490 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) 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 names 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 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

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, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We do not believe that any Tribes will 

be affected by this rule. However, we 

have contacted the Burns Paiute Tribe to 

coordinate with them regarding the 

proposed rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request from the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby 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. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

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

entry for ‘‘Dace, Foskett speckled’’ 

under FISHES from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

§ 17.44 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.44(j) by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘and Foskett 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus 

subspecies)’’ from the introductory text; 

and 

■ b. In paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2), 

removing the word ‘‘these’’ in both 

places it appears and adding in its place 

the word ‘‘this’’. 

Dated: November 15, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Exercising the Authority of the 

Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28465 Filed 1–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0094; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC52 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Barrens Topminnow 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Barrens topminnow (Fundulus 

julisia), a freshwater fish from 

Tennessee, as an endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act). 

If we finalize this rule as proposed, it 

would extend the Act’s protections to 

this species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 5, 2018. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

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

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2017–0094, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0094, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Jennings, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office, 446 Neal Street, 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 491 

Cookeville, TN 38506; telephone 931– 

528–6481. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The Barrens topminnow’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) Information related to climate 

change within the range of the Barrens 

topminnow and how it may affect the 

species’ habitat. 

(6) The reasons why areas should or 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

(7) Specific information on: 

(a) What areas, that are currently 

occupied and that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Barrens topminnow, 

should be included in a critical habitat 

designation and why; 

(b) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed for the essential features in 

potential critical habitat areas, including 

managing for the potential effects of 

climate change; and 

(c) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species and why. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

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

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act requires us 

to conduct one or more public hearings 

on this proposal, if requested. Requests 

for a public hearing must be received 

within 45 days after the date of 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (see DATES, above) and 

must be sent to the address shown in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested, and announce 

the dates, times, and places of those 

hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. 

Peer Review 

The purpose of peer review is to 

ensure that our listing determination is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. In 

accordance with our joint policy on peer 

review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of six 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

species status assessment (SSA) that 

informed this proposed rule. All of the 

peer reviewers have expertise in fish 

biology, habitat, and stressors to the 

Barrens topminnow. We received a 

response from one of the six peer 

reviewers, which we took into account 

in our SSA and this proposed rule. We 

invite any additional comment from the 

peer reviewers on the proposed rule 

during this public comment period; all 

comments received from peer reviewers 

will be available, along with other 

public comments, in the docket for this 

proposed rule on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Barrens topminnow was initially 

proposed to be listed as endangered 

under the Act in 1977 (42 FR 65209; 

December 30, 1977). Because of 

comments received on the proposed 

critical habitat, the listing was 

postponed, and critical habitat was 

reproposed in 1979 (44 FR 44418; July 

27, 1979); however, the proposed listing 

rule was withdrawn in 1980, because it 

was not finalized within the required 2 

years (45 FR 5782; January 24, 1980, 

effective December 30, 1979). The 

Barrens topminnow was designated a 

Category 2 candidate species in 1982 (47 

FR 58454; December 30, 1982) until that 

list was discontinued in 1996 (61 FR 

7596; February 28, 1996), and it was not 

added to the revised candidate list. In 

2010, the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) petitioned the Service to list 404 

aquatic, riparian, and wetland species 

from the southeastern United States, 

including the Barrens topminnow, as 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

On September 27, 2011, the Service 

published a substantial 90-day finding 

for 374 of the 404 species, including the 

Barrens topminnow, soliciting 

information about, and initiating status 

reviews for, those species (76 FR 59836). 

In 2015, CBD filed a complaint against 

the Service for failure to timely 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
492 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

complete a 12-month finding for the 

Barrens topminnow. In 2016, the 

Service entered into a settlement 

agreement with CBD, which specified 

that a 12-month finding for the Barrens 

topminnow would be delivered to the 

Federal Register by December 31, 2017. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the Barrens topminnow 

(Fundulus julisia) is presented in the 

SSA (Service 2017; available at http://

www.regulations.gov). In the SSA, we 

summarize the relevant biological data 

and a description of past, present, and 

likely future stressors, and conduct an 

analysis of the viability of the species. 

The SSA documents the results of the 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the Barrens topminnow, provides an 

account of the species’ overall viability 

through forecasting of the species’ 

condition in the future, and provides 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decision regarding whether 

this species should be listed as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act as well as the risk analysis on 

which the determination is based 

(Service 2017, entire). The following 

discussion is a summary of the results 

and conclusions from the SSA. 

Species Description 

The Barrens topminnow is a small, 

colorful fish that grows to 98 

millimeters (mm) (3.9 inches (in)). As is 

typical of its genus, Fundulus, the 

Barrens topminnow has an upturned 

mouth, flattened head and back, and 

rounded fins with the unpaired fins set 

far back on the body (Etnier and Starnes 

1993, pp. 360–361). Reproductive males 

are very showy with bright, iridescent 

background colors of greens and blues, 

with reddish orange spots and yellow 

fins as well as tubercles (hardened 

projections) on the anal fin rays. 

Females, juveniles, and nonreproductive males are drabber, with 

pale brown bodies sprinkled with 

darker spots on the sides (Williams and 

Etnier 1982, entire; Etnier and Starnes 

1993, pp. 365–366). A detailed 

description of scale and fin ray counts 

and other morphological features is 

provided in Williams and Etnier (1982, 

entire) and Etnier and Starnes (1993, p. 

365). 

Reproduction and Lifespan 

Barrens topminnows spawn in 

filamentous algae near the water 

surface, between April and August, with 

peak activity occurring from May to 

June. Spawning occurs on multiple 

occasions, with a few eggs released 

during each spawning event. By the end 

of the spawning season, up to 300 eggs 

are released. While the maximum age of 

the Barrens topminnow is 4 years, 

adults typically live for 2 years or less, 

and only about one-third of individuals 

spawn more than one season (Rakes 

1989, p. 42; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 

366). Most individuals mature and 

spawn within the first year, though 

some of the later spawned fish are in 

year 2 before they spawn (Rakes 1989, 

entire). 

Prey items consumed by Barrens 

topminnows consist predominantly of 

microcrustaceans and immature aquatic 

insect larvae. However, the species is a 

generalist feeder, also consuming small 

snails and terrestrial organisms such as 

ants and other insects that fall or 

wander into aquatic habitats (Rakes 

1989, pp. 18–25). 

Habitat and Range 

Barrens topminnow habitat is 

restricted to springhead pools and slowflowing areas of spring runs on the 

Barrens Plateau in middle Tennessee. 

These fish are strongly associated with 

abundant aquatic vegetation such as 

filamentous algae (e.g., Cladophora and 

Pithophora), watercress (Nasturtium 

officinale), rushes (Juncus), pondweed 

(Potamogeton), and eelgrass 

(Vallisneria), and will occasionally 

shelter under overhanging terrestrial 

plants and tree roots. Barrens 

topminnows have only been found in 

streams where the predominant source 

of base flow is groundwater. Due to the 

groundwater influence of these habitats, 

temperatures are relatively stable, 

ranging from 15 to 25 degrees Celsius 

(°C) (59 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)). 

The karst topography of the Barrens 

Plateau results in the presence of a 

number of spring systems, though not 

all of these have been inhabited by the 

Barrens topminnow. In times of 

drought, if the discharge of the springs 

is severely reduced, Barrens 

topminnows likely move downstream 

into more permanent water if suitable 

habitat is available. 

Historically, Barrens topminnows 

were found in Cannon, Coffee, and 

Warren Counties of Tennessee in three 

river systems, the Elk River, Duck River, 

and Caney Fork River. The Elk River 

and Duck River flow to the Tennessee 

River, and the Caney Fork River flows 

to the Cumberland River. The small 

streams or springs inhabited by Barrens 

topminnows in each river system are 

separated by hundreds of miles of 

intervening, unsuitable, larger stream 

habitat; therefore the individual 

populations are isolated and cannot 

come into contact with other 

populations by moving downstream. 

Within these three systems, the Barrens 

topminnow was known to occur in at 

least 18 sites (Hurt et al. 2017, p. 2). It 

is likely that many more sites were 

occupied, but were either not surveyed 

due to lack of access to private land, or 

were modified to be incompatible with 

Barrens topminnow presence for uses 

such as watering livestock before 

surveys could be conducted. 

Currently, the Barrens topminnow 

occurs in five sites: Marcum Spring 

(Ovaca Spring), Short Spring, Benedict 

Spring, McMahan Creek, and 

Greenbrook Pond. Marcum Spring and 

Short Spring are in the Duck River 

system. The remaining three springs are 

in the Caney Fork River system. 

Benedict Spring and McMahan Creek 

are occupied by native stock, while the 

three other occupied sites were 

reestablished with individuals from the 

Caney Fork system (see discussion 

under Conservation Actions and 

Regulatory Mechanisms, below). 

Greenbrook Pond, although it ultimately 

drains to the Caney Fork, is outside the 

known historical range of the species, in 

Dekalb County, Tennessee. Although no 

longer extant at its native locality, the 

Pond Spring population from the Elk 

River system is maintained in captivity 

at three facilities. Collectively, these 

captively held topminnows form an 

‘‘ark population’’ that is managed as 

part of a conservation strategy that will 

enable release back into the wild if Pond 

Spring can be restored. 

Estimates of current population size 

by site are lacking, but recent surveys 

(Kuhajda et al. 2014, entire; Kuhajda 

2017, entire) reported the number of 

Barrens topminnows captured (Table 1, 

below), providing a rough 

approximation of the number of 

topminnows in each population. Based 

on these samples, Benedict Spring, 

Marcum Spring, and Greenbrook Pond 

had fairly robust populations, with at 

least, or likely with more than, 100 

individuals. The population in 

McMahan Creek appeared to be small 

relative to other occupied sites, but this 

difference is at least partly an artifact of 

sampling bias. In stream habitat such as 

McMahan Creek, habitat structure 

makes it easier for fish to avoid the 

seine, and fish tend to be more broadly 

dispersed than they are in pond-like 

spring habitats. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 493 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF BARRENS

TOPMINNOWS CAPTURED BY SITE

(KUHAJDA 2017, ENTIRE) MCMAHAN

CREEK NUMBER FROM 2017 SAMPLING (SERVICE, UNPUBLISHED) 

Site 

Barrens 

topminnows 

captured 

(year) 

Benedict Spring .................... 100 (2016) 

McMahan Creek ................... 10 (2017) 

Marcum Spring ..................... 132 (2015) 

Short Spring .......................... 30 (2015) 

Greenbrook Pond ................. 91 (2015) 

Species Needs 

In this section, we describe the needs 

of the species at the individual, 

population, and species level. We 

describe the Barrens topminnow’s 

viability needs in terms of resiliency 

(ability of the populations to withstand 

stochastic events), redundancy (ability 

of the species to withstand large-scale, 

catastrophic events), and representation 

(the ability of the species to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions). In 

later sections, using various time frames 

and the current and projected resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation, we will 

describe the species’ viability over time. 

Barrens topminnows need 

filamentous algae or other submerged 

vegetation for egg deposition and cover, 

and consistently cool water ranging 

from 15 to 25 °C (59 to 77 °F) that is 

sufficiently clear for mating display 

(Rakes, 1989, entire). For feeding, they 

need microcrustaceans and immature 

aquatic insect larvae (Rakes 1989, pp. 

18–25). At the larval and juvenile stage, 

it is essential that predation rates and 

competition from other fishes is low 

(Laha and Mattingly 2006, pp. 1, 6–10). 

Resiliency 

For the Barrens topminnow to 

maintain viability, its populations or 

some portion thereof must be resilient. 

Stochastic events that affect resiliency 

are reasonably likely to occur 

infrequently, but are of a magnitude that 

can drastically alter the ecosystem 

where they happen. Classic examples of 

stochastic events include drought, major 

storms (hurricanes), fire, and landslides 

(Chapin et al. 2002, pp. 285–288). To be 

resilient to stochastic events 

populations of Barrens topminnow need 

to be sufficiently abundant, with several 

hundred individuals (Service 2017, p. 

11) represented by adult and juvenile 

age classes. The larger the range, or 

spatial extent, occupied by a Barrens 

topminnow population, the more 

resilient the population will be to a 

stochastic event. Additionally, 

populations need to exist in locations 

where environmental conditions 

provide suitable habitat and water 

quality such that adequate numbers of 

individuals can be supported. Without 

all of these factors, a population has an 

increased likelihood of extirpation. 

Representation 

Maintaining representation in the 

form of genetic diversity is important to 

the Barrens topminnow’s capacity to 

adapt to environmental changes. 

Ecological diversity, another measure of 

species’ representation, is naturally low, 

as the Barrens topminnow has always 

been restricted to spring habitats in a 

single physiographic province. Based on 

mitochondrial DNA, genetic variation of 

extant populations is extremely low, 

and there are fixed differences between 

the Caney Fork system populations and 

the Elk River system population (Hurt et 

al. 2017, pp. 1, 5), which is from Pond 

Spring and is represented now only by 

individuals held in captivity. The 

captive Elk River population, for which 

there are two identified mitochondrial 

DNA haplotypes unique from the third 

haplotype present in all Caney Fork 

system sampled fish, should be 

considered an evolutionary significant 

unit (ESU) (Hurt et al. 2017, p. 5), a 

historically isolated population that is 

on an independent evolutionary 

trajectory (Moritz 1994, p. 373). 

Accordingly, reestablishing the captive 

Elk River population in the wild will be 

important to increasing genetic 

representation and species’ viability. 

Redundancy 

Finally, the Barrens topminnow needs 

to have multiple resilient populations 

distributed throughout its range to 

provide redundancy, the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events. The more populations, and the 

wider the distribution of those 

populations, the more redundancy the 

species will exhibit. Redundancy 

reduces the risk that a large portion of 

the species’ range will be negatively 

affected by a catastrophic natural or 

anthropogenic event at a given point in 

time. Species that are well-distributed 

across their historical range are 

considered less susceptible to extinction 

and have higher viability than species 

confined to a small portion of their 

range (Carroll et al. 2010, entire; 

Redford et al. 2011, entire). 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

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 directs us to 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of one or more of the 

following factors affecting its continued 

existence: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as for those that may 

ameliorate any negative effects and 

those that may have positive effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). A threat 

may encompass—either together or 

separately—the source of the action or 

condition, or the action or condition 

itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
494 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. It is only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis of 

threats and the actions that may 

ameliorate them or have positive effects 

on the species, and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future, that the 

Secretary can determine whether the 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ We completed a 

comprehensive assessment of the 

biological status of the Barrens 

topminnow, and prepared a report of 

the assessment which provides a 

thorough account of the species’ overall 

viability and evaluates the cumulative 

effects of the five listing factors (Service 

2017, entire). 

Risk Factors 

In the SSA, we assessed the potential 

risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) that 

could be affecting the Barrens 

topminnow now and in the future. In 

this proposed rule, we will discuss only 

those factors in detail that could 

meaningfully impact the status of the 

species. Those risks that are not known 

to have effects on Barrens topminnow 

populations, such as collection and 

disease, are not discussed here. 

The primary risk factor affecting the 

status of the Barrens topminnow is 

western mosquitofish (Gambusia 

affinis), a species invasive to the Barrens 

Plateau that preys on young 

topminnows, harasses older individuals, 

and may compete with adults for space 

and food (Factor C). 

Western mosquitofish are native to 

Tennessee, but their range within the 

State was most likely confined to the 

Coastal Plain province (Etnier and 

Starnes 1993, p. 373), and they are not 

native to the Barrens Plateau. In many 

parts of North America, western 

mosquitofish were stocked in attempt to 

control mosquito larvae, which is 

presumably the means by which they 

were introduced to the Barrens Plateau 

in the mid twentieth century. Although 

to the best of our knowledge 

mosquitofish stocking stopped shortly 

thereafter, the species has spread and 

become a permanent inhabitant 

throughout most of the Barrens Plateau. 

Mosquitofish are well adapted to spread 

in habitats where they are introduced 

because they reproduce rapidly, 

spawning three to four cohorts per year 

of a few to a hundred or more 

individuals (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 

373). They can move through very 

shallow water and have invaded sites 

connected by temporarily wetted areas 

created by floods. Mosquitofish prey on 

young topminnows and harass adults, 

causing recruitment failure such that 

only the adult age class remains after a 

spawning season (Goldsworthy and 

Bettoli 2006, p. 341; Laha and Mattingly 

2007, p. 9). Under most circumstances, 

extirpation of Barrens topminnows 

occurs within 3 to 5 years of 

mosquitofish invading a site (Service 

2017, p. 32). The five extant Barrens 

topminnow populations are at sites free 

of mosquitofish. 

As a consequence of the western 

mosquitofish invasion, the habitat 

available to the Barrens topminnow, and 

the species’ range, has been curtailed 

(Factor A). Historically, Barrens 

topminnow populations were likely 

connected by floods and high flow 

events that washed individuals 

downstream or provided temporary 

connections across local stream divides. 

Most, if not all, pathways via floodfacilitated migration are no longer viable 

owing to the presence of mosquitofish. 

Many of the sites where the topminnow 

is extirpated currently have sufficient 

habitat quality to support populations 

(Kuhajda et al. 2014, entire; Kuhajda 

2017, entire). Thus, it is the presence of 

mosquitofish rather than habitat that is 

limiting Barrens topminnow 

populations because mosquitofish 

prevent topminnows from colonizing 

previously occupied springs in their 

range. This reduction in connectivity 

contributes to reduced gene flow, which 

in turn reduces genetic diversity and 

species’ representation. Additionally, 

the lost connectivity contributes to the 

diminished range (number of occupied 

sites), which has caused a reduction in 

species’ redundancy. 

Reduced habitat availability has 

exacerbated the threat of drought (Factor 

E), which has greatest effect on one of 

the two remaining native populations, at 

Benedict Spring. Approximately once 

every 5 years, drought results in 

Benedict Spring drying completely or 

nearly so, to the point that it can no 

longer support the Barrens topminnow. 

In these years, all topminnows are 

removed from Benedict Spring and 

placed in aquaria, where they are held 

until water levels return. Under natural 

(i.e., mosquitofish free) conditions, 

drought would not be a concern because 

Barrens topminnows would recolonize 

areas in wetter years; however, due to 

the widespread reduction in suitable 

habitat due to mosquitofish and the 

resulting small number of remaining 

populations, the loss of any population 

is a concern. 

Conservation Actions and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

There have been many targeted efforts 

since circa 1980 to conserve the Barrens 

topminnow. Without these efforts it is 

likely the species would persist only at 

one site, McMahan Spring, which has 

not gone dry during periods of drought 

and is not occupied by mosquitofish. In 

2001, the Barrens Topminnow Working 

Group, consisting of the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency, the Service, 

universities, and nonprofit 

organizations, was created to coordinate 

actions such as habitat improvement, 

propagation, and reintroduction of the 

species in the wild. Since the initiation 

of the stocking program, more than 

44,000 Barrens topminnows have been 

reintroduced in 27 sites deemed to have 

appropriate habitat. Brood fish were 

taken from McMahan Creek and 

Benedict Spring in the Caney Fork 

watershed, and Pond Spring in the Elk 

River watershed. Reintroduction was 

unsuccessful at most of these sites, 

either because of insufficient or 

marginal habitat or the invasion of 

mosquitofish (Goldsworth and Bettoli 

2005, entire). At the 2016 Working 

Group meeting, the decision was made 

to stop the stocking program because it 

was no longer needed to maintain 

populations at suitable sites that lack 

mosquitofish, and at other sites, 

continued stocking was unlikely to 

establish self-sustaining populations. 

One of the stocked sites, Vervilla 

Spring, was situated in the Caney Fork 

watershed on land opportunistically 

purchased by the Service for Barrens 

topminnow reintroduction. When the 

land came under the management of 

Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge, 

mosquitofish were present in the spring 

on the property and topminnows were 

not. To improve habitat for topminnows 

at the site, spring pools were deepened, 

a concrete low water barrier was 

installed, and the mosquitofish removed 

with a piscicide. Topminnows from 

Benedict Spring were then stocked 

above the barrier. This population was 

stocked in 2001, and maintained 

viability until 2010, when mosquitofish 

reinvaded the spring during a flood. In 

2011, only adults were present, and by 

2013, no Barrens topminnows remained 

in Vervilla Spring. 

From the late 1980s into the 2000s, 

the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program worked with 

landowners to exclude livestock from 

the springs and spring runs where 

Barrens topminnows occurred in an 

effort to curb sedimentation. None of 

these Partners agreements is currently 

active. However, there are still buffers 

that exclude livestock from topminnow 

habitat in place at some sites, many 

which have since been invaded by 

mosquitofish. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 495 

Current Condition 

As discussed above, only five 

remaining populations of Barrens 

topminnow remain (see Table 1, above), 

in contrast to at least 18 identified 

historical populations (occupied sites) 

and likely several more that were 

extirpated without having been first 

identified. Thus, there has been at least 

a 72 percent reduction in the number of 

populations in the wild. Furthermore, 

the number of native populations has 

been reduced by at least 89 percent. The 

only population known to be native in 

the Elk River watershed, from Pond 

Spring, is now maintained as a captive 

‘‘ark population’’ at three facilities. In 

the Duck River system, native 

populations were extirpated by the late 

1960s (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 366), 

and if there was any genetic component 

unique to the Duck River system, it has 

been lost. The only two remaining 

native populations are at Benedict 

Spring and McMahan Creek. 

In summary, the current condition for 

each of the conservation metrics of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation is low. Regarding 

resiliency, four of the five extant 

populations are of moderate size, likely 

with 100 individuals or more. The other 

population is smaller, although based 

on recent surveys it appears to be 

persisting and recruiting new cohorts 

each year. However, even if the number 

of individuals in each population is 

sufficient to maintain future 

generations, all currently occupied sites 

are small and vulnerable to stochastic 

events, so that a disturbance would 

adversely affect a site and its whole 

population equally. Regarding 

redundancy, at least 16 of 18 native 

populations (89 percent) have been lost, 

with only 5 populations remaining in 

the wild. Thus, the spatial distribution 

of a naturally narrow-ranging endemic 

has become more concentrated, making 

the species more susceptible to a 

catastrophic event. Lastly, 

representation has been reduced and the 

species’ adaptive capacity may be 

limited as there is little genetic variation 

between extant populations. Native 

stock from the Elk River and Duck River 

has been extirpated, although members 

of the Elk River population survive in 

captivity. 

Future Condition 

As part of the SSA, we developed 

three future condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by the Barrens 

topminnow. Our scenarios included a 

status quo scenario, which incorporated 

the current risk factors continuing on 

the same trajectory that they are on now. 

We also evaluated a best case scenario, 

under which management actions to 

exclude mosquitofish and reintroduce 

populations would occur. Finally, we 

evaluated a worst case scenario, under 

which no management actions would be 

applied and climate change would 

increase the frequency and magnitude of 

droughts and floods. Regarding the 

likelihood of each scenario transpiring, 

in the near future (3- to 5-year time 

frame), the status quo scenario was 

predicted to be ‘‘very likely’’ and best 

case and worst case scenarios were 

‘‘unlikely.’’ For the SSA, the terms 

‘‘very likely’’ and ‘‘unlikely’’ as they 

apply to confidence are 70–90 percent 

certain and 10–40 percent certain, 

respectively (IPCC 2014, p. 2). In 20 to 

30 years, the time frame constituting the 

extent of the foreseeable future, beyond 

which there is insufficient confidence in 

how threats will act, the best case 

scenario was predicted to be ‘‘unlikely’’ 

and the status quo and worst case 

scenarios were ‘‘as likely as not,’’ 

defined as having a 40–70 percent 

certainty of occurrence (IPCC 2014, p. 

2). Because we determined that the 

current condition of the Barrens 

topminnow was consistent with that of 

an endangered species (see 

Determination, below), and that it is 

very likely the current condition will 

persist through the near future, we are 

not presenting in any more detail how 

each scenario would likely act on 

species viability. Please refer to the SSA 

(Service 2017, pp. 32–42) for the full 

analysis of future scenarios. 

Determination 

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 any species 

that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

any species ‘‘that is likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future.’’ We have 

carefully assessed the best scientific and 

commercial information available and 

find that the Barrens topminnow is 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout its entire range based on the 

severity and immediacy of threats 

currently impacting the species. 

The overall range of the Barrens 

topminnow has been significantly 

reduced (Factor A), and its remaining 

populations are threatened by 

mosquitofish (Factor C), drought, and 

small population size (Factor E) acting 

in combination to reduce the overall 

viability of the species. The risk of 

extinction is high because the remaining 

populations have a high risk of 

extirpation, are isolated, and have no 

potential for recolonization without 

intervening management actions. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we propose listing the 

Barrens topminnow as endangered in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a 

threatened species status is not 

appropriate for the Barrens topminnow, 

as it is already in danger of extinction 

throughout its range because of the 

currently contracted range (loss of 79 

percent of occupied sites), because the 

threats are occurring across the entire 

range of the species, and because the 

threats are ongoing currently and are 

expected to continue into the future. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the Barrens topminnow is 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

no portion of its range can be 

‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ See 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). 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
496 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline when 

a species is listed and preparation of a 

draft and final recovery plan. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Subsequently, a recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for downlisting or 

delisting, and methods for monitoring 

recovery progress. Recovery plans also 

establish a framework for agencies to 

coordinate their recovery efforts and 

provide estimates of the cost of 

implementing recovery tasks. Recovery 

teams (composed of species experts, 

Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. Revisions of the 

plan may be done to address continuing 

or new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. We intend to make a recovery 

outline available to the public 

concurrent with the final listing rule, if 

listing continues to be warranted. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our website 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their ranges may occur 

primarily or solely on non-Federal 

lands. To achieve recovery of these 

species requires cooperative 

conservation efforts on private, State, 

and Tribal lands. If this species is listed, 

funding for recovery actions will be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

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

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

Tennessee would be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the Barrens topminnow. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Barrens topminnow is 

only proposed for listing under the Act 

at this time, please let us know if you 

are interested in participating in 

recovery efforts for this species. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include issuance of section 404 Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration, 

construction and maintenance of utility 

corridors by the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, and construction and 

maintenance of natural gas or oil 

pipeline corridors by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Based on the best available 

information, if we list this species, the 

following actions are unlikely to result 

in a violation of section 9, if these 

activities are carried out in accordance 

with existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Normal agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, which are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices; and 

(2) Normal residential landscape 

activities. 

Based on the best available 

information, if we list this species, the 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 497 

following activities may potentially 

result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act; this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Intentional release of mosquitofish 

into occupied Barrens topminnow 

habitat; 

(2) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species; 

(3) Modification of the water flow of 

any spring or stream in which the 

Barrens topminnow is known to occur; 

(4) Direct or indirect destruction of 

stream habitat; and 

(5) Discharge of chemicals or fill 

material into any waters in which the 

Barrens topminnow is known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. 

Such methods and procedures 

include, but are not limited to, all 

activities associated with scientific 

resources management such as research, 

census, law enforcement, habitat 

acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

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

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary designate 

critical habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

As discussed above and in the SSA, 

there is currently no imminent threat to 

the Barrens topminnow of take 

attributed to collection or vandalism 

(Factor B), and identification and 

mapping of critical habitat would not 

likely to increase any such threat. In the 

absence of finding that the designation 

of critical habitat would increase threats 

to a species, if there are any benefits to 

a critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. The 

potential benefits of designation 

include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is or has become unoccupied or the 

occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 

conservation activities on the most 

essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

Therefore, because we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

will not likely increase the degree of 

threat to these species and may provide 

some measure of benefit, we find that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the Barrens topminnow. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the species is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: (1) Information 

sufficient to perform required analyses 

of the impacts of the designation is 

lacking, or (2) The biological needs of 

the species are not sufficiently well 

known to permit identification of an 

area as critical habitat. As discussed 

above, we have reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of this species and the habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. However, a careful assessment 

of the economic impacts that may occur 

due to a critical habitat designation is 

ongoing, and we are in the process of 

working with the States and other 

partners in acquiring the complex 

information needed to perform that 

assessment. Until these efforts are 

complete, information sufficient to 

perform a required analysis of the 

impacts of the designation is lacking, 

and, therefore, we find designation of 

critical habitat for this species to be not 

determinable at this time. However, we 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
498 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

expect to have the necessary 

information, and publish a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register, in the near 

future. 

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, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with listing a species as an endangered 

or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available in Appendix A of the SSA 

(Service 2017. Species Status 

Assessment Report for the Barrens 

Topminnow (Fundulus julisia), Version 

1.0. Cookeville, TN), available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0094. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Tennessee Ecological Services Field 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

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(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Topminnow, Barrens’’ to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife in alphabetical order under 

FISHES to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

FISHES

*******

Topminnow, Barrens ................. Fundulus julisia ......................... Wherever found ........................ E [Insert Federal Register citation when published as a final 

rule] 

*******

Dated: December 3, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28491 Filed 1–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS