[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46183-46197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21350]



[[Page 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.

[[Page 46184]]

    (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

[[Page 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-in-long (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 life-history 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 long-term 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

[[Page 46186]]

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.

[[Page 46187]]



                                                                Table 2--Current Species Resiliency Summary of the Trispot Darter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Occurrence
                                 Approximate abundance   Occurrence extent      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 River-Amicalola 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                               Occurrence                                                                      Hydrologic          Overall
                                       abundance        Occurrence  extent      complexity       Physical  habitat     Connectivity       Water  quality          regime           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

[[Page 46188]]

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                               Occurrence                                                                      Hydrologic          Overall
                                       abundance        Occurrence  extent      complexity       Physical  habitat     Connectivity       Water  quality          regime           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 pre-
development conditions. These flashy stream flows and frequent, smaller 
high-flow 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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 46190]]

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 46192]]



          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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 46194]]

    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

[[Page 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, self-sustaining, 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 
landscape-altering 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

[[Page 46196]]

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 Sec.  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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Darter, trispot'' in 
alphabetical order under FISHES to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 46197]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
             Fishes
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Darter, trispot.................  Etheostoma          Wherever found....  T              [Federal Register
                                   trisella.                                              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