCY FOR RELICT DARTER POPULATIONS

Component 

Condition 

High Moderate Low 0 

Physical Habitat .. Silt deposition low; no extensive 

or significant habitat alterations 

(e.g., recent channelization, riparian clearing); >75% of available habitat suitable for the 

species.

Silt deposition moderate; habitat 

alterations at moderate levels—channelization or other 

habitat disturbance more widespread; 25–75% of available 

habitat suitable for the species.

Silt deposition extensive; habitats 

severely altered and recognized as impacting the species; <25% of habitats suitable 

for the species.

Habitats unsuitable (species 

absent). 

Water Quality ...... Minimal or no known water quality (WQ) issues (i.e., no 303(d) 

streams impacting the species *).

WQ issues recognized and may 

impact species (i.e., 1–2 

303(d) streams).

WQ issues prevalent within system, likely impacting populations (i.e., numerous 303(d) 

streams).

Habitat unsuitable (species 

absent). 

Mean Density (# 

darters/m2).

>0.15 ........................................... 0.05–0.15 .................................... <0.05 ........................................... Species absent. 

Occurrence Complexity.Occupies main channel and ≥3 

tributaries.

Occupies main channel and maximum of 2 tributaries.Occupies main channel and maximum of ≤1 tributaries.Species absent. 

* Signifies streams identified by the State of Kentucky on the list of impaired streams required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1313(d)). 

Our evaluation of representation for 

the relict darter was based on the 

species’ genetic diversity and the extent 

and variability of environmental 

diversity (habitat diversity) across the 

species’ geographical range. 

Additionally, we assessed relict darter 

redundancy (ability of the species to 

withstand catastrophic events) by 

evaluating the number and distribution 

of resilient populations throughout the 

species’ range. Highly resilient 

populations, coupled with a broad 

distribution throughout the historical 

range, have a positive relationship to 

species-level redundancy. 

Current Conditions of the Relict Darter 

The relict darter’s historical range 

included the Bayou de Chien stream 

system, a 554-kilometer2 (km2) (214- 

mile2 (mi2) watershed located within 

the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains 

ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002, entire) in 

Fulton, Graves, and Hickman Counties, 

Kentucky (Webb and Sisk 1975, entire; 

Warren et al. 1994, entire; Piller and 

Burr 1998, entire). Bayou de Chien is a 

low-gradient, sand, gravel, and siltbottomed stream that begins in 

southwestern Graves County and flows 

westward approximately 47 km (29.2 

mi) through Hickman and Fulton 

Counties, before ultimately emptying 

into Obion Creek near Hickman, 

Kentucky. Historically, Bayou de Chien 

was presumably an undisturbed, freeflowing stream with alternating areas of 

riffles, runs, and pools; however, only a 

few of these reaches remain because 

much of the stream has been 

channelized and converted to a deep 

ditch with uniform depth, velocity, and 

substrate (Piller and Burr 1998, pp. 64– 

65). 

The relict darter’s current range is 

also limited to the Bayou de Chien 

system in Fulton, Graves, and Hickman 

Counties, Kentucky. Recent surveys 

(2010–2019) indicate that the species is 

now known by two geographically 

separated populations: Bayou de Chien/ 

Jackson Creek and Little Bayou de 

Chien. Within the Bayou de Chien/ 

Jackson Creek population, the species 

occupies patches of suitable habitat 

within a 30.4-km (18.9-mi) reach of 

Bayou de Chien, a 3.6-km (2.3-mi) reach 

of Jackson Creek, a 3.2-km (2.0-mi) 

reach of South Fork Bayou de Chien, a 

10.4-km (6.5-mi) reach of Cane Creek, 

and a 2.3-km (1.4-mi) reach of Sand 

Creek. Within the Little Bayou de Chien 

population, the species occupies 

patches of suitable habitat within a 2.6- 

km (1.6-mi) reach. In total, the species 

currently occupies 52.5 stream km (32.7 

stream mi). 

The Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek 

population exhibits moderate resiliency, 

as evidenced by recent estimates of 

mean density and mean population size, 

recent monitoring data showing 

evidence of reproduction and 

recruitment, and our observations of 

moderate to high physical habitat and 

water quality conditions within the 

watershed (table 2; Service 2020a, p. 

35). Based on recent surveys, Jackson 

Creek and Bayou de Chien have 

moderate to high relict darter densities, 

with population estimates of 1,888 and 

22,798 fish, respectively, indicating that 

the population size has more than 

doubled since a decade ago (Service 

2019, p. 7; Service 2020a, p. 36). 

Resiliency of the Little Bayou de Chien 

population is lower due to its lower 

mean density and less optimal habitat 

conditions (table 2, below). The species 

was only recently discovered in the 

Little Bayou de Chien in July 2017. 

Recent survey efforts have been limited 

to two 100-m reaches and several 

qualitative searches; population size has 

not been estimated because of the 

limited quantitative effort; however, 23 

relict darters were observed. Low levels 

of reproduction and recruitment are 

assumed for the Little Bayou de Chien. 

Overall, the range-wide mean 

population estimate is 24,686 relict 

darters (Service 2019, p. 7). 

We consider redundancy and 

representation of the relict darter to be 

low due to the species’ small number of 

populations, its low effective population 

size (mean of 221.5, with a 95 percent 

confidence interval of 143.3–448.3), and 

its reduced genetic diversity (table 2; 

Kattawar and Piller 2020, pp. 27–28). 

We recognize that redundancy and 

representation may be inherently low 

for a narrow endemic like the relict 

darter. The fact that the species exhibits 

little genetic variation across its range 

and has a very low effective population 

size suggests a past population 

bottleneck (e.g., range-wide habitat 

disturbance) and subsequent genetic 

drift (loss of rare alleles in a small 

population) (Kattawar and Piller 2020, 

entire). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12066 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—3RS (RESILIENCY, REDUNDANCY, REPRESENTATION) SUMMARY FOR RELICT DARTER

Population Resiliency Redundancy Representation 

Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek .....

Little Bayou de Chien. 

Moderate ........

Low. 

Naturally Low—the species is a narrowly distributed 

endemic; populations appear to be separated, but 

connectivity exists within Bayou de Chien, Jackson Creek, and other large tributaries.

Low—low genetic diversity and 

low effective population size. 

As a narrow endemic species located 

in one watershed in southwestern 

Kentucky, the relict darter has 

inherently low redundancy, with only 

one known population at the time of 

listing, and currently there are two 

populations. Representation is also 

limited based on its restricted range, yet 

the species has survived a likely 

population bottleneck, and despite low 

genetic diversity, genetic analyses 

indicate a single panmictic population, 

indicating some recent genetic exchange 

between populations. Low species 

redundancy and representation are 

tempered by the moderate resiliency of 

the Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek 

population. This historical population 

continues to exhibit resiliency today, 

with high relict darter abundance and 

evidence of continued reproduction. 

This moderately resilient population 

has survived threats, primarily because 

conservation efforts over the past three 

decades have improved habitat within 

the system, thus enabling the breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering needs of the 

relict darter to be met and thus 

sustaining the population over time. 

Future Conditions 

In our SSA (Service 2020a, entire), we 

defined viability as the ability of the 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. To help address 

uncertainty associated with the degree 

and extent of potential future stressors 

and their impacts on the species’ needs, 

the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation were assessed using 

three plausible future scenarios 

(continuation of current trend, 

improving trend, and worsening trend), 

using the same analytical units and 

components described above, in 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats. We devised these scenarios by 

identifying data sources related to the 

primary threats anticipated to affect the 

relict darter in the future. For the habitat 

loss and degradation threat, we looked 

at land cover change and urbanization, 

as well as conservation activity, and we 

also included predicted impacts of 

future climate change. The three 

scenarios capture the range of 

uncertainty in the changing landscape 

and how relict darter will respond to the 

changing conditions (table 3, below). 

We used the best available data and 

models to project out 50 years into the 

future (i.e., 2070), a timeframe where we 

were reasonably certain the land use 

change, urbanization, and climate 

models used could project patterns in 

the species’ range relevant to the relict 

darter and its habitat given the species’ 

lifespan. For each scenario, we provided 

a summary of resiliency for each 

population at 10, 30, and 50 years in the 

future. For more information on the 

models and their projections, please see 

the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire). 

TABLE 3—FUTURE CONDITION OF THE RELICT DARTER BY THE YEARS 2030, 2050, AND 2070 UNDER THREE FUTURE

SCENARIOS

Scenario Population 

Predicted future condition 

10 Years 30 Years 50 Years 

1 ..................... Bayou de Chien/Jackson ............................................................. Moderate .............. Moderate .............. Moderate. 

Little Bayou de Chien .................................................................. Low ...................... Low ...................... Low. 

2 ..................... Bayou de Chien/Jackson ............................................................. Moderate .............. Moderate–High ..... Moderate–High. 

Little Bayou de Chien .................................................................. Low ...................... Low–Moderate ..... Moderate. 

3 ..................... Bayou de Chien/Jackson ............................................................. Moderate .............. Low–Moderate ..... Low. 

Little Bayou de Chien .................................................................. Low ...................... Extirpated ............. Extirpated. 

Under Scenario 1 (continuation of 

current trend), small increases in 

urbanization were predicted by 2050 

and 2070 within the watersheds of both 

extant populations (Service 2020a, pp. 

41–43), but associated impacts on 

habitat and population elements were 

expected to be minimal. We also 

predicted continued implementation of 

conservation actions under KDFWR’s 

conservation strategy and through the 

Service’s PFW program. Using a 

moderate level of climate change (RCP 

4.5), within the next 10 years, portions 

of the Bayou de Chien system were 

impacted by either drought or floods, 

with slightly warmer temperatures. Over 

the long term (30–50 years), drought 

affected all populations but at intervals 

and severity levels similar to what has 

occurred over the last 10 years. 

Considering all of these factors, we 

expect no change in resiliency for the 

two known populations; however, the 

low resiliency of the Little Bayou de 

Chien population makes it much more 

vulnerable to extirpation from the 

effects of stochastic disturbance. Under 

Scenario 1, both representation and 

redundancy of the relict darter are 

expected to remain at low levels. The 

species is limited to one low resiliency 

population and one moderate resiliency 

population, both of which occupy 

streams within a single ecoregion, 

Mississippi Valley Loess Plains. Within 

this ecoregion, relict darters occupy 

second- to fourth-order reaches, but 

habitat diversity within these reaches 

tends to be low. The species also has 

low genetic diversity, which cannot be 

increased through augmentations, 

reintroductions, or other genetics-based 

conservation actions because genetic 

diversity cannot be created with a 

species that has a limited gene pool. The 

species’ low genetic diversity could 

potentially limit its ability to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions over 

time. Furthermore, both populations 

will remain vulnerable to catastrophic 

events, such as an extreme drought or 

chemical spill, because the species’ 

distribution is generally limited to a 

single, continuous stream reach within 

each population. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12067 

Under Scenario 2 (improving trend), 

we projected a number of improved 

conditions and positive outcomes that 

led to overall improved resiliency and 

redundancy for the relict darter. We 

projected both land use change and 

urbanization to be lower than current 

rates. The current trend in climate 

improved, with lower annual increases 

in temperature and less severe droughts 

or floods in the short term (RCP 4.5). 

Over the long term (30–50 years), 

drought affected both populations but at 

intervals and severity levels lower than 

what occurred over the last 10 years. 

Conservation efforts, including new 

efforts along occupied reaches of Little 

Bayou de Chien, increased through State 

wildlife action plans, and other Service 

partnerships with Federal, State, and 

nongovernmental partners. These 

actions contributed to improved water 

quality conditions, increases in forest 

and riparian cover, and reductions in 

point source and nonpoint-source 

pollutants in all historical tributary 

systems. 

Based on these habitat and water 

quality improvements, we expect both 

extant populations to increase in size, 

with continued reproduction and 

recruitment. We also expect these 

populations to expand into unoccupied 

historical tributaries, eventually 

resulting in improved occurrence 

complexity in both watersheds. All of 

these actions and conditions will result 

in increased resiliency for the Bayou de 

Chien/Jackson and Little Bayou de 

Chien populations over the next 30–50 

years. Under Scenario 2, representation 

of the relict darter is expected to remain 

at a low level. The species’ expansion 

within the Bayou de Chien and Little 

Bayou de Chien watersheds will bolster 

the species’ resiliency and redundancy, 

but the species’ low genetic diversity 

cannot be increased. Under Scenario 2, 

redundancy of the relict darter will 

increase due to the species’ expansion 

and improved resiliency within the 

Bayou de Chien and Little Bayou de 

Chien watersheds and due to the 

species’ recolonization of historical 

tributaries such as South Fork Bayou de 

Chien. This increased redundancy will 

decrease the likelihood that a 

catastrophic event, such as an extreme 

drought or pollution event, would lead 

to the species’ extinction. Under 

Scenario 2, we expect the relict darter 

to exhibit low–moderate redundancy. 

Under Scenario 3 (worsening trend), 

we projected rates of land use change 

and urbanization to be higher than 

current rates. The current trend in 

climate worsened (high RCP of 8.5), and 

within the next 10 years, populations 

were impacted by either drought or 

floods, with warmer stream 

temperatures and lower rainfall. Over 

the long term (30–50 years), drought 

affected both populations at intervals 

and severity levels higher than what has 

occurred over the last 10 years. Some 

conservation actions continued in the 

Bayou de Chien system, but there was 

a net decrease in these activities due to 

reduced agency funding. All of these 

actions and conditions resulted in 

declining habitat and water quality 

conditions that will negatively affect 

resiliency estimates for both extant 

populations. 

For this scenario, we project low 

resiliency for the Bayou de Chien/ 

Jackson population and potential 

extirpation of the Little Bayou de Chien 

population by 2070. Under Scenario 3, 

representation of the relict darter is 

expected to remain at a low level. 

Reduced resiliency of the Bayou de 

Chien/Jackson Creek population and 

extirpation of the Little Bayou de Chien 

population will increase the species’ 

vulnerability to stochastic disturbance 

and will likely reduce the species’ 

ability to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions. Under 

Scenario 3, redundancy of the relict 

darter is expected to remain at a low 

level; however, extirpation of the Little 

Bayou de Chien population reduces the 

species’ range, leaving it with a single 

population (Bayou de Chien/Jackson 

Creek) that is more vulnerable to a 

catastrophic event such as an extreme 

drought or chemical spill. The species’ 

redundancy is also weakened by lower 

resiliency of the Bayou de Chien/ 

Jackson Creek population, which will be 

faced with declining physical habitat 

and water quality conditions. 

Synergistic and Cumulative Effects 

In addition to affecting the relict 

darter individually, it is possible that 

several of the risk factors summarized 

above are acting synergistically or 

cumulatively on the species. The 

combined impact of multiple stressors is 

likely more harmful than a single 

stressor acting alone. The dual stressors 

of climate change and direct human 

impact have the potential to affect 

aquatic ecosystems by altering stream 

flows and nutrient cycles, eliminating 

habitats, and changing community 

structure (Moore et al. 1997, p. 942). 

Increased water temperatures and a 

reduction in stream flow are the climate 

change effects that are most likely to 

affect stream communities (Poff 1992, 

entire), and each variable is strongly 

influenced by land use patterns. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Determination of Relict Darter Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines 

an endangered species as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

For a more detailed discussion on the 

factors considered when determining 

whether a species meets the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species and our analysis on how we 

determine the foreseeable future in 

making these decisions, please see 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

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

factors, we conclude that the risk factors 

acting on the relict darter and its 

habitat, either singly or in combination, 

are not of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude to indicate that 

the species is in danger of extinction (an 

endangered species) throughout all of its 

range. As described in Current 

Condition, the relict darter is naturally 

a narrow endemic species. Its low 

species redundancy and representation 

are tempered by the moderate resiliency 

of the Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek 

population, which has high relict darter 

abundance and evidence of continued 

reproduction. The increased population 

size and successful recruitment trends 

have improved based on surveys 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12068 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

completed during the past decade. 

Further, this moderately resilient 

population has survived threats, 

primarily because conservation efforts 

over the past three decades have 

improved and protected habitat within 

the system, thus enabling the breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering needs of the 

relict darter to be met and thus 

sustaining the population over time. 

The Service continues to work with 

partners on these projects. Additionally, 

a second population in the Little Bayou 

de Chein was discovered in 2017. While 

this newly discovered population has 

low resiliency, the addition of a second 

population adds to the species’ 

redundancy. The current resiliency of 

the Jackson Creek/Bayou de Chien 

population, with a population size that 

has doubled in the past decade to nearly 

23,000 relict darters showing evidence 

of reproduction and successful 

recruitment, along with the added 

redundancy of the newly discovered 

Little Bayou de Chien population and 

the reduced habitat threats, indicate that 

the species is not currently in danger of 

extinction. Therefore, after assessing the 

best available information, we conclude 

that the relict darter no longer meets the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. 

However, the species still faces 

threats. Our analysis of the relict 

darter’s current condition shows that 

while the species has maintained 

resiliency since it was listed in 1993, it 

is now represented by only two 

populations in one watershed, thus 

redundancy is inherently low. The 

species also has low representation 

based on its reduced genetic diversity 

and low effective population size 

(Factor E), likely a result of a population 

bottleneck caused by extensive 

channelization and habitat disturbance 

throughout the Bayou de Chien system 

in the early 20th century. Habitat loss 

and degradation through stream channel 

disturbance, removal of riparian 

vegetation, and pollution continue to 

affect the species (Factor A), even 

though conservation actions over the 

past three decades have led to improved 

habitat conditions in portions of the 

Bayou de Chien mainstem and Jackson 

Creek, contributing to moderate 

resiliency for the larger population. The 

relict darter has benefited from 

protection as an endangered species 

under the Act, and improvements in 

water quality and habitat conditions 

stemming from both national and 

Kentucky statutes and regulations; 

however, these regulations have not 

prevented the degradation of some 

habitats used by the species (Factor D). 

The primary threats that are currently 

acting on the species are expected to 

continue into the future, climate change 

(Factor E) is expected to exacerbate 

existing threats, and the species’ low 

redundancy and low representation put 

the species at risk of extinction 

throughout all of its range in the 

foreseeable future. Fifty years was 

considered ‘‘foreseeable’’ in this case 

because it included projections from 

available models and was biologically 

meaningful to the species. We can 

reasonably determine within this 50- 

year timeframe that both the threats as 

presented in the models of predicted 

urbanization, land use, and climate 

change and the species’ responses to 

those threats are likely. 

The range of plausible future 

scenarios of relict darter habitat 

conditions and water quality factors 

suggest slightly variable resilience into 

the future. Under the continuation of 

current trend scenario (Scenario 1), 

resiliency remains low or moderate in 

the two populations, with redundancy 

and representation remaining low. 

Under the improving trend scenario 

(Scenario 2), resiliency improves for 

both populations, with habitat 

conditions predicted to improve 

because of an increased percentage of 

forested land with both reduced 

percentages of agricultural land and 

urbanization, along with reduced 

climate change rates. Representation 

remains low under this scenario, but 

redundancy improves because of 

reintroduction of the species into 

historical habitats or natural expansion 

within the system. There is greater 

uncertainty regarding the species’ future 

status, primarily due to conservation 

action implementation with this 

scenario than in the other two future 

scenarios. Under the worsening trend 

scenario (Scenario 3), resiliency is low 

in the one remaining population, and 

one population is likely extirpated 

resulting in reduced redundancy and 

low representation. This expected 

reduction in both the number and 

distribution of resilient populations is 

likely to increase the species’ 

vulnerability to both stochastic and 

catastrophic disturbances. Compared to 

the other two scenarios, the conditions 

from Scenario 3 were considered more 

likely to contribute to the future 

condition of the species, primarily 

because of expected continued 

sedimentation and water quality 

degradation combined with the 

expected synergistic effects of climate 

change in the future. 

In summary, while the relict darter’s 

viability has improved over time (see 

Conservation Efforts), three major 

factors that are influencing the viability 

of the species are expected to affect it 

into the future: Habitat loss and 

degradation, restricted range/isolation, 

and climate change. Habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from siltation, 

channelization/riparian vegetation 

removal, drainage of riparian wetlands, 

and water quality degradation 

(pollution) pose the largest risk to the 

current and future viability of the relict 

darter. With the plausibility of future 

land use changes that could impact 

instream habitat and water quality, the 

projected worsening climate conditions, 

and given the inherently low 

redundancy that increases vulnerability 

to catastrophic events, the relict darter 

is at risk of extinction within the next 

50 years. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the relict darter is not currently in 

danger of extinction, but it is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

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

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided that the Service does not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address either the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12069 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for relict 

darter, we choose to address the 

significance question first. First we 

assessed the two portions of the range 

(Bayou de Chien/Jackson Creek and 

Little Bayou de Chien). In the absence 

of a definition of significance, we 

determined significance on a case-bycase basis for the relict darter using a 

reasonable interpretation of significance 

and providing a rational basis for our 

determination. In doing so, we 

considered what is currently observed 

about the contributions made by each 

geographic portion in terms of biological 

factors, focusing on the importance of 

each in supporting the continued 

viability of the species. We evaluated 

whether these areas occupy relatively 

large or particularly high-quality or 

unique habitat. As a narrow ranging 

endemic, both relict darter populations 

occur within one 214-mi2 (554-km2) 

watershed in three counties in 

southwestern Kentucky (Service 2020a, 

p. 17), and Little Bayou de Chien is a 

tributary to Bayou de Chien. We 

determined that the Bayou de Chien/ 

Jackson Creek portion is significant, as 

it is large geographically relative to the 

entire range of the species, it contains 

high quality/high value habitat for the 

species, and it contains habitat essential 

to the relict darter’s life history, and 

therefore is important for the overall 

conservation of the species. We 

determined that the Little Bayou de 

Chien portion is not significant, as it 

constitutes a very small portion of the 

range and does not represent unique or 

high quality habitat for the relict darter. 

Since we determined that Bayou de 

Chein/Jackson Creek is a significant 

portion, we next evaluate whether the 

relict darter is in danger of extinction 

(i.e., endangered) in that portion. Since 

there are only two portions, and since 

Little Bayou de Chien was determined 

to not be significant, then the Bayou de 

Chien/Jackson Creek portion drove our 

initial status determination of 

threatened for the relict darter, and 

therefore that portion does not have a 

different status than the entire range. 

Furthermore, the threats the relict darter 

faces are not concentrated in any 

portion of the range, rather the threats 

affect the entire narrow range of the 

species. Habitat loss and degradation 

resulting from siltation, channelization/ 

riparian vegetation removal, drainage of 

riparian wetlands, and water quality 

degradation (pollution) pose the largest 

risk to viability of the relict darter 

throughout its entire range. Based on 

this, there are no portions of the species’ 

range that provide a basis for 

determining that the species is in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

its range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicates that 

the relict darter meets the definition of 

a threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to reclassify the relict darter as 

a threatened species in accordance with 

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

Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

us when adopting the prohibitions 

under section 9 of the Act. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to her with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

She may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

she may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species (H.R. Rep. 

No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address the relict darter’s specific 

threats and conservation needs. 

Although the statute does not require us 

to make a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ 

finding with respect to the adoption of 

specific prohibitions under section 9, 

we find that this rule as a whole satisfies 

the requirement in section 4(d) of the 

Act to issue regulations deemed 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the relict darter. As 

discussed under Summary of Biological 

Status and Threats, we have concluded 

that the relict darter is no longer 

currently at risk of extinction, but is still 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future, primarily 

due to habitat degradation and loss 

stemming from siltation, channelization 

and riparian vegetation removal, 

riparian wetland drainage, and water 

quality degradation. These threats 

contribute to the negative effects 

associated with the species’ restricted 

range and effects of climate change. The 

provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule 

would promote conservation of the 

relict darter by providing continued 

protection from take and encouraging 

management of the landscape in ways 

that meet both watershed and riparian 

management considerations and the 

conservation needs of the relict darter. 

The provisions of this rule are one of 

many tools that we would use to 

promote the conservation of the relict 

darter. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 

only if and when we make final the 

reclassification of the relict darter as a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12070 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

threatened species. Finally, the only 

portion of this proposed rule that would 

have regulatory effect if the rule is made 

final is the text set forth in the rule 

portion of this document (i.e., the text 

we propose to revise § 17.44 in title 50 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR)). The explanatory text in the 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

section below merely clarifies the intent 

of these proposed amendments to the 

CFR. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the relict 

darter by adopting the same 

prohibitions that apply to an 

endangered species under section 9 of 

the Act and 50 CFR 17.21. Except as 

otherwise authorized or permitted, this 

proposed 4(d) rule would continue to 

prohibit importing or exporting; take; 

possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 

receiving, transporting, or shipping in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of commercial activity; and 

selling or offering for sale in interstate 

or foreign commerce. The prohibitions 

would apply throughout the species’ 

range. 

Identical to the regulations that apply 

under endangered status, the 

prohibitions in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would prohibit all forms of take within 

the United States. Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Some of these provisions 

have been further defined in regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result 

knowingly or otherwise, by direct and 

indirect impacts, intentionally or 

incidentally. Regulating intentional and 

incidental take would help preserve the 

species’ remaining populations, enable 

beneficial management actions to occur, 

and decrease synergistic, negative 

effects from other stressors. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. The discussion below regarding 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the Act complies with our policy. 

In this 4(d) rule, we propose to 

prohibit intentional take, including 

capturing and handling, because these 

activities require training and 

experience. Such activities include, but 

are not limited to, monitoring and 

research involving capturing and 

handling relict darters. While these 

activities are important to relict darter 

recovery, there are proper techniques for 

capturing and handling fish that require 

training and experience. Improper 

capture or handling can cause injury or 

even result in death of relict darters. 

Therefore, to ensure that these activities 

continue to be conducted correctly by 

properly trained personnel, the 

proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit 

intentional take; however, these 

activities could be covered under a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. 

Threats to the species are noted above 

and described in detail under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats. The 

most significant threat expected to affect 

the species in the foreseeable future is 

habitat loss and degradation from 

siltation, channelization and riparian 

vegetation removal, drainage of riparian 

wetlands, and water quality 

degradation. Some activities have the 

potential to affect the relict darter, 

including agriculture and land 

development. These activities may 

result in incidental take through 

increases in siltation, diminishing water 

quality, altering stream flow, and 

reducing fish passage. Therefore, in this 

4(d) rule, we propose prohibiting take to 

help preserve the relict darter’s 

remaining populations, slow the rate of 

population decline, preserve and 

potentially provide for expansion of the 

population, and decrease synergistic, 

negative effects from other stressors. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

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: Scientific purposes, 

to enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for zoological 

exhibition, for educational purposes, for 

incidental taking, or for special 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. 

Exceptions 

The proposed 4(d) rule would also 

provide for the conservation of the 

species by incorporating several 

exceptions to allow for routine 

enforcement activities, allow for 

assisting sick or injured fish, and 

encourage the active habitat 

management this species uniquely 

requires. The statute also contains 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act, and other 

regulatory exceptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in our 

regulations at 50 CFR part 17, subparts 

C and D. Below, we describe these 

exceptions to the prohibitions that we 

are proposing for the relict darter. 

To start, the proposed rule outlines 

several regulatory exceptions to the 

prohibitions for the relict darter. These 

exceptions already apply while the 

species is listed as endangered; they 

would continue to apply if the Service 

finalizes a rule to reclassify the species 

as threatened because they advance the 

recovery of the species. First, the 

proposed rule excepts take associated 

with activities that are authorized by 

permits under § 17.32. This means that 

if a manager has received or receives a 

permit for a particular activity (e.g., a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for 

monitoring relict darters), any take that 

occurs as a result of activities covered 

by this permit remains excepted from 

the prohibitions on take under the 

issued permit; in other words, the 

manager would not be liable for any 

take for which the manager already has 

a permit. 

Second, the proposed rule 

incorporates certain regulatory 

exceptions that allow take by 

representatives of the Service or of a 

State conservation agency to aid a sick 

specimen or to dispose of, salvage, or 

remove a dead specimen that is reported 

to the Office of Law Enforcement; and 

take by Federal and State law 

enforcement officers performing their 

official duties to possess, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any relict darters 

taken in violation of the Act, as 

necessary. All of the proposed standard 

exceptions for endangered species 

currently apply while the species is 

listed as endangered. 

Next, the proposed 4(d) rule 

incorporates a regulatory exception that 

does not currently apply while the relict 

darter is listed as endangered (the 

exception from § 17.31(b)); the Service 

can apply this standard exception only 

to take prohibitions for threatened 

species. The proposed rule allows 

employees of State conservation 

agencies operating under a cooperative 

agreement with the Service in 

accordance with section 6(c) of the Act 

to take relict darters in order to carry out 

conservation programs for the species. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12071 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, any qualified employee or 

agent of a State conservation agency that 

is a party to a cooperative agreement 

with us in accordance with section 6(c) 

of the Act, who is designated by his or 

her agency for such purposes, will be 

able to conduct activities designed to 

conserve the relict darter that may result 

in otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization. 

Finally, unlike the regulations that 

apply to the species under endangered 

status, the proposed 4(d) rule provides 

species-specific exceptions to the 

standard take prohibitions in the 

proposed rule; these species-specific 

exceptions would facilitate continued 

and increased implementation of 

beneficial management practices that 

provide for conservation of the species. 

Within each occupied stream, 

restoration actions will promote 

expansion of the relict darter’s range 

and reduce the fragmentation and 

isolation of populations. These actions 

can reduce stressors that impact the 

relict darter, including runoff of 

siltation and pollution, and may 

(through riparian reforestation) mediate 

local water temperatures expected to 

increase with climate change. Incidental 

take associated with habitat restoration 

actions excepted by the proposed 4(d) 

rule may result in some minimal level 

of harm or temporary disturbance to the 

relict darter. For example, a culvert 

replacement project would likely 

elevate suspended sediments for several 

hours, and the darters would need to 

move out of the sediment plume to 

resume normal feeding behavior. 

Because 4(d) rule exceptions would not 

apply during the relict darter’s 4-month 

spawning period, a critical phase of the 

species’ life history, the potential for 

incidental take is further minimized. 

Overall, these activities benefit the 

species by expanding suitable habitat 

and reducing within-population 

fragmentation, contributing to 

conservation and recovery. Consistent 

with all of the proposed exceptions and 

based on the best available information, 

our proposed 4(d) rule excepts 

incidental take associated with the 

following activities, if carried out in 

accordance with existing regulations 

and permit requirements, and 

conducted outside the March through 

June spawning season: 

• Channel restoration or 

improvement projects that create 

natural, physically stable, ecologically 

functioning streams (or stream and 

wetland systems) that are reconnected 

with their groundwater aquifers and, if 

the projects involve known relict darter 

spawning habitat, take place between 

June 30 and March 1. These projects can 

be accomplished using a variety of 

methods, but the desired outcome is a 

natural channel with low shear stress 

(force of water moving against the 

channel); bank heights that enable 

reconnection to the floodplain; a 

reconnection of surface and 

groundwater systems, resulting in 

perennial flows in the channel; riffles 

and pools composed of existing soil, 

rock, and wood instead of large 

imported materials; low compaction of 

soils within adjacent riparian areas; and 

inclusion of riparian wetlands. 

• Streambank stabilization projects 

that use bioengineering methods to 

replace preexisting, bare, eroding stream 

banks with vegetated, stable stream 

banks, thereby reducing bank erosion 

and instream sedimentation and 

improving habitat conditions for the 

species. Stream banks may be stabilized 

using native live stakes (live, vegetative 

cuttings inserted or tamped into the 

ground in a manner that allows the 

stake to take root and grow), native live 

fascines (live branch cuttings, usually 

willows, bound together into long, cigarshaped bundles), or brush layering 

(cuttings or branches of easily rooted 

tree species layered between successive 

lifts of soil fill). Stream banks must not 

be stabilized through the use of quarried 

rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets 

or gabion structures. 

• Bridge and culvert replacement/ 

removal projects or low head dam 

removal projects that remove migration 

barriers or generally allow for improved 

upstream and downstream movements 

of relict darters while maintaining 

normal stream flows, preventing bed 

and bank erosion, and improving habitat 

conditions for the species. 

• Transportation projects that 

incorporate State-approved BMPs that 

eliminate sedimentation, do not block 

stream flow, do not channelize streams, 

and that are for the purposes of 

providing for fish passage under a wide 

range of hydrologic conditions at stream 

crossings (University of Kentucky 

Transportation Center 2009, entire). 

• Projects carried out in the species’ 

range by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service that do not alter 

habitats known to be used by the relict 

darter beyond the fish’s tolerances. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or the ability 

of the Service to enter into partnerships 

for the management and protection of 

the relict darter. However, interagency 

cooperation may be further streamlined 

through planned programmatic 

consultations for the species between 

Federal agencies and the Service, where 

appropriate. We ask the public, 

particularly State agencies and other 

interested stakeholders that may be 

affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that the Service could provide 

or use, respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12072 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

49244). We also determine that 4(d) 

rules that accompany regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act are not subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

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 known Tribes within the 

range of the relict darter. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this proposed rulemaking is available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11, in paragraph (h), by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Darter, relict’’ 

under Fishes on the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

Darter, relict ..................... Etheostoma chienense ... Wherever found .............. T 58 FR 68480, 12/27/1993; [Federal Register citation of the final rule]; 50 CFR 17.44(hh) 4d. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Further amend § 17.44, as proposed 

to be amended on November 19, 2020, 

at at 85 FR 74050, on November 12, 

2020, at 85 FR 71859, and on July 7, 

2021, at 86 FR 35708, by adding a 

paragraph (hh) to read as follows: 

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes. 

* * * * * 

(hh) Relict darter (Etheostoma 

chienense). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to relict darter. 

Except as provided under paragraph 

(hh)(2) of this section and §§ 17.4 and 

17.5, it is unlawful for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to commit, to attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or cause to 

be committed, any of the following acts 

in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

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

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Channel restoration or 

improvement projects that create 

natural, physically stable, ecologically 

functioning streams (or stream and 

wetland systems) that are reconnected 

with their groundwater aquifers and, if 

the projects involve known relict darter 

spawning habitat, that take place 

between June 30 and March 1. These 

projects can be accomplished using a 

variety of methods, but the desired 

outcome is a natural channel with low 

shear stress (force of water moving 

against the channel); bank heights that 

enable reconnection to the floodplain; a 

reconnection of surface and 

groundwater systems, resulting in 

perennial flows in the channel; riffles 

and pools composed of existing soil, 

rock, and wood instead of large 

imported materials; low compaction of 

soils within adjacent riparian areas; and 

inclusion of riparian wetlands. 

(B) Streambank stabilization projects 

that use bioengineering methods to 

replace preexisting, bare, eroding stream 

banks with vegetated, stable stream 

banks, thereby reducing bank erosion 

and instream sedimentation and 

improving habitat conditions for the 

species and, if the projects involve 

known relict darter spawning habitat, 

that take place between June 30 and 

March 1. Stream banks may be 

stabilized using native live stakes (live, 

vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped 

into the ground in a manner that allows 

the stake to take root and grow), native 

live fascines (live branch cuttings, 

usually willows, bound together into 

long, cigar-shaped bundles), or brush 

layering (cuttings or branches of easily 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12073 

rooted tree species layered between 

successive lifts of soil fill). Stream banks 

must not be stabilized through the use 

of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of 

rock baskets or gabion structures. 

(C) Bridge and culvert replacement/ 

removal projects or low head dam 

removal projects that remove migration 

barriers or generally allow for improved 

upstream and downstream movements 

of relict darters while maintaining 

normal stream flows, preventing bed 

and bank erosion, and improving habitat 

conditions for the species, if completed 

between June 30 and March 1. 

(D) Transportation projects that follow 

best management practices that 

eliminate sedimentation, do not block 

stream flow, do not channelize streams, 

and provide for fish passage under a 

wide range of hydrologic conditions at 

stream crossings and that are done 

between June 30 and March 1. 

(E) Projects carried out in the species’ 

range by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, that: 

(1) Do not alter habitats known to be 

used by the relict darter beyond the 

fish’s tolerances; and 

(2) Are performed between June 30 

and March 1 to avoid the time period 

when the relict darter will be found 

within its spawning habitat, if such 

habitat is affected by the activity. 

(v) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03315 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS