Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48953 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Simon Solemani, Pricing Policy 

Division of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at (202) 418–2270 or via email 

at simon.solemani@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, 

DA 21–978, adopted and released on 

August 10, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available at: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21- 

978A1.pdf. The full text of 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI)’s motion is 

available at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/ 

10802213863368/ 

2021.08.02%20Advocates

%20Carceral%20

Comms%20Motion%20for

%20Extension%20final.pdf. 

1. By this Order, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

grants an extension of time for filing 

comments and reply comments on the 

Fifth FNPRM (86 FR 40416) in the 

above-captioned proceeding. As a result, 

comments are now due on September 

27, 2021 and reply comments are now 

due on October 27, 2021. 

2. On May 24, 2021, the Commission 

released the ICS Third Report and 

Order, Order on Reconsideration, and 

Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this proceeding. The 

Fifth FNPRM set deadlines for filing 

comments and reply comments at 30 

and 60 days, respectively, after a 

summary of the item was published in 

the Federal Register. The Federal 

Register published that summary on 

July 28, 2021, and established deadlines 

of August 27, 2021 and September 27, 

2021 for filing comments and reply 

comments, respectively. 

3. On August 3, 2021, 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), supported 

by the Benton Institute for Broadband & 

Society, HEARD, the Human Rights 

Defense Center, the National 

Association of the Deaf (NAD), Public 

Knowledge, the United Church of 

Christ, OC Inc., Voqal, and Worth Rises 

(collectively, Movants) filed a Motion 

for Extension of Time seeking 30-day 

extensions of the comment and reply 

deadlines. Movants explain that ‘‘the 

Commission’s important and numerous 

inquiries in the Fifth FNPRM are wideranging and complex, and affording 

additional time for organizations to 

develop their comments will ensure that 

a full record is developed.’’ Movants 

further explain that their ability to meet 

the current comment and reply 

comment deadlines is compromised due 

to staffing concerns during the month of 

August, a reply comment schedule 

condensed by two holidays, and the 

need for at least one of the movants to 

transition to new legal clinic staff 

between now and the filing deadlines. 

Movants assert that ‘‘a brief extension 

would provide the organizations and 

their counsel sufficient time to finish 

developing a full array of comments on 

the broad range of important issues 

presented by the Fifth [FNPRM].’’ No 

party has filed an opposition to the 

Movants’ request. 

4. As set forth in 47 CFR 1.46, it is the 

policy of the Commission that 

extensions of time shall not be routinely 

granted. Nevertheless, the Bureau finds 

that Movants have shown good cause for 

an extension of the comment and reply 

comment deadlines and that the public 

interest will be served by extending the 

comment deadline to September 27, 

2021 and, extending the reply comment 

deadline to October 27, 2021. 

5. Under these circumstances, and in 

the interest of allowing all parties an 

opportunity to fully and meaningfully 

respond to the comments and expert 

reports filed in response to the Fifth 

FNPRM, the Bureau agrees that an 

extension of the reply comment 

deadline is warranted. 

6. This action is taken pursuant to 

delegated authority 47 CFR 0.291. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Daniel Kahn, 

Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18754 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0152; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BE62 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing the Snail Darter 

From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove the snail darter (Percina tanasi), 

a small freshwater fish native to the 

Tennessee River watershed, from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List). Our review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial data indicates that the 

threats to the species have been 

eliminated or reduced to the point that 

the species no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). If we finalize this rule 

as proposed, the prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would no longer apply to the snail 

darter. We request information and 

comments from the public regarding 

this proposed rule to remove the snail 

darter from the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ the 

species). 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 1, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48954 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 October 18, 2021. 

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–2020–0152, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search 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 Now!’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2020–0152, 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 http://

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 references cited 

and the 5-year review, are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0152. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office, 446 

Neal Street, 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: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. In the case of any proposed 

rule to list, reclassify, or delist a species, 

we must publish a notice of such 

proposal in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, in order to remove the snail 

darter from the List, we must publish a 

proposed rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

proposes to remove (delist) the snail 

darter from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

based on its recovery. 

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. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.11, we may 

delist a species if the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the 

species does not meet the definition of 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species when considering the five 

factors listed above; or (3) the listed 

entity does not meet the statutory 

definition of a species. Here, we have 

determined that the snail darter no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species under the Act and, therefore, it 

may be delisted due to recovery. 

Peer review. In accordance with our 

joint policy on peer review published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review of listing actions 

under the Act, we are requesting 

comments from independent specialists 

to ensure that we base our 

determination on scientifically sound 

data, assumptions, and analyses. The 

peer reviewers have expertise in the 

biology, habitat, and threats to 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 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) Reasons we should or should not 

remove the snail darter from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

(2) Relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to the snail 

darter, particularly any data on the 

possible effects of climate change as it 

relates to habitat, as well as the extent 

of State protection and management that 

would be provided to this fish as a 

delisted species; 

(3) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the snail 

darter that may negatively impact or 

benefit the species; and 

(4) Information about the type and 

extent of monitoring that should be 

implemented if the species were 

delisted. 

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, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

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

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

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 under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0152. 

Because we will consider all 

substantive comments and information 

received 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 

remained listed as threatened, or we 

may conclude that the species should be 

reclassified from threatened to 

endangered. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48955 

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 

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). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 9, 1975, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (40 FR 

47505) listing the snail darter as an 

endangered species due to the threat of 

the impoundment of the only known 

location of the species by the 

completion of Tellico Dam. On April 1, 

1976, the Service designated 16.5 miles 

(26.4 km) of the lower Little Tennessee 

River as critical habitat for the snail 

darter (41 FR 13926). In 1977, the 

critical habitat for the snail darter was 

amended to include a map (42 FR 

47840). The Snail Darter Recovery Team 

prepared the initial recovery plan for 

the snail darter on April 4, 1979 (Hurst 

et al. 1979, entire). The plan was revised 

and finalized on May 5, 1983 (Service 

1983, entire). Due to successful 

translocations into the Hiawassee and 

Holston Rivers and the discovery of 

additional populations, we reclassified 

the snail darter from endangered to 

threatened and rescinded critical habitat 

on July 5, 1984 (49 FR 27510). In 2013, 

we completed a 5-year review for the 

snail darter. No change in the species’ 

listing classification was recommended 

as a result of that 5-year review. We 

initiated a second 5-year review for the 

species on April 11, 2019 (84 FR 14669), 

and on July 16, 2019, we were 

petitioned to delist the snail darter. We 

were already reviewing the status of the 

species as part of the 5-year review and, 

upon receiving the petition, determined 

that there was substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating the 

delisting the snail darter may be 

warranted. Based on our review of 

available data we gathered during 

preparation of that status review and 

presented herein, we have determined 

that the recovery criteria for delisting 

the species have been met and that the 

snail darter does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. Therefore, we are 

proposing to delist the snail darter. This 

proposed rule will also serve as our 5- 

year review, 90-day finding, and 12- 

month finding on the petition. 

For additional details on previous 

Federal actions, including recovery 

actions, see discussion under Recovery, 

below. 

Background 

Below, we present a thorough review 

of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, 

and overall status of this fish, 

referencing data from the 2013 5-year 

review (Service 2013, entire) where 

appropriate. 

Taxonomy 

The snail darter is a small fish in the 

perch family, Percidae, and darter 

subfamily, Etheostomatinae. The species 

was first discovered in 1973 (Starnes 

1977, p. 1). At that time, and when 

listed in 1975, the snail darter was 

recognized as a new, undescribed 

species in the genus Percina and 

subgenus Imostoma. The species was 

described in 1976 as Percina tanasi, 

named after the historic Cherokee town 

of Tanasi, near where the snail darter 

was first discovered (Etnier 1976, p. 

485). The snail darter has been 

recognized as the sister species (closest 

relative) to the stargazing darter (P. 

uranidea) (Etnier 1976, p. 480; Near and 

McEachran 2002, p. 8). 

Population Genetics 

No studies have been completed to 

determine the level of gene flow 

between populations or the amount of 

potential inbreeding within 

populations. Because snail darters are 

often found in the lower portions of 

tributaries, it is likely that tributary 

populations are part of larger mainstem 

metapopulations (Service 2013, p. 13). It 

is not clear to what level the mainstem 

populations are isolated by the large 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams 

and reservoirs. 

Species Description 

The following description is modified 

from Etnier (1976, pp. 480–485) and 

Etnier and Starnes (1993, pp. 587–590). 

The snail darter is a small benthic 

(bottom-dwelling) fish that grows to 

3.55 inches (in) (90 millimeters (mm)). 

The base color is brown or brownish 

grey with some green. The back has four 

clear black or dark brown saddle 

markings. These markings extend down 

the sides toward the series of blotches 

along the lateral line. A dark suborbital 

bar or ‘‘teardrop’’ marking is present 

below the eye. Fin rays are usually 

speckled, but pelvic and anal fins are 

sometimes clear. Males gain a bluegreen sheen on the sides and belly 

during the breeding season when golden 

flecks become more pronounced on the 

cheeks and pectoral fins. Females also 

develop some gold coloring but are less 

bright than the males. Breeding 

tubercles (small bony protrusions) form 

on the rays of the elongated anal fin of 

males as well as the lower surfaces of 

rays of the pelvic fins, caudal (tail) fin, 

and branchiostegal (soft gill cover under 

head) rays. 

The snail darter may occur with two 

other Imostoma darters, the river darter 

(Percina shumardi) and the saddleback 

darter (P. vigil). The snail darter differs 

from the river darter by having four 

saddle markings along its back, while 

the latter lacks saddles altogether. Snail 

darters and river darters are often found 

together, but river darters tend to be 

associated with slightly larger substrate 

than snail darters (Matthews 2020, pers. 

comm.). While these species may share 

similar habitat, there is no evidence that 

they compete for resources. 

Habitat 

The snail darter occurs in flowing 

sections of medium to large rivers. In 

these streams, snail darters are 

predominantly found over clean gravel 

without significant silt or plant coverage 

(Ashton and Layzer 2010, p. 615). 

Initially thought to require shallow, 

unimpounded portions of river to 

survive (Starnes 1977, pp. 21–23), snail 

darters were later found in the 

impounded but flowing upper sections 

of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs 

(Hickman and Fitz 1978, p. 80). Snail 

darters were found in shoals at a depth 

of 1 to 3 feet (ft) (0.3 to 1 meters (m)) 

(Starnes 1977, pp. 21–33; Ashton and 

Layzer 2010, entire). Snail darters have 

also been found on gravel and cobble 

patches in up to 25 ft (7.6 m) of water 

with regular captures at 10 to 15 ft (3 to 

5 m) deep (Ripley 1976, entire; Hickman 

and Fitz 1978, pp. 80–83; Matthews 

2017, pers. comm.; Matthews 2019, 

pers. comm.). In addition to large river 

habitats, snail darters also occupy the 

lower reaches of larger creeks, and 

during the breeding season, large 

numbers of darters congregate on the 

gravel shoals in these creeks to spawn 

(Starnes 1977, p. 64). Detailed 

descriptions of snail darter habitat can 

be found in Ashton and Layzer (2010, 

entire) and Starnes (1977, pp. 21–33). 

Life History 

The life history data presented here 

are modified from Etnier and Starnes 

(1993, p. 588), with additions from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48956 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Hickman and Fitz (1978, pp. 10–38) and 

Starnes (1977, entire). The snail darter 

is well adapted to its habitat of clean 

gravel substrate in large creeks and 

rivers. The saddle markings on the back 

of the fish act as camouflage amongst 

gravel and small cobble, and are a 

pattern seen in other benthic species 

(Armbruster and Page 1996, pp. 250– 

252). Snail darters also can burrow into 

the substrate with just their eyes 

exposed to escape predation (Etnier and 

Starnes 1993, p. 588). The species 

spawns in the late winter and early 

spring, from about February to April. 

Adults gather on shoals during the 

breeding season. While spawning has 

not been directly observed, it is likely 

that the eggs are buried shallowly in the 

sand and gravel similar to how other 

Percina species bury their eggs. Females 

produce about 600 eggs per season 

during multiple spawning events. Eggs 

hatch after 15–20 days and produce 

pelagic (in the water column) larvae that 

drift considerable distances 

downstream. The developing larvae and 

juveniles likely use relatively calm 

deeper areas of rivers and reservoirs. By 

the end of summer, juveniles are about 

1.6 in (40 mm) in length and begin 

migrating upstream. Some fast-growing 

individuals may reach sexual maturity 

in their first year, but most mature in 

their second year (Etnier and Starnes 

1993, p. 588). Snail darters are shortlived fish that rarely survive to their 

fourth year. As their name implies, snail 

darters mostly feed on freshwater snails, 

predominantly in the genera Leptoxis 

and Lithasia, as well as caddisfly and 

dipteran (true fly) larvae (Etnier and 

Starnes 1993, p. 588). 

Distribution 

When we listed the snail darter (40 FR 

47505; October 9, 1975), the species was 

only known from about 13 miles (21 

kilometers (km)) of the lower Little 

Tennessee River in Loudoun County, 

Tennessee. Shortly thereafter, the 

species was found in the Watts Bar 

Reservoir portion of the Tennessee River 

below the mouth of the Little Tennessee 

River, and efforts were made to conserve 

the species by translocating individuals 

into other suitable streams (Hickman 

and Fitz 1977, pp. 80–83). Snail darters 

were collected from the Little Tennessee 

River and stocked into the Hiwassee, 

Holston, Nolichucky, and Elk Rivers 

beginning in 1975 to achieve this 

objective. The introductions into the 

Nolichucky and Elk Rivers were halted 

when sharphead darters (Etheostoma 

acuticeps), a species once thought 

extinct, were rediscovered there, 

causing concern about competition 

between the two species. However, the 

introductions into the Holston and 

Hiwassee Rivers were successful, and it 

is thought that the populations in the 

French Broad and Ocoee Rivers were 

established by dispersal from these 

populations (Ashton and Layzer 2008, 

pp. 55–56). These locations are 

presented on a map in Figure 1, below. 

After the completion of Tellico Dam 

on the Little Tennessee River, snail 

darters were located in five additional 

tributaries and three reservoirs: Little 

River (1983), Big Sewee Creek (1981), 

Chickamauga Reservoir (1976), 

Nickajack Reservoir (1981), South 

Chickamauga Creek (Tennessee and 

Georgia portions) (1980), Guntersville 

Reservoir (Tennessee portion) (1981), 

Sequatchie River (1981), and Paint Rock 

River (Alabama portion) (1981) (Service 

1983, pp. 12–19; Service 2013, p. 7). A 

survey in 2005 located the species in 

seven of the nine tributaries surveyed: 

French Broad River, Hiwassee River, 

Holston River, Little River, Sequatchie 

River, Big Sewee Creek, and South 

Chickamauga Creek (Ashton and Layzer 

2008, p. 54). This survey appears to be 

the last known record of snail darters in 

Big Sewee Creek (Simmons 2019, 

unpublished data). In this survey, snail 

darters were not located in the Paint 

Rock River or Ocoee River, though they 

were discovered at both locations in 

later years (Kuhajda 2018, unpublished 

data). In 2007, a single snail darter was 

collected in Citico Creek, suggesting that 

snail darters may have persisted in the 

Little Tennessee River watershed after 

the dam was constructed; however, they 

were not found in follow-up surveys 

(Service 2013, p. 7). 

More recent survey efforts have 

continued to document new snail darter 

locations, though with limited 

information on persistence. In 2012, two 

snail darters were collected in the Flint 

River in Alabama (Simmons 2019, p. 1), 

but they have not been found there 

since. In 2015, snail darters were 

collected in the Elk River in Alabama 

and in Bear Creek in Alabama and 

Mississippi, over 100 river miles (160 

km) from the Flint River location. To 

verify these collections, TVA began an 

effort to survey the mainstem Tennessee 

River reservoirs for snail darters 

(Simmons 2019, p. 2), collecting snail 

darters from six reservoirs in Tennessee 

and Alabama: Chickamauga, Nickajack, 

Guntersville, Wheeler, Pickwick, and 

the French Broad River arm of Fort 

Loudoun Reservoir (Simmons 2019, p. 

7; TVA unpublished data). Later surveys 

of the reservoirs located juvenile snail 

darters in Watts Bar Reservoir 

(Matthews 2020, pers. comm.), but 

trawling efforts did not locate 

individuals in Tellico, Wilson, and 

Kentucky Reservoirs (Simmons 2019, p. 

6). 

In 2017 and 2018, an environmental 

DNA survey was conducted for snail 

darters in the Alabama portion of the 

Tennessee River Basin (Shollenberger 

2019, p. 6). Environmental DNA (eDNA) 

is a surveillance tool used to monitor for 

the genetic presence of an aquatic 

species. These surveys returned positive 

eDNA detections in the following 

streams and reservoirs where TVA 

surveys had physically collected snail 

darters during previous survey efforts: 

Guntersville Reservoir, Wheeler 

Reservoir, Paint Rock River, Elk River, 

Pickwick Reservoir, and Bear Creek. The 

eDNA surveys returned negative results 

at locations where snail darters had not 

been collected recently, such as Wilson 

Reservoir and the Flint River, although 

an eDNA detection was found and then 

validated in 2020 in Shoal Creek, a 

tributary to Wilson Reservoir (Johnson 

2020, p. 2). 

In summary, the snail darter’s known 

range has greatly expanded since it was 

first discovered (see Fig. 1). At the time 

of listing in 1975, the species was only 

known from a small reach of the Little 

Tennessee River. By the early 1980s, 

new populations had been found or 

established in 10 widely dispersed 

locations, and in 1984, we reclassified 

the snail darter from an endangered to 

a threatened species (49 FR 27510; July 

5, 1984), due largely to an increased 

number of populations and a 

considerable range expansion. Since 

2010, populations in an additional two 

reservoirs and three tributaries have 

been discovered (Simmons 2019, pp. 1– 

2). As a result, snail darters are now 

considered extant in seven mainstem 

reservoirs of the Tennessee River (Fort 

Loudoun, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, 

Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, and 

Pickwick) and 12 tributaries in the 

Tennessee River watershed (Holston 

River, French Broad River, Little River, 

Hiwassee River, Ocoee River, South 

Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River, 

Paint Rock River, Flint River (two 

individuals), Elk River, Shoal Creek 

(one individual), and Bear Creek). We 

consider the snail darter extirpated from 

the Little Tennessee River mainstem, 

Citico Creek, and Sewee Creek, and 

never established in the Nolichucky 

River. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

EP01SE21.000</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Kentucky 

Tennessee River Watershed 

Figure 1. Current range and status of snail darter populations in the Tennessee River watershed. 
48958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Evaluating Populations 

There is not currently enough 

information available to determine 

population size for the snail darter. Few 

targeted surveys have been conducted 

for snail darters since the species was 

downlisted to threatened in 1984. 

Stream community monitoring is 

conducted by TVA throughout the 

Tennessee River basin using an index of 

biotic integrity (IBI) approach. The IBI 

uses fish community metrics, such as 

percent insectivore, to develop a score 

of stream health. These surveys are 

targeting a representative sample of the 

overall fish assemblage rather than 

individual species, so are not designed 

to provide population size information 

on rare species, but are useful for 

determining species persistence at a 

site. Occasional encounters by IBI 

monitoring crews provide information 

in the intervening years, but many of 

these surveys took place in wadeable 

portions of streams, missing the deeper 

water habitats often used by the species. 

Where snail darters are common near 

IBI sites, surveyors intentionally avoid 

their habitat to reduce the probability of 

injury, which can result in artificially 

reduced numbers of the species in 

samples. The wide variety of methods 

used during previous survey efforts also 

makes comparing populations difficult. 

Records from snorkel surveys targeted at 

other species only note incidental 

sightings of snail darters, not density, 

and the TVA trawls have mostly been 

carried out to determine the species’ 

presence and range (Simmons 2019, p. 

1). However, it is likely that reproducing 

populations of the species exist in at 

least 16 locations (6 reservoirs and 10 

tributaries) based on repeated 

collections that have been made at those 

locations, evidence of multiple age 

classes at those locations (i.e., 

suggesting regular recruitment into the 

population), and multiple males and 

females captured at those locations (see 

Tables 1 and 2 in Summary of Biological 

Status, below). 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. 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 list.’’ 

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. 

The snail darter recovery plan 

(Service 1983, entire) included recovery 

criteria to indicate when threats to the 

species have been adequately addressed 

and prescribed actions that were 

thought to be necessary for achieving 

those criteria. Below, we discuss our 

analysis of available data and our 

determination as to whether recovery 

criteria for the snail darter have been 

achieved. 

Recovery Criteria 

The objective of the recovery plan is 

to protect and recover the snail darter to 

the point where it can be removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. The recovery plan 

states that the species ‘‘shall be 

considered recovered when one of the 

alternatives (A, B, or C) listed below is 

met and no present or foreseeable 

threats exist that could cause the species 

to become in danger of extinction’’ 

(Service 1983, p. 27). 

• Alternative A: Suitable habitat areas 

of the Tennessee River within the area 

from the backwaters of Wheeler 

Reservoir upstream to the headwaters of 

Watts Bar Reservoir are inhabited by 

snail darter populations that can survive 

and reproduce independently of 

tributary rivers as evidenced by 

documented reproduction in Watts Bar 

Reservoir or some other Tennessee River 

reservoir. 

• Alternative B: More Tennessee 

River tributary populations of the 

species are discovered and existing 

populations are not lost. The number of 

additional populations needed to meet 

this criteria would vary depending on 

the status of the new populations, but 

two populations similar to the Big 

Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga 

Creek, or Sequatchie River populations, 

or one comparable to the Hiwassee 

River population, would denote 

recovery. 

• Alternative C: Through 

maintenance of existing populations 

and/or by expansion of these 

populations, there exist viable 

populations of snail darters in five 

separate streams such as Big Sewee 

Creek, Hiwassee River, South 

Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River 

and Paint Rock River. (For this 

alternative, ‘‘viable populations’’ means 

that population monitoring over a 10- 

year period (biannual sampling) 

indicates that the snail darter is 

reproducing (at least two year classes 

present each year sampled) and that the 

population is either stable or expanding. 

For some populations, existing data may 

be used to meet this requirement.) 

Achievement of Recovery Criteria 

Alternative A of the recovery criteria 

requires that snail darters be present in 

suitable habitats within reservoirs from 

Wheeler Reservoir upstream to Watts 

Bar Reservoir and evidence of 

reproduction within reservoirs 

independent of tributaries in at least one 

reservoir. We conclude that Alternative 

A has been met based on collection of 

seven permanent mainstem populations 

(Pickwick, Wheeler, Guntersville, 

Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, and 

Fort Loudoun reservoirs) and evidence 

of reproduction independent of 

tributaries in Chickamauga, Nickajack, 

and Wheeler reservoirs (see Tables 1 

and 2 in Summary of Biological Status, 

below, and Figure 1 in Background, 

above). These populations represent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48959 

multiple reservoirs, rivers and span at 

least three physiographic regions 

(Highland Rim, Cumberland Plateau, 

and Ridge and Valley) (Etnier and 

Starnes 1993, p. 3; Mettee et al. 1996, p. 

5). 

Our assessment of the tributary 

populations of snail darters supports the 

determination that Alternative B has 

also been met. Alternative B of the 

recovery criteria requires the discovery 

or establishment of at least two new 

tributary populations similar to the Big 

Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga 

Creek, or Sequatchie River populations 

or one comparable to the Hiwassee 

River population. In our analysis, we 

determined that 10 tributary 

populations are extant that have a 

moderate or high resilience (see Table 1, 

below). Four of these (French Broad 

River, Ocoee River, Elk River, and Bear 

Creek) have been found or established 

since the recovery plan was finalized. 

The largest new population occurs in 

the lower French Broad River. The 

founders of this population were likely 

migrants or juveniles from the stocked 

population in the Holston (Service 2013, 

p. 14). Snail darters have been collected 

across at least 21.8 miles (35.1 km) of 

the French Broad River and across 19 

miles (30.5 km) of the Hiwassee River 

(Ashton and Layzer 2008, pp. 54–55; 

Kuhajda 2018, supplementary data; 

TVA, unpublished data). Therefore, the 

requirement to discover or establish a 

population comparable to the Hiwassee 

River population has been met. 

Additionally, Alternative B gives the 

option of two tributary populations 

comparable to Big Sewee Creek, South 

Chickamauga Creek, and Sequatchie 

River. The current populations in the 

Ocoee River and Bear Creek are 

comparable to the Big Sewee Creek, 

South Chickamauga Creek, and 

Sequatchie River populations at the 

time the recovery plan was finalized 

based on captures and occupied stream 

length. 

Since 2011, snail darters have been 

found consistently in the Ocoee River 

by TVA IBI crews, appearing in every 

biannual sample since 2015. Snail 

darters have been collected across 5.9 

miles (9.5 km) of the Ocoee River, and 

collections of snail darters in the 

Hiwassee River near the mouth of the 

Ocoee suggests that they may occupy 

more of the river. 

Snail darters have only been collected 

as individuals or pairs, but the lower 

portion of Bear Creek is in the Gulf 

Coastal Plain physiographic region, so 

preferred habitat is more limited than in 

other streams. Individuals have been 

collected across 5.8 miles (9.3 km) of 

Bear Creek, but trawling collections near 

the mouth of Bear Creek and eDNA 

detections in the lower parts of the Bear 

Creek system and at its mouth suggest 

that snail darters may occur in an 

additional 25 miles (40 km) of the creek 

(Simmons 2019, supplementary data; 

Shollenberger 2019, pp. 14–16). 

Since 2015, snail darters have been 

collected in 1.4 miles (2.3 km) of the Elk 

River in Tennessee. Snail darters may 

also occur in the Alabama portion of the 

Elk River over more than 20 river miles 

of free-flowing stream down to the 

portion of the river inundated by 

Wheeler Reservoir (Simmons 2019, 

supplementary data; Shollenberger 

2019, pp. 14–16). 

In summary, our assessment of the 

tributary populations of the snail darter 

supports the determination that 

Alternative B has been met based on the 

establishment of the French Broad River 

population that is comparable to the 

Hiwassee population. Additionally, the 

Ocoee River, Bear Creek, and Elk River 

populations are comparable to the Big 

Sewee Creek historical population, 

which was found across 4.2 miles of 

stream, exceeding the prescription in 

Alternative B for at least one additional 

large population or two additional small 

populations. 

Alternative C has been partially met. 

This alternative of the recovery criteria 

calls for the maintenance of viable 

populations in five separate streams. 

The definition for viable populations in 

the 1983 recovery plan requires 

biannual monitoring over a 10-year 

period with enough data to demonstrate 

a stable or increasing population size 

and evidence of reproduction indicated 

by the presence of at least two year 

classes present in each year sampled. 

We do not have sufficient specific 

monitoring data to meet this definition 

since most of our collections come from 

TVA IBI surveys that are not speciesspecific. However, our analysis of the 

tributary populations found 10 

populations that were considered at 

least moderately resilient (see Table 1 in 

Summary of Biological Status, below). 

Of these, nine met the requirement of 

Alternative C that at least two year 

classes be present. The discovery of 

populations in Bear Creek, Elk River, 

Wheeler Reservoir, and Pickwick 

Reservoir since 2009 shows evidence of 

either species expansion, or growth of 

existing populations to the level of 

detection (see Table 2 in Summary of 

Biological Status, below). The presence 

of resilient populations in 10 tributaries 

and 7 mainstem reservoirs across four 

physiographic regions provides 

evidence of high redundancy and 

representation for the species (see 

further explanation of these terms in 

Analytical Framework, below). 

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 have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48960 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 the Services 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 

To assess species viability, we use 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 change). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

Summary of Biological Status 

Resiliency Analysis 

As explained above in Evaluating 

Populations, the existing data available 

do not allow us to estimate population 

sizes for snail darter. However, 

collections over multiple years and the 

presence of multiple age classes provide 

evidence of persistence in tributaries 

throughout the snail darter’s range. In 

the reservoirs, the capture of multiple 

individuals and evidence of multiple 

age classes typically represents a 

sustainable population. Where 

available, presence of snail darters in 

breeding condition is used as additional 

evidence of spawning, because snail 

darters move onto the spawning ground 

before spawning commences (Starnes 

1977, p. 64). We used IBI scores from 

fixed monitoring stations to address 

stream health where possible for 

tributary populations. These scores are 

generated from fish assemblage surveys 

throughout the Tennessee River Valley 

and rank streams from 12 to 60 (poor to 

excellent) based on metrics such as total 

number of species, proportions of 

intolerant and tolerant species, and the 

numbers of species in various ecological 

guilds (TVA 2005, pp. 5–7). We use 

these measures to describe the 

resiliency of the snail darter populations 

and their contributions to the species’ 

recovery. 

Tributary Resiliency—We 

characterized snail darter population 

resiliency in 14 tributaries (11 extant 

populations, one extirpated, and two 

apparently not established with only 

one collection each and no evidence of 

reproduction) using data related to three 

factors: Collections in multiple years 

since 2009, presence of multiple year 

classes in these samples, and TVA IBI 

scores for the tributary populations (see 

resiliency scores for these factors in 

Table 1, below). Detection of the species 

in multiple years provides evidence of 

persistence within a tributary. 

Consistent collections also indicate 

population numbers that are high 

enough to be detected using nondepletion methods (not every fish in a 

sample reach is caught), which is 

relevant for species like the snail darter 

that are difficult to capture with 

standard fish sampling equipment. The 

presence of multiple age classes is 

evidence of successful reproduction in 

the population. Given that snail darters 

only live 4 years and likely do not 

mature until their second year, it would 

only take a few years of failed 

reproduction for a population to be 

extirpated (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 

588). We reviewed the available data to 

determine population scores for each of 

the tributaries. The best available data 

are not sufficient to determine snail 

darter population size or trends due to 

the typically small numbers collected at 

any given site; however, we can address 

resiliency of the tributary populations 

by looking at persistence over time and 

evidence of reproduction. To do this, we 

used data from snail darter collections 

and observations from TVA and 

Conservation Fisheries, Inc., and data 

compiled by the Tennessee Aquarium 

Conservation Institute. 

We used IBI scores to address stream 

community health where possible for 

tributary populations. Measuring the 

overall fish community is a way to 

investigate habitat quality, water 

quality, and ecosystem stability by 

proxy of the fish that live in the stream. 

The IBI incorporates 12 metrics to 

measure fish community health based 

on the number of species or proportion 

of individuals in different guilds (group 

of species with similar life history) 

compared to what is expected in a 

reference condition stream. These 

metrics are adjusted based on stream 

size and physiographic region in order 

to be relevant to the differences in 

natural conditions across the Tennessee 

River Basin. Each metric is assigned a 

value matching a ranking of good (5), 

fair (3), or poor (1). The 12 metrics are 

then summed for each, yielding an 

overall rating of the stream community 

health. An IBI score of 12 to 22 equates 

to a very poor rating, 28 to 34 to a poor 

rating, 40 to 44 to a fair rating, 48 to 52 

to a good rating, and 58 to 60 to an 

excellent rating. Scores between these 

ranges received intermediate ratings 

(TVA 2005, entire). To determine 

potential IBI trends, we compared 

overall IBI scores for sites within the 

range of snail darters in each tributary 

from 2009 to 2019. Roughly half of the 

tributaries (French Broad River, Little 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48961 

River, Hiwassee River, Ocoee River, Elk 

River, and Flint River) showed some 

improvement during the 1999–2009 

period, but during the 2009–2019 

analysis period, the communities in all 

of the tributaries were mostly stable. 

We combined the population metrics 

to give a population score (low, 

medium, or high), and the habitat 

metrics combined to form a composite 

habitat score (low, medium, or high). 

These scores are compiled in Table 1, 

below. The population and habitat 

scores were averaged to provide the 

overall resilience score. Tributaries with 

multiple collections (of several fish each 

collection) and multiple age classes over 

the 12-year period were ranked high; 

conversely, those with only one 

collection and no evidence of 

reproduction were considered not 

established. Age classes were assigned 

by body length, based on life-history 

studies (Starnes 1977, pp. 47–63; 

Hickman and Fitz 1978, pp. 10–19). 

Sites with multiple collections but only 

one age class were ranked low. 

Tributaries with good or better IBI 

scores that were stable or improving 

were then ranked high, and tributaries 

with fair IBI scores with stable or 

improving conditions were ranked 

moderate. Overall resilience was 

calculated by averaging the column 

scores. Where snail darters had been 

extirpated or not established, IBI scores 

were not incorporated. While the habitat 

in Little River is very good, we found 

that the low numbers (three or fewer 

individuals in any single observation) of 

snail darters captured and the lack of 

multiple age classes did not warrant 

categorizing the Little River population 

as moderate or high. Our results of the 

tributary resiliency analysis are 

summarized in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—TRIBUTARY POPULATION RESILIENCY BASED ON COLLECTION DATA AND TVA IBI SCORES FROM 2009–2019 

Tributary Multiple 

detections 

Multiple 

age 

classes 

Population 

score 

IBI 

score IBI trend Habitat score 

Overall 

resiliency 

Holston River ........ Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair ..................... Stable ................. Moderate .... Moderate/high. 

French Broad 

River.

Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair/good ............ Stable or improving.High ........... High. 

Little River ............ Yes ............. No .............. Low ..................... Good/excellent ... Stable ................. High ........... Low. 

Citico Creek .......... No .............. No .............. Not established .. Good .................. Stable ................. High ........... Not established. 

Big Sewee Creek No .............. No .............. Extirpated ........... Poor/fair .............. Stable ................. Low ............ Extirpated. 

Hiawassee River .. Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Good/excellent ... Stable ................. High ........... High. 

Ocoee River ......... Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair ..................... Stable ................. Moderate .... Moderate/high. 

South Chickamauga Creek.Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair ..................... Stable or declining.Moderate .... Moderate/high. 

Sequatchie River .. Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair ..................... Stable or declining.Moderate .... Moderate/high. 

Paint Rock River .. Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair/good ............ Stable ................. High ........... High. 

Flint River ............. No .............. No .............. Not established .. Fair ..................... Insufficient data .. Moderate .... Not established. 

Elk River ............... Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Fair/good ............ Stable or improving.High ........... High. 

Shoal Creek ......... No .............. No .............. Not established .. Good .................. Stable or improving.High ........... Not established. 

Bear Creek ........... Yes ............. Yes ............. High .................... Good .................. Stable or improving.High ........... High. 

Reservoir Resiliency—Using the data 

available from the TVA snail darter 

trawl surveys (Simmons 2019, p. 3), we 

analyzed resiliency of the reservoir 

populations based on first, the number 

of individuals captured; and second, 

evidence of reproduction, with evidence 

of reproduction established either 

through presence of multiple age 

classes, adults in spawning condition 

(gravid females and/or males flowing 

milt [sperm]), or juveniles. To categorize 

number of individuals, we classified 

collections of 0–4 individuals as low, 5– 

9 as moderate, and ≥10 as high. To 

classify reproduction, given the limited 

sampling effort to date, collection of 

more than one age class or other 

evidence of reproduction resulted in a 

high rating in the reproduction metrics. 

Collection of only one age class or no 

other evidence of reproduction resulted 

in a low rating. Similar to the stream 

population, overall resilience was 

calculated by averaging the scores of the 

number collected and reproduction 

metrics. Results are summarized below 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—RESERVOIR POPULATION COLLECTIONS BASED ON TVA BENTHIC TRAWLS, 2016–2019 * 

Reservoir 

Population 

score 

(number 

collected) 

Age 

classes 

Evidence of 

reproduction 

Reproduction 

score 

Overall 

resilience 

Fort Loudoun .......................................... Low (2) ....... 2 No .................. High ............... Moderate. 

Watts Bar ................................................ Low (3) ....... 1 Yes ................. High ............... Moderate. 

Chickamauga .......................................... Low (4) ....... 2 Yes ................. High ............... Moderate. 

Nickajack ................................................ High (11) .... 2 Yes ................. High ............... High. 

Guntersville ............................................. High (33) .... 2 No .................. High ............... High. 

Wheeler .................................................. High (18) .... 2 Yes ................. High ............... High. 

Wilson ..................................................... Low (0) ....... 0 No .................. N/A ................. Not established. 

Pickwick .................................................. High (18) .... 3 No .................. High ............... High. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48962 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—RESERVOIR POPULATION COLLECTIONS BASED ON TVA BENTHIC TRAWLS, 2016–2019 *—Continued 

Reservoir 

Population 

score 

(number 

collected) 

Age 

classes 

Evidence of 

reproduction 

Reproduction 

score 

Overall 

resilience 

Kentucky ................................................. Low (0) ....... 0 No .................. N/A ................. Not established. 

* Age classes based on total length measurements from Hickman and Fritz (1978). Evidence of reproduction is based on capture of juvenile individuals, adults in spawning condition, or multiple age classes (Simmons 2019, p. 7). 

For the purpose of evaluating the 

snail darter’s status, we considered 

those tributaries that ranked moderate 

or high as contributing to resiliency. 

Because of the limited amount of 

reservoir sampling that has been 

completed, we considered those 

reservoir populations that had evidence 

of reproduction present as permanent, 

independent populations (Simmons 

2019, p. 2) that contribute to resiliency. 

We, therefore, considered 7 reservoir 

populations (Fort Loudoun, Watts Bar, 

Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, 

Wheeler, and Pickwick) and 10 tributary 

populations (Holston, French Broad, 

Little, Hiwassee, Ocoee, Sequatchie, 

Paint Rock, and Elk Rivers, and South 

Chickamauga and Bear Creeks) as 

contributing to species resiliency. We 

did not count Wilson Reservoir or 

Kentucky Reservoir toward resiliency 

because snail darters had never been 

collected there despite trawling efforts. 

While Watts Bar is only represented by 

three juveniles, their collection far from 

any large tributaries is evidence of 

reproduction within the reservoir. We 

did not consider Citico Creek, Big 

Sewee Creek, Flint River, or Shoal Creek 

as contributing toward resiliency either, 

because the species had not been 

collected there within the analysis 

period, despite multiple efforts (Big 

Sewee Creek, Citico Creek) or because a 

single snail darter had been found on 

only one occasion (Shoal Creek, Flint 

River) and we considered the 

populations to be not established in 

those locations (see Table 1, above). 

Analysis of Redundancy and 

Representation 

With discoveries of new tributary and 

reservoir populations, the known 

redundancy and representation of the 

snail darter has expanded during the 

analysis period. When we listed the 

species (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975), 

it had very low redundancy and 

representation because only one 

population was known from several 

miles of the Little Tennessee River, in 

the Ridge and Valley physiographic 

region. Currently, the species is known 

across more than 400 miles (640 km) of 

the Tennessee River Valley, with 

moderately to highly resilient 

populations in 9 tributaries and 7 

reservoirs, providing a level of 

redundancy that helps shield the 

species from localized stochastic events. 

While we do not have population 

genetic data for the snail darter, we can 

look at the species’ ability to adapt to 

changes in the environment 

(representation) by looking at its 

distribution across a range of habitats 

and physiographic regions. Resilient 

populations are currently known from 

streams ranging in size from mid-sized 

creeks to the large Tennessee River 

itself, with collections in depths ranging 

from less than 3 ft (1 m) to 25 ft (7.6 m). 

These populations occur in reservoirs 

and tributaries with these conditions in 

four different physiographic regions 

(Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau, 

Highland Rim, and Gulf Coastal Plain). 

This wide range of habitat use and 

geographic distribution helps to 

demonstrate the snail darter’s 

adaptability to changing environmental 

pressures (representation). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

A recovered species is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. Determining whether the status 

of a species has improved to the point 

that it can be delisted or downlisted 

requires consideration of the same five 

factors identified above for listing a 

species. When we initially listed the 

snail darter as endangered in 1975, the 

only identified threat influencing its 

status was the modification and loss of 

habitat and curtailment of range (Factor 

A) caused by the completion of Tellico 

Dam and the flooding of the entire 

known range of the species. When we 

reclassified the species as threatened in 

1984, we evaluated a more complete list 

of factors based on improved knowledge 

of the snail darter’s range and life 

history. These factors included threats 

to habitat such as shipping activities in 

the mainstem Tennessee River, impacts 

from development in some of the 

tributaries such as South Chickamauga 

Creek, threats from agricultural runoff 

and channelization in streams like the 

Elk River, impacts from coal mining in 

the Sequatchie River watershed, and 

chemical spills in the Hiwassee and 

Ocoee watersheds (Factor A); excessive 

collection associated with the notoriety 

of the species (Factor B); and 

protections afforded the species by State 

and Federal laws (Factor D). The 

following analysis evaluates these 

previously identified threats, any other 

threats currently facing the species that 

we have identified, as well as any other 

threats that are reasonably likely to 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future. 

To establish the foreseeable future for 

the purpose of evaluating trends in the 

threats and the species’ responses, we 

analyzed trends from historical data on 

distribution and abundance, ongoing 

conservation efforts, factors currently 

affecting the species, and predictions of 

future climate change. When combined 

with our knowledge of factors affecting 

the species (see discussion below), 

available data allow us to reasonably 

predict future conditions, albeit with 

diminishing precision over time. Given 

our understanding of the best available 

data, for the purposes of this proposed 

rule, we consider the foreseeable future 

for the snail darter to be approximately 

30 years. We determined that we can 

reasonably predict the threats to the 

species and the species’ response during 

this timeframe based on climate 

vulnerability assessments through 2050, 

the planning horizon of the reservoir 

release improvement program (RRIP), 

and enough time for the species to 

respond based on biology and lifespan. 

As noted above, when the species was 

downlisted (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), 

the reclassification rule identified 

additional threats to habitat in the 

additional populations established or 

discovered since listing (40 FR 47505; 

October 9, 1975). These included threats 

from shipping activities in the mainstem 

Tennessee River, impacts from 

development in some of the tributaries 

such as South Chickamauga Creek, 

threats from agricultural runoff and 

channelization in streams like the Elk 

River, impacts from coal mining in the 

Sequatchie River watershed, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48963 

chemical spills in the Hiwassee and 

Ocoee watersheds. 

One of the biggest factors still 

affecting the snail darter is the 

impoundment of large portions of the 

Tennessee River Valley. The TVA 

operates 9 dams on the mainstem 

Tennessee River and 38 dams on 

tributaries to the Tennessee River. These 

impoundments create large areas of 

deep, still water that do not meet the 

habitat needs of the snail darter. Snail 

darters are limited in the depth they can 

occupy by the presence of food 

resources. Snails, the darter’s preferred 

prey, live only in water shallow enough 

for light to penetrate and allow algae to 

grow on the substrate, about 15–20 ft (5– 

7 m) in much of the Tennessee 

mainstem. Impoundment also reduces 

stream flow and allows fine sediments 

to settle out, which can cover the clean 

gravel habitats needed by snail darters. 

Additionally, these dams were initially 

operated with a hydropeaking strategy, 

only releasing water when needed to 

generate electricity or maintain reservoir 

level or flood storage capacity. In 

addition, many of these releases came 

from the water levels within the 

reservoir that held cold, oxygendeficient water. Collectively, these 

factors created conditions in the 

tailwaters that negatively affected water 

quality, food availability, and fish 

diversity. 

Given the long operational lifespan of 

dams (>100 years), it is nearly certain 

that the TVA reservoirs will be in place 

for the foreseeable future. However, 

beginning in 1981, TVA began studies to 

improve conditions in the tailwaters of 

their dams. The cold, oxygen-deficient 

water released from the bottom of many 

of the dams created conditions that 

eliminated many fish and mussel 

species from these areas. Through the 

RRIP, TVA began implementing 

strategies to increase minimum flow, 

dissolved oxygen, and, in some cases, 

temperature, in the tailwaters of their 

dams beginning in 1991 (Bednarek and 

Hart 2005, p. 997). In 2002, TVA 

conducted a reservoir operation study to 

consider how to implement these 

changes across the basin to improve the 

health of the river (TVA 2004, p. ES–3). 

The result was to manage the river 

based on minimum flows instead of 

reservoir level and improve tailwater 

conditions. These changes have resulted 

in significant improvements in 

biological and abiotic variables and 

increases in fish and invertebrate 

diversity in many TVA dam tailwaters 

(Layzer and Scott 2006, entire; Bednarek 

and Hart 2005, entire; Scott et al. 1996, 

entire). These improvements have likely 

resulted in improved conditions for the 

snail darter and may have contributed to 

improvements to the species’ status 

within tailwaters since the 1990s, across 

more than 400 miles (640 km) of the 

mainstem of the Tennessee River. Since 

the RRIP is based on ecologically 

meaningful parameters in the tailwaters, 

such as dissolved oxygen and 

temperature, this program may be able 

to provide some resiliency to a warming 

climate and precipitation variability in 

the future, especially if TVA adjusts the 

program to maintain the needed 

conditions in the tailwaters. The 

reservoir operation study is planned 

along an approximately 25-year 

timeline, extending to 2030 (TVA 2004, 

p. ES–4). However, given the presence 

of at least 10 other listed aquatic species 

in the tailwaters of the mainstem 

Tennessee River reservoirs and the 

complexities of changing the operations 

plan, it is very likely that TVA will 

continue RRIP as part of their 

compliance with the Act for these other 

species beyond the timeline of the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and biological opinion that were 

prepared under Section 7 of the Act 

before alterations were made to dam 

release management. For these same 

reasons, TVA will likely incorporate 

RRIP to protect federally listed mussels 

present when it revisits its EIS around 

2030, and because the current EIS’s term 

is 25 years, it is reasonable to assume 

TVA will issue another 25-year EIS. 

Therefore, we estimate these conditions 

benefiting the snail darter will continue 

through at least midcentury (Baxter 

2020, pers. comm.). Overall, the 

persistence and expansion of snail 

darter populations in the mainstem 

since the 1970s indicate greater 

resiliency in these habitats than was 

considered at the time of listing, 

particularly now with the 

implementation of TVA’s RRIP. 

Anthropogenic changes to the land 

can also negatively impact the snail 

darter and its habitats. Sedimentation is 

one of the biggest threats to water 

quality in the Tennessee River Valley, 

including in streams occupied by snail 

darters. Big Sewee Creek has been 

impacted by sedimentation from 

persistent farming in the watershed, 

reducing the amount and quality of 

gravel habitat in the stream. The 

predominant agricultural activities 

contributing to sedimentation in Big 

Sewee Creek (livestock pasture and row 

crops) are exempt from many State and 

Federal regulations designed to reduce 

sediment runoff, and these activities are 

likely to continue into the future. 

Therefore, we do not expect this 

population to reestablish unless habitat 

conditions improve in the future. 

Sedimentation from agriculture and 

development is also considered a 

concern in the lower Little Tennessee 

River, Sequatchie River, South 

Chickamauga Creek, and Paint Rock 

River watersheds. There have been 

watershed-level efforts to address 

sedimentation issues in some of the 

tributaries where snail darters have been 

found. The South Chickamauga Creek 

Land Treatment Watershed Project, an 

effort of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

began in 2001, to reduce the runoff of 

sediment and nutrients in the watershed 

by installing animal waste management 

systems (see 65 FR 44519; July 18, 

2000). Additionally, the Limestone 

Valley Resource Conservation and 

Development Council is working with a 

wide variety of partners to implement 

the South Chickamauga Creek 

Headwaters Management Plan, 

developed in 2012, to address water 

quality issues (Smith and Huser 2012, 

pp. i–3). In the Paint Rock River, The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) has 

designated a ‘‘landscape conservation 

area’’ and worked to address 

sedimentation issues from agriculture 

throughout the watershed, resulting in 

improved conditions for aquatic fauna 

(Throneberry 2019, unpublished data). 

Many of these efforts include restoring 

natural stream channel characteristics 

where streams have been channelized. 

These efforts have been undertaken 

outside of species-specific recovery 

efforts for the snail darter, and they are 

likely to continue regardless of the 

delisting of the species. Other smallscale efforts have been undertaken to 

reduce sedimentation in many of the 

other tributaries inhabited by snail 

darters. It is likely that sedimentation 

has resulted in the extirpation of snail 

darters from Big Sewee Creek, but there 

is some potential for recolonization by 

individuals from Chickamauga 

Reservoir if habitat conditions improve. 

Urban and suburban development 

may impact the snail darter as well. 

Increases in the amount of impervious 

surfaces associated with development 

increase runoff to streams, destabilize 

hydrology, and increase water 

temperature. Additionally, residential 

and commercial development are 

associated with increased runoff of lawn 

and automotive chemicals into the 

streams (Matthaei and Lang 2016, p. 

180; Walsh et al. 2005, p. 707). The snail 

darter tributaries currently most 

impacted by development and the 

chemical and sediment runoff 

associated with it are South 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48964 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Chickamauga Creek in Chattanooga, 

Tennessee; Flint River in Huntsville, 

Alabama; and Little River in Maryville, 

Tennessee. Based on the SLEUTH 

(Slope, Land use, Excluded area, Urban 

area, Transportation, Hillside area) 

model, these areas are anticipated to 

have increased suburban and urban 

growth in the next 30 years, which 

might further impact South 

Chickamauga Creek, Flint River, and 

Little River; there is also the potential 

for increased urban impacts to the 

Sequatchie River and Paint Rock River 

watersheds associated with the growth 

of Chattanooga and suburban 

development from Huntsville, 

respectively (Terando et al. 2014, pp. 1– 

3). However, based on the persistence of 

snail darters in South Chickamauga 

Creek, which scored moderate in our 

analysis (see Table 1, above), it appears 

that there is some evidence to support 

a conclusion that the species is resilient 

to the impacts of urbanization. 

Additionally, the Thrive Regional 

Partnership is a group working to 

promote responsible growth in a 16- 

county region in the Greater 

Chattanooga area. The partnership’s goal 

is to improve communities while 

maintaining healthy ecosystems. Thrive 

has identified portions of streams and 

surrounding land that are key to 

preserving and enhancing water quality 

in the region of interest, with the goals 

of conserving 50 percent of unprotected 

forest and improving water quality in at 

least 50 percent of polluted streams by 

2055. The area covered by this initiative 

includes portions of the Big Sewee 

Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, 

Sequatchie River, and Paint Rock River 

watersheds (Thrive Regional 

Partnership 2019, entire). 

The threat of chemical and industrial 

spills was raised as a potential threat in 

the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 

5, 1984). The range of the snail darter 

is crossed by several major highways 

and railroad lines, making the 

possibility of a spill during transport an 

ongoing risk. Such spills have occurred 

as recently as 1991 in the Hiwassee 

River, but while spills may have severe 

impacts locally, they are unlikely to 

affect the species as a whole given its 

wide range in the mainstem of the 

Tennessee River and several tributaries 

(Service 2013, p. 18). Furthermore, the 

Ocoee River has suffered from industrial 

and mine runoff from the historical 

copper extraction in the watershed. 

Within the Ocoee River watershed, 

concerted efforts have been made to 

clean up industrial and mine-related 

pollution, resulting in much improved 

water quality and a healthier ecosystem, 

which may have contributed to the 

increased numbers of snail darters seen 

in that river since the Service’s 2013 5- 

year review (Service 2013, p. 12; 

Simmons 2019, unpublished data). 

The threat to snail darters from coal 

mining in the Sequatchie Valley has 

been greatly reduced since the recovery 

plan was completed. Mining for coal in 

the Sequatchie Valley ceased in the 

1990s, and since that time, there have 

been efforts to remediate acid mine 

drainage in the area. Currently, there are 

no active coal mining permits in the 

Sequatchie Valley (OSMRE 2016, p. 34; 

ITRC 2010, entire). 

The Tennessee River is a major inland 

shipping corridor, and in the 

downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 

1984), activities associated with barge 

traffic were considered to potentially 

threaten snail darters through habitat 

alterations in the mainstem Tennessee 

River reservoirs. Barge and large boat 

wakes can result in significant bank 

erosion along the river. Within the 

mainstem reservoirs, bank stabilization 

efforts have occurred in some 

significantly impacted areas and have 

reduced sedimentation at those 

locations, but there is no concerted plan 

to address this source of sediment 

across the Tennessee River basin. 

However, there is some evidence that 

areas of consistent traffic, such as barge 

mooring cells, may provide areas of siltfree habitat swept clean by tug engines 

(Matthews 2017, pers. comm.; Walker 

and Alford 2016, p. 1101). 

In summary, while effects to snail 

darter habitat (Factor A) associated with 

continued urbanization and agriculture 

are certain to persist into the foreseeable 

future, efforts are being made to reduce 

the impact to many of the tributaries 

inhabited by snail darters. Additionally, 

snail darters appear to be resilient to 

urbanization and agriculture, including 

practices such as channelization, in 

certain tributaries such as South 

Chickamauga Creek and Sequatchie 

River. In the Sequatchie River, the threat 

from coal mining is reduced with the 

cessation of mining in the valley and 

ongoing reclamation efforts. The 

mainstem populations are less 

susceptible to sedimentation and runoff 

associated with agriculture and 

urbanization due to the buffering 

capacity of the larger river, but they still 

may be affected by bank erosion and 

industrial transport along the Tennessee 

River. However, population persistence 

and the apparent expansion in the 

mainstem since the 1970s demonstrate 

the resiliency of the snail darter within 

these habitats, especially with the 

implementation of TVA’s RRIP. 

At the time of the downlisting rule (49 

FR 27510; July 5, 1984), the Service 

projected that the notoriety of the snail 

darter could result in an increase in 

illegal collection (Factor B); however, no 

such activities have been observed or 

documented since that rule was 

published. Snail darters receive some 

protection against collection from the 

States. The species is listed as 

threatened in Tennessee, endangered in 

Georgia, and protected as a non-game 

species in Alabama and Mississippi. 

These protections require State permits 

for the collection of the species. 

The snail darter’s habitat is also 

protected by State water quality laws 

that require the use of best management 

practices, such as leaving a riparian 

buffer, when clearing or building near a 

stream (Factor D). In Tennessee, any 

waterway with a State-listed species is 

designated an ‘‘Exceptional Tennessee 

Waterway,’’ and projects impacting 

these streams are required to undergo 

additional review before receiving the 

necessary State permits. While 

agriculture is typically exempt from 

many of the provisions in State laws, 

various efforts described above, such as 

those in the Paint Rock River and South 

Chickamauga Creek, are working to 

reduce the impact of sedimentation 

from agriculture on the snail darter. 

Additionally, the snail darter’s range 

overlaps with the ranges of more than 

10 federally endangered mussels. This 

provides some protection, as entities 

implementing projects with a Federal 

nexus, such as infrastructure repair and 

construction and dam operation, are 

required to consult with the Service to 

reduce the impacts to listed species and 

designated critical habitat. These 

consultations may result in changes to 

the project to reduce sedimentation or 

limit the time of year when construction 

can take place to reduce disruption to 

the life history of a species. The 

protection, restoration, conservation, 

and management of ecological resources 

within the snail darter’s range have been 

broadly enhanced through Executive 

Orders and Federal regulations since the 

species was listed. These include 

provisions emphasizing the protection 

and restoration of ecosystem function 

and quality in compliance with existing 

Federal environmental statutes and 

regulations (e.g., National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Clean Water Act 

(CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) and 

endorsing Federal efforts to advance 

environmental goals. Recent water 

resources authorizations have also 

enhanced opportunities for the 

involvement of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and other Federal agencies in 

studies and projects to specifically 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48965 

address objectives related to the 

restoration of ecological resources (e.g., 

section 1135 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986, as amended, 

33 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.). 

Protections associated with the CWA 

and State wildlife laws will continue to 

provide some protection to the snail 

darter. The fear that the species’ 

notoriety would result in increased 

collection or other forms of take has not 

been realized since we reclassified the 

species to threatened, and collection is 

unlikely to have a major impact on 

species resilience in the foreseeable 

future. Additionally, even if range States 

were to cease protecting the snail darter, 

its wide range and current redundancy 

should minimize its risk of extinction 

for the foreseeable future. 

In addition to the threats mentioned 

in the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; 

July 5, 1984) that are addressed above, 

we now consider other threats or 

stressors that reasonably could affect the 

snail darter in the foreseeable future. 

One such potential threat is climate 

change. In the southeastern United 

States, clear trends in climate 

predictions are limited. However, 

annual temperatures are projected to 

increase, cold days will become less 

frequent, the freeze-free season will 

lengthen by up to a month, temperatures 

exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (35 

degrees Celsius (°C)) will increase, heat 

waves will become longer, and the 

number of category 5 hurricanes will 

increase (Ingram et al. 2013, p. 32). 

Variability in weather is predicted to 

increase, resulting in more frequent and 

more extreme dry years and wet years 

over the next century, but a directional 

shift in overall precipitation is not 

anticipated in the Tennessee River 

Valley (Mulholland et al. 1997, pp. 951– 

955; Ingram et al. 2013, pp. 15, 35). 

There is some evidence that the 

increased variability may already be 

taking effect. 2018 and 2019 were the 

two wettest years on record for the 

Tennessee River Valley (Simmons 2020, 

unpublished data). During the late 

summer and early fall of 2019, the 

second wettest year overall, parts of the 

Valley temporarily experienced 

abnormally dry or drought conditions 

(USDA Drought Monitor for Tennessee 

River Valley, October 1, 2019). 

Increased rainfall will result in 

increased runoff, higher river levels, and 

longer periods of spilling from the top 

of dams by TVA. During periods of 

spilling at dams, there is the chance for 

more oxygenation of tailwaters and 

temperature mixing that could benefit 

the snail darter. However, increased 

rainfall, especially extreme events, 

would increase runoff of sediment and 

pollutants into tributaries and 

eventually into the mainstem. These 

inputs could potentially degrade 

spawning and foraging habitat for the 

snail darter. Increased flows during the 

spawning season could also increase the 

distance that the pelagic larvae of snail 

darters drift before becoming benthic. If 

the larvae found suitable habitat, 

increased flow could expand the range 

of the species and contribute to genetic 

mixing; however, there is also the 

chance that larvae could be pushed into 

unsuitable habitat, which would result 

in reduced survival. Drought would 

most likely impact the shallower 

habitats inhabited by snail darters in 

tributaries. The area of shoal habitat 

available during periods of low flow 

could be reduced during a drought. The 

flows could be further reduced by water 

extraction for irrigation. These 

reductions of spawning habitat could 

result in lower spawning success. If 

discharge is reduced enough, the cleanswept gravel habitats that the snail 

darter relies on in the mainstem could 

begin to retain silt, reducing habitat 

quality. 

There is evidence that the habitat and 

life history of the snail darter will 

protect it from predicted changes in 

climate over the next 30 years. In a 2017 

climate change vulnerability assessment 

of 700 species, the Appalachian 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

(LCC) ranked the snail darter as 

‘‘presumed stable’’ through 2050 under 

predicted climate conditions 

(Appalachian LCC 2017, supplemental 

data). Being adapted to large river 

habitats, the snail darter is less 

susceptible to impacts from high-flow 

events. As much of its habitat in the 

mainstem is already impounded, the 

effects of high water are less 

meaningful, and TVA flood control 

efforts may offset some of the strong 

flow peaks associated with extreme rain 

events. The species’ preference for 

deeper water habitats and late winter 

spawning period protects it from 

drought. Deep water habitats are not 

impacted by droughts as drastically as 

shallow habitats. The RRIP in TVA 

tailwaters ensures availability of 

suitable water for the mainstem 

populations throughout the year despite 

the occurrence of drought. Drought is 

also unlikely to impact spawning events 

on shoals in tributaries because late 

winter and early spring are typically the 

wettest times of the year within the 

Tennessee River Valley. The snail darter 

is likely also protected from the 

projected temperature increases by 

adaptation to larger streams and the 

thermal buffering of the large reservoirs 

on the mainstem. 

If we examine current projections 

beyond our 30-year foreseeable future, 

under plausible future greenhouse gas 

concentrations termed representative 

concentration pathways (RCP), warming 

temperatures and precipitation 

projections continue to suggest mixed 

effects to the species. Relative to 1981– 

2010, over 2050–2074, the 50th 

percentile (median) for the Tennessee 

Region, maximum air temperature 

warms by 4.4 °F (2.4 ßC) in RCP 4.5, 

whereas the region warms by 6.4 °F (3.6 

ßC) in RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 

2013, entire). Changes in precipitation 

are not as apparent. Relative to 1981– 

2010, over 2050–2074, the 50th 

percentile (median) for the Tennessee 

Region, precipitation increases by only 

0.2 in (5.1 mm) per month in both RCP 

4.5 and RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 

2013, entire). We are not extending the 

foreseeable future timeline beyond 2050 

because the snail darter’s response to 

changing climatic conditions is less 

certain after 2050. We have greater 

certainty about the species’ response to 

changing climactic conditions between 

now and 2050 because we have both the 

projections and scientific sources that 

predict the species’ response, such as 

the LCC report. Further, the climate 

projections are more reliable between 

now and 2050 as compared to beyond 

2050 because the models diverge after 

2050. As a result, we do not consider 

the snail darter to be vulnerable to the 

effects of climate change in the 

foreseeable future. 

The increases documented in the 

abundance and distribution of the snail 

darter since it was listed in 1975 have 

led to a better understanding of the 

current and future condition of the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation across the range. The 

observed variations in population size, 

density, or distribution of the snail 

darter are typical of metapopulation 

dynamics. Surveys have shown that 

individual populations may decline 

based on localized stressors (e.g., severe 

sedimentation, toxic spills, streamflow 

alteration) or their cumulative effects. 

When threats occur together, one may 

exacerbate the effects of another, 

causing effects not accounted for when 

threats are analyzed individually. 

However, the best available information 

does not demonstrate that cumulative 

effects are occurring at a level sufficient 

to negatively affect the species. 

Determination of the Snail Darter’s 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48966 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of 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.’’ 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, see Regulatory and Analytical 

Framework, above. 

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 have found that snail darter 

representation and redundancy has 

increased, with extant populations in 7 

mainstem reservoirs of the Tennessee 

River and 10 tributaries in the 

Tennessee River watershed. Of the 

mainstem reservoirs, six populations 

showed multiple age classes, and for 

these six, we have observed direct 

evidence of reproduction in three 

populations, indicating moderate or 

high resilience. Collection efforts in two 

mainstem reservoirs, Wilson and 

Kentucky reservoirs, failed to find snail 

darters during our analysis period. Of 

the tributaries, nine populations 

demonstrated moderate to high 

resilience; one population is considered 

to have low resilience with no evidence 

of reproduction; three tributary 

populations (Citico Creek, Flint River, 

and Shoal Creek) lack sufficient 

collections during our analysis period to 

consider them established. 

Additionally, the species is now known 

to be present in four physiographic 

regions, indicating increased 

representation, and the multiple, 

resilient populations indicate an 

increase in redundancy since the 

species was reclassified to threatened in 

1984. Because the snail darter has 

increased in representation and 

redundancy generally, and in particular 

with respect to numbers of resilient, 

self-sustaining populations, we expect 

this species to be able to sustain 

populations into the foreseeable future. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding the threats faced by the snail 

darter in developing this proposed rule. 

Threats reported at the time of listing 

(1975) and when we downlisted the 

species to threatened status (1984) 

related to habitat loss and curtailment of 

range (Factor A) have been reduced in 

many locations, and available data 

indicate the species possesses greater 

resilience to the negative effects of dams 

than was determined at the time of 

listing. Further, beneficial dam 

operations (i.e., RRIP) are expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future. 

At the time of the downlisting rule (49 

FR 27510; July 5, 1984), it was thought 

that the notoriety of the snail darter 

would result in an increase in illegal 

collection (Factor B); however, no such 

activities have been seen, and we do not 

consider this a threat to the current or 

future viability of the species. State 

water quality and wildlife laws provide 

some protections to the snail darter and 

its habitat, and its range overlaps with 

other federally protected aquatic 

animals (Factor D). In addition, we have 

evaluated potential effects of climate 

change (Factor E) and determined that it 

is not a primary threat to the species. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the snail 

darter is not in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so 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. Having determined 

that the snail darter is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we now consider whether it may 

be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range—that 

is, whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which it is true that 

both (1) the portion is significant; and 

(2) the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address 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. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

snail darter, we choose to address the 

status question first—we consider 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of both the species and the 

threats that the species faces to identify 

any portions of the range where the 

species may be endangered or 

threatened. For the snail darter, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Habitat 

modification, curtailment of range, 

climate change, and illegal collection, 

including cumulative effects. 

Threats related to habitat modification 

or curtailment of range affect snail 

darters throughout their range. With the 

implementation of TVA’s RRIP, 

conditions around the large dams on the 

mainstem of the Tennessee River have 

improved. Our analysis of the species’ 

resiliency (see above, Analytical 

Framework), which integrated 

information on demographics and 

threats, determined that six out of nine 

reservoir populations showed multiple 

age classes, and for these six, we have 

observed direct evidence of 

reproduction in three of these 

reservoirs. These reservoirs with 

resilient populations are distributed 

across the snail darter’s range and 

multiple geographic provinces. Of the 

10 resilient tributary populations, 9 

populations demonstrated moderate to 

high resiliency. In tributary watersheds 

such as the Ocoee and Sequatchie where 

water quality was impacted by localized 

mining threats, conditions have 

improved due in part to the cessation of 

mining and efforts to clean up the mine 

sites. In watersheds with higher levels 

of agriculture and urbanization such as 

the South Chickamauga Creek and Paint 

Rock River watersheds, conservation 

programs are in place to reduce the 

impact of these activities on the 

instream habitat used by the snail 

darter. Based on the distribution of 

resilient populations and the 

conservation efforts put in place, we 

have determined that threats related to 

habitat modification or curtailment of 

range are not concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range. 

We have reviewed other potential 

threats, including climate change, illegal 

collection, and cumulative effects, and 

we concluded that none of them is 

concentrated in any portion of the 

species’ range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion 

of the species’ range can provide a basis 

for determining that the species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range, and we 

find the species is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This is consistent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48967 

with the court’s holding 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 snail darter does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species in accordance with 

sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. 

Therefore, we propose to remove the 

snail darter from the List. 

Effects of This Rule 

This proposal, if made final, would 

revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the 

snail darter from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The prohibitions and conservation 

measures provided by the Act, 

particularly through sections 7 and 9, 

would no longer apply to the snail 

darter. Federal agencies would no 

longer be required to consult with us 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect the snail darter. 

There is no critical habitat designated 

for this species, so there would be no 

effect to 50 CFR 17.95. 

This rule would not affect the snail 

darter’s status as an endangered or 

threatened species under State laws or 

suspend any other legal protections 

provided by those laws. States may have 

more restrictive laws protecting 

wildlife, and these would not be 

affected by this Federal action. 

However, this proposed rule may 

prompt Tennessee or Georgia to remove 

protection for the snail darter under 

their endangered species laws, although 

we are not aware of any such intention 

at this time. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. Postdelisting monitoring (PDM) refers to 

activities undertaken to verify that a 

species delisted due to recovery remains 

secure from the risk of extinction after 

the protections of the Act no longer 

apply. The primary goal of PDM is to 

monitor the species to ensure that its 

status does not deteriorate, and if a 

decline is detected, to take measures to 

halt the decline so that proposing it as 

endangered or threatened is not again 

needed. If at any time during the 

monitoring period data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly 

requires that we cooperate with the 

States in development and 

implementation of PDM programs. 

However, we remain ultimately 

responsible for compliance with section 

4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively 

engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 

seek active participation of other 

entities that are expected to assume 

responsibilities for the species’ 

conservation after delisting. 

We will coordinate with other Federal 

agencies, State resource agencies, 

interested scientific organizations, and 

others as appropriate to develop and 

implement an effective PDM plan for 

the snail darter. The PDM plan will 

build upon current research and 

effective management practices that 

have improved the status of the species 

since listing. Ensuring continued 

implementation of proven management 

strategies that have been developed to 

sustain the species will be a 

fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The 

PDM plan will identify measurable 

management thresholds and responses 

for detecting and reacting to significant 

changes in snail darter numbers, 

distribution, and persistence. If declines 

are detected equaling or exceeding these 

thresholds, the Service, in combination 

with other PDM participants, will 

investigate causes of these declines. The 

investigation will be to determine if the 

snail darter warrants expanded 

monitoring, additional research, 

additional habitat protection, or 

resumption of Federal protection under 

the Act. We will draft the PDM plan and 

will notify the public on our website, 

https://www.fws.gov/cookeville, when it 

is available. Copies will also be 

available from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). We anticipate 

finalizing a PDM plan at the time of 

making a final determination on the 

proposed delisting rule. 

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.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) in connection with 

regulations adopted 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 (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. 

As we move forward with this 

rulemaking process, we will continue to 

consult with Tribes on a government-togovernment basis as necessary. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48968 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020– 

0152. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and 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. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

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

removing the entry for ‘‘Darter, snail’’ 

under FISHES from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18127 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BK64 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; 

Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Bluefish 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of availability of 

proposed fishery management plan 

amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council has submitted 

Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Bluefish 

Fishery Management Plan to NMFS for 

review and approval. Amendment 7 

proposes to implement a rebuilding 

plan for the overfished bluefish stock, as 

well as revisions to fishery management 

plan goals and objectives, 

administrative measures during the 

specifications process, and the 

allocation percentages of quota between 

the commercial and recreational sectors 

and commercial quota among the states. 

The purpose of this amendment is to 

implement a rebuilding plan, as 

required by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, and to update the Bluefish Fishery 

Management Plan; responding to recent 

changes in stock health and distribution 

using the best information available, 

while recognizing economic need and 

reliance throughout the management 

area. This notice is intended to alert the 

public to this action and provide an 

opportunity for comment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0071, by the following 

method: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov, 

and enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2021–0071’’ 

in the Search box; 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields; and 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for this 

action that describes the proposed 

measures and other considered 

alternatives. The EA also provides a 

thorough analysis of the biological, 

economic, and social impacts of the 

proposed measures and other 

considered alternatives. Copies of 

Amendment 7, including the EA, the 

Regulatory Impact Review, and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis 

prepared in support of this action, are 

available upon request from: Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N 

State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These 

documents are also accessible via the 

internet at https://www.mafmc.org/ 

supporting-documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (Commission) 

cooperatively manage bluefish from 

Maine to Florida under the Atlantic 

Bluefish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The Council and Commission 

initiated Amendment 7 as a joint action 

in December 2017 to address a 

comprehensive range of management 

issues in the bluefish fishery from goals 

and objectives of the FMP to the 

allocation and transfer of quota between 

the commercial and recreational sectors. 

Following the overfished stock 

determination from the 2019 operational 

stock assessment, a rebuilding plan for 

bluefish was also added to the 

amendment, and final alternatives were 

approved at the joint meeting of the 

Council and Commission’s Bluefish 

Management Board in February 2021. 

Public hearings on these alternatives 

were held throughout the spring of 

2021, and the Council and Board 

approved Amendment 7 on June 8, 

2021, with the intent that the changes 

would be effective for the 2022 fishing 

year that begins on January 1, 2022. 

The purpose of this amendment is to 

implement a rebuilding plan for 

bluefish, as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), and to update the FMP; 

responding to recent changes in stock 

health and distribution using the best 

information available, while recognizing 

economic need and reliance throughout 

the management area. This action 

proposes to: 

• Update the Bluefish FMP goals and 

objectives from those that were initially 

established for the fishery in 1991 to 

better reflect today’s fishery; 

• Re-allocate bluefish quota between 

the commercial and recreational fishery 

sectors to more accurately reflect recent 

catch and landings data in the fishery, 

allocating 14 percent to the commercial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS