Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43885 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2016–0057 and 

upon request from the Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Pacific 

Islands Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as 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; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for ‘‘Iiwi 

(honeycreeper)’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

BIRDS 

*******

Iiwi (honeycreeper) ......... Drepanis coccinea ........ Wherever found ............ T 82 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the 

document begins], 9/20/2017. 

*******

Dated: August 23, 2017. 

James W. Kurth 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20074 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0037; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BB55 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for Pearl Darter 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for the pearl darter (Percina 

aurora), a fish whose historical range 

includes Mississippi and Louisiana. The 

effect of this regulation will be to add 

this species to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

October 20, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2016–0037 and on the 

Mississippi Field Office Web site at 

https://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/. 

Comments and materials we received, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this rule, are available 

for public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov and by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mississippi Ecological Services Field 

Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, 

Jackson, Mississippi 39213, by 

telephone 601–321–1122 or by facsimile 

601–965– 4340. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office, 601– 

321–1122. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

if we determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. We published a proposed 

rule to add the pearl darter (Percina 

aurora) to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 

17.11(h)) as threatened on September 

21, 2016 (81 FR 64857). 

What this document does. This rule 

will finalize the listing of the pearl 

darter as a threatened species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on 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 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43886 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that water quality 

decline from point and nonpoint source 

pollution continues to impact portions 

of this species’ habitat. In addition, 

geomorphology changes attributed to 

historical sand and gravel mining 

operations within the drainage are 

considered an ongoing threat. This 

species has been extirpated from the 

Pearl River watershed and is confined 

today to the Pascagoula River basin 

where the species’ small population 

size, scattered locations, and low 

genetic (allelic) diversity increase its 

vulnerability to extirpation from 

catastrophic events. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our 

determination was based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We invited these peer 

reviewers to comment on our listing 

proposal. We also considered all 

comments and information received 

from the public during the comment 

period. 

Previous Federal Action 

Please refer to the September 21, 

2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 

64857) for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Background 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

taxonomy, biology, status, and threats 

affecting the species, please refer to the 

proposed listing rule. In the proposed 

rule, we evaluated the biological status 

of the species and factors affecting its 

continued existence. Our assessment 

was based upon the best available 

scientific and commercial data on the 

status of the species, including past, 

present, and future threats. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule, we requested 

that all interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by November 

21, 2016. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. Newspaper 

notices inviting general public comment 

were published in the Hattiesburg 

American, Mississippi Press, and 

Clarion-Ledger on October 2, 2016. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. All substantive information 

provided during the comment period 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or is 

addressed in the more specific response 

to comments below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from three individuals with scientific 

expertise that included familiarity with 

pearl darter and its habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received 

responses from all three of the peer 

reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for new 

substantive information regarding the 

listing of the pearl darter. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

rule. Where appropriate, we 

incorporated new information into the 

final rule as a result of the peer reviewer 

comments, including new survey 

information. Other substantive peer 

reviewer comments are below. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested our statement that the species 

was extirpated from the Pearl River 

drainage was premature, since surveys 

in that system were ongoing, and 

cautioned that a final listing decision 

should be withheld until surveys were 

completed. 

Our Response: While upper Pearl 

River basin surveys for the pearl darter 

were completed in 2011 (Schaefer and 

Mickle 2011), surveys for the darter in 

the lower Pearl River drainage were 

only completed by the Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and 

Parks in May of 2017 (Wagner et al. 

2017, entire). Those surveys, which 

included both traditional surveys and 

eDNA analysis (Wagner et al. 2017, p. 

5), were utilized over the last 2 years in 

an attempt to locate evidence of this 

species persisting in the Pearl River 

system. Our determination that the pearl 

darter has not been collected from the 

Pearl River drainage in over 40 years, 

and is considered extirpated from this 

system, is validated by these recent 

survey results. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that pulp mills should be 

considered a threat to water quality 

degradation. The reviewer also 

expressed a suspicion that pulp mill 

effluent may have had some influence 

on extirpation of pearl darters in the 

Pearl River. 

Our Response: We agree and have 

made changes to this final rule to reflect 

the peer reviewer’s input in the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section, below. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that increased demand for water 

withdrawal by industry and 

municipalities should be considered an 

additional threat to the species in the 

Pascagoula drainage. The reviewer 

stated that this activity will be a 

continuing threat for all aquatic 

resources as coastal populations grow 

and industrial needs expand. The 

commenter cited the 2006 proposed 

Richton Salt Dome as an example of 

water withdrawal posing a threat to the 

pearl darter. 

Our Response: We agree that water 

withdrawal from the Pascagoula 

drainages could have an impact on the 

ecological health of the system and 

potentially impact the pearl darter. 

However, at this time, we have no 

information to indicate that increased 

demand for water withdrawal by 

industry and municipalities currently 

poses a threat to the pearl darter, and we 

note that the peer reviewer did not 

identify any specific active projects. The 

Richton Salt Dome project cited by the 

peer reviewer, which at one time was a 

concern, was terminated and removed 

from the Department of Energy’s budget 

in 2011. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that there was no information to 

indicate there has been a decline in 

pearl darter abundance in the Bouie 

River and Black Creek and, particularly, 

no information attributing any declines 

to sedimentation and unstable banks. 

These areas have historically had few 

specimens of darter and have not been 

thoroughly surveyed. 

Our Response: We agree that there are 

inadequate data and a lack of thorough 

surveying of the Bouie River and Black 

Creek to definitively note a decline of 

the species in those systems, and we 

have clarified the rule accordingly. 

Until recently, there had been no 

collection efforts in the Bouie River and 

Black Creek since 2000. However, in 

2016–2017, survey efforts in these 

systems found pearl darters to be 

sparsely present in a few sites (Schaefer 

in litt. 2017). Evidence of substantial 

sedimentation and unstable banks in the 

Bouie River and Black Creek has been 

documented in the past (Mossa and 

Coley 2004, p. 7; Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2005c, p. 16) and observed currently 

(Schaefer in litt. 2017). The negative 

impact of excessive sedimentation on 

darter distribution is well known and 

addressed under Factor A in the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section of the preamble to this 

rule. Furthermore, there are also likely 

other factors contributing to water 

quality degradation in these systems, 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43887 

such as point and nonpoint source 

pollution related to stormwater runoff 

and effluent discharge from industry, 

agriculture, and urbanization; therefore, 

we have revised our statement regarding 

sedimentation. 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that our statement in the 

proposed rule on low genetic diversity 

and restricted gene flow as reported by 

Kreiser et al. (2012) ran counter to the 

hypothesized long-distance spawning 

migrations noted elsewhere in the rule. 

The commenter stated that the genetic 

data support a series of potentially 

disjunct populations rather than one 

contiguous population. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

comment and have clarified in this final 

listing rule the statement that pearl 

darters may have long-distance 

spawning migrations (Bart et al. 2001, p. 

14). Kreiser’s (et al. 2012, pp. 14–17) 

recent genetic studies, indicating a 

series of potentially disjunct 

populations, are likely a more accurate 

representation of the population 

structure of the pearl darter (see 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species, Factor E). 

Comments From States 

The proposed rule was reviewed by 

the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks; the Mississippi 

Forestry Commission; and the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

The individual associated with the 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks also served as a peer 

reviewer, and his comment is addressed 

in Comment 1 above. The State agencies 

generally concurred with our methods 

and commented that the literature and 

data were thorough and properly 

documented. They stated that we 

should withhold our final listing 

decision until their surveys in the Pearl 

River drainage had been completed. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks recently provided 

additional information from their recent 

site surveys. The Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries agreed that 

there were no recent records from the 

Pearl River system despite recent 

sampling efforts. An issue raised by the 

Mississippi Forestry Commission is 

addressed below. 

(6) Comment: The Mississippi 

Forestry Commission and two 

commenters from the timber industry 

stated that we mischaracterized the use 

of best management practices (BMPs) in 

Mississippi by stating that: (1) Their use 

was confined to lands managed by The 

Nature Conservancy and the State of 

Mississippi, and (2) the lack of a 

mandatory requirement makes forestry 

BMPs less effective. The commenters 

pointed out that the forest industry has 

a number of forest certification 

programs, such as the Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative, which require 

participating landowners to meet or 

exceed State forestry BMPs. The 

commenters also stated that silviculture 

practices implemented with BMPs have 

minimal impacts on aquatic species, 

and that a recent statewide monitoring 

survey by Mississippi Forestry 

Commission indicated that BMPs are 

being implemented across all 

silviculture landscapes in Mississippi 

regardless of ownership. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

additional information provided by the 

commenters and commend the timber 

industry and landowners on their 

implementation of BMPs in their timber 

operations and also the success of 

forestry certification programs, such as 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. We have 

updated information in this rule to 

acknowledge the contribution of these 

forest landowners implementing BMPs 

in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section, below. 

Public Comments 

We received five comments from the 

public, two of which are addressed in 

Comment 6, above; the three other 

commenters simply expressed their 

support for the proposed listing. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

This final rule incorporates minor 

changes to our proposed rule based on 

the comments we received, as discussed 

above in Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations, and newly available 

survey information. The survey data 

allowed us to refine distribution 

information; thus, the final total current 

range of the species is different from 

that in the proposed rule. Many small, 

nonsubstantive changes and corrections 

were made throughout the document in 

response to comments (e.g., updating 

the Background section, threats, minor 

clarifications). However, the 

information we received in response to 

the proposed rule did not change our 

determination that the pearl darter is a 

threatened species, nor was it 

significant enough to warrant reopening 

the public comment period. Below is a 

summary of substantive changes made 

to the final rule. 

• We now estimate the total current 

range of the pearl darter in the 

Pascagoula watershed to be 668 

kilometers (km) (415 miles (mi)) based 

on a reanalysis of collection records and 

recent survey results. Detailed 

information about the species’ range 

within each of the seven river/creek 

systems is presented in the preamble of 

this rule, under Current Distribution. 

• Additional information on habitat 

and population structure from peer 

reviewers and recent studies (Wagner et 

al. 2017) has been added to the 

preamble. 

• Additional information and 

suggestions from peer reviewers was 

added to clarify and improve the 

accuracy of the information in the 

Distribution, Habitat, Biology, and 

Threats sections of the preamble to the 

proposed rule. 

• Additional information on the 

species’ abundance and probable cause 

of decline in the Pearl River, as related 

to the potential threat to existing 

populations in the Pascagoula system, 

from two peer reviewers was added into 

the Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section of this rule, below. 

• Additional narrative on historical 

threats within the Pearl River basin, as 

well as additional historical and current 

threats affecting water quality within 

the Pascagoula River basin, including 

increased brine concentration from oil 

and gas production and pulp mill 

effluent related to pulp, paper, and 

lumber mills, was added to the 

preamble. 

Summary of Biological Status 

Below we present a summary of the 

biological and distributional 

information discussed in the proposed 

listing rule (81 FR 64857; September 21, 

2016). We also present new information 

published or obtained since the 

proposed rule was published (see 

Summary of Changes from the Proposed 

Rule, above). 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

The pearl darter (Percina aurora) is a 

small fish and is one of three members 

of the subgenus Cottogaster (Ross 2001, 

p. 500). The species is allied to the 

channel darter (P. copelandi) (Ross et al. 

1989, p. 25) but is distinguished from it 

by its larger size, lack of tubercules 

(small, raised, skin structures), heavy 

pigmentation, number of marginal 

spines on belly scales of breeding males, 

and fully scaled cheeks (Suttkus et al. 

1994, pp. 13–14). Generally, pearl 

darters range in size from 22 to 59 

millimeters (mm) (0.87 to 2.3 inches 

(in)) in length with the majority of 

adults being from 30 to 41 mm (1.2 to 

1.6 in) long (Clark and Schaefer 2015, p. 

10). 

Historical Distribution 

The pearl darter is historically known 

from localized sites within the Pearl and 

Pascagoula River drainages in 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43888 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Mississippi and Louisiana, based on 

collection records from 16 counties and 

parishes of Mississippi and Louisiana. 

Examination of site records of museum 

fish collections from the Pearl River 

drainage (compiled from Suttkus et al. 

1994, pp. 15–18) suggests that the pearl 

darter once inhabited the large 

tributaries and main channel habitats 

within these drainages from St. 

Tammany Parish, Louisiana, to Simpson 

County, Mississippi. This area totaled 

approximately 708 km (440 mi) within 

the Pearl River basin and included the 

lower Pearl River, the Strong River, and 

the Bogue Chitto River (compiled from 

MMNS 2016, unpublished data; Slack et 

al. 2005, pp. 5–10; Ross 2001, p. 499; 

Ross et al. 2000, pp. 2–5; Bart and Piller 

1997, pp. 3–10; Bart and Suttkus 1996, 

pp. 3–4; Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15–18). 

However, there have been no records of 

this species from the Pearl River 

drainage in over 40 years, despite 

repeated collecting efforts through the 

years (Wagner et al. 2017, pp. 3–10, 12; 

Geheber and Piller 2012, pp. 633–636; 

Schaefer and Mickel 2011, p. 10; Slack 

et al. 2005, pp. 5–10; Tipton et al. 2004, 

pp. 56–57; Ross 2001, p. 499; Bart and 

Piller 1997, p. 1; Bart and Suttkus 1996, 

pp. 3–4; Bart and Suttkus 1995, pp. 13– 

14; Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15–18). 

Survey efforts over the last few years at 

all historical sites, including north of 

and just below the Ross Barnett 

Reservoir (Schaefer and Mickle 2011, 

pp. 8–10), have confirmed its absence 

from the Pearl River system (Wagner et 

al. 2017, pp. 3–4; Roberts in litt. 2015; 

Geheber and Piller 2012, p. 633), 

including the recent analysis of water 

samples for eDNA from the Pearl River 

proper, Strong River, and Bogue Chitto 

River (Piller in litt. 2017). Thus, the 

pearl darter is considered extirpated 

from the Pearl River system today. 

Current Distribution 

Today, the pearl darter occurs in 

scattered sites within an approximately 

668-km (415-mi) area of the Pascagoula 

drainage, including the Pascagoula (101 

km, 63 mi), Chickasawhay (257 km, 160 

mi), Leaf (186 km, 115 mi), Chunky (31 

km, 19 mi), and Bouie (24 km, 15 mi) 

Rivers and Okatoma (37 km, 23 mi) and 

Black Creeks (32 km, 20 mi) (Wagner et 

al. 2017, pp. 3–10, 12; Wagner in litt. 

2017; Clark and Schaefer 2015, pp. 10, 

19, 23; Schaefer and Mickle 2011, pp. 1– 

3; Slack et al. 2002, p. 9). 

The average catch at known occupied 

sites, using standard sampling (30 

minutes with heavy leaded seine) is 2.1 

individuals (Wagner et al. 2017. pp. 3– 

4; Clark and Schaefer 2015, pp. 9–14, 

18–22), indicating a species that is rare. 

Surveys by Kreiser et al. (2012, pp. 29– 

32) found sporadic occurrences of the 

species within the Pascagoula River 

from its headwaters at the confluence of 

the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers 

downstream to where the river 

bifurcates (splits). Recent survey efforts 

indicate reproducing populations in the 

Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers, based on 

the presence of different size classes 

(Clark in litt. 2017; Wagner in litt. 2017; 

Wagner et al. 2017, p. 3; Schaefer in litt. 

2017; Clark and Schaefer 2015, pp. 9– 

14, 18–22). Though there is a clear 

pattern of higher abundance and greater 

rate of occurrence at sites in the 

Chickasawhay River (5.03 ± 0.62 pearl 

darters per hour) compared to the Leaf 

River (2.18 ± 0.56 pearl darters per 

hour); a pattern that has remained 

constant over time (Clark and Schaefer 

2015, pp. 9–14). Surveys in 2016 of 

historical locations (Clark in litt. 2017; 

Schaefer in litt. 2017) in the Bouie 

River, Okatoma Creek, and Black Creek 

yielded seven fish in the Okatoma Creek 

and one specimen each in the Bouie 

River and Black Creek. In 2017, one 

pearl darter was collected in the Chunky 

River, confirming its presence in that 

system for the first time since its last 

collection there over 15 years ago. 

Habitat and Biology 

The pearl darter occurs in lowgradient, coastal plain rivers and creeks 

(Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 13), 

predominately classified as 4th to 2nd 

order streams (Strahler stream order 

hierarchy). There have been no 

comprehensive microhabitat studies on 

the pearl darter; however, based on 

observations of occupancy in the field, 

microhabitat features consist of a bottom 

substrate mixture of sand, silt, loose 

clay, gravel, organic material, and snags 

(Slack et al. 2005, pp. 9–11). The species 

has been collected at the steep ends of 

sandbars, and inside river bends where 

material is deposited. The water where 

the species is typically captured has a 

slow to medium current velocity (0.003 

to 0.635 centimeters/second (cm/s) (0.53 

to 0.25 in/s) (tabulated from Clark in litt. 

2017, Slack in litt. 2017, Schaefer in litt. 

2017, unpublished data; Slack et al. 

2005, p. 10). In fact, based on cluster 

analysis and ordination of habitat data 

of the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers, 

higher densities of pearl darters were 

found in slower moving, deeper waters 

with finer substrate (Clark and Schaefer 

2015, p. 11). There is very little aquatic 

vegetation in these drainages (Slack et 

al. 2005, p. 9), and vegetation that may 

be present is usually river weed 

(Podostemum ceratophyllum) attached 

to rocks (Drennen and Wagner 2017, 

pers. observ.). Banksides where the 

pearl darter was collected are vegetative 

and not vertical or severely eroded 

(Schaefer in litt. 2017, unpublished 

data). 

There is no specific information 

available on the diet of the pearl darter. 

However, the channel darter (P. 

copelendi), a closely allied species in 

similar habitat, has been reported to 

feed on chironomid flies, small 

crustaceans, mayflies, and caddisflies 

(Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 49). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Below we present a summary of the 

threats information from the proposed 

listing rule. We also present new 

information published or obtained since 

the proposed rule was published, 

including information received during 

the public comment period. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Members of the Cottogaster subgenus 

have undergone range contractions that 

are of potential conservation concern 

throughout their respective distributions 

(Dugo et al. 2008, p. 3; Warren et al. 

2000, pp. 7–8; Goodchild 1994, pp. 433– 

435). The pearl darter was extirpated 

from the Pearl River drainage, perhaps 

as early as the 1970s, and many of the 

stressors thought to have played a role 

in its loss in that system are present in 

the Pascagoula River drainages where 

the species occurs today, including 

impoundments (sills and dams); 

instability in the channel; increased 

sedimentation from the removal of 

riparian vegetation and poor agriculture 

and silviculture practices; and general 

chronic water degradation from point 

and non-point source pollution (Piller et 

al. 2004, pp. 1004–1011; TNC 2004, p. 

5; Ross 2001, pp. 499–500). 

Water Quality Degradation 

Water quality degradation, 

particularly non-point source pollution 

from incompatible commercial and 

industrial development and land use 

practices, has been a major concern 

within the Pearl River basin (TNC 2004, 

p. 18). Similarly, the Pascagoula River 

system suffers from acute and localized 

water quality degradation by nonpoint 

source pollution in association with 

surface, stormwater, and effluent runoffs 

from urbanization and municipal areas 

(MDEQ 2005c, p. 23; 2005d, p. 16). 

‘‘Total Maximum Daily Loads’’ 

(TMDLs), a term in the U.S. Clean Water 

Act describing a benchmark set for a 

certain pollutant to bring water quality 

up to the applicable standard, have been 

established for 89 segments of the 

Pascagoula River basin, many of which 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43889 

include portions of the pearl darter’s 

range (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18–21). For 

sediment, one of the most pervasive 

pollutants, the State of Mississippi has 

TMDLs for various tributaries and main 

stems of the Leaf and Chickasawhay 

Rivers. To date, efforts by the State of 

Mississippi to improve water quality in 

the Pascagoula River basin to meet these 

TMDL benchmarks have been 

inadequate (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18–21). 

Thirty-nine percent of the Pascagoula 

River basin tributaries are rated fair or 

poor due to pollution impacts (MDEQ 

2014a, pp. 18–21; MDEQ 2008, p. 17). 

Most water quality threats are due to 

increased sediment loads and variations 

in pH (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 1–51; 2008a, 

pp. 13–15). Sediment in stormwater 

runoff increases water turbidity and 

temperature and originates locally from 

poorly maintained construction sites, 

timber harvest tracts, agricultural fields, 

clearing of riparian vegetation, and 

gravel extraction in the river floodplain. 

Suttkus et al. (1994, p. 19) attributed the 

loss of the pearl darter in the Pearl River 

to increasing sedimentation from habitat 

modification caused by the removal of 

riparian vegetation and extensive 

cultivation near the river’s edge. 

Excessive sediments disrupt feeding and 

spawning of fish and aquatic insects, 

abrade and suffocate periphyton 

(mixture of algae, bacteria, microbes, 

and detritus that is attached to 

submerged surfaces), and impact fish 

growth, survival, and reproduction 

(Waters 1995, pp. 55–62). A localized 

portion of the Chickasawhay River is on 

the State Section 303(d) List of Water 

Bodies as impaired due to sediment 

(MDEQ 2005b, p. 17). 

Nonpoint source pollution is a 

localized threat to the pearl darter 

within the drainage, and is more 

prevalent in areas where certified best 

management practices (BMPs) are not 

utilized. The use of certified BMPs 

during land-altering activities can 

greatly reduce impacts to water quality. 

Certified BMPs, currently implemented 

by the forestry industry (e.g., 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest 

Stewardship Council, and American 

Tree Farm System), are helping to 

minimize or eliminate non-point source 

pollution during the course of forestry 

activities. The Mississippi Forestry 

Commission (2016, entire) reports 

certified BMP implementation rates to 

be high in Mississippi for forestry 

activities, primarily due to the efforts of 

State forestry agencies and forest 

certification programs (Schilling and 

Wigley 2015, pp. 3–7). 

Historically, timber harvesting and 

processing was extensive in the Pearl 

River basin, and at one time, the basin 

was home to one of the most important 

lumber centers in the United States 

(Thigpen 1965, pp. 66–69). Pulp and 

paper manufacturing began in the 

Pascagoula watershed in Mississippi 

with three major mills (Monthly Review 

1958, p. 83). Today, there are six major 

pulp mills in the Pascagoula River basin 

whose effluent may be a threat to the 

pearl darter. Paper mill effluent is a 

contributor to water quality degradation 

and is suspected to have had some 

influence on the extirpation of the pearl 

darter in the Pearl River system (Slack 

in litt. 2016). Fish and mussel kills were 

reportedly not uncommon within 

reaches downstream from pulp mills in 

Lawrence County near historical 

locations for the pearl darter (Slack in 

litt. 2016). As recently as 2011, a ‘‘black 

liquor’’ (wastewater) spill from a paper 

manufacturing process resulted in a 

massive fish kill in the Pearl River 

(Kizha et al. 2016, pp. 926–929; Piller 

and Geheber 2015, pp. 2433–2434). 

Numerous studies have documented 

the effects of pulp and paper mill 

effluents on fish populations (Beyer et 

al. 1996, pp. 212–224). Depending on 

the bleaching process, pulp- and paper 

mill effluents may contain various kinds 

and concentrations of chlorinated 

organic compounds such as 

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins 

(dioxins) and polychlorinated 

dibenzofurans (furans), which elicit 

several lethal and sublethal effects in 

fish, such as alterations in steroid 

biosynthesis (manufacturing of 

hormones and other organic 

compounds), gonadal (sex gland) 

development, sexual maturation, and 

expression of secondary sex 

characteristics (features that appear at 

maturity such as coloration). These 

types of compounds are known to 

bioaccumulate and have reproductive 

and antiestrogen (opposite effects of 

hormones) impacts on fish (Hoffman et 

al. 2003, pp. 1063–1065). 

Additionally, some contaminants may 

bind with one another (i.e., heavy 

metals bind with sediments or other 

contaminants in the water column) 

within the Pascagoula River drainage. 

These bound chemical contaminants 

have not been addressed in TMDLs. 

Only seven TMDLs for metals have been 

completed (MDEQ 2008, pp. 1–55). The 

Davis Dead River, a tributary at the most 

downstream site of the pearl darter’s 

range, is considered critically impaired 

by mercury (MDEQ 2011, pp. 1–29), and 

fish consumption advisories continue 

for mercury in certain gamefish species 

in the Pascagoula River main stem 

(MDEQ 2008, p. 43). 

There are 15 permitted point source 

discharge sites within the Bouie River 

system (MDEQ 2005a, p. 6) and an 

unknown amount of nonpoint runoff 

sites. Municipal and industrial 

discharges during periods of low flow 

(i.e., no or few rain events) intensify 

water quality degradation by increasing 

water temperatures, lowering dissolved 

oxygen, and changing pH. Within the 

Pascagoula River basin, pollutants 

causing specific channel or river reach 

impairment (i.e., those pollutants 

preventing the water body from 

reaching its applicable water quality 

standard (Environmental Protection 

Agency 2012, pp. 1–9)), include 

sedimentation; chemicals and nutrients 

in the water column; and various toxins, 

such as heavy metals like lead or 

cadmium for a total of 304 km (189 mi) 

impaired riverine segments. TMDLs 

were completed for pesticides such as 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 

toxaphene, dioxin, and 

pentachlorophenol, although much of 

the data and results are not finalized 

and remain unavailable for the 

designated reaches (Environmental 

Protection Agency 2012, pp. 1–7; MDEQ 

2003, pp. 5–10; Justus et al. 1999, p. 1). 

Localized wastewater effluent into the 

Leaf River from the City of Hattiesburg 

is negatively impacting water quality 

(Hattiesburg American 2015, pp. 1–2; 

Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p. 

1). Existing housing, recreational cabins, 

and trailers along the banks of the Leaf 

River between I–59 and the town of 

Estabutchie cause nutrient loading 

through treated sewage and septic water 

effluent (Mississippi River Collaboration 

2014, p. 1). In 1997, Bart and Piller (p. 

12) noted extensive algal growth during 

warmer months in the Leaf and Bouie 

Rivers, indicating nutrient and organic 

enrichment and decreases in dissolved 

oxygen and pH changes. Today, at 

specific locations, the water quality of 

the Bouie and Leaf Rivers and their 

tributaries continues to be negatively 

impacted by sediment, organic 

enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, fecal 

coliform, and elevated nutrients (MDEQ 

2016, p. 86, 91; 2014a, p. 18, 21, 32; 

2005a, pp. 1–26; 2004, pp. 1–29). 

Oil and Gas Development 

Nonpoint and point source pollution 

from oil and gas exploration, including 

drill field construction, active drilling, 

and pipeline easements, may add 

localized pollutants into the Pascagoula 

River basin during stormwater runoff 

events if BMPs are not used. There is 

one major oil refinery within the basin 

along with 6 oil pumping stations, 10 

major crude pipelines, 4 major product 

oil pipelines, and 5 major gas and more 

than 25 lesser gas lines stretching 

hundreds of miles and crisscrossing the 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43890 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

main stem Pascagoula, Bouie, Leaf, 

Chickasawhay, and Chunky Rivers and 

their tributaries; in addition, there are 

more than 100 active oil producing 

wells within the pearl darters’ 

watersheds (compiled from Oil and Gas 

Map of Mississippi in Phillips 2013, pp. 

10, 23). All have the potential to rupture 

or leak and cause environmental and 

organismal damage as evidenced by the 

Genesis Oil Company and Leaf River oil 

spill of 2000 (Environmental Science 

Services, Inc. 2000, pp. 1–50; Kemp 

Associates, PA, 2000, pp. 4–5; The 

Clarion-Ledger, December 23, 1999, p. 

1B) and Genesis Oil Company spill in 

Okatoma Creek in February 2016 

(Drennen 2016, pers. observ.). In 

addition to gas pipelines, there are 

numerous railways that cross pearl 

darter habitat that are subject to 

accidental and catastrophic spilling of 

toxins such as fuel oil, methanol, resin, 

and fertilizer (MDEQ 2014b, pp. 1–23). 

Alternative oil and gas collection 

methods (i.e., hydraulic fracturing 

(‘‘fracking’’) and horizontal drilling and 

injection) have allowed the expansion of 

oil and gas drilling into deposits that 

were previously inaccessible (Phillips 

2013, p. 21), which has led to increased 

activity within southern Mississippi, 

including portions of the Pascagoula 

River basin. There are more than 100 

water injection disposal wells and 

enhanced oil recovery wells within the 

basin (compiled from Active Injection 

Well Map of Mississippi in Phillips 

2013, p. 49). A variety of chemicals (e.g., 

15% diluted hydrochloric acid, 

surfactants, potassium chloride) are 

used during the drilling and fracking 

process (Colborn et al. 2011, pp. 1040– 

1042), and their wastes are stored in 

open pits (retention basins) or storage 

facilities. Spills during transport or 

releases due to retention basin failure or 

overflow pose a risk for surface and 

groundwater contamination, which can 

cause significant adverse effects to water 

quality and aquatic organisms that 

inhabit these watersheds (Osborn et al. 

2011, pp. 8172–8176; Kargbo et al. 2010, 

pp. 5680–5681; Wiseman 2009, pp. 127– 

142). In addition, contamination of 

streams with brine (chloride), a 

byproduct of oil and gas development, 

poses a significant risk to aquatic 

habitats and species. High chloride 

concentrations interfere with 

osmoregulation (maintenance of proper 

levels of salts and other solutes in 

bodily fluids) and hinder the organism’s 

survival, growth, and reproduction 

(Hunt et al. 2012, p. 1). Brine 

contamination has been documented 

within the pearl darter’s historical range 

in the Pearl River system (Kalhoff 1993, 

pp. 12–15, 19–20, 25; Kalhoff 1986, p. 

49) and within the Pascagoula River 

basin where it currently occurs, 

including several Leaf and 

Chickasawhay River drainage basin 

tributaries (Kalhoff 1986, pp. 52–63). 

There is currently no routine water 

quality monitoring in areas where the 

pearl darter currently occurs, so it is 

unlikely that the effects of a leak or spill 

would be detected quickly enough to 

allow for a timely response. 

Geomorphology Changes 

Piller et al. (2004, pp. 1004–1011) 

cited numerous human-caused 

disturbances within the Pearl River 

since the 1950s, including 

channelization, reservoir construction, 

and channel modification from bank 

collapse downstream of dams. 

Specifically, the Pearl River Navigation 

Canal in 1956, the Ross Barnett 

Reservoir in 1964, and channel changes 

of the lower Pearl River (increased 

width and decreased depth) were 

implicated in the decline of abundance 

for several fish species in that system 

(Piller et al. 2004, pp. 1004–1011). 

These habitat modifications and 

channel changes resulted in the loss of 

gravel substrates in places, completely 

replacing gravel bars with sand or 

sediment, which are not appropriate 

substrate for the pearl darter and other 

species (Tipton et al. 2004, pp. 58–60; 

TNC 2004, p. 5). Tipton et al. (2004, pp. 

58–60) documented a decrease in fish 

diversity and abundance within the 

disturbed reaches as compared with 

relatively undisturbed reaches. These 

changes most likely contributed to the 

decline of the pearl darter in the Pearl 

River system and potentially threaten 

the species in the Pascagoula system. 

Pearl darters are not found in 

impounded waters and are intolerant of 

lentic (standing water) habitats that may 

be formed by gravel mining or other 

landscape-altering practices. 

Incompatible sand and gravel mining 

and its disruption of topography, 

vegetation, and flow pattern of streams 

is considered a major stressor to the 

Pearl River system where the pearl 

darter once occurred (TNC 2004, p. 16). 

In the species’ current range in the 

Pascagoula system, the results of 

historical sand and gravel dredging 

impacts have been a concern for the 

Bouie and Leaf Rivers (MDEQ 2000, pp. 

1–98). Historically, the American Sand 

and Gravel Company (1995, p. B4) has 

mined sand and gravel using a 

hydraulic suction dredge, operating 

within the banks or adjacent to the 

Bouie and Leaf Rivers. Large gravel bars 

of the river and its floodplain have been 

removed over the past 50 years, creating 

open-water areas that function as deep 

lake systems (American Sand and 

Gravel Company 1995, pp. B4–B8). The 

creation of these large, open-water areas 

has accelerated geomorphic processes, 

specifically headcutting (erosional 

feature causing an abrupt drop in the 

streambed) that has adversely affected 

the flora and fauna of many coastal 

plain streams (Patrick et al. 1993, p. 90). 

Mining in active river channels 

typically results in incision upstream of 

the mine by knickpoints (breaks in the 

slope of a river or stream profile caused 

by renewed erosion attributed to a 

bottom disturbance that may retreat 

upstream), sediment deposition 

downstream, and an alteration in 

channel morphology that can have 

impacts for years (Mossa and Coley 

2004, pp. 1–20). The upstream 

migration of knickpoints, or 

headcutting, may cause undermining of 

structures, lowering of alluvial water 

tables (aquifer comprising 

unconsolidated materials deposited by 

water and typically adjacent to rivers), 

channel destabilization and widening, 

and loss of aquatic and riparian habitat. 

This geomorphic change may cause the 

extirpation of riparian and lotic (flowing 

water) species (Patrick et al. 1993, p. 

96). 

Sedimentation from unstable banks 

and loose, unconsolidated streambeds 

(Bart and Piller 1997, p. 12) is likely 

impacting the pearl darters in the Bouie 

River and Black Creek. Mossa and Coley 

(2004, p. 17) determined that, of the 

major tributaries in the Pascagoula 

basin, the Bouie River was the least 

stable. Channel enlargement of the 

Bouie River showed higher than 

background values associated with 

avulsions (the rapid abandonment of a 

river channel and the formation of a 

new river channel) into floodplain pits 

and increased sedimentation. In 

addition, channel enlargement of 400 to 

500 percent in the Bouie River has 

occurred at specific sites due to 

instream gravel mining (Mossa et al. 

2006, entire; Mossa and Coley 2004, p. 

17). Ayers (2014, pp. 43–45) also found 

significant and lengthy instream 

channel form changes in the 

Chickasawhay River floodplain. Clark 

and Schaefer (2015, pp. 13–14) noted a 

slight decrease in fish species richness 

in the upper Pascagoula River basin 

from their 2004 sampling, which they 

attributed to past anthropogenic 

influences such as gravel mining, 

bankside practices, and construction. 

In the Bogue Chitto River of the Pearl 

River basin, Stewart et al. (2005, pp. 

268–270) found that the assemblages of 

fishes had shifted over 27 years. In this 

time period, the sedimentation rates 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43891 

within the system had increased 

dramatically and caused the decrease in 

the relative abundance of all fish in the 

family Percidae (Stewart et al. 2005, pp. 

268–270) from 35 percent to 9 percent, 

including the extirpation of pearl 

darters. Ross et al. (1992, pp. 8–9) 

studied threats to the Okatoma Creek 

(Pascagoula basin) fish diversity and 

predicted that geomorphic changes to 

the stream would reduce the fish habitat 

diversity resulting in a decline of the 

fish assemblages, including the pearl 

darter. 

Impoundments 

Dams and other flow control 

structures within a river can block fish 

passage, disrupt the natural flow 

patterns, and cause channel degradation 

and erosion (see ‘‘Geomorphology 

Changes’’ section above) that directly 

impact aquatic life habitat, as well as 

reduce the capacity of the stream to 

carry water (TNC 2004, p. 17). Streams 

with highly altered flow regimes often 

become wide, shallow, and 

homogeneous, resulting in poor habitat 

for many fish species (Bunn and 

Arthington 2002, pp. 493–498). The 

decline of the pearl darter in the Pearl 

River was noted after the construction of 

low sill dams. Bart (in TNC 2004, p. 5) 

speculated that, after spawning, young 

darters in the Pearl River were swept 

downriver and unable to migrate back 

upriver due to the low water sills and 

varied water flow; their limited success 

year after year likely caused the 

population to crash. These low sill dams 

are also thought to have led to the 

extirpation of the Alabama shad (Alosa 

alabamae) from that system (Mickel et 

al. 2010, p. 158). 

The proposed damming of Little and 

Big Cedar Creeks, tributaries to the 

Pascagoula River, for establishment of 

two recreational lakes (George County 

Lakes) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

2015, pp. 1–13) has prompted the 

American Rivers organization to 

recently list the Pascagoula River as the 

10th most endangered river in the 

country (American Rivers 2016, pp. 20– 

21). Though the proposed project is not 

directly within known pearl darter 

habitat, the lakes may decrease water 

quantity entering the lower Pascagoula 

basin and will likely concentrate 

pollutants, reduce water flow, and alter 

downstream food webs and aquatic 

productivity (Poff and Hart 2002, p. 

660). 

Summary of Factor A 

Habitat modification and resultant 

water quality degradation are occurring 

within the pearl darter’s current range 

and likely led to the loss of the species 

from the Pearl River drainage. Water 

quality degradation occurs locally from 

point and nonpoint source pollution in 

association with land surface, 

stormwater, and effluent runoff from 

urbanization, industry, and municipal 

areas. Of particular concern is the threat 

of overflooding of storage ponds for 

industrial effluent, such as that from 

pulp and paper manufacturing. 

Increased sediment from a variety of 

sources, including geomorphological 

changes and bank instability from past 

habitat modification, appears to be the 

major contributor to water quality 

declines in this species’ habitat. 

Localized sewage and waste water 

effluent also pose a threat to this species 

and its habitat. The pearl darter’s 

vulnerability to catastrophic events, 

particularly the release of pollutants in 

its habitat from oil spills, train 

derailments, and hydraulic fracturing, is 

also a concern due to the abundance of 

oil wells, pumping stations, gas lines, 

and railways throughout its habitat, and 

the increased interest in alternative oil 

and gas collection methods in the area. 

The proposed damming of Big and Little 

Cypress Creeks may decrease water flow 

and increase nutrient concentration into 

the Pascagoula River. These threats 

continue to impact water quality and 

habitat conditions through much of this 

species’ current range. Therefore, we 

conclude that habitat degradation is 

presently a moderate threat to the pearl 

darter that is expected to continue and 

possibly increase into the future. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The pearl darter is not a commercially 

valuable species, and collecting is not 

considered a factor in its decline. 

Therefore, we do not consider 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes to be a threat to the pearl 

darter at this time. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

We have no specific information 

indicating that disease or predation is 

negatively impacting pearl darter 

populations. Therefore, we do not 

consider these factors to be threats to 

the pearl darter at this time. 

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The State of Mississippi classifies the 

pearl darter as endangered (Mississippi 

Natural Heritage Program 2015, p. 2), 

and prohibits the collection of the pearl 

darter for scientific purposes without a 

State-issued collecting permit. However, 

as discussed under Factor B, we have no 

evidence to suggest that scientific 

collection poses a threat to this species. 

This State classification conveys no 

legal protection for the pearl darter’s 

habitat nor does it prohibit habitat 

degradation, which is the primary threat 

to the species. The pearl darter receives 

no protection in Louisiana, where it is 

considered to have historically occurred 

(Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries 2005, p. 39). 

The pearl darter and its habitats are 

afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) and the Mississippi Water 

Pollution Control Law, as amended, 

1993 (Code of Mississippi, section 49– 

17–1, et seq.) and regulations 

promulgated thereunder by the 

Mississippi Commission on 

Environmental Quality. Although these 

laws have resulted in some 

enhancement in water quality and 

habitat for aquatic life, particularly in 

reducing point-source pollutants, they 

have been inadequate in fully protecting 

the pearl darter from sedimentation and 

other nonpoint source pollutants. 

The State of Mississippi maintains 

water-use classifications through 

issuance of National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits to 

industries, municipalities, and others 

that set maximum limits on certain 

pollutants or pollutant parameters. For 

water bodies on the Clean Water Act 

section 303(d) list of impaired streams, 

the State is required to establish a 

TMDL for the pollutants of concern that 

will improve water quality to the 

applicable standard. The establishment 

of TMDLs for 89 river or stream 

segments and ratings of fair to poor for 

39 percent of the tributaries within the 

Pascagoula basin are indicative of water 

pollution impacts within the pearl 

darter’s habitat (MDEQ 2008a, p. 17). 

TMDLs are not an enforced regulation, 

and only reflect benchmarks for 

improving water quality; they have not 

been successful in reducing water 

quality degradation within this species’ 

habitat, as these streams continue to 

remain on the 303(d) list of impaired 

streams. 

Mississippi Surface Mining and 

Reclamation Law, Miss. Code Ann. 

section 53–7–1 et seq., and Federal laws 

regarding oil and gas drilling (42 U.S.C. 

6921) are generally designed to protect 

freshwater resources like the pearl 

darter, but these regulatory mechanisms 

do not contain specific provisions 

requiring an analysis of project impacts 

to fish and wildlife resources. They also 

do not contain or provide for any formal 

mechanism requiring coordination with, 

or input from, the Service or the 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43892 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks regarding the 

presence of federally endangered, 

threatened, or candidate species, or 

other rare and sensitive species. In the 

case of surface mining, penalties may be 

assessed if damage is serious, but there 

is no immediate response for 

remediation of habitats or species. As 

demonstrated under Factor A, periodic 

declines in water quality and 

degradation of habitat for this species 

are ongoing despite these protective 

regulations. These mechanisms have 

been inadequate to protect the species 

from sediment runoff and turbidity 

within its habitat associated with land 

surface runoff and municipal and 

industrial discharges, as described 

under Factor A. There are currently no 

requirements within the scope of other 

statewide environmental laws to 

specifically consider the pearl darter or 

ensure that a project will not 

significantly impact the species. 

The pearl darter likely receives 

ancillary protection (i.e., water quality 

improvements, protection from 

geomorphological changes) where it cooccurs with two other federally listed 

species, the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus desotoi) and yellowblotched map turtle (Graptemys 

flavimaculata), during the course of 

consultation on these species under 

section 7 of the Act. However, 

protective measures through section 7 of 

the Act would be triggered only for 

those projects having a Federal nexus, 

which would not include many of the 

water quality disturbances caused by 

industry, municipalities, agriculture, or 

private landowners. 

Additional protection of 53,520 

hectares (ha) (132,128 acres (ac)) within 

the Pascagoula basin watershed occurs 

due to the Mississippi Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks’ management of six 

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) 

within the upper drainage basin for 

recreational hunting and fishing. Four of 

the six WMAs (Chickasawhay and Leaf 

Rivers, Mason and Red Creeks) do not 

directly border the river system, but 

they do contain and protect parcels of 

upland buffer, wetland, and tributaries 

to the basin. The Pascagoula River and 

Ward Bayou WMAs (20,329 ha; 50,234 

ac) consist of wetland buffer and river/ 

stream reach protecting approximately 

106 km (66 mi) of the Pascagoula River 

main stem (Stowe in litt. 2015). The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) protects 

14,164 ha (35,000 ac) within the 

Pascagoula River watershed and 

approximately 10 km (6 mi) of the 

Pascagoula River shoreline in Jackson 

County, Mississippi. Of that amount, the 

Charles M. Deaton Nature Preserve 

(1,336 ha, 3,300 ac) protects the upper 

reaches of the Pascagoula River, where 

the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers 

converge, and is part of a 19,020-ha 

(47,000-ac) swath of public lands 

surrounding the Pascagoula River, 

which includes approximately 8 km (5 

mi) of the Chickasawhay River and 

approximately 7 km (4 mi) of the Leaf 

River shorelines (Stowe in litt. 2015). 

These State-managed WMAs and TNC 

preserves provide a measure of 

protection for approximately 134 km (84 

mi) or 30 percent of the river reaches 

within this species’ current range. Point 

and nonpoint sediment sources are 

decreased or reduced by using and 

monitoring certified BMPs during 

silviculture, road maintenance, and 

other landscape-altering activities. 

However, only short segments of 

shoreline in the Chickasawhay and Leaf 

Rivers are within these WMAs. 

Remaining lands within these segments 

can be vulnerable to farming and 

timbering to the bankside edge, and 

construction of structures such as 

houses, septic facilities, dams, and 

ponds. Each land management action 

can increase stormwater runoff laden 

with sediment and agricultural and 

wastewater chemicals. The impact of 

silvicultural activities on water quality 

degradation are likely lower than other 

land-altering activities according to 

information in the Mississippi Forestry 

Commission’s report (2016, entire) that 

found certified BMP implementation 

rates to be high across all silvicultural 

landscapes in Mississippi. 

Summary of Factor D 

Despite existing authorities such as 

the Clean Water Act, pollutants 

continue to impair the water quality 

throughout much of the current range of 

the pearl darter. State and Federal 

regulatory mechanisms have helped 

reduce the negative effects of point 

source and nonpoint source discharges, 

yet these regulations are difficult to 

implement, and may not provide 

adequate protection for sensitive species 

like the pearl darter. Thus, we conclude 

that existing regulatory mechanisms do 

not adequately protect the pearl darter 

from the impact of other threats. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Small Population Size and Loss of 

Genetic Diversity 

The pearl darter has always been 

considered rare (Deacon et al. 1979, p. 

42) and is currently restricted to 

localized sites within the Pascagoula 

River drainage. Genetic diversity has 

likely declined due to fragmentation 

and separation of reproducing pearl 

darter populations. Kreiser et al. (2012, 

pp. 12–17) found that disjunct 

populations of pearl darters within the 

Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers showed 

some distinct alleles suggesting that 

gene flow between the two rivers was 

restricted and perhaps that the total 

gene pool diversity was declining. 

Collecting data (Ross 2001, p. 500; Bart 

and Piller 1997, p. 4; Bart and Suttkus 

1996, p. 4; Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19) 

indicate that the pearl darter is rare in 

the Pascagoula River system, as when 

this species is collected it is typically in 

low numbers and a disproportionately 

low percentage of the total fish collected 

(catch per unit effort of 2.1 individuals 

per site, Clark and Shaefer 2015, p. 4). 

Species that are restricted in range 

and population size are more likely to 

suffer loss of genetic diversity due to 

genetic drift, potentially increasing their 

susceptibility to inbreeding depression, 

decreasing their ability to adapt to 

environmental changes, and reducing 

the fitness of individuals (Allendorf and 

Luikart 2007, pp. 117–146; Soule ́ 1980, 

pp. 157–158). It is likely that some of 

the pearl darter populations are below 

the effective population size required to 

maintain long-term genetic and 

population viability (Soule ́ 1980, pp. 

162–164). 

The long-term viability of a species is 

founded on the conservation of 

numerous local populations throughout 

its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. 

93–104). The presence of viable, 

separate populations is essential for a 

species to recover and adapt to 

environmental change (Noss and 

Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264–297; Harris 

1984, pp. 93–104). Inbreeding and loss 

of neutral genetic variation associated 

with small population size reduces the 

fitness of the population (Reed and 

Frankham 2003, pp. 230–237) and 

accelerates population decline (Fagan 

and Holmes 2006, pp. 51–60). The 

species’ small numbers within scattered 

locations, coupled with its lack of 

genetic variability, may decrease the 

species’ ability to adapt or recover from 

major hydrological events that impact 

potential spawning habitat (Clark and 

Schaefer 2015, pp. 18–22). 

Hurricanes 

Fish and aquatic communities and 

habitat, including that of the pearl 

darter, may be changed by hurricanes 

(Schaefer et al. 2006, pp. 62–68). In 

2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed 

much of the urban and industrial areas 

along the lower Pascagoula River basin 

and also impacted the ecology upriver 

to the confluence with the Leaf and 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43893 

Chickasawhay Rivers. Many toxic 

chemicals that leaked from grounded 

and displaced boats and ships, storage 

facilities, vehicles, septic systems, 

business sites, and other sources due to 

the hurricane were reported in the 

rivers, along with saltwater intrusion 

from the Gulf of Mexico. Initial 

assessment identified several fish kills 

and increased surge of organic material 

into the waters, which lowered 

dissolved oxygen levels (Schaefer et al. 

2006, pp. 62–68). As discussed below, 

the deleterious impacts of climate 

change will likely lead to an increase in 

the strength and frequency of 

hurricanes. 

Climate Change 

Numerous long-term climate changes 

have been observed including 

widespread changes in precipitation 

amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, 

and aspects of extreme weather 

including droughts, heavy precipitation, 

heat waves, and the intensity of tropical 

cyclones (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2014, p. 4). Climate 

change, and the resultant shifts in 

spatial distribution, may result in 

increased fragmentation which would 

increase the vulnerability of any 

isolated populations to future extinction 

(Comet et al. 2013, p. 635). However, 

while continued change is certain, the 

magnitude and rate of change is 

unknown in many cases. 

Climate change has the potential to 

increase the vulnerability of the pearl 

darter to random catastrophic events 

(Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145–148; 

McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6060–6074). 

An increase in both severity and 

variation in climate patterns is 

expected, with extreme floods, strong 

storms, and droughts becoming more 

common (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2014, pp. 58–83). 

Thomas et al. (2004, pp. 145–148) report 

that frequency, duration, and intensity 

of droughts are likely to increase in the 

Southeast as a result of global climate 

change. Kaushal et al. (2010, p. 465) 

reported that stream temperatures in the 

Southeast have increased roughly 0.2– 

0.4 °C (0.3–0.7 °F) per decade over the 

past 30 years, and as air temperature is 

a strong predictor of water temperature, 

stream temperatures are expected to 

continue to rise. Predicted impacts of 

climate change on fishes, related to 

drought, include disruption to their 

physiology (e.g., temperature tolerance, 

dissolved oxygen needs, and metabolic 

rates), life history (e.g., timing of 

reproduction, growth rate), and 

distribution (e.g., range shifts, migration 

of new predators) (Comte et al. 2013, pp. 

627–636; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp. 

350–351; Heino et al. 2009, pp. 41–51; 

Jackson and Mandrak 2002, pp. 89–98). 

However, estimates of the effects of 

climate change using available climate 

models typically lack the geographic 

precision needed to predict the 

magnitude of effects at a scale small 

enough to discretely apply to the range 

of a given species. Therefore, there is 

uncertainty about the specific effects of 

climate change (and their magnitude) on 

the pearl darter. However, climate 

change is almost certain to affect aquatic 

habitats in the Pascagoula River basin 

through increased water temperatures 

resulting in stronger storm surges and 

more frequent droughts (Alder and 

Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–12), and species 

with limited ranges, fragmented 

distributions, and small population 

sizes are thought to be especially 

vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 18). 

Summary of Factor E 

The pearl darter’s limited geographic 

range, fragmented distribution within 

the Pascagoula River system, small 

population numbers, and low genetic 

diversity threaten this species’ longterm viability. These threats are current 

and are likely to continue or increase in 

the future, and would be exacerbated by 

climate change. 

Cumulative Effects of Factors A 

Through E 

The threats that affect the pearl darter 

are important on a threat-by-threat basis 

but are even more significant in 

combination. Due to the loss of the 

species from the Pearl River system, the 

pearl darter is now confined to a single 

drainage system. The species continues 

to be subjected to water quality 

degradation from point and nonpoint 

source pollution in association with 

land-altering activities, discharges from 

municipalities, and geomorphological 

changes from past gravel mining. The 

laws and regulations directed at 

preventing water quality degradation 

have been ineffective at providing for 

the conservation of the pearl darter. 

Furthermore, these threats and their 

effect on this species are exacerbated 

due to the pearl darter’s small 

population numbers, localized 

distribution, and low genetic diversity, 

which reduce its genetic fitness and 

resilience to possible catastrophic 

events. Though projecting possible 

synergistic effects of climate change on 

the pearl darter is somewhat 

speculative, climate change, and its 

effects of increased water temperatures 

leading to stronger storms and more 

frequent droughts, will have a greater 

negative impact on species with limited 

ranges and small population sizes, such 

as the pearl darter. While these threats 

or stressors may act in isolation, it is 

more probable that many stressors are 

acting simultaneously (or in 

combination) on the pearl darter, having 

a greater cumulative negative effect than 

any individual stressor or threat. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the pearl darter. 

The pearl darter has been extirpated 

from the Pearl River system, and it is 

now confined to the Pascagoula River 

watershed. The species occurs in low 

numbers within its current range, and 

continues to be at risk throughout all of 

its range due to the immediacy, severity, 

and scope of threats from habitat 

degradation and range curtailment 

(Factor A) and other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (Factor E). Existing regulatory 

mechanisms have been inadequate in 

ameliorating these threats (Factor D). 

Anthropogenic activities, such as 

general land development, agriculture 

and silviculture, oil and gas 

development (especially when BMPs 

were not implemented during these 

activities), along with inadequate 

sewage treatment, uncontrolled 

stormwater runoff, pulp mill effluent, 

past gravel mining and resultant 

geomorphological changes, and 

construction of dams or sills, have all 

contributed to the degradation of stream 

habitats and water quality within this 

species’ range (Factor A). These land 

use activities have led to chemical and 

physical changes in the main stem 

rivers and tributaries that continue to 

affect the species through negative 

impacts to its habitat. Specific water 

quality threats include inputs of 

sediments covering bottom stream 

substrates, increased turbidity, and 

inputs of dissolved solids. These 

threats, especially the inputs of 

dissolved solids, chemical-laden 

effluent, sedimentation, and geomorphic 

changes, have had profound negative 

effects on pearl darter populations, as 

demonstrated in the Pearl River basin, 

and have been the primary factor in the 

species’ decline. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms (e.g., the Clean Water Act) 

have provided for some improvements 

in water quality and habitat conditions 

across the species’ range, but these laws 

and regulations have been inadequate in 

protecting the species’ habitat (Factor 

D), as evidenced by the extirpation of 

the species within the Pearl River basin 

and by the number of section 303(d) 

listed streams within the species’ 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43894 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

historical and current range. The pearl 

darter’s vulnerability to these threats is 

even greater due to its reduced range, 

scattered locations of small populations, 

and low genetic diversity (Factor E). 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as any species ‘‘that 

is likely to become endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range within the foreseeable future.’’ 

We find that the pearl darter is likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future, based on the 

immediacy, severity, and scope of the 

threats currently impacting the species. 

Foreseeable future for this species was 

determined to be approximately 20 

years, which is based on our best 

professional judgement of the projected 

future conditions related to threats 

identified impacting this species. The 

overall range has been reduced 

substantially, and the remaining habitat 

and populations are threatened by a 

variety of factors acting in combination 

to reduce the overall viability of the 

species over time. The threats are not 

expected to change substantially within 

this 20-year timeframe, as water quality 

degradation continues to pose a risk 

locally despite existing regulations, and 

land development and land-altering 

activities are expected to increase. The 

risk of becoming endangered during this 

time is high because populations 

confined to this single watershed are 

fragmented and genetic diversity within 

the species is low. Many of the 

populations are small and likely below 

the effective population size needed to 

maintain long-term population viability 

which makes this species particularly 

vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Though there is uncertainty about the 

magnitude of effects of climate change 

on the pearl darter, the frequency and 

intensity of storms affecting the 

Pascagoula River watershed are evident 

today and predicted to increase during 

this timeframe. 

We find that endangered species 

status is not appropriate for this species. 

Despite low population numbers and 

numerous threats, the Chickasawhay 

and Leaf Rivers, within the upper 

Pascagoula River drainage, appear to 

support reproducing populations. In 

addition, the magnitude of threats is 

considered to be moderate overall, since 

the threats are having a localized impact 

on the species and its habitat. For 

example, water quality degradation, the 

most prevalent threat, is not as 

pervasive within areas where BMPs are 

utilized, and geomorphic changes 

caused by historic sand and gravel 

mining are also sporadic within its 

habitat. Therefore, on the basis of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the pearl 

darter as threatened in accordance with 

sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the pearl darter is threatened 

throughout all of its range, no portion of 

its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for 

purposes of the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ See the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). 

While it is the Service’s position under 

the Policy that undertaking no further 

analysis of ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ in this circumstance is consistent 

with the language of the Act, we 

recognize that the Policy is currently 

under judicial review, so we also took 

the additional step of considering 

whether there could be any significant 

portions of the species’ range where the 

species is in danger of extinction. We 

evaluated whether there is substantial 

information indicating that there are any 

portions of the species’ range: (1) That 

may be ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the 

species may be in danger of extinction. 

In practice, a key part of identifying 

portions appropriate for further analysis 

is whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated. The threats affecting the 

species are throughout its entire range; 

therefore, there is not a meaningful 

geographical concentration of threats. 

As a result, even if we were to 

undertake a detailed ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ analysis, there 

would not be any portions of the 

species’ range where the threats are 

harming the species to a greater degree 

such that it is in danger of extinction in 

that portion. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is 

listed...on which are found those 

physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is 

listed...upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species.’’ 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) require that we designate 

critical habitat at the time a species is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable. In our 

September 21, 2016, proposed rule to 

list the darter (81 FR 64857), we 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat was prudent. We also found that 

critical habitat for the pearl darter was 

not determinable because the specific 

information sufficient to perform the 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is currently lacking, such as 

information on areas to be proposed for 

designation and the potential economic 

impacts associated with designation of 

these areas. We are continuing the 

process of obtaining information on the 

economic impacts of our critical habitat 

designation, and, once this process is 

completed, we intend to publish our 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the pearl darter in the Federal Register 

and request public input. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required by Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43895 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan identifies site-specific 

management actions that set a trigger for 

review of the five factors that control 

whether a species remains endangered 

or may be downlisted or delisted, and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered) or from our Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribal, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires additional cooperative 

conservation efforts on private, State, 

and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

Mississippi will be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the pearl darter. Information 

on our grant programs that are available 

to aid species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the pearl darter. Additionally, 

we invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to 

utilize their authorities in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species 

listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. 

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

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include actions on 

lands under ownership by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, the issuance 

of section 404 Clean Water Act permits 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

construction and maintenance of gas 

and oil pipelines and power line rightsof-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Environmental Protection 

Agency pesticide registration, 

construction and maintenance of roads 

or highways by the Federal Highway 

Administration, and funding of various 

projects administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Service has discretion to issue 

regulations that we find necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species. The 

Act and its implementing regulations set 

forth a series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to threatened 

wildlife. The prohibitions of section 

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

threatened wildlife and codified at 50 

CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to take (which includes harass, 

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

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 

any of these) threatened wildlife within 

the United States or on the high seas. In 

addition, it is unlawful to import; 

export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, 

or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9, if these activities 

are carried out in accordance with 

existing regulations, permit 

requirements, or certification programs; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Normal agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, which are 

carried out in accordance with existing 

regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and certified best 

management practices (i.e., Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship 

Council, and American Tree Farm 

System). 

(2) Normal residential and urban 

landscape activities, such as mowing, 

edging, fertilizing, etc. 

(3) Normal pipeline/transmission line 

easement maintenance. 

(4) Normal bridge, culvert, and 

roadside maintenance consistent with 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43896 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate best management practices 

for these activities. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species. 

(2) Introduction of nonnative fish that 

compete with or prey upon the pearl 

darter. 

(3) Unlawful discharge or dumping of 

toxic chemicals, contaminants, 

sediments, fracking and oil waste water, 

waste water effluent, or other pollutants 

into waters supporting the pearl darter 

that kills or injures individuals, or 

otherwise impairs essential lifesustaining behaviors such as spawning, 

feeding, or sheltering. 

(4) Destruction or alteration of the 

species’ habitat (e.g., unpermitted 

instream dredging, impoundment, water 

diversion or withdrawal, 

channelization, discharge of fill 

material, modification of tributaries, 

channels, or banks) that impairs 

essential behaviors such as spawning, 

feeding, or sheltering, or results in 

killing or injuring a pearl darter. 

(5) Unpermitted gravel mining, oil 

and gas processes, silviculture, and 

agricultural processes that result in 

direct or indirect destruction of riparian 

bankside habitat or in channel habitat in 

waters supporting the pearl darter that 

kills or injures individuals, or otherwise 

impairs essential life-sustaining 

behaviors such as spawning, feeding, or 

sheltering. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Mississippi Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with listing a species as an endangered 

or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

The pearl darter is not known to occur 

within any tribal lands or waters. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

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

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under ‘‘FISHES’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

FISHES 

*******

Darter, Pearl .................. Percina aurora ............. Wherever found ........... T 82 FR [insert Federal Register page where the 

document begins], 9/20/2017. 

*******

Date: September 7, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20069 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES