[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48953-48968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18127]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0152; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE62
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Snail
Darter From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the snail darter (Percina tanasi), a small freshwater fish
native to the Tennessee River watershed, from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). Our review of the best
available scientific and commercial data indicates that the threats to
the species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the
species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If
we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation
measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9,
would no longer apply to the snail darter. We request information and
comments from the public regarding this proposed rule to remove the
snail darter from the List (i.e., ``delist'' the species).
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 1, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m.
[[Page 48954]]
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by October 18, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2020-0152,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2020-0152, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including references cited and the 5-year review,
are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0152.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office,
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38506; telephone (931) 528-6481.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for
listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In the case of
any proposed rule to list, reclassify, or delist a species, we must
publish a notice of such proposal in the Federal Register. Therefore,
in order to remove the snail darter from the List, we must publish a
proposed rule.
What this document does. This rule proposes to remove (delist) the
snail darter from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife based on its recovery.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11, we
may delist a species if the best available scientific and commercial
data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species does
not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species when considering the five factors listed above; or (3) the
listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species.
Here, we have determined that the snail darter no longer meets the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the
Act and, therefore, it may be delisted due to recovery.
Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we are requesting
comments from independent specialists to ensure that we base our
determination on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
The peer reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats
to the species.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove the snail darter from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
snail darter, particularly any data on the possible effects of climate
change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this fish as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the snail darter that may negatively impact or benefit the species; and
(4) Information about the type and extent of monitoring that should
be implemented if the species were delisted.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0152.
Because we will consider all substantive comments and information
received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ
from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remained listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the
species should be reclassified from threatened to endangered.
[[Page 48955]]
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 9, 1975, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (40 FR 47505) listing the snail darter as an endangered
species due to the threat of the impoundment of the only known location
of the species by the completion of Tellico Dam. On April 1, 1976, the
Service designated 16.5 miles (26.4 km) of the lower Little Tennessee
River as critical habitat for the snail darter (41 FR 13926). In 1977,
the critical habitat for the snail darter was amended to include a map
(42 FR 47840). The Snail Darter Recovery Team prepared the initial
recovery plan for the snail darter on April 4, 1979 (Hurst et al. 1979,
entire). The plan was revised and finalized on May 5, 1983 (Service
1983, entire). Due to successful translocations into the Hiawassee and
Holston Rivers and the discovery of additional populations, we
reclassified the snail darter from endangered to threatened and
rescinded critical habitat on July 5, 1984 (49 FR 27510). In 2013, we
completed a 5-year review for the snail darter. No change in the
species' listing classification was recommended as a result of that 5-
year review. We initiated a second 5-year review for the species on
April 11, 2019 (84 FR 14669), and on July 16, 2019, we were petitioned
to delist the snail darter. We were already reviewing the status of the
species as part of the 5-year review and, upon receiving the petition,
determined that there was substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating the delisting the snail darter may be warranted.
Based on our review of available data we gathered during preparation of
that status review and presented herein, we have determined that the
recovery criteria for delisting the species have been met and that the
snail darter does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are proposing to delist
the snail darter. This proposed rule will also serve as our 5-year
review, 90-day finding, and 12-month finding on the petition.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, including
recovery actions, see discussion under Recovery, below.
Background
Below, we present a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history,
ecology, and overall status of this fish, referencing data from the
2013 5-year review (Service 2013, entire) where appropriate.
Taxonomy
The snail darter is a small fish in the perch family, Percidae, and
darter subfamily, Etheostomatinae. The species was first discovered in
1973 (Starnes 1977, p. 1). At that time, and when listed in 1975, the
snail darter was recognized as a new, undescribed species in the genus
Percina and subgenus Imostoma. The species was described in 1976 as
Percina tanasi, named after the historic Cherokee town of Tanasi, near
where the snail darter was first discovered (Etnier 1976, p. 485). The
snail darter has been recognized as the sister species (closest
relative) to the stargazing darter (P. uranidea) (Etnier 1976, p. 480;
Near and McEachran 2002, p. 8).
Population Genetics
No studies have been completed to determine the level of gene flow
between populations or the amount of potential inbreeding within
populations. Because snail darters are often found in the lower
portions of tributaries, it is likely that tributary populations are
part of larger mainstem metapopulations (Service 2013, p. 13). It is
not clear to what level the mainstem populations are isolated by the
large Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams and reservoirs.
Species Description
The following description is modified from Etnier (1976, pp. 480-
485) and Etnier and Starnes (1993, pp. 587-590). The snail darter is a
small benthic (bottom-dwelling) fish that grows to 3.55 inches (in) (90
millimeters (mm)). The base color is brown or brownish grey with some
green. The back has four clear black or dark brown saddle markings.
These markings extend down the sides toward the series of blotches
along the lateral line. A dark suborbital bar or ``teardrop'' marking
is present below the eye. Fin rays are usually speckled, but pelvic and
anal fins are sometimes clear. Males gain a blue-green sheen on the
sides and belly during the breeding season when golden flecks become
more pronounced on the cheeks and pectoral fins. Females also develop
some gold coloring but are less bright than the males. Breeding
tubercles (small bony protrusions) form on the rays of the elongated
anal fin of males as well as the lower surfaces of rays of the pelvic
fins, caudal (tail) fin, and branchiostegal (soft gill cover under
head) rays.
The snail darter may occur with two other Imostoma darters, the
river darter (Percina shumardi) and the saddleback darter (P. vigil).
The snail darter differs from the river darter by having four saddle
markings along its back, while the latter lacks saddles altogether.
Snail darters and river darters are often found together, but river
darters tend to be associated with slightly larger substrate than snail
darters (Matthews 2020, pers. comm.). While these species may share
similar habitat, there is no evidence that they compete for resources.
Habitat
The snail darter occurs in flowing sections of medium to large
rivers. In these streams, snail darters are predominantly found over
clean gravel without significant silt or plant coverage (Ashton and
Layzer 2010, p. 615). Initially thought to require shallow, unimpounded
portions of river to survive (Starnes 1977, pp. 21-23), snail darters
were later found in the impounded but flowing upper sections of
mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and Fitz 1978, p. 80).
Snail darters were found in shoals at a depth of 1 to 3 feet (ft) (0.3
to 1 meters (m)) (Starnes 1977, pp. 21-33; Ashton and Layzer 2010,
entire). Snail darters have also been found on gravel and cobble
patches in up to 25 ft (7.6 m) of water with regular captures at 10 to
15 ft (3 to 5 m) deep (Ripley 1976, entire; Hickman and Fitz 1978, pp.
80-83; Matthews 2017, pers. comm.; Matthews 2019, pers. comm.). In
addition to large river habitats, snail darters also occupy the lower
reaches of larger creeks, and during the breeding season, large numbers
of darters congregate on the gravel shoals in these creeks to spawn
(Starnes 1977, p. 64). Detailed descriptions of snail darter habitat
can be found in Ashton and Layzer (2010, entire) and Starnes (1977, pp.
21-33).
Life History
The life history data presented here are modified from Etnier and
Starnes (1993, p. 588), with additions from
[[Page 48956]]
Hickman and Fitz (1978, pp. 10-38) and Starnes (1977, entire). The
snail darter is well adapted to its habitat of clean gravel substrate
in large creeks and rivers. The saddle markings on the back of the fish
act as camouflage amongst gravel and small cobble, and are a pattern
seen in other benthic species (Armbruster and Page 1996, pp. 250-252).
Snail darters also can burrow into the substrate with just their eyes
exposed to escape predation (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 588). The
species spawns in the late winter and early spring, from about February
to April. Adults gather on shoals during the breeding season. While
spawning has not been directly observed, it is likely that the eggs are
buried shallowly in the sand and gravel similar to how other Percina
species bury their eggs. Females produce about 600 eggs per season
during multiple spawning events. Eggs hatch after 15-20 days and
produce pelagic (in the water column) larvae that drift considerable
distances downstream. The developing larvae and juveniles likely use
relatively calm deeper areas of rivers and reservoirs. By the end of
summer, juveniles are about 1.6 in (40 mm) in length and begin
migrating upstream. Some fast-growing individuals may reach sexual
maturity in their first year, but most mature in their second year
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 588). Snail darters are short-lived fish
that rarely survive to their fourth year. As their name implies, snail
darters mostly feed on freshwater snails, predominantly in the genera
Leptoxis and Lithasia, as well as caddisfly and dipteran (true fly)
larvae (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 588).
Distribution
When we listed the snail darter (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975), the
species was only known from about 13 miles (21 kilometers (km)) of the
lower Little Tennessee River in Loudoun County, Tennessee. Shortly
thereafter, the species was found in the Watts Bar Reservoir portion of
the Tennessee River below the mouth of the Little Tennessee River, and
efforts were made to conserve the species by translocating individuals
into other suitable streams (Hickman and Fitz 1977, pp. 80-83). Snail
darters were collected from the Little Tennessee River and stocked into
the Hiwassee, Holston, Nolichucky, and Elk Rivers beginning in 1975 to
achieve this objective. The introductions into the Nolichucky and Elk
Rivers were halted when sharphead darters (Etheostoma acuticeps), a
species once thought extinct, were rediscovered there, causing concern
about competition between the two species. However, the introductions
into the Holston and Hiwassee Rivers were successful, and it is thought
that the populations in the French Broad and Ocoee Rivers were
established by dispersal from these populations (Ashton and Layzer
2008, pp. 55-56). These locations are presented on a map in Figure 1,
below.
After the completion of Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River,
snail darters were located in five additional tributaries and three
reservoirs: Little River (1983), Big Sewee Creek (1981), Chickamauga
Reservoir (1976), Nickajack Reservoir (1981), South Chickamauga Creek
(Tennessee and Georgia portions) (1980), Guntersville Reservoir
(Tennessee portion) (1981), Sequatchie River (1981), and Paint Rock
River (Alabama portion) (1981) (Service 1983, pp. 12-19; Service 2013,
p. 7). A survey in 2005 located the species in seven of the nine
tributaries surveyed: French Broad River, Hiwassee River, Holston
River, Little River, Sequatchie River, Big Sewee Creek, and South
Chickamauga Creek (Ashton and Layzer 2008, p. 54). This survey appears
to be the last known record of snail darters in Big Sewee Creek
(Simmons 2019, unpublished data). In this survey, snail darters were
not located in the Paint Rock River or Ocoee River, though they were
discovered at both locations in later years (Kuhajda 2018, unpublished
data). In 2007, a single snail darter was collected in Citico Creek,
suggesting that snail darters may have persisted in the Little
Tennessee River watershed after the dam was constructed; however, they
were not found in follow-up surveys (Service 2013, p. 7).
More recent survey efforts have continued to document new snail
darter locations, though with limited information on persistence. In
2012, two snail darters were collected in the Flint River in Alabama
(Simmons 2019, p. 1), but they have not been found there since. In
2015, snail darters were collected in the Elk River in Alabama and in
Bear Creek in Alabama and Mississippi, over 100 river miles (160 km)
from the Flint River location. To verify these collections, TVA began
an effort to survey the mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs for snail
darters (Simmons 2019, p. 2), collecting snail darters from six
reservoirs in Tennessee and Alabama: Chickamauga, Nickajack,
Guntersville, Wheeler, Pickwick, and the French Broad River arm of Fort
Loudoun Reservoir (Simmons 2019, p. 7; TVA unpublished data). Later
surveys of the reservoirs located juvenile snail darters in Watts Bar
Reservoir (Matthews 2020, pers. comm.), but trawling efforts did not
locate individuals in Tellico, Wilson, and Kentucky Reservoirs (Simmons
2019, p. 6).
In 2017 and 2018, an environmental DNA survey was conducted for
snail darters in the Alabama portion of the Tennessee River Basin
(Shollenberger 2019, p. 6). Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a surveillance
tool used to monitor for the genetic presence of an aquatic species.
These surveys returned positive eDNA detections in the following
streams and reservoirs where TVA surveys had physically collected snail
darters during previous survey efforts: Guntersville Reservoir, Wheeler
Reservoir, Paint Rock River, Elk River, Pickwick Reservoir, and Bear
Creek. The eDNA surveys returned negative results at locations where
snail darters had not been collected recently, such as Wilson Reservoir
and the Flint River, although an eDNA detection was found and then
validated in 2020 in Shoal Creek, a tributary to Wilson Reservoir
(Johnson 2020, p. 2).
In summary, the snail darter's known range has greatly expanded
since it was first discovered (see Fig. 1). At the time of listing in
1975, the species was only known from a small reach of the Little
Tennessee River. By the early 1980s, new populations had been found or
established in 10 widely dispersed locations, and in 1984, we
reclassified the snail darter from an endangered to a threatened
species (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), due largely to an increased number
of populations and a considerable range expansion. Since 2010,
populations in an additional two reservoirs and three tributaries have
been discovered (Simmons 2019, pp. 1-2). As a result, snail darters are
now considered extant in seven mainstem reservoirs of the Tennessee
River (Fort Loudoun, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville,
Wheeler, and Pickwick) and 12 tributaries in the Tennessee River
watershed (Holston River, French Broad River, Little River, Hiwassee
River, Ocoee River, South Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River, Paint
Rock River, Flint River (two individuals), Elk River, Shoal Creek (one
individual), and Bear Creek). We consider the snail darter extirpated
from the Little Tennessee River mainstem, Citico Creek, and Sewee
Creek, and never established in the Nolichucky River.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 48957]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE21.000
[[Page 48958]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Evaluating Populations
There is not currently enough information available to determine
population size for the snail darter. Few targeted surveys have been
conducted for snail darters since the species was downlisted to
threatened in 1984. Stream community monitoring is conducted by TVA
throughout the Tennessee River basin using an index of biotic integrity
(IBI) approach. The IBI uses fish community metrics, such as percent
insectivore, to develop a score of stream health. These surveys are
targeting a representative sample of the overall fish assemblage rather
than individual species, so are not designed to provide population size
information on rare species, but are useful for determining species
persistence at a site. Occasional encounters by IBI monitoring crews
provide information in the intervening years, but many of these surveys
took place in wadeable portions of streams, missing the deeper water
habitats often used by the species. Where snail darters are common near
IBI sites, surveyors intentionally avoid their habitat to reduce the
probability of injury, which can result in artificially reduced numbers
of the species in samples. The wide variety of methods used during
previous survey efforts also makes comparing populations difficult.
Records from snorkel surveys targeted at other species only note
incidental sightings of snail darters, not density, and the TVA trawls
have mostly been carried out to determine the species' presence and
range (Simmons 2019, p. 1). However, it is likely that reproducing
populations of the species exist in at least 16 locations (6 reservoirs
and 10 tributaries) based on repeated collections that have been made
at those locations, evidence of multiple age classes at those locations
(i.e., suggesting regular recruitment into the population), and
multiple males and females captured at those locations (see Tables 1
and 2 in Summary of Biological Status, below).
Recovery
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans must, to the
maximum extent practicable, include ``objective, measurable criteria
which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with
the provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed
from the list.''
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The snail darter recovery plan (Service 1983, entire) included
recovery criteria to indicate when threats to the species have been
adequately addressed and prescribed actions that were thought to be
necessary for achieving those criteria. Below, we discuss our analysis
of available data and our determination as to whether recovery criteria
for the snail darter have been achieved.
Recovery Criteria
The objective of the recovery plan is to protect and recover the
snail darter to the point where it can be removed from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The recovery plan states that
the species ``shall be considered recovered when one of the
alternatives (A, B, or C) listed below is met and no present or
foreseeable threats exist that could cause the species to become in
danger of extinction'' (Service 1983, p. 27).
Alternative A: Suitable habitat areas of the Tennessee
River within the area from the backwaters of Wheeler Reservoir upstream
to the headwaters of Watts Bar Reservoir are inhabited by snail darter
populations that can survive and reproduce independently of tributary
rivers as evidenced by documented reproduction in Watts Bar Reservoir
or some other Tennessee River reservoir.
Alternative B: More Tennessee River tributary populations
of the species are discovered and existing populations are not lost.
The number of additional populations needed to meet this criteria would
vary depending on the status of the new populations, but two
populations similar to the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, or
Sequatchie River populations, or one comparable to the Hiwassee River
population, would denote recovery.
Alternative C: Through maintenance of existing populations
and/or by expansion of these populations, there exist viable
populations of snail darters in five separate streams such as Big Sewee
Creek, Hiwassee River, South Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River and
Paint Rock River. (For this alternative, ``viable populations'' means
that population monitoring over a 10-year period (biannual sampling)
indicates that the snail darter is reproducing (at least two year
classes present each year sampled) and that the population is either
stable or expanding. For some populations, existing data may be used to
meet this requirement.)
Achievement of Recovery Criteria
Alternative A of the recovery criteria requires that snail darters
be present in suitable habitats within reservoirs from Wheeler
Reservoir upstream to Watts Bar Reservoir and evidence of reproduction
within reservoirs independent of tributaries in at least one reservoir.
We conclude that Alternative A has been met based on collection of
seven permanent mainstem populations (Pickwick, Wheeler, Guntersville,
Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, and Fort Loudoun reservoirs) and
evidence of reproduction independent of tributaries in Chickamauga,
Nickajack, and Wheeler reservoirs (see Tables 1 and 2 in Summary of
Biological Status, below, and Figure 1 in Background, above). These
populations represent
[[Page 48959]]
multiple reservoirs, rivers and span at least three physiographic
regions (Highland Rim, Cumberland Plateau, and Ridge and Valley)
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 3; Mettee et al. 1996, p. 5).
Our assessment of the tributary populations of snail darters
supports the determination that Alternative B has also been met.
Alternative B of the recovery criteria requires the discovery or
establishment of at least two new tributary populations similar to the
Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, or Sequatchie River
populations or one comparable to the Hiwassee River population. In our
analysis, we determined that 10 tributary populations are extant that
have a moderate or high resilience (see Table 1, below). Four of these
(French Broad River, Ocoee River, Elk River, and Bear Creek) have been
found or established since the recovery plan was finalized. The largest
new population occurs in the lower French Broad River. The founders of
this population were likely migrants or juveniles from the stocked
population in the Holston (Service 2013, p. 14). Snail darters have
been collected across at least 21.8 miles (35.1 km) of the French Broad
River and across 19 miles (30.5 km) of the Hiwassee River (Ashton and
Layzer 2008, pp. 54-55; Kuhajda 2018, supplementary data; TVA,
unpublished data). Therefore, the requirement to discover or establish
a population comparable to the Hiwassee River population has been met.
Additionally, Alternative B gives the option of two tributary
populations comparable to Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, and
Sequatchie River. The current populations in the Ocoee River and Bear
Creek are comparable to the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek,
and Sequatchie River populations at the time the recovery plan was
finalized based on captures and occupied stream length.
Since 2011, snail darters have been found consistently in the Ocoee
River by TVA IBI crews, appearing in every biannual sample since 2015.
Snail darters have been collected across 5.9 miles (9.5 km) of the
Ocoee River, and collections of snail darters in the Hiwassee River
near the mouth of the Ocoee suggests that they may occupy more of the
river.
Snail darters have only been collected as individuals or pairs, but
the lower portion of Bear Creek is in the Gulf Coastal Plain
physiographic region, so preferred habitat is more limited than in
other streams. Individuals have been collected across 5.8 miles (9.3
km) of Bear Creek, but trawling collections near the mouth of Bear
Creek and eDNA detections in the lower parts of the Bear Creek system
and at its mouth suggest that snail darters may occur in an additional
25 miles (40 km) of the creek (Simmons 2019, supplementary data;
Shollenberger 2019, pp. 14-16).
Since 2015, snail darters have been collected in 1.4 miles (2.3 km)
of the Elk River in Tennessee. Snail darters may also occur in the
Alabama portion of the Elk River over more than 20 river miles of free-
flowing stream down to the portion of the river inundated by Wheeler
Reservoir (Simmons 2019, supplementary data; Shollenberger 2019, pp.
14-16).
In summary, our assessment of the tributary populations of the
snail darter supports the determination that Alternative B has been met
based on the establishment of the French Broad River population that is
comparable to the Hiwassee population. Additionally, the Ocoee River,
Bear Creek, and Elk River populations are comparable to the Big Sewee
Creek historical population, which was found across 4.2 miles of
stream, exceeding the prescription in Alternative B for at least one
additional large population or two additional small populations.
Alternative C has been partially met. This alternative of the
recovery criteria calls for the maintenance of viable populations in
five separate streams. The definition for viable populations in the
1983 recovery plan requires biannual monitoring over a 10-year period
with enough data to demonstrate a stable or increasing population size
and evidence of reproduction indicated by the presence of at least two
year classes present in each year sampled. We do not have sufficient
specific monitoring data to meet this definition since most of our
collections come from TVA IBI surveys that are not species-specific.
However, our analysis of the tributary populations found 10 populations
that were considered at least moderately resilient (see Table 1 in
Summary of Biological Status, below). Of these, nine met the
requirement of Alternative C that at least two year classes be present.
The discovery of populations in Bear Creek, Elk River, Wheeler
Reservoir, and Pickwick Reservoir since 2009 shows evidence of either
species expansion, or growth of existing populations to the level of
detection (see Table 2 in Summary of Biological Status, below). The
presence of resilient populations in 10 tributaries and 7 mainstem
reservoirs across four physiographic regions provides evidence of high
redundancy and representation for the species (see further explanation
of these terms in Analytical Framework, below).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an endangered species as a species that is ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the
[[Page 48960]]
effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions that
will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species,
then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in
light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects
on the species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing
the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services
can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
To assess species viability, we use the three conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 306-310).
Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to
withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet
or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the
species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large
pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the
species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for
example, climate change). In general, the more resilient and redundant
a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is
to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels and described the beneficial
and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
Summary of Biological Status
Resiliency Analysis
As explained above in Evaluating Populations, the existing data
available do not allow us to estimate population sizes for snail
darter. However, collections over multiple years and the presence of
multiple age classes provide evidence of persistence in tributaries
throughout the snail darter's range. In the reservoirs, the capture of
multiple individuals and evidence of multiple age classes typically
represents a sustainable population. Where available, presence of snail
darters in breeding condition is used as additional evidence of
spawning, because snail darters move onto the spawning ground before
spawning commences (Starnes 1977, p. 64). We used IBI scores from fixed
monitoring stations to address stream health where possible for
tributary populations. These scores are generated from fish assemblage
surveys throughout the Tennessee River Valley and rank streams from 12
to 60 (poor to excellent) based on metrics such as total number of
species, proportions of intolerant and tolerant species, and the
numbers of species in various ecological guilds (TVA 2005, pp. 5-7). We
use these measures to describe the resiliency of the snail darter
populations and their contributions to the species' recovery.
Tributary Resiliency--We characterized snail darter population
resiliency in 14 tributaries (11 extant populations, one extirpated,
and two apparently not established with only one collection each and no
evidence of reproduction) using data related to three factors:
Collections in multiple years since 2009, presence of multiple year
classes in these samples, and TVA IBI scores for the tributary
populations (see resiliency scores for these factors in Table 1,
below). Detection of the species in multiple years provides evidence of
persistence within a tributary. Consistent collections also indicate
population numbers that are high enough to be detected using non-
depletion methods (not every fish in a sample reach is caught), which
is relevant for species like the snail darter that are difficult to
capture with standard fish sampling equipment. The presence of multiple
age classes is evidence of successful reproduction in the population.
Given that snail darters only live 4 years and likely do not mature
until their second year, it would only take a few years of failed
reproduction for a population to be extirpated (Etnier and Starnes
1993, p. 588). We reviewed the available data to determine population
scores for each of the tributaries. The best available data are not
sufficient to determine snail darter population size or trends due to
the typically small numbers collected at any given site; however, we
can address resiliency of the tributary populations by looking at
persistence over time and evidence of reproduction. To do this, we used
data from snail darter collections and observations from TVA and
Conservation Fisheries, Inc., and data compiled by the Tennessee
Aquarium Conservation Institute.
We used IBI scores to address stream community health where
possible for tributary populations. Measuring the overall fish
community is a way to investigate habitat quality, water quality, and
ecosystem stability by proxy of the fish that live in the stream. The
IBI incorporates 12 metrics to measure fish community health based on
the number of species or proportion of individuals in different guilds
(group of species with similar life history) compared to what is
expected in a reference condition stream. These metrics are adjusted
based on stream size and physiographic region in order to be relevant
to the differences in natural conditions across the Tennessee River
Basin. Each metric is assigned a value matching a ranking of good (5),
fair (3), or poor (1). The 12 metrics are then summed for each,
yielding an overall rating of the stream community health. An IBI score
of 12 to 22 equates to a very poor rating, 28 to 34 to a poor rating,
40 to 44 to a fair rating, 48 to 52 to a good rating, and 58 to 60 to
an excellent rating. Scores between these ranges received intermediate
ratings (TVA 2005, entire). To determine potential IBI trends, we
compared overall IBI scores for sites within the range of snail darters
in each tributary from 2009 to 2019. Roughly half of the tributaries
(French Broad River, Little
[[Page 48961]]
River, Hiwassee River, Ocoee River, Elk River, and Flint River) showed
some improvement during the 1999-2009 period, but during the 2009-2019
analysis period, the communities in all of the tributaries were mostly
stable.
We combined the population metrics to give a population score (low,
medium, or high), and the habitat metrics combined to form a composite
habitat score (low, medium, or high). These scores are compiled in
Table 1, below. The population and habitat scores were averaged to
provide the overall resilience score. Tributaries with multiple
collections (of several fish each collection) and multiple age classes
over the 12-year period were ranked high; conversely, those with only
one collection and no evidence of reproduction were considered not
established. Age classes were assigned by body length, based on life-
history studies (Starnes 1977, pp. 47-63; Hickman and Fitz 1978, pp.
10-19). Sites with multiple collections but only one age class were
ranked low. Tributaries with good or better IBI scores that were stable
or improving were then ranked high, and tributaries with fair IBI
scores with stable or improving conditions were ranked moderate.
Overall resilience was calculated by averaging the column scores. Where
snail darters had been extirpated or not established, IBI scores were
not incorporated. While the habitat in Little River is very good, we
found that the low numbers (three or fewer individuals in any single
observation) of snail darters captured and the lack of multiple age
classes did not warrant categorizing the Little River population as
moderate or high. Our results of the tributary resiliency analysis are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1--Tributary Population Resiliency Based on Collection Data and TVA IBI Scores From 2009-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Multiple age Population Overall
Tributary detections classes score IBI score IBI trend Habitat score resiliency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holston River................ Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair............ Stable......... Moderate....... Moderate/high.
French Broad River........... Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair/good....... Stable or High........... High.
improving.
Little River................. Yes............. No.............. Low............. Good/excellent.. Stable......... High........... Low.
Citico Creek................. No.............. No.............. Not established. Good............ Stable......... High........... Not
established.
Big Sewee Creek.............. No.............. No.............. Extirpated...... Poor/fair....... Stable......... Low............ Extirpated.
Hiawassee River.............. Yes............. Yes............. High............ Good/excellent.. Stable......... High........... High.
Ocoee River.................. Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair............ Stable......... Moderate....... Moderate/high.
South Chickamauga Creek...... Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair............ Stable or Moderate....... Moderate/high.
declining.
Sequatchie River............. Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair............ Stable or Moderate....... Moderate/high.
declining.
Paint Rock River............. Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair/good....... Stable......... High........... High.
Flint River.................. No.............. No.............. Not established. Fair............ Insufficient Moderate....... Not
data. established.
Elk River.................... Yes............. Yes............. High............ Fair/good....... Stable or High........... High.
improving.
Shoal Creek.................. No.............. No.............. Not established. Good............ Stable or High........... Not
improving. established.
Bear Creek................... Yes............. Yes............. High............ Good............ Stable or High........... High.
improving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reservoir Resiliency--Using the data available from the TVA snail
darter trawl surveys (Simmons 2019, p. 3), we analyzed resiliency of
the reservoir populations based on first, the number of individuals
captured; and second, evidence of reproduction, with evidence of
reproduction established either through presence of multiple age
classes, adults in spawning condition (gravid females and/or males
flowing milt [sperm]), or juveniles. To categorize number of
individuals, we classified collections of 0-4 individuals as low, 5-9
as moderate, and >=10 as high. To classify reproduction, given the
limited sampling effort to date, collection of more than one age class
or other evidence of reproduction resulted in a high rating in the
reproduction metrics. Collection of only one age class or no other
evidence of reproduction resulted in a low rating. Similar to the
stream population, overall resilience was calculated by averaging the
scores of the number collected and reproduction metrics. Results are
summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2--Reservoir Population Collections Based on TVA Benthic Trawls, 2016-2019 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population score Age
Reservoir (number collected) classes Evidence of reproduction Reproduction score Overall resilience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Loudoun........................ Low (2)................ 2 No........................ High...................... Moderate.
Watts Bar........................... Low (3)................ 1 Yes....................... High...................... Moderate.
Chickamauga......................... Low (4)................ 2 Yes....................... High...................... Moderate.
Nickajack........................... High (11).............. 2 Yes....................... High...................... High.
Guntersville........................ High (33).............. 2 No........................ High...................... High.
Wheeler............................. High (18).............. 2 Yes....................... High...................... High.
Wilson.............................. Low (0)................ 0 No........................ N/A....................... Not established.
Pickwick............................ High (18).............. 3 No........................ High...................... High.
[[Page 48962]]
Kentucky............................ Low (0)................ 0 No........................ N/A....................... Not established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Age classes based on total length measurements from Hickman and Fritz (1978). Evidence of reproduction is based on capture of juvenile individuals,
adults in spawning condition, or multiple age classes (Simmons 2019, p. 7).
For the purpose of evaluating the snail darter's status, we
considered those tributaries that ranked moderate or high as
contributing to resiliency. Because of the limited amount of reservoir
sampling that has been completed, we considered those reservoir
populations that had evidence of reproduction present as permanent,
independent populations (Simmons 2019, p. 2) that contribute to
resiliency. We, therefore, considered 7 reservoir populations (Fort
Loudoun, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, and
Pickwick) and 10 tributary populations (Holston, French Broad, Little,
Hiwassee, Ocoee, Sequatchie, Paint Rock, and Elk Rivers, and South
Chickamauga and Bear Creeks) as contributing to species resiliency. We
did not count Wilson Reservoir or Kentucky Reservoir toward resiliency
because snail darters had never been collected there despite trawling
efforts. While Watts Bar is only represented by three juveniles, their
collection far from any large tributaries is evidence of reproduction
within the reservoir. We did not consider Citico Creek, Big Sewee
Creek, Flint River, or Shoal Creek as contributing toward resiliency
either, because the species had not been collected there within the
analysis period, despite multiple efforts (Big Sewee Creek, Citico
Creek) or because a single snail darter had been found on only one
occasion (Shoal Creek, Flint River) and we considered the populations
to be not established in those locations (see Table 1, above).
Analysis of Redundancy and Representation
With discoveries of new tributary and reservoir populations, the
known redundancy and representation of the snail darter has expanded
during the analysis period. When we listed the species (40 FR 47505;
October 9, 1975), it had very low redundancy and representation because
only one population was known from several miles of the Little
Tennessee River, in the Ridge and Valley physiographic region.
Currently, the species is known across more than 400 miles (640 km) of
the Tennessee River Valley, with moderately to highly resilient
populations in 9 tributaries and 7 reservoirs, providing a level of
redundancy that helps shield the species from localized stochastic
events.
While we do not have population genetic data for the snail darter,
we can look at the species' ability to adapt to changes in the
environment (representation) by looking at its distribution across a
range of habitats and physiographic regions. Resilient populations are
currently known from streams ranging in size from mid-sized creeks to
the large Tennessee River itself, with collections in depths ranging
from less than 3 ft (1 m) to 25 ft (7.6 m). These populations occur in
reservoirs and tributaries with these conditions in four different
physiographic regions (Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau, Highland
Rim, and Gulf Coastal Plain). This wide range of habitat use and
geographic distribution helps to demonstrate the snail darter's
adaptability to changing environmental pressures (representation).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the point
that it can be delisted or downlisted requires consideration of the
same five factors identified above for listing a species. When we
initially listed the snail darter as endangered in 1975, the only
identified threat influencing its status was the modification and loss
of habitat and curtailment of range (Factor A) caused by the completion
of Tellico Dam and the flooding of the entire known range of the
species. When we reclassified the species as threatened in 1984, we
evaluated a more complete list of factors based on improved knowledge
of the snail darter's range and life history. These factors included
threats to habitat such as shipping activities in the mainstem
Tennessee River, impacts from development in some of the tributaries
such as South Chickamauga Creek, threats from agricultural runoff and
channelization in streams like the Elk River, impacts from coal mining
in the Sequatchie River watershed, and chemical spills in the Hiwassee
and Ocoee watersheds (Factor A); excessive collection associated with
the notoriety of the species (Factor B); and protections afforded the
species by State and Federal laws (Factor D). The following analysis
evaluates these previously identified threats, any other threats
currently facing the species that we have identified, as well as any
other threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future.
To establish the foreseeable future for the purpose of evaluating
trends in the threats and the species' responses, we analyzed trends
from historical data on distribution and abundance, ongoing
conservation efforts, factors currently affecting the species, and
predictions of future climate change. When combined with our knowledge
of factors affecting the species (see discussion below), available data
allow us to reasonably predict future conditions, albeit with
diminishing precision over time. Given our understanding of the best
available data, for the purposes of this proposed rule, we consider the
foreseeable future for the snail darter to be approximately 30 years.
We determined that we can reasonably predict the threats to the species
and the species' response during this timeframe based on climate
vulnerability assessments through 2050, the planning horizon of the
reservoir release improvement program (RRIP), and enough time for the
species to respond based on biology and lifespan.
As noted above, when the species was downlisted (49 FR 27510; July
5, 1984), the reclassification rule identified additional threats to
habitat in the additional populations established or discovered since
listing (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975). These included threats from
shipping activities in the mainstem Tennessee River, impacts from
development in some of the tributaries such as South Chickamauga Creek,
threats from agricultural runoff and channelization in streams like the
Elk River, impacts from coal mining in the Sequatchie River watershed,
and
[[Page 48963]]
chemical spills in the Hiwassee and Ocoee watersheds.
One of the biggest factors still affecting the snail darter is the
impoundment of large portions of the Tennessee River Valley. The TVA
operates 9 dams on the mainstem Tennessee River and 38 dams on
tributaries to the Tennessee River. These impoundments create large
areas of deep, still water that do not meet the habitat needs of the
snail darter. Snail darters are limited in the depth they can occupy by
the presence of food resources. Snails, the darter's preferred prey,
live only in water shallow enough for light to penetrate and allow
algae to grow on the substrate, about 15-20 ft (5-7 m) in much of the
Tennessee mainstem. Impoundment also reduces stream flow and allows
fine sediments to settle out, which can cover the clean gravel habitats
needed by snail darters. Additionally, these dams were initially
operated with a hydropeaking strategy, only releasing water when needed
to generate electricity or maintain reservoir level or flood storage
capacity. In addition, many of these releases came from the water
levels within the reservoir that held cold, oxygen-deficient water.
Collectively, these factors created conditions in the tailwaters that
negatively affected water quality, food availability, and fish
diversity.
Given the long operational lifespan of dams (>100 years), it is
nearly certain that the TVA reservoirs will be in place for the
foreseeable future. However, beginning in 1981, TVA began studies to
improve conditions in the tailwaters of their dams. The cold, oxygen-
deficient water released from the bottom of many of the dams created
conditions that eliminated many fish and mussel species from these
areas. Through the RRIP, TVA began implementing strategies to increase
minimum flow, dissolved oxygen, and, in some cases, temperature, in the
tailwaters of their dams beginning in 1991 (Bednarek and Hart 2005, p.
997). In 2002, TVA conducted a reservoir operation study to consider
how to implement these changes across the basin to improve the health
of the river (TVA 2004, p. ES-3). The result was to manage the river
based on minimum flows instead of reservoir level and improve tailwater
conditions. These changes have resulted in significant improvements in
biological and abiotic variables and increases in fish and invertebrate
diversity in many TVA dam tailwaters (Layzer and Scott 2006, entire;
Bednarek and Hart 2005, entire; Scott et al. 1996, entire). These
improvements have likely resulted in improved conditions for the snail
darter and may have contributed to improvements to the species' status
within tailwaters since the 1990s, across more than 400 miles (640 km)
of the mainstem of the Tennessee River. Since the RRIP is based on
ecologically meaningful parameters in the tailwaters, such as dissolved
oxygen and temperature, this program may be able to provide some
resiliency to a warming climate and precipitation variability in the
future, especially if TVA adjusts the program to maintain the needed
conditions in the tailwaters. The reservoir operation study is planned
along an approximately 25-year timeline, extending to 2030 (TVA 2004,
p. ES-4). However, given the presence of at least 10 other listed
aquatic species in the tailwaters of the mainstem Tennessee River
reservoirs and the complexities of changing the operations plan, it is
very likely that TVA will continue RRIP as part of their compliance
with the Act for these other species beyond the timeline of the
environmental impact statement (EIS) and biological opinion that were
prepared under Section 7 of the Act before alterations were made to dam
release management. For these same reasons, TVA will likely incorporate
RRIP to protect federally listed mussels present when it revisits its
EIS around 2030, and because the current EIS's term is 25 years, it is
reasonable to assume TVA will issue another 25-year EIS. Therefore, we
estimate these conditions benefiting the snail darter will continue
through at least midcentury (Baxter 2020, pers. comm.). Overall, the
persistence and expansion of snail darter populations in the mainstem
since the 1970s indicate greater resiliency in these habitats than was
considered at the time of listing, particularly now with the
implementation of TVA's RRIP.
Anthropogenic changes to the land can also negatively impact the
snail darter and its habitats. Sedimentation is one of the biggest
threats to water quality in the Tennessee River Valley, including in
streams occupied by snail darters. Big Sewee Creek has been impacted by
sedimentation from persistent farming in the watershed, reducing the
amount and quality of gravel habitat in the stream. The predominant
agricultural activities contributing to sedimentation in Big Sewee
Creek (livestock pasture and row crops) are exempt from many State and
Federal regulations designed to reduce sediment runoff, and these
activities are likely to continue into the future. Therefore, we do not
expect this population to reestablish unless habitat conditions improve
in the future. Sedimentation from agriculture and development is also
considered a concern in the lower Little Tennessee River, Sequatchie
River, South Chickamauga Creek, and Paint Rock River watersheds. There
have been watershed-level efforts to address sedimentation issues in
some of the tributaries where snail darters have been found. The South
Chickamauga Creek Land Treatment Watershed Project, an effort of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), began in 2001, to reduce the runoff of sediment and
nutrients in the watershed by installing animal waste management
systems (see 65 FR 44519; July 18, 2000). Additionally, the Limestone
Valley Resource Conservation and Development Council is working with a
wide variety of partners to implement the South Chickamauga Creek
Headwaters Management Plan, developed in 2012, to address water quality
issues (Smith and Huser 2012, pp. i-3). In the Paint Rock River, The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) has designated a ``landscape conservation
area'' and worked to address sedimentation issues from agriculture
throughout the watershed, resulting in improved conditions for aquatic
fauna (Throneberry 2019, unpublished data). Many of these efforts
include restoring natural stream channel characteristics where streams
have been channelized. These efforts have been undertaken outside of
species-specific recovery efforts for the snail darter, and they are
likely to continue regardless of the delisting of the species. Other
small-scale efforts have been undertaken to reduce sedimentation in
many of the other tributaries inhabited by snail darters. It is likely
that sedimentation has resulted in the extirpation of snail darters
from Big Sewee Creek, but there is some potential for recolonization by
individuals from Chickamauga Reservoir if habitat conditions improve.
Urban and suburban development may impact the snail darter as well.
Increases in the amount of impervious surfaces associated with
development increase runoff to streams, destabilize hydrology, and
increase water temperature. Additionally, residential and commercial
development are associated with increased runoff of lawn and automotive
chemicals into the streams (Matthaei and Lang 2016, p. 180; Walsh et
al. 2005, p. 707). The snail darter tributaries currently most impacted
by development and the chemical and sediment runoff associated with it
are South
[[Page 48964]]
Chickamauga Creek in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Flint River in Huntsville,
Alabama; and Little River in Maryville, Tennessee. Based on the SLEUTH
(Slope, Land use, Excluded area, Urban area, Transportation, Hillside
area) model, these areas are anticipated to have increased suburban and
urban growth in the next 30 years, which might further impact South
Chickamauga Creek, Flint River, and Little River; there is also the
potential for increased urban impacts to the Sequatchie River and Paint
Rock River watersheds associated with the growth of Chattanooga and
suburban development from Huntsville, respectively (Terando et al.
2014, pp. 1-3). However, based on the persistence of snail darters in
South Chickamauga Creek, which scored moderate in our analysis (see
Table 1, above), it appears that there is some evidence to support a
conclusion that the species is resilient to the impacts of
urbanization.
Additionally, the Thrive Regional Partnership is a group working to
promote responsible growth in a 16-county region in the Greater
Chattanooga area. The partnership's goal is to improve communities
while maintaining healthy ecosystems. Thrive has identified portions of
streams and surrounding land that are key to preserving and enhancing
water quality in the region of interest, with the goals of conserving
50 percent of unprotected forest and improving water quality in at
least 50 percent of polluted streams by 2055. The area covered by this
initiative includes portions of the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga
Creek, Sequatchie River, and Paint Rock River watersheds (Thrive
Regional Partnership 2019, entire).
The threat of chemical and industrial spills was raised as a
potential threat in the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984).
The range of the snail darter is crossed by several major highways and
railroad lines, making the possibility of a spill during transport an
ongoing risk. Such spills have occurred as recently as 1991 in the
Hiwassee River, but while spills may have severe impacts locally, they
are unlikely to affect the species as a whole given its wide range in
the mainstem of the Tennessee River and several tributaries (Service
2013, p. 18). Furthermore, the Ocoee River has suffered from industrial
and mine runoff from the historical copper extraction in the watershed.
Within the Ocoee River watershed, concerted efforts have been made to
clean up industrial and mine-related pollution, resulting in much
improved water quality and a healthier ecosystem, which may have
contributed to the increased numbers of snail darters seen in that
river since the Service's 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, p. 12;
Simmons 2019, unpublished data).
The threat to snail darters from coal mining in the Sequatchie
Valley has been greatly reduced since the recovery plan was completed.
Mining for coal in the Sequatchie Valley ceased in the 1990s, and since
that time, there have been efforts to remediate acid mine drainage in
the area. Currently, there are no active coal mining permits in the
Sequatchie Valley (OSMRE 2016, p. 34; ITRC 2010, entire).
The Tennessee River is a major inland shipping corridor, and in the
downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), activities associated
with barge traffic were considered to potentially threaten snail
darters through habitat alterations in the mainstem Tennessee River
reservoirs. Barge and large boat wakes can result in significant bank
erosion along the river. Within the mainstem reservoirs, bank
stabilization efforts have occurred in some significantly impacted
areas and have reduced sedimentation at those locations, but there is
no concerted plan to address this source of sediment across the
Tennessee River basin. However, there is some evidence that areas of
consistent traffic, such as barge mooring cells, may provide areas of
silt-free habitat swept clean by tug engines (Matthews 2017, pers.
comm.; Walker and Alford 2016, p. 1101).
In summary, while effects to snail darter habitat (Factor A)
associated with continued urbanization and agriculture are certain to
persist into the foreseeable future, efforts are being made to reduce
the impact to many of the tributaries inhabited by snail darters.
Additionally, snail darters appear to be resilient to urbanization and
agriculture, including practices such as channelization, in certain
tributaries such as South Chickamauga Creek and Sequatchie River. In
the Sequatchie River, the threat from coal mining is reduced with the
cessation of mining in the valley and ongoing reclamation efforts. The
mainstem populations are less susceptible to sedimentation and runoff
associated with agriculture and urbanization due to the buffering
capacity of the larger river, but they still may be affected by bank
erosion and industrial transport along the Tennessee River. However,
population persistence and the apparent expansion in the mainstem since
the 1970s demonstrate the resiliency of the snail darter within these
habitats, especially with the implementation of TVA's RRIP.
At the time of the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984),
the Service projected that the notoriety of the snail darter could
result in an increase in illegal collection (Factor B); however, no
such activities have been observed or documented since that rule was
published. Snail darters receive some protection against collection
from the States. The species is listed as threatened in Tennessee,
endangered in Georgia, and protected as a non-game species in Alabama
and Mississippi. These protections require State permits for the
collection of the species.
The snail darter's habitat is also protected by State water quality
laws that require the use of best management practices, such as leaving
a riparian buffer, when clearing or building near a stream (Factor D).
In Tennessee, any waterway with a State-listed species is designated an
``Exceptional Tennessee Waterway,'' and projects impacting these
streams are required to undergo additional review before receiving the
necessary State permits. While agriculture is typically exempt from
many of the provisions in State laws, various efforts described above,
such as those in the Paint Rock River and South Chickamauga Creek, are
working to reduce the impact of sedimentation from agriculture on the
snail darter. Additionally, the snail darter's range overlaps with the
ranges of more than 10 federally endangered mussels. This provides some
protection, as entities implementing projects with a Federal nexus,
such as infrastructure repair and construction and dam operation, are
required to consult with the Service to reduce the impacts to listed
species and designated critical habitat. These consultations may result
in changes to the project to reduce sedimentation or limit the time of
year when construction can take place to reduce disruption to the life
history of a species. The protection, restoration, conservation, and
management of ecological resources within the snail darter's range have
been broadly enhanced through Executive Orders and Federal regulations
since the species was listed. These include provisions emphasizing the
protection and restoration of ecosystem function and quality in
compliance with existing Federal environmental statutes and regulations
(e.g., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
and Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) and endorsing
Federal efforts to advance environmental goals. Recent water resources
authorizations have also enhanced opportunities for the involvement of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies in studies
and projects to specifically
[[Page 48965]]
address objectives related to the restoration of ecological resources
(e.g., section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.).
Protections associated with the CWA and State wildlife laws will
continue to provide some protection to the snail darter. The fear that
the species' notoriety would result in increased collection or other
forms of take has not been realized since we reclassified the species
to threatened, and collection is unlikely to have a major impact on
species resilience in the foreseeable future. Additionally, even if
range States were to cease protecting the snail darter, its wide range
and current redundancy should minimize its risk of extinction for the
foreseeable future.
In addition to the threats mentioned in the downlisting rule (49 FR
27510; July 5, 1984) that are addressed above, we now consider other
threats or stressors that reasonably could affect the snail darter in
the foreseeable future. One such potential threat is climate change. In
the southeastern United States, clear trends in climate predictions are
limited. However, annual temperatures are projected to increase, cold
days will become less frequent, the freeze-free season will lengthen by
up to a month, temperatures exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)
(35 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) will increase, heat waves will become
longer, and the number of category 5 hurricanes will increase (Ingram
et al. 2013, p. 32). Variability in weather is predicted to increase,
resulting in more frequent and more extreme dry years and wet years
over the next century, but a directional shift in overall precipitation
is not anticipated in the Tennessee River Valley (Mulholland et al.
1997, pp. 951-955; Ingram et al. 2013, pp. 15, 35).
There is some evidence that the increased variability may already
be taking effect. 2018 and 2019 were the two wettest years on record
for the Tennessee River Valley (Simmons 2020, unpublished data). During
the late summer and early fall of 2019, the second wettest year
overall, parts of the Valley temporarily experienced abnormally dry or
drought conditions (USDA Drought Monitor for Tennessee River Valley,
October 1, 2019).
Increased rainfall will result in increased runoff, higher river
levels, and longer periods of spilling from the top of dams by TVA.
During periods of spilling at dams, there is the chance for more
oxygenation of tailwaters and temperature mixing that could benefit the
snail darter. However, increased rainfall, especially extreme events,
would increase runoff of sediment and pollutants into tributaries and
eventually into the mainstem. These inputs could potentially degrade
spawning and foraging habitat for the snail darter. Increased flows
during the spawning season could also increase the distance that the
pelagic larvae of snail darters drift before becoming benthic. If the
larvae found suitable habitat, increased flow could expand the range of
the species and contribute to genetic mixing; however, there is also
the chance that larvae could be pushed into unsuitable habitat, which
would result in reduced survival. Drought would most likely impact the
shallower habitats inhabited by snail darters in tributaries. The area
of shoal habitat available during periods of low flow could be reduced
during a drought. The flows could be further reduced by water
extraction for irrigation. These reductions of spawning habitat could
result in lower spawning success. If discharge is reduced enough, the
clean-swept gravel habitats that the snail darter relies on in the
mainstem could begin to retain silt, reducing habitat quality.
There is evidence that the habitat and life history of the snail
darter will protect it from predicted changes in climate over the next
30 years. In a 2017 climate change vulnerability assessment of 700
species, the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC)
ranked the snail darter as ``presumed stable'' through 2050 under
predicted climate conditions (Appalachian LCC 2017, supplemental data).
Being adapted to large river habitats, the snail darter is less
susceptible to impacts from high-flow events. As much of its habitat in
the mainstem is already impounded, the effects of high water are less
meaningful, and TVA flood control efforts may offset some of the strong
flow peaks associated with extreme rain events. The species' preference
for deeper water habitats and late winter spawning period protects it
from drought. Deep water habitats are not impacted by droughts as
drastically as shallow habitats. The RRIP in TVA tailwaters ensures
availability of suitable water for the mainstem populations throughout
the year despite the occurrence of drought. Drought is also unlikely to
impact spawning events on shoals in tributaries because late winter and
early spring are typically the wettest times of the year within the
Tennessee River Valley. The snail darter is likely also protected from
the projected temperature increases by adaptation to larger streams and
the thermal buffering of the large reservoirs on the mainstem.
If we examine current projections beyond our 30-year foreseeable
future, under plausible future greenhouse gas concentrations termed
representative concentration pathways (RCP), warming temperatures and
precipitation projections continue to suggest mixed effects to the
species. Relative to 1981-2010, over 2050-2074, the 50th percentile
(median) for the Tennessee Region, maximum air temperature warms by 4.4
[deg]F (2.4 [ordm]C) in RCP 4.5, whereas the region warms by 6.4 [deg]F
(3.6 [ordm]C) in RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). Changes in
precipitation are not as apparent. Relative to 1981-2010, over 2050-
2074, the 50th percentile (median) for the Tennessee Region,
precipitation increases by only 0.2 in (5.1 mm) per month in both RCP
4.5 and RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). We are not
extending the foreseeable future timeline beyond 2050 because the snail
darter's response to changing climatic conditions is less certain after
2050. We have greater certainty about the species' response to changing
climactic conditions between now and 2050 because we have both the
projections and scientific sources that predict the species' response,
such as the LCC report. Further, the climate projections are more
reliable between now and 2050 as compared to beyond 2050 because the
models diverge after 2050. As a result, we do not consider the snail
darter to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the
foreseeable future.
The increases documented in the abundance and distribution of the
snail darter since it was listed in 1975 have led to a better
understanding of the current and future condition of the species'
resiliency, redundancy, and representation across the range. The
observed variations in population size, density, or distribution of the
snail darter are typical of metapopulation dynamics. Surveys have shown
that individual populations may decline based on localized stressors
(e.g., severe sedimentation, toxic spills, streamflow alteration) or
their cumulative effects. When threats occur together, one may
exacerbate the effects of another, causing effects not accounted for
when threats are analyzed individually. However, the best available
information does not demonstrate that cumulative effects are occurring
at a level sufficient to negatively affect the species.
Determination of the Snail Darter's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50
[[Page 48966]]
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a
species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' For a more detailed
discussion on the factors considered when determining whether a species
meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species
and our analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in making
these decisions, see Regulatory and Analytical Framework, above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have found that snail darter representation and redundancy has
increased, with extant populations in 7 mainstem reservoirs of the
Tennessee River and 10 tributaries in the Tennessee River watershed. Of
the mainstem reservoirs, six populations showed multiple age classes,
and for these six, we have observed direct evidence of reproduction in
three populations, indicating moderate or high resilience. Collection
efforts in two mainstem reservoirs, Wilson and Kentucky reservoirs,
failed to find snail darters during our analysis period. Of the
tributaries, nine populations demonstrated moderate to high resilience;
one population is considered to have low resilience with no evidence of
reproduction; three tributary populations (Citico Creek, Flint River,
and Shoal Creek) lack sufficient collections during our analysis period
to consider them established. Additionally, the species is now known to
be present in four physiographic regions, indicating increased
representation, and the multiple, resilient populations indicate an
increase in redundancy since the species was reclassified to threatened
in 1984. Because the snail darter has increased in representation and
redundancy generally, and in particular with respect to numbers of
resilient, self-sustaining populations, we expect this species to be
able to sustain populations into the foreseeable future.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information regarding the threats faced by the snail darter in
developing this proposed rule. Threats reported at the time of listing
(1975) and when we downlisted the species to threatened status (1984)
related to habitat loss and curtailment of range (Factor A) have been
reduced in many locations, and available data indicate the species
possesses greater resilience to the negative effects of dams than was
determined at the time of listing. Further, beneficial dam operations
(i.e., RRIP) are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
At the time of the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), it
was thought that the notoriety of the snail darter would result in an
increase in illegal collection (Factor B); however, no such activities
have been seen, and we do not consider this a threat to the current or
future viability of the species. State water quality and wildlife laws
provide some protections to the snail darter and its habitat, and its
range overlaps with other federally protected aquatic animals (Factor
D). In addition, we have evaluated potential effects of climate change
(Factor E) and determined that it is not a primary threat to the
species. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that the snail darter is not in danger of extinction or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the snail darter is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion
of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is
significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for the snail darter, we choose to
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the
species may be endangered or threatened. For the snail darter, we
considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any
portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale. We
examined the following threats: Habitat modification, curtailment of
range, climate change, and illegal collection, including cumulative
effects.
Threats related to habitat modification or curtailment of range
affect snail darters throughout their range. With the implementation of
TVA's RRIP, conditions around the large dams on the mainstem of the
Tennessee River have improved. Our analysis of the species' resiliency
(see above, Analytical Framework), which integrated information on
demographics and threats, determined that six out of nine reservoir
populations showed multiple age classes, and for these six, we have
observed direct evidence of reproduction in three of these reservoirs.
These reservoirs with resilient populations are distributed across the
snail darter's range and multiple geographic provinces. Of the 10
resilient tributary populations, 9 populations demonstrated moderate to
high resiliency. In tributary watersheds such as the Ocoee and
Sequatchie where water quality was impacted by localized mining
threats, conditions have improved due in part to the cessation of
mining and efforts to clean up the mine sites. In watersheds with
higher levels of agriculture and urbanization such as the South
Chickamauga Creek and Paint Rock River watersheds, conservation
programs are in place to reduce the impact of these activities on the
instream habitat used by the snail darter. Based on the distribution of
resilient populations and the conservation efforts put in place, we
have determined that threats related to habitat modification or
curtailment of range are not concentrated in any portion of the
species' range.
We have reviewed other potential threats, including climate change,
illegal collection, and cumulative effects, and we concluded that none
of them is concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion of the species'
range can provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range, and we find the species is not in
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in any significant portion of its range. This is consistent
[[Page 48967]]
with the court's holding in Desert Survivors v. Department of the
Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018); and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d,
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the snail darter does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we propose to remove the snail
darter from the List.
Effects of This Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by
removing the snail darter from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to the snail darter. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act in the event
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the snail
darter. There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so
there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.
This rule would not affect the snail darter's status as an
endangered or threatened species under State laws or suspend any other
legal protections provided by those laws. States may have more
restrictive laws protecting wildlife, and these would not be affected
by this Federal action. However, this proposed rule may prompt
Tennessee or Georgia to remove protection for the snail darter under
their endangered species laws, although we are not aware of any such
intention at this time.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a
species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is
not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency
listing.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However,
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and,
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the
snail darter. The PDM plan will build upon current research and
effective management practices that have improved the status of the
species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven
management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species
will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and
reacting to significant changes in snail darter numbers, distribution,
and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these
thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants,
will investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to
determine if the snail darter warrants expanded monitoring, additional
research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal
protection under the Act. We will draft the PDM plan and will notify
the public on our website, https://www.fws.gov/cookeville, when it is
available. Copies will also be available from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We anticipate finalizing a PDM plan at
the time of making a final determination on the proposed delisting
rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. As we move forward with this
rulemaking process, we will continue to consult with Tribes on a
government-to-government basis as necessary.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
[[Page 48968]]
under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0152.
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11 in paragraph (h) by removing the entry for
``Darter, snail'' under FISHES from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-18127 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P