Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46183 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12 Month Findings on 

Petitions To List the Holiday Darter, 

Trispot Darter, and Bridled Darter; 

Threatened Species Status for Trispot 

Darter 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

three species, the holiday darter 

(Etheostoma brevirostrum), the trispot 

darter (Etheostoma trisella), and the 

bridled darter (Percina kusha), all 

freshwater fish native to Alabama, 

Georgia, and Tennessee, as endangered 

or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the trispot darter is 

warranted. Accordingly, we propose to 

list the trispot darter as a threatened 

species under the Act. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would add the 

trispot darter to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to the species. After 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we also 

find that listing the holiday and bridled 

darters is not warranted. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 4, 2017. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

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

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by November 20, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rules 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0063, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Pearson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office, 1208 Main Street, 

Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251–441– 

5181; or facsimile 251–441–6222. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if a species is determined to be 

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 and designations and revisions 

of critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule. 

This rule will propose the listing of 

the trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella), 

as a threatened species. This rule 

summarizes our analysis regarding 

status of and threats to the trispot darter. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we can 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 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the trispot darter 

is a threatened species based on a loss 

of habitat and connectivity (Factor A) 

due to urbanization, land use patterns, 

and drought. 

Peer review. We have requested 

comments from independent specialists 

to ensure that we based our designation 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. Because we 

will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared SSA reports for all three 

darter species. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA reports represent a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting each species. All three SSA 

reports underwent independent peer 

review by scientists with expertise in 

fish or amphibian biology, habitat 

management, and stressors (factors 

negatively affecting the species). The 

SSA reports and other materials relating 

to this proposal can be found on the 

Southeast Region Web site at https://

www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063. 

Information Requested for Proposed 

Rule To List Trispot Darter 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The trispot darter’s biology, range, 

and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of trispot darter, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46184 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to the species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of the 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of the species. 

(5) Specific prohibitions and 

exceptions to those prohibitions that 

may be necessary and advisable for the 

trispot darter’s conservation. We are 

considering publishing a more tailored 

proposed rule with provisions set forth 

under section 4(d) of the Act for public 

review and comment in the future. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) 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 Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

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

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

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

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received the dates specified above in 

DATES. Such requests must be sent to the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

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

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

SSA report for each species, including 

the report for the trispot darter that 

informed this proposed rule. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing determination is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. The peer reviewers have 

expertise in fish biology, habitat, and 

stressors to the species. We invite any 

additional comment from the peer 

reviewers during this public comment 

period. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The trispot darter was one of 29 fish 

species included in a March 18, 1975, 

notice of review published by the 

Service in the Federal Register (40 FR 

12297). On December 30, 1982, the 

Service announced in the Federal 

Register (47 FR 58454) that the trispot 

darter, along with 147 other fish species, 

were being considered for possible 

addition to the Endangered Species List. 

On November 4, 1983, the Service 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (48 FR 50909) that a status 

review was being conducted for the 

trispot darter to determine if the species 

should be protected under the Act. On 

November 21, 1991, we added the 

trispot darter to the candidate list as a 

category 2 species on the Candidate 

Notice of Review (CNOR) (56 FR 58804). 

The holiday darter was added to the 

candidate list as a Category 2 species in 

the CNOR on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 

58997). Category 2 species were those 

species for which listing as endangered 

or threatened species was possibly 

appropriate, but for which biological 

information sufficient to support a 

proposed rule was lacking. However, 

the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 

7596) discontinued recognition of 

Category 2 species, so the trispot and 

holiday darters were no longer 

considered candidate species after that 

date. 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from Center for Biological 

Diversity and others to list 404 aquatic 

species in the southeastern United 

States, including the two 

aforementioned species as well as the 

bridled darter. In response to the 

petition, we completed a partial 90-day 

finding on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 

59836), in which we announced our 

finding that the petition contained 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted for these three darter 

species. We conducted a status review 

for each species. 

Background 

Trispot Darter 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the trispot 

darter (Etheostoma trisella) is presented 

in the SSA report. 

The trispot darter is a freshwater fish 

found in the Coosa River System in the 

Ridge and Valley ecoregion of Alabama, 

Georgia, and Tennessee. This fish has a 

historical range from the middle to 

upper Coosa River Basin with 

collections in the mainstem Coosa, 

Oostanaula, Conasauga, and 

Coosawattee Rivers, and their 

tributaries. All known records of the 

trispot darter occur above the fall line in 

the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. 

Currently, the trispot darter is known to 

occur in Little Canoe Creek and 

tributaries (Coosa River), Ballplay Creek 

tributaries (Coosa River), Conasauga 

River and tributaries, and Coosawattee 

River and one tributary. 

The trispot darter is a small-bodied, 

benthic fish ranging in size from 1.3 to 

1.6 inches (in) (3.3 to 4.1 centimeters 

(cm)) as adults. The darter has three 

prominent black dorsal saddles, pale 

undersurface, and a dark bar below the 

eye. Scattered dark blotches exist on the 

fins’ rays. During breeding season males 

are a reddish-orange color and have 

green marks along their sides and a red 

band through their spiny dorsal fin. 

The trispot darter is a migratory 

species that utilizes distinct breeding 

and non-breeding habitats. From 

approximately April to October, the 

species inhabits its non-breeding 

habitat, which consists of small to 

medium river margins and lower 

reaches of tributaries with slower 

velocities. It is associated with detritus, 

logs, and stands of water willow, and 

the substrate consists of small cobbles, 

pebbles, gravel, and often a fine layer of 

silt. During low flow periods, the darters 

move away from the peripheral zones 

and toward the main channel; edges of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46185 

water willow beds, riffles, and pools; 

and mouths of tributaries. In late fall, 

this migratory species shifts its habitat 

preference and begins movement toward 

spawning areas; this is most likely 

stimulated by precipitation, but 

temperature changes and decreasing 

daylight hours may also provide queues 

to begin migration. Migration into 

spawning areas begins approximately 

late November or early December with 

fish moving from the main channels 

into tributaries and eventually reaching 

adjacent seepage areas where they will 

congregate and remain for the duration 

of spawning, approximately until late 

April. Breeding sites are intermittent 

seepage areas and ditches with little to 

no flow; shallow depths (12 in (30 cm) 

or less); moderate leaf litter covering 

mixed cobble, gravel, sand, and clay; a 

deep layer of soft silt over clay; and 

emergent vegetation. Trispot darters 

predominantly feed on mayfly nymphs 

and midge larvae and pupae. 

Trispot darters can live a maximum of 

3 years, but most individuals die after 

the end of their second year. Females 

lay approximately 300 adhesive eggs 

that attach to vegetation or rocky 

substrate. Once laid, the eggs are 

abandoned and incubate for 30 days. 

Upon hatching, the trispot darter spends 

approximately 41 days as larvae. 

Holiday Darter 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the holiday 

darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum) is 

presented in the SSA report. 

The holiday darter is a small, 2-inlong (5-cm-long) snubnose darter, so 

named because it is a colorful fish, with 

notable red blotches surrounded by 

white or yellow halos on the lower side 

of the body. Unique from similar species 

with which it co-occurs, the holiday 

darter has a distinct median red band 

across the generally blue-green anal fin 

in males in spawning color. The holiday 

darter is found in small creeks to 

moderate-sized rivers above the fall line 

in the Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, and 

Piedmont ecoregions of Alabama, 

Georgia, and Tennessee. Currently, the 

holiday darter is known to occur in 

parts of Shoal Creek, Conasauga River, 

Talking Rock Creek, Mountaintown 

Creek, tributaries of the Ellijay River, 

Amicalola Creek, and the Etowah River. 

The holiday darter prefers clear streams 

with riffles and shallow areas of rivers 

that contain boulders, cobble, and gravel 

substrate. While no complete lifehistory studies of the species are 

available, it is likely a benthic omnivore 

that eats aquatic insect larvae and 

microcrustaceans. 

Breeding behavior begins in April and 

lasts through May. Females are followed 

by males as they select suitable 

spawning substrates of gravel, rock, or 

wood on which the pair orients 

vertically to spawn and attach eggs. 

Females have the potential to produce 

from 50–150 eggs over multiple 

spawning sites, and those eggs are then 

fertilized by the male, or multiple 

different males. No studies have been 

published on the lifespan of the holiday 

darter, but similar species live 

approximately 3 years. 

Bridled Darter 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the bridled 

darter (Percina kusha) is presented in 

the SSA report. 

The bridled darter is a small 

freshwater fish native to the upper 

Coosa River basin in Georgia and 

Tennessee. This fish’s current 

distribution includes the main channel 

of the Conasauga River in Murray and 

Whitfield Counties, Georgia, and 

Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee, 

Etowah River in Dawson and Lumpkin 

Counties, Georgia, Amicalola Creek in 

Dawson County, Georgia, Long Swamp 

Creek in Pickens County, Georgia, and 

Talking Rock Creek in Pickens County, 

Georgia. These are all considered small 

rivers with good water quality. It was 

also known to occur in short reaches of 

several tributaries to both the Conasauga 

and Etowah Rivers. Morphological 

variation exists between the darters in 

the Conasauga River and those in the 

Etowah River, but genetic studies do not 

conclude that they are separate species. 

Adult bridled darters are about 3 in (4 

cm) in length and are muted in color. 

Dark oval blotches are fused to form a 

lateral stripe. The lateral stripe merges 

with a dark stripe behind the eye and 

continues forward of the eye; these 

stripes resemble a horse’s bridle and 

lend the species its common name. 

These darters are typically found in 

flowing pools and backwaters adjacent 

to runs in small rivers and lower 

reaches of tributary creeks. They are 

often found near submerged logs or 

vegetation and prefer a substrate of 

sand, gravel, cobble, and bedrock. 

The bridled darter is a sight feeder 

that has been observed to pluck food 

from submerged objects as well as the 

water column by drift-feeding. When 

drift-feeding, it positions itself 

downstream of rocks, away from fast 

currents, and feeds on invertebrates that 

are washed downstream and thrusted 

upward by turbulence. Feeding peaks in 

late afternoon before dusk. Stomach 

contents for individuals from the 

Conasauga River contained small mayfly 

nymphs and blackfly larvae. 

Reproduction and spawning takes 

place approximately mid-April through 

mid-July. Spawning sites are selected by 

females as they are followed by courting 

males. Competitive behavior between 

males for the site-selecting female has 

been observed, with the larger males 

attempting to chase away smaller males. 

In the Conasauga River, sneaker males 

(smaller males that join with a spawning 

pair and mate with the female) have 

been observed. Rapid quivering of the 

pair during spawning helps to bury 

fertilized eggs in sand. A spawning pair 

may undertake multiple spawning 

events at different locations. Females 

have the potential to produce up to 75 

eggs per year, and their lifespan has 

been estimated to be approximately 3 

years. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any factors affecting its continued 

existence. The SSA reports document 

the results of our comprehensive 

biological status review for the holiday, 

bridled, and trispot darters, including 

an assessment of the potential stressors 

to the species. The SSA reports do not 

represent a regulatory decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. They 

do, however, provide the scientific basis 

that informs that decision, which 

involves the further application of 

standards within the Act and its 

implementing regulations and policies. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

reports; the full SSA reports can be 

found on the Southeast Region Web site 

at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and 

at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0063. 

Summary of Analysis 

To assess viability for the holiday, 

bridled, and trispot darters, we used the 

three conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy (together, the 3Rs). Briefly, 

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

representation supports the ability of 

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

example, climate changes); and 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, hurricanes). In 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46186 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

general, the more redundant and 

resilient a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the factors influencing the 

species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we used the 3Rs to evaluate 

individual life-history needs of all three 

darters. In the next stage, we assessed 

the historical and current condition of 

each species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at their current conditions. In the final 

stage of the SSA we made predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. This process 

used the best available information to 

characterize viability as the ability of 

each species to sustain populations in 

the wild over time. We utilized this 

information to inform our regulatory 

decision in the 12-month findings. 

To evaluate the current and future 

viability of the three darters, we 

assessed a range of conditions to allow 

us to consider the species’ resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy. U.S. 

Geological Survey delineated all 

watersheds within the United States at 

several different scales (or units) using 

a standardized system. Each hydrologic 

unit is identified by a unique hydrologic 

unit code (HUC) consisting of two to 

twelve digits based on six different 

levels of classification. For this analysis, 

the 10-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes 

(HUC 10s) were used as a spatial 

framework to delineate areas within the 

geographical range of each species for 

further analysis. Field collections were 

used to identify species presence within 

HUC10 watersheds. For holiday and 

bridled darters, populations were 

defined as occupied HUC10 watersheds 

and were used for analysis. Management 

units (MUs) were described for the 

trispot darter and are defined as one or 

more HUC10 watersheds that the 

species currently occupies. MUs were 

grouped using population genetics 

information and by expected 

management requirements. 

To qualitatively assess resilience, we 

considered seven components that 

broadly relate to either the physical 

environment (‘‘Habitat Elements’’) or 

characteristics about the population 

specifically (‘‘Population Elements’’). 

Habitat elements consisted of an 

evaluation of physical habitat, 

connectivity, water quality, and 

hydrologic regime. Population elements 

consisted of an estimation of 

approximate abundance, the extent of 

occurrence (total length of occupied 

streams), and an assessment of 

occurrence complexity. Representation 

describes the ability of a species to 

adapt to changing environmental 

conditions over time. For these darters 

to exhibit high representation, resilient 

populations should occur in all 

ecoregions to which they are native, and 

maintain some level of connectivity 

between populations. These occupied 

physiographic provinces represent the 

ecological setting in which the darters 

have evolved. Redundancy for all three 

darters is characterized by having 

multiple resilient and representative 

populations distributed throughout its 

range. Furthermore, these populations 

should maintain natural levels of 

connectivity between them. 

Connectivity allows for immigration and 

emigration between populations and 

increases the likelihood of 

recolonization should a population 

become extirpated. An overall resiliency 

condition was estimated by combining 

habitat and population elements. 

Population elements were weighted two 

times higher than habitat elements 

because they are considered direct 

indicators of population condition. 

Conditions were classified as ‘‘Low’’, 

‘‘Moderate’’, or ‘‘High’’. 

After analyzing current conditions for 

each species, we described how current 

viability of the three darters may change 

over a period of 50 years. As with 

current conditions, we evaluated 

species viability in terms of resiliency at 

the population scale, and representation 

and redundancy at the species scale. In 

the SSA report, we described three 

plausible future scenarios and whether 

there will be a change, from current 

conditions, to resiliency, representation, 

or redundancy under each scenario. 

These scenarios capture the range of 

likely viability outcomes that the darters 

will exhibit by the end of 2070. The 

future scenarios differ in two main 

elements of predicted change: 

urbanization and climate. To forecast 

future urbanization, we considered 

future scenarios that incorporate the 

SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, Excluded 

area, Urban area, Transportation, 

Hillside area) model. This model 

simulates patterns of urban expansion 

that are consistent with spatial 

observations of past urban growth and 

transportation networks. Regarding 

climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change utilized a suite of 

alternative scenarios in the Fifth 

Assessment Report to make near-term 

and long-term climate projections. In 

our assessments, we used these 

projections to help understand how 

climate may change in the future and 

what effects may be observed that 

impact the three darter species. 

Trispot Darter 

For our analysis we considered four 

extant MUs: Little Canoe Creek Basin, 

Ballplay Creek Basin, Conasauga River 

Basin, and Coosawattee River Basin. 

Genetic research has defined distinct 

trispot darter populations in Little 

Canoe Creek, Ballplay Creek, and 

Conasauga River. It is unknown if 

trispot darters in the Coosawattee River 

basin are genetically distinct; however, 

we analyzed it as a separate MU because 

this river would require a distinct 

management strategy due to 

hydroelectric operations at Carters Dam. 

Historical collections of the trispot 

darter are known from Cowans Creek, a 

tributary to Spring Creek, which is in 

turn a tributary to the Coosa River, and 

Johns and Woodward Creeks, tributaries 

to the Oostanaula River. Currently, the 

trispot darter occupies approximately 20 

percent of its historically known range. 

Current Condition of Trispot Darter 

Of the four current MUs for the trispot 

darter, one has resiliency ranked as 

‘‘moderate,’’ and three have resiliency 

ranked as ‘‘low’’ in the analysis (see 

Table 2 below). For example, the Little 

Canoe Creek MU is expected to have a 

moderate resiliency to stochastic events 

because water quality is low, the 

abundance is qualitatively low, the 

occurrence complexity is high, Coosa 

River reservoirs remove connectivity to 

other MUs, and the extent of the 

occupied habitat is small. The 

Conasauga River MU has ‘‘low’’ 

resiliency due to low water quality in 

the middle and lower river, low 

abundance of fish per collection record, 

a small and reduced population, and 

overall simple occurrence spatial 

arrangement. A full analysis for each 

unit’s resiliency can be found in the 

SSA report. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46187 

TABLE 2—CURRENT SPECIES RESILIENCY SUMMARY OF THE TRISPOT DARTER

Approximate 

abundance 

Occurrence 

extent 

Occurrence 

complexity 

Physical 

habitat Connectivity Water quality 

Hydrologic 

regime 

Overall 

condition 

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

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

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

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

Holiday Darter 

For our analysis we considered seven 

populations: Conasauga River, Talking 

Rock Creek, Ellijay River, 

Mountaintown Creek, Amicalola Creek, 

Etowah River, and Shoal Creek. 

Current Condition of Holiday Darter 

Six of the seven populations for 

holiday darter are estimated to have low 

resiliency. The exception is Amicalola 

Creek, where the fish is still found in 80 

percent of the watershed that it 

occupied historically, and because it is 

known to occur in Amicalola Creek, 

Little Amicalola Creek, Cochran Creek, 

and Gab Creek, it has a moderate spatial 

occurrence complexity. The habitat 

elements were also ranked as moderate 

for Amicalola Creek, giving that 

population an overall condition of 

moderate. By comparison, the habitat 

elements were also moderate or high for 

the Etowah River, but this population 

had low population element rankings, 

leading to an estimate of low overall 

resiliency. A full analysis for each 

population’s resiliency can be found in 

the SSA report. 

Connectivity is an important aspect of 

representation because it provides for 

the exchange of novel and beneficial 

adaptations and migration to more 

suitable habitat (should it be necessary). 

Currently, all historically occupied 

ecoregions continue to be occupied by 

holiday darters, so we can conclude that 

all known genetic, morphological, and 

behavioral variability are still 

represented across the range. However, 

connectivity is reduced for the species 

range-wide. Dams have completely 

isolated the seven populations into four 

groups. The upper Etowah RiverAmicalola Creek populations are 

isolated by Alatoona Dam; the Talking 

Rock Creek population is isolated by 

Carters Re-regulation Dam; and the 

Ellijay River and Mountaintown Creek 

populations are isolated by Carters Dam. 

The Conasauga River and Holly Creek 

populations are prevented from 

dispersing to the other populations by 

those same dams. The Shoal Creek 

population is isolated by large dams on 

the Coosa River. Where dams do not 

fragment habitat, long reaches of 

unoccupied habitat are present between 

populations, indicating that migration 

between populations is uncommon or 

unlikely. Finally, all populations of 

holiday darter exist on the periphery of 

the Coosa River basin and have likely 

reached the upstream limits for the 

species. It is unlikely that individuals 

within a population will be able to 

migrate further upstream if necessary 

due to changes in environmental 

conditions, further decreasing the 

ability of the species to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions. 

We estimate that the holiday darter 

currently may have low adaptive 

potential due to limited representation 

in six occupied watersheds, decreased 

connectivity, and confinement to upper 

reaches of occupied watersheds. Overall 

representation is considered to be low. 

Redundancy is characterized by having 

multiple resilient and representative 

populations distributed throughout its 

range. Because all but one population of 

holiday darter exhibit low resiliency, 

the species is considered to also have 

low redundancy. All populations have 

experienced some declines, may have 

low numbers, or have low spatial 

complexity. Redundancy is present 

within the Coosawattee River, with 

three populations still extant, but is still 

classified as ‘‘low’’ due to low resiliency 

of three populations. 

In the occupied areas of the 

Conasauga and Etowah Rivers, the 

majority of the records for the species 

are on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land, 

which is noted for having good water 

quality and suitable habitat for holiday 

darters. For our analysis, we gave 

populations low resilience if they had 

poor population elements, even if the 

habitat elements were moderate or high. 

Second, we declined to consider the 

species to have better than low 

representation and redundancy if the 

populations didn’t have better than low 

resiliency. Inconsistent survey 

methodologies and lack of standard 

collection records also creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

The best available data does not indicate 

a declining trend in abundance, and it 

is likely that the low abundance (and, 

therefore, low resiliency) indicated in 

our analysis is due to the species being 

naturally rare and difficult to detect. 

TABLE 3—CURRENT SPECIES RESILIENCY SUMMARY OF THE HOLIDAY DARTER

Approximate 

abundance 

Occurrence 

extent 

Occurrence 

complexity 

Physical 

habitat Connectivity Water quality 

Hydrologic 

regime 

Overall 

condition 

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

Talking Rock Creek .... Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... High ........... Low ............ Moderate .... Low. 

Ellijay River ................ Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Moderate .... Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Mountaintown Creek .. Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Low. 

Amicalola Creek ......... Moderate ........ Moderate .... Low ............ Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate. 

Etowah River .............. Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... High ........... Moderate .... High ........... Low. 

Shoal Creek ............... Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Low ............ High ........... Moderate .... Low. 

Bridled Darter 

For our analysis of the bridled darter 

we considered six populations: 

Conasauga River, Holly Creek, Talking 

Rock Creek, Long Swamp Creek, 

Amicalola Creek, and the Etowah River. 

Current Condition of Bridled Darter 

All six populations of bridled darter 

were classified as having low resiliency. 

Although habitat conditions were 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46188 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

moderate or high for many creeks, the 

low population elements (abundance, 

extent, and complexity) caused the 

overall resiliency to be low. Currently, 

all historically occupied ecoregions are 

occupied, and all historically occupied 

watersheds are considered extant. 

Although populations that exhibit the 

known genetic, morphological, and 

behavioral variability are currently 

extant, they do not exhibit high 

resiliency, and representation is 

therefore classified as low. Dams have 

completely isolated the six populations 

into three groups. The upper Etowah 

River-Amicalola Creek-lower 

Longswamp Creek populations are 

isolated by Alatoona Dam, and the 

Talking Rock Creek population is 

isolated by Carters Re-regulation Dam. 

The Conasauga River and Holly Creek 

populations are prevented from 

dispersing in to the other populations 

by those same dams. Where dams do not 

fragment habitat, long reaches of 

unoccupied habitat are present between 

populations, indicating that migration 

between populations is uncommon or 

unlikely. Redundancy for the bridled 

darter is characterized by having 

multiple resilient and representative 

populations distributed throughout its 

range. Because all populations of 

bridled darter exhibit low resiliency, the 

species is considered to also have low 

redundancy. All populations have 

experienced declines in extent of 

occupied habitat, are found in low 

numbers, or have low spatial 

complexity with reduced connectivity. 

In the occupied areas of the 

Conasauga and Etowah Rivers, the 

majority of the records for the species 

are on USFS land, which is noted for 

having good water quality and suitable 

habitat for bridled darters. For our 

analysis, we gave populations low 

resilience if they had poor population 

elements, even if the habitat elements 

were moderate and high. Second, we 

declined to consider the species to have 

better than low representation and 

redundancy if the populations didn’t 

have better than low resiliency. 

Inconsistent survey methodologies and 

the lack of standard collection records 

creates uncertainty in any analysis of 

trends or the ability to compare data 

across years. The best available data 

does not indicate a declining trend in 

abundance, and it is likely that the low 

abundance (and, therefore, low 

resiliency) indicated in our analysis is 

due to the species being naturally rare 

and difficult to detect. 

TABLE 4—CURRENT SPECIES RESILIENCY SUMMARY OF THE BRIDLED DARTER

Approximate 

abundance 

Occurrence 

extent 

Occurrence 

complexity 

Physical 

habitat Connectivity Water quality 

Hydrologic 

regime 

Overall 

condition 

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

Holly Creek ................. Moderate ........ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... High ........... Low ............ Moderate .... Low. 

Talking Rock Creek .... Low ................ High ........... Low ............ Moderate .... Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Low. 

Long Swamp Creek ... Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low ............ Low. 

Amicalola Creek ......... Moderate ........ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Moderate .... Low. 

Etowah River .............. Low ................ Low ............ Low ............ Moderate .... High ........... Moderate .... High ........... Low. 

Risk Factors Influencing Viability for 

Trispot, Holiday, and Bridled Darters 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

three species meet the definition of 

threatened or endangered species. A 

multitude of natural and anthropogenic 

factors may impact the status of species 

within aquatic systems. The largest 

threats to the future viability of the 

trispot, holiday, and bridled darters 

involve habitat degradation from 

stressors influencing four habitat 

elements: Water quality, water quantity, 

instream habitat, and habitat 

connectivity (Factor A). All of these 

factors are exacerbated by the effects of 

climate change (Factor E). A brief 

summary of these primary stressors is 

presented below; for a full description, 

refer to chapter 4 of the SSA reports for 

each species. 

Hydrologic Alteration 

Hydrologic alteration in this system 

has two components: Increases in storm 

flow frequency and intensity and a 

decrease in base flows, which together 

create a ‘‘flashy’’ hydrologic regime. 

Activities that lead to hydrologic 

alteration include reservoir construction 

and operation, water withdrawals, and 

an increase in impervious surfaces. In a 

natural forested system, most rainfall 

soaks into the soil and is carried into 

nearby streams via subsurface flow. 

Some evaporates or transpires, and a 

relatively small amount becomes surface 

runoff. In an urbanized system with 

high levels of impervious cover, such as 

roads, parking lots, and rooftops, this 

cycle is altered; most stormwater hits 

impervious surfaces and becomes 

runoff, which then is channeled quickly 

to streams via stormwater drain pipes or 

ditches. Relatively little infiltrates into 

the soil. As a result, storm flows in the 

receiving stream are higher and more 

frequent, although briefer in duration, 

and base flows are lower. The storm 

discharge of urban streams can be twice 

that of rural streams draining a 

watershed of similar size, and the 

frequency of channel-forming events 

can be ten times that of predevelopment conditions. These flashy 

stream flows and frequent, smaller highflow events negatively affect structural 

habitat on which the species depends. 

Increases in flow frequency or intensity 

can result in channel widening through 

bank erosion or deepening to 

accommodate the additional discharge. 

This results in increased downstream 

sedimentation and unstable beds, both 

of which degrade channel complexity, 

feeding, and refugia habitat for fish 

species. Increased storm flows, in 

addition, can cause physical washout of 

eggs and larval fishes, stress on adults, 

and negatively alter the stream’s food 

web, affecting many fish species. There 

is also a decrease in channel complexity 

and a reduction in in-stream cover and 

natural substrates like boulders, cobble, 

and gravel. Hydrologic alteration can 

also lead to other stressors that 

negatively affect fish, such as 

sedimentation and a loss of connected 

suitable habitat. 

Sedimentation 

Sedimentation can affect fish species 

by degrading physical habitat used for 

foraging, sheltering, and spawning; 

altering food webs and decreasing 

stream productivity; forcing fish to 

change their behaviors; and even 

injuring or killing individual fish. 

Chronic exposure to sediment has been 

shown to have negative impacts to fish 

gills, which in addition to causing gill 

damage can possibly reduce growth 

rates. Sedimentation causes reduced 

visibility, impacting fishes’ abilities to 

feed and communicate. 

A wide range of activities can lead to 

sedimentation within streams, including 

agriculture, construction activities, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46189 

stormwater runoff, unpaved roads, some 

forestry activities if certified best 

management practices are not used, 

utility crossings, and dredging. 

Historical land use practices have 

substantially altered hydrological and 

geological processes such that 

sediments continue to be input into 

streams for several decades after those 

activities cease. Examples of these 

activities occurring with the range of 

these species include: Urban impacts in 

the Springville, Alabama, and Dalton, 

Georgia, areas; agricultural practices in 

the Conasauga River basin; and 

livestock access to streams in the Little 

Canoe Creek watershed. 

Reduced Connectivity 

Connectivity is a species’ ability to 

disperse to and from habitat patches. 

Excess groundwater withdrawal can 

contribute to reduced connectivity if 

sections of streams become dry for parts 

of the year. Dams and reservoirs reduce 

connectivity by creating a physical 

barrier between fish populations and 

changing habitat from flowing streams 

to standing water, which is not suitable 

habitat for these three darters. Road 

crossings are also more prevalent in 

highly populated urban areas, and some 

road crossings have impassable culverts 

that reduce connectivity. 

Loss of Riparian Vegetation 

Loss of riparian vegetation means the 

removal of natural plant communities 

from the riparian zone of rivers and 

streams. Removal of riparian vegetation 

can destabilize stream banks, increasing 

sedimentation and turbidity; increase 

the contaminants and nutrients that 

enter the water from runoff; increase 

water temperatures and light 

penetration, which also increases algae 

production; and alter available habitat 

by reducing woody plant debris and leaf 

litter, which in turn decreases overall 

stream productivity. These fish have 

adapted to occupy habitats that are 

surrounded by vegetation, which 

moderates temperature by blocking solar 

radiation; provides a source for 

terrestrial plant material that forms the 

base of the food web and provides 

shelter and foraging habitat for the 

fishes; and helps to maintain clear, 

clean water and substrate through 

filtration. Loss of riparian vegetation 

decreases habitat suitability for the 

trispot, holiday, and bridled darters. 

Removal of riparian vegetation has 

occurred where urban and agricultural 

activities are prevalent such as increases 

in development in Dalton, Chatsworth, 

and Ellijay, and row crop and pastures 

in the Conasauga basin. 

Contaminants 

Contaminants, including metals, 

hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other 

potentially harmful organic and 

inorganic compounds, can be toxic to 

fish and are common in urban streams 

including those within the range of 

these three darters. Pesticides are 

frequently found in streams draining 

agricultural lands, with herbicides being 

the most commonly detected. Pesticides 

also are heavily used in urban and 

suburban areas, and many of these find 

their way into streams and groundwater. 

The contamination of the Coosa River 

with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) 

has been attributed to the General 

Electric facility in Rome, Georgia. 

Although the facility closed in 1998, 

contaminated sediments are still 

documented there. In the Coosawattee 

River, PCBs are also listed as a source 

of impairment caused by nonpoint 

sources. These chemicals have toxic 

effects to the endocrine system, nervous 

system, reproductive system, blood, 

skin, and liver of animals and have 

likely impacted these three darters in 

the Coosa and Coosawattee Rivers. 

Pesticides and herbicides are 

frequently found in streams draining 

agricultural land uses, with herbicides 

being the most commonly detected. 

Many agricultural streams still contain 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethan (DDT) 

and its degradation products. 

Glyphosates and other inert ingredients 

found in Roundup can be toxic to fish 

and other aquatic organisms, causing 

stress and reduced fitness; Roundup use 

within the range of these species is 

prevalent and increasing due to the 

adoption of ‘‘Roundup Ready’’ crops. 

Agriculture 

Agriculture is another predominant 

land use within the range of all three 

darters. Livestock grazing is prevalent in 

some areas, and poultry farming is also 

common. 

Poultry Litter: Poultry litter is a 

mixture of chicken manure, feathers, 

spilled food, and bedding material that 

frequently is used to fertilize 

pastureland or row crops. Each poultry 

house has an estimated ability to 

produce up to 100 tons of litter a year. 

Surface-spreading of litter results in 

runoff from heavy rains carrying 

phosphorus and nitrogen from manure 

into nearby streams. Additionally, 

repeated or over application of poultry 

litter can result in phosphorus buildup 

in the soil. Excess phosphorus and 

nitrogen in stream systems increases 

blue-green algae and undesirable 

aquatic plants that rob water of oxygen, 

causing fish kills. Endocrine disruptors, 

such as estrogen, from poultry litter 

have been identified as a significant 

stressor to the Conasauga River basin. 

Estrogens have been found in water and 

sediment samples within the watershed 

at concentrations high enough to be 

disruptive to the endocrine system in 

fish. Increased levels of estrogens affect 

reproductive biology and result in 

reduced breeding success In a recent 

study of endocrine disruptors on fishes 

in the Conasauga River, approximately 

7.5 percent of male fishes surveyed were 

found to have female cells in male 

reproductive organs. 

Livestock access to streams: On many 

farms, livestock is grazed on pastures 

adjacent to streams and rivers and 

livestock is allowed free access to the 

water. Livestock accessing riparian 

buffers and, subsequently, the stream 

proper, leads to habitat destruction and 

decreased water quality. Livestock can 

destabilize stream banks, which as 

discussed above creates increased 

sediment loads within these small 

systems. Livestock farming is often 

confined to the river valleys within the 

upper Coosa River basin; therefore, on 

many cattle farms, livestock is grazed on 

pastures adjacent to streams and rivers, 

and in some instances livestock is 

allowed free access to the water. 

Livestock is produced in every county 

with streams occupied by the bridled 

and holiday darters. 

Urbanization 

Urbanization refers to a change in 

land cover and land use from forests or 

agriculture to increased density of 

residential and commercial 

infrastructure. Urbanization includes a 

wide variety of stressors on aquatic 

systems that affect water quantity, water 

quality, channel structure, and 

connectivity. Therefore, urbanization is 

anticipated to increase the magnitude of 

nearly all other stressors, and 

urbanization is expected to affect the 

darters across their range due to their 

known localities occurring in close 

vicinity to the growing Atlanta 

metropolitan area, Chattanooga, 

Birmingham, and intervening areas with 

growing human populations and 

increasing development. 

Weather Events 

Weather events that affect stream 

flows are considered to be most relevant 

to these species. Broadly, these events 

include extreme storms and droughts. 

Increased flows can cause physical 

washout of eggs and larval fishes, stress 

on adults, and alter the production in a 

stream. Within the range of these 

darters, extreme flows associated with 

hurricanes have been reported to have 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46190 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

negative effects on stream fish 

populations. Reduced baseflows due to 

droughts can cause population declines, 

habitat loss, reduced water quality 

(decreased dissolved oxygen and 

temperature alteration) leading to death, 

crowding of individuals leading to 

stress, and decreased reproduction in 

stream fish populations. Climate models 

for the southeastern United States 

project that average annual temperatures 

will increase, cold days will become 

less frequent, the freeze-free season will 

lengthen by up to a month, temperatures 

exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit will 

increase, heat waves will become 

longer, and the number of category 5 

hurricanes will increase. While these 

climate models predict wide variability 

in weather patterns into the future, they 

suggest that the region will be subjected 

to more frequent large storms 

(hurricanes) as well as low flows from 

droughts. 

Other Stressors 

In our analysis of the factors affecting 

these species, we found no evidence of 

population- or species-level impacts 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. Also, there was no evidence 

of any impacts due to disease or 

predation. 

Conservation Actions 

Trispot Darter 

The trispot darter is recognized by 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee as a 

species of concern. This species is listed 

as Priority 2/High Conservation Concern 

by the State of Alabama, endangered by 

the State of Georgia, and threatened by 

the State of Tennessee. Priority 

watersheds within the range of the 

trispot darter have been designated as 

Strategic Habit Units by the Alabama 

Rivers and Streams Network. The 

Strategic Habit Unit project was 

developed for species restoration and 

enhancement. Alabama is conducting an 

analysis and the results are intended to 

contribute to restoration projects that 

will improve habitat and water quality 

for at risk and listed species. The 

Atlantic Coast Conservancy holds a tract 

of land within Ballplay Creek that could 

offer some protection in the watershed. 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service’s Working Lands for Wildlife 

partnership within the basin will help 

farmers develop and implement 

strategies to improve water quality. 

Holiday Darter 

The holiday darter is recognized by 

Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee as a 

species of concern. It is listed as Priority 

1/Highest Conservation Concern by the 

State of Alabama, endangered by the 

State of Georgia, and threatened by the 

State of Tennessee. In general, 

protections accorded to the holiday 

darter by the States prohibit direct 

exploitation of the species. 

Some populations of holiday darter 

are known from watersheds in which a 

substantial percentage of lands are 

owned and managed by the USFS. 

These populations are found in the 

Conasauga River, upper Etowah River, 

and Shoal Creek. In the Conasauga River 

and Shoal Creek, the majority of current 

records for the holiday darter are within 

the boundary of USFS lands. Cherokee 

National Forest in Tennessee, 

Chattahoochee National Forest in 

Georgia, and Talladega National Forest 

in Alabama own and manage natural 

resources in occupied watersheds in 

those portions of the holiday darter’s 

range. Management prescriptions 

implemented by the USFS in areas that 

overlap with the range of the holiday 

darter are expected to benefit the 

species. Specifically, 4.5 miles (mi) (7.2 

kilometers (km)) of the Conasauga River 

is eligible for Congressional Wild River 

designation and is managed to protect 

and perpetuate the features that led to 

the eligibility status. The river is also 

recognized for its aquatic biodiversity 

by the USFS, and management strategies 

employed by both Cherokee and 

Chattahoochee National Forests within 

the watershed include designated 

wilderness areas, recommended wild 

river, recommended recreational river, 

black bear habitat management, 

restoration and maintenance of rare 

communities, restoration and 

management of old growth 

characteristics, and scenic corridors and 

sensitive viewsheds. These management 

strategies, which emphasize natural 

forest communities and water quality 

are expected to benefit holiday darter 

within the Conasauga River watershed. 

The Chattahoochee National Forest 

management prescriptions within the 

upper Etowah River also broadly 

emphasize and promote natural plant 

communities and so are expected to 

benefit holiday darter within this 

watershed. Standards outlined in the 

Revised Land and Management Plan for 

National Forests in Alabama (2004) 

generally protect water and habitat 

quality in streams. Direct observations 

of Shoal Creek have found the stream to 

have good water quality with high levels 

of dissolved oxygen, stable pH levels, 

and low sedimentation, confirming the 

benefits of USFS management strategies 

to holiday darter habitat. 

Approximately 13.6 mi (21.9 km) of 

Amicalola Creek are bounded by lands 

owned and managed by the State of 

Georgia. Georgia’s stated goals for this 

area are maintenance or enhancement of 

populations of sensitive species and 

management of riparian areas to benefit 

water quality, aquatic resources, and 

aesthetics. We expect that this provides 

some benefit to holiday darters in that 

location. Additionally, approximately 

488 acres (ac) (197 hectares (ha)) of 

these lands were purchased with the 

assistance of a Recovery Land 

Acquisition Grant that prioritized the 

conservation of aquatic resources and 

species. Therefore, it is anticipated that 

State ownership and management 

within the Amicalola Creek watershed 

will benefit the long-term survival of 

holiday darters. 

Within the Conasauga River basin, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

has begun a Working Lands for Wildlife 

project that provides technical and 

financial assistance to help landowners 

improve water quality and help 

producers plan and implement a variety 

of conservation activities or practices 

that benefit aquatic species. Holiday 

darter may benefit in the future from 

water quality improvements in portions 

of the Conasauga River that are affected 

by agricultural practices as a result of 

the Working Lands for Wildlife project. 

Priority watersheds within the range 

of the holiday darter have been 

designated as Strategic Habit Units by 

the Alabama Rivers and Streams 

Network. The Strategic Habit Unit 

project was developed for species 

restoration and enhancement. 

Watersheds occupied by holiday darter 

that have been designated as Strategic 

Habit Units are the Choccolocco Creek 

watershed (which includes the Shoal 

Creek populations) and the Oostanaula 

River watershed (which includes the 

Conasauga and Coosawattee River 

populations). 

Bridled Darter 

The bridled darter is recognized by 

Georgia and Tennessee as a species of 

concern. It is listed as endangered by 

the State of Georgia. In general, 

protections accorded to species that are 

listed by the States prohibit their direct 

exploitation. 

Some populations of bridled darter 

are known from watersheds in which a 

substantial percentage of lands are 

owned and managed by the USFS. 

These populations are found in the 

Conasauga River and upper Etowah 

River. In the Conasauga River, the 

majority of current records for the 

bridled darter are within the 

proclamation boundary of USFS lands. 

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee 

and Chattahoochee National Forest in 

Georgia own and manage lands and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46191 

natural resources in occupied 

watersheds in those portions of the 

bridled darter’s range. Management 

prescriptions implemented by the USFS 

in areas that overlap with the range of 

the holiday darter (see discussion 

above) are also expected to benefit the 

bridled darter. 

Future Scenarios 

For the purpose of this assessment, 

we define viability as the ability of the 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. To address uncertainty 

associated with the degree and extent of 

potential future stressors and their 

impacts on species’ requisites, the 3Rs 

were assessed using three plausible 

future scenarios. These scenarios were 

based, in part, on the results of 

urbanization and climate models that 

predict changes in habitat used by the 

trispot, holiday, and bridled darters. 

The models that were used to forecast 

both urbanization and climate change 

projected 50 years into the future. Using 

the best available data to forecast 

plausible future scenarios allows the 

Service to determine if a species may 

become an endangered species in the 

foreseeable future. For more detailed 

information on these models and their 

projections, please see the SSA reports. 

In the Status Quo scenario, current 

environmental regulations and policy, 

land use management techniques, and 

conservation measures remain the same 

over the next 50 years. We anticipate the 

current trend in greenhouse gas 

emissions to continue and moderate 

impacts from extreme weather events 

including intense drought, floods, and 

storm events to occur. In this scenario, 

rapid urbanization will continue at the 

current estimated rate for the Piedmont 

region of the southeastern United States, 

which will increase demand for water 

resources. 

In the Best Case scenario, we predict 

wider adoption of conservation 

measures and policies, which involves 

watershed-scale conservation plans 

(Working Lands for Wildlife and 

watershed habitat conservation plans) 

and enacting a water policy for 

Alabama. In this scenario, we still 

expect rapid urban growth, albeit at a 

slower rate than under the other two 

scenarios. Under the Best Case scenario, 

rapidly growing urban areas would 

address environmental concerns and 

implement water conservation measures 

and green infrastructure. If 

implemented, these actions should 

lessen the demand on water resources 

(requiring fewer drinking water supply 

reservoirs) and minimize urban effects 

on streams. While large numbers of 

roads will still be constructed, under the 

Best Case scenario road crossings will 

be constructed that allow for fish 

passage. In this scenario we expect 

carbon emissions to peak before 2020 

resulting in a lower probability of 

extreme weather conditions negatively 

affecting stream fishes, as compared to 

the Status Quo or Worst Case scenarios. 

In the Worst Case scenario, we 

anticipate major negative effects in 

aquatic ecosystems as a result of rapid 

urbanization. In conjunction with rapid 

urban growth, we project that there will 

be a general lack of conservation 

measures and policies being 

implemented at the local, regional, or 

national levels. Water demand will 

increase with population, and new 

reservoir construction will take place. In 

addition to rapid urbanization, carbon 

emissions are projected to continue to 

increase above the current levels in this 

scenario, resulting in a higher 

probability of extreme weather events 

that can negatively affect fish species. In 

areas that remain in agricultural use, 

there will be an increased amount of 

herbicide and poultry litter spreading 

and no protective measures 

implemented to address water quality 

issues. Under this scenario, we 

anticipate a general decline in available 

suitable habitat, population size, and 

abundance. 

While we consider all three of these 

scenarios to be plausible, we 

acknowledge that each has a different 

probability of materializing at different 

times. A discrete range of probabilities 

was used to describe the likelihood that 

each scenario will occur. The Status 

Quo scenario was seen as ‘‘very likely’’ 

to occur in 10 years and ‘‘likely’’ to 

occur at 50 years. The Best Case and 

Worst Case scenarios were seen as less 

likely to occur (ranging from ‘‘unlikely,’’ 

‘‘as likely as not,’’ and ‘‘likely’’). 

Although they were part of the analysis, 

and the range of possibilities 

considered, because of the significantly 

lower probability of their occurrence 

they are not discussed in detail below. 

However, a table summarizing all 

scenarios for each species is provided 

below, and a full description of all three 

analyses can be found in the SSA report 

for each species. 

Trispot Darter 

In the Status Quo scenario, two 

populations of trispot darter, Ballplay 

Creek and Conasauga River, are 

expected to become extirpated, while 

the remaining two, Little Canoe Creek 

and Coosawattee River, are projected to 

persist in low resiliency condition. 

Because of the loss of darters predicted 

for Salacoa Creek, the fish will be found 

only in the Coosawattee River mainstem 

(no longer in any tributaries), making it 

more vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Redundancy decreases to two 

populations, which are completely 

isolated from one another due to the 

Weiss Dam. Genetic material will not be 

exchanged, reducing adaptive potential 

of the species. Summaries of the 

analysis of all three scenarios are 

provided in the table below. 

TABLE 5—FUTURE CONDITION OF THE TRISPOT DARTER BY THE YEAR 2070 UNDER THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS

Management unit Status quo Best case Worst case 

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

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

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

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

Holiday Darter 

In the Status Quo scenario, three 

extant populations of holiday darter are 

expected to become extirpated, while 

four populations will continue to be 

extant 50 years in the future. This will 

decrease overall redundancy for the 

species as well as representation (the 

Coosawattee River will no longer be 

represented with the extirpation of the 

Talking Rock Creek, Ellijay River, and 

Mountaintown Creek populations). 

Physiographic representation is 

projected to decline over the next 50 

years because the holiday darter’s range 

is expected to contract to the upstream 

stream reaches that are owned and 

managed by State and Federal agencies 

within the Blue Ridge physiographic 

province. Representation is projected to 

remain within the Ridge and Valley of 

Alabama. Summaries of the analysis of 

all three scenarios are provided in the 

table below. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46192 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—FUTURE CONDITION OF THE HOLIDAY DARTER BY THE YEAR 2070 UNDER THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS

Population Status quo Best case Worst case 

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

Talking Rock Creek ............................ Likely Extirpated ................................ Likely Extirpated ................................ Likely Extirpated. 

Mountaintown Creek ........................... Likely Extirpated ................................ Likely Extirpated ................................ Likely Extirpated. 

Ellijay River ......................................... Likely Extirpated ................................ Low .................................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Amicalola Creek .................................. Low .................................................... Moderate ............................................ Low. 

Etowah River ...................................... Low .................................................... Low .................................................... Low. 

Shoal Creek ........................................ Low .................................................... Low .................................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Bridled Darter 

In the Status Quo scenario, two 

populations of bridled darter are 

expected to become extirpated (Talking 

Rock Creek and Long Swamp Creek). 

This will decrease overall redundancy 

for the species as well as representation 

(the Coosawattee River will no longer be 

represented with the extirpation of the 

Talking Rock Creek population). 

Physiographic representation is 

projected to decline over the next 50 

years because the bridled darter’s range 

is expected to contract to upstream 

stream reaches that are owned and 

managed by state and federal agencies 

within the Blue Ridge physiographic 

province. Summaries of the analysis of 

all three scenarios are provided in the 

table below. 

TABLE 7—FUTURE CONDITION OF THE BRIDLED DARTER BY THE YEAR 2070 UNDER THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS

Population Status quo Best case Worst case 

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

Holly Creek ......................................... Low .................................................... Low .................................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Talking Rock Creek ............................ Likely Extirpated ................................ Low .................................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Long Swamp Creek ............................ Likely Extirpated ................................ Low .................................................... Likely Extirpated. 

Amicalola Creek .................................. Low .................................................... Moderate ............................................ Low. 

Etowah River ...................................... Low .................................................... Moderate ............................................ Low. 

Findings and Determination 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

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.’’ 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

three species are endangered or 

threatened throughout all of their 

ranges. We examined the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized fish experts and other 

Federal and State agencies. 

Bridled Darter 

Stressors identified for the bridled 

darter include destruction of habitat due 

to urbanization, channel modification 

and loss of riparian vegetation, 

decreased water quality from 

agricultural activities, severity of 

climate events like storms and droughts, 

contaminants, and reduced connectivity 

from dams, road crossings, and culverts. 

While the species may be exposed to 

some or all of these stressors, it 

continues to persist in all of the streams 

it occupied historically. Our future 

scenarios were developed using models 

that predicted out 50 years; however, 

the short lifespan of the species (2–3 

years) and the lack of evidence of 

threats directly impacting the species 

creates uncertainty when predicting the 

species’ response to threats into the 

future. Forecasting beyond eight to ten 

generations would be speculative, and 

we do not have robust population data 

that could predict how the bridled 

darter may respond to threats beyond a 

20-year timeframe. Accordingly, we 

have concluded that 20 years is the 

foreseeable future for the bridled darter. 

While our analysis indicates a low 

abundance for the species currently, the 

best available data do not indicate a 

declining trend in abundance. Rather, it 

is likely that the low abundance (and, 

therefore, low resiliency) is due to the 

species being naturally rare and difficult 

to detect. The inconsistent survey 

methodology and lack of standard 

collection records also creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

More importantly, within the occupied 

areas of the Conasauga and Etowah 

Rivers, the majority of the records for 

the species are on USFS land, which is 

noted for having good water quality and 

suitable habitat for bridled darters, and 

we expect this situation to continue into 

the foreseeable future. In fact, even 30 

years beyond our foreseeable future 

timeframe, under the most likely 

scenario, we expect that the bridled 

darter will still persist in four of six 

populations (Conasauga River, Holly 

Creek, Amicalola Creek, and Etowah 

River). 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the bridled darter is not 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Because we determined that the 

bridled darter is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46193 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we will consider whether there 

are any significant portions of its range 

in which the bridled darter is in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so. 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). 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 

bridled darter are occurring 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 may be in danger of 

extinction in that portion. Our review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information indicates that 

the bridled darter is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Therefore, we find 

that listing the bridled darter as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act is not warranted at this time. 

Holiday Darter 

Threats previously identified for the 

holiday darter include destruction of 

habitat due to urbanization, channel 

modification and loss of riparian 

vegetation, decreased water quality from 

agricultural activities, severity of 

climate events like storms and droughts, 

contaminants, and reduced connectivity 

from dams, road crossings, and culverts. 

Our analysis shows that while the 

species may be exposed to some or all 

of these stressors, it continues to persist 

in all of the streams it occupied 

historically. While our future scenarios 

were developed using models that 

predicted out 50 years, the short 

lifespan of the species (3 years) and the 

lack of evidence of threats directly 

impacting the species creates 

uncertainty when predicting the 

species’ response to threats into the 

future. Forecasting beyond eight to ten 

generations would be speculative, and 

we do not have robust population data 

to support a foreseeable future that 

could predict how the holiday darter 

may respond to threats beyond a 20-year 

timeframe. Accordingly, we have 

concluded that 20 years is the 

foreseeable future for the holiday darter. 

While our analysis indicates a low 

abundance for the species, the best 

available data do not indicate a 

declining trend in abundance. Rather, it 

is likely that the low abundance (and, 

therefore, low resiliency) is due to the 

species being naturally rare and difficult 

to detect. The inconsistent survey 

methodology and lack of standard 

collection records also creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

For example, nearly half of the 

collection records for holiday darters in 

the Conasauga River did not provide 

numeric data for the number of 

individuals collected, so they represent 

only presence data. In the occupied 

areas of the Conasauga and Etowah 

Rivers, the majority of the records for 

the species are on USFS land, which is 

noted for having good water quality and 

suitable habitat for holiday darters, and 

we expect this situation to continue into 

the foreseeable future. We expect that, 

for the foreseeable future, the holiday 

darter will continue to have four to six 

populations, with only the Talking Rock 

Creek and Long Swamp Creek 

populations projected to be extirpated. 

We expect this scenario to continue 

under the ‘status quo’ scenario to the 50- 

year timeframe, 30 years beyond the 

foreseeable future. Even under the 

‘worst case’ scenario, three populations 

are expected to remain extant into the 

future. 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the holiday darter is not 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its 

range. 

Because we determined that the 

holiday darter is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we will consider whether there 

are any significant portions of its range 

in which the holiday darter is in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so. 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). 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 

holiday darter are occurring 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 may be in danger of 

extinction in that portion. Our review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information indicates that 

the holiday darter is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Therefore, we find 

that listing the holiday darter as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act is not warranted at this time. 

Proposal To List the Trispot Darter 

Our analysis of the trispot darter’s 

current and future conditions, as well as 

the conservation efforts discussed 

above, show that the population and 

habitat factors used to determine the 

resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy for trispot darter will 

continue to decline such that it is likely 

to become in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

the range within the foreseeable future. 

We considered whether the trispot 

darter is presently in danger of 

extinction and determined that 

proposing endangered status is not 

appropriate. The current conditions as 

assessed in the trispot darter SSA report 

show extant populations in four river 

systems (MUs), including 39 river mi 

(63 river km) of occupied habitat in the 

Conasauga River and the Little Canoe 

Creek population with moderate 

resiliency. As with the other two darter 

species, the best available data do not 

indicate a declining trend in abundance, 

and it is likely that the low abundance 

(and, therefore, low resiliency) 

indicated in our analysis is due to the 

species being naturally rare and difficult 

to detect. The inconsistent survey 

methodology and lack of standard 

collection records also creates 

uncertainty in any analysis of trends or 

the ability to compare data across years. 

The trispot darter continues to exhibit 

representation across its range, and 

extant populations remain across the 

range. While threats are currently acting 

on the species and many of those threats 

are expected to continue into the future, 

we did not find that the species is 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46194 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

After reviewing our analysis of 

current and plausible future conditions 

of the trispot darter, we concluded that 

the resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation are being impacted by 

threats and the species has reduced 

viability. While our future scenarios 

were developed using models that 

predicted out 50 years, the short 

lifespan of the species (2–3 years) and 

the lack of evidence of threats directly 

impacting the species creates 

uncertainty when predicting the 

species’ response to threats into the 

future. Forecasting beyond eight to ten 

generations would be speculative, and 

we do not have robust population data 

to support a foreseeable future that 

could predict how the trispot darter may 

respond to threats beyond a 20-year 

timeframe. Accordingly, we have 

concluded that 20 years is the 

foreseeable future for the bridled darter. 

It is true that 30 years beyond our 

foreseeable future timeframe, the Status 

Quo scenario predicts the trispot darter 

will persist in both the Little Canoe and 

Coosawattee populations. However, 

considering this species’ vulnerability to 

a loss of connectivity between breeding 

and non-breeding habitats and the effect 

that situation has on reproductive 

success, we expect negative impacts to 

the resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of the species in the 

foreseeable future. The trispot darter’s 

unique reproductive strategy of utilizing 

distinct areas of rivers and streams for 

breeding and non-breeding habitats 

makes the loss of connectivity 

especially detrimental to viability. In 

contrast to the holiday and bridled 

darters, a lack of protected lands within 

the current range of trispot darters 

creates more uncertainty regarding land 

use, threats, and the ability of these four 

populations to withstand the expected 

loss of one or two populations. This 

expected reduction in both the number 

and distribution of resilient populations 

is likely to make the species vulnerable 

to catastrophic disturbance, and thus 

put the species at an increased risk of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

trispot darter is warranted and propose 

to list the species as threatened in 

accordance with sections 3(20) 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 trispot 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 

this 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 may be in danger of 

extinction in that portion. 

Critical Habitat for Trispot Darter 

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

amended, and implementing regulations 

in 50 CFR 424.12, require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we designate critical 

habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species. Critical habitat is 

defined in section 3 of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of this Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of this Act, upon a 

determination by the Secretary of the 

Interior that such areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) 

state that the designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent when any of the 

following situations exist: (1) The 

species is threatened by taking or other 

human activity, and identification of 

critical habitat can be expected to 

increase the degree of threat to the 

species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. The regulations also 

provide that, in determining whether a 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species, the factors 

that the Service may consider include 

but are not limited to whether the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of a 

species’ habitat or range is not a threat 

to the species, or whether any areas 

meet the definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ 

(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)). 

As discussed above, we did not 

identify any imminent threat of take 

attributed to collection or vandalism for 

the trispot darter, and there is no 

indication that identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is likely to 

initiate any such threats. Therefore, in 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to the species, if there 

are benefits to the species from a critical 

habitat designation, a finding that 

designation is prudent is appropriate. 

The potential benefits of designation 

may include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation 

activities on the most essential features 

and areas; (3) providing educational 

benefits to State or county governments 

or private entities; and (4) preventing 

people from causing inadvertent harm 

to the protected species. Because 

designation of critical habitat would not 

likely increase the degree of threat to the 

species and may provide some measure 

of benefit, designation of critical habitat 

is prudent for the trispot darter. 

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) 

further state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exists: (1) 

Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking; or (2) the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of an area as critical 

habitat. For the trispot darter, a careful 

assessment of the economic impacts that 

may occur due to a critical habitat 

designation is ongoing, and we are in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46195 

the process of working with the States 

and other partners in acquiring the 

complex information needed to perform 

that assessment. Until these efforts are 

complete, information sufficient to 

perform a required analysis of the 

impacts of the designation is lacking, 

and, therefore, we find designation of 

critical habitat for the trispot darter to 

be not determinable at this time. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries, and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan also identifies recovery 

criteria for review of when a species 

may be ready for reclassification from 

endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

or Plants (‘‘delisting’’), and methods for 

monitoring recovery progress. Recovery 

plans also establish a framework for 

agencies to coordinate their recovery 

efforts and provide estimates of the cost 

of implementing recovery tasks. 

Recovery teams (composed of species 

experts, Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outlines, draft 

recovery plans, and the final recovery 

plans will be available on our Web site 

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

from our Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. If 

this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Alabama, Georgia, and 

Tennessee would be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the trispot darter. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

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

Although the trispot darter is only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on these species whenever 

it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

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

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

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

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

may include, but are not limited to, 

management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the Service, USFS, and 

National Park Service; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; and construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
46196 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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, for economic 

hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

special purposes consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. There are also 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

Section 4(d) of the Act specifies that, 

for threatened species, the Secretary 

shall issue such regulations as he deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. This 

discretion includes authority to prohibit 

by regulation with respect to a 

threatened species any act prohibited by 

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

17.31(a), the Service, by delegation from 

the Secretary, exercised this discretion 

to extend the take and other 

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

of the Act to all threatened species. The 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31(c), however, 

also provide that the blanket 

prohibitions included in § 17.31(a) do 

not apply if the Service promulgates a 

rule under section 4(d) of the Act 

tailored to provide for the conservation 

needs of a specific threatened species. 

During the public comment period on 

this proposed rule, we are seeking 

comments on whether a section 4(d) 

rule is appropriate for trispot darter. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. 

Activities that the Service believes 

could potentially harm the trispot darter 

and result in ‘‘take’’ include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species; 

(2) Destruction or alteration of the 

species’ habitat by discharge of fill 

material, dredging, snagging, 

impounding, channelization, or 

modification of stream channels or 

banks; 

(3) Destruction of riparian habitat 

directly adjacent to stream channels that 

causes significant increases in 

sedimentation and destruction of 

natural stream banks or channels; 

(4) Discharge of pollutants into a 

stream or into areas hydrologically 

connected to a stream occupied by the 

species; 

(5) Diversion or alteration of surface 

or ground water flow; and 

(6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in 

violation of label restrictions. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), need not be prepared in 

connection with listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

There are no tribal lands located within 

the range of this species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

the SSA report is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Alabama 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Unified Listing 

Team and the Alabama Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Darter, trispot’’ in 

alphabetical order under FISHES to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46197 

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

*******

Fishes 

*******

Darter, trispot .................. Etheostoma trisella ......... Wherever found .............. T [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule.] 

*******

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21350 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2017–0056; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC44 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Threatened 

Species Status for the Candy Darter 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the candy darter (Etheostoma osburni) 

as a threatened or endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (Act), and to designate critical 

habitat. After review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

candy darter is warranted. Accordingly, 

we propose to list the candy darter 

(Etheostoma osburni), a freshwater fish 

species from Virginia and West Virginia, 

as a threatened species under Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

extend the Act’s protections to this 

species. The effect of this regulation will 

be to add this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 4, 2017. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

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

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by November 20, 2017. 

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–R5–ES–2017–0056, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2017– 

0056; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Schmidt, Project Leader, West Virginia 

Ecological Services Field Office, 694 

Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241–9475; 

by telephone 304–636–6586 or by 

facsimile 304–636–7824. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if a species is determined to be 

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. Critical 

habitat shall be designated, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, for any species 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

This rule proposes adding the candy 

darter (Etheostoma osburni) as a 

threatened species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)). 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we can 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 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that hybridization 

(Factor E) with the variegate darter 

(Etheostoma variatum) is the primary 

threat to the candy darter. 

Peer review. A team of Service 

biologists prepared a Species Status 

Assessment Report (SSA Report) for the 

candy darter. The SSA Report 

represents a compilation and 

assessment of the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

concerning the status of the candy 

darter, including the past, present, and 

future factors influencing the species. 

We solicited independent peer review of 

the SSA Report by six individuals with 

expertise in darters; fisheries, 

population, or landscape ecology; 

genetics and conservation genetics; and/ 

or speciation and conservation biology; 

we received comments from four of the 

six peer reviewers. The SSA Report can 

be found in http://www.regulations.gov 

under the FWS–R5–ES–2017–0056 

docket; on the Southwest Virginia 

Ecological Services Field Office Web 

site at: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ 

virginiafield/svfo/ 

southwesternvirginia.html; and on the 

West Virginia Ecological Services Field 

Office Web site at: https://www.fws.gov/ 

westvirginiafieldoffice/endangered

species.html. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS