[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64158-64176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25092]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Okaloosa Darter From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae) from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to recovery. 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 a threatened
or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We request information and comments from the public
regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan for Okaloosa darters. If this proposal is finalized,
Okaloosa darters will be removed from the List and the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to the species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
January 18, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 3, 2022.
ADDRESSES:
Submitting Comments: You may submit comments on this proposed rule
and draft PDM plan by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). For
best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the
docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on
the Search button. On the resulting page, in the 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.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments by only one of 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).
Accessing Supporting Materials: This proposed rule, draft PDM plan,
and supporting documents (including the Species Status Assessment (SSA)
and references cited and the 5-year review) are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Florida Chief of
Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL
32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3134. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 64159]]
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for
listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from the
Federal 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 Okaloosa darters from the List, we must
publish a proposed rule.
What this document does. This action proposes to remove Okaloosa
darters from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e.,
``delist'' the species) 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 based on any
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis
of the same factors. 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 Okaloosa darters should be
proposed for delisting under the Act because, based on an analysis of
the five listing factors, it has recovered and no longer meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened 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 and information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies (including but not limited to State and Federal agencies and
city or county governments), Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments on:
(1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of the Okaloosa
darter;
(2) Relevant data concerning presence or absence of current or
future threats to the Okaloosa darter and its habitat;
(3) Information regarding management plans or other mechanisms that
provide protection to the Okaloosa darter and its habitat;
(4) Information on the potential for changes in precipitation
levels and air and water temperatures to affect the Okaloosa darter due
to changes in the climate or other reasons; and
(5) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach described.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 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.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
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 remain listed as threatened.
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 June 4, 1973, we published a final rule in the Federal Register
(38 FR 14678) listing Okaloosa darters as endangered under the
Endangered Species Conservation Act (Pub. L. 91-135) due to its
extremely limited range, habitat degradation, and apparent competition
from a possibly introduced related species, the brown darter
(Etheostoma edwini). A 5-year status review was conducted in 2007
(USFWS 2007, entire), and we recommended downgrading the species'
classification to threatened as a result of substantial reduction in
threats to the species, significant habitat restoration in most of the
species' range, and a stable or increasing trend of Okaloosa darters in
all stream systems. We reclassified Okaloosa darters as threatened
under the Act on April 1, 2011, and established a rule under section
4(d) to further provide for its conservation (76 FR 18087); the section
4(d) rule is at 50 CFR 17.44(bb). On August 6, 2018, we initiated a 5-
year review for Okaloosa darters (83 FR 38320). This proposed rule also
serves as our 5-year review.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
Okaloosa darters (USFWS, 2019, entire). The SSA team was composed of
Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial
data available concerning the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270),
[[Page 64160]]
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert
opinions of six appropriate specialists regarding the SSA. The Service
received two responses.
Background
The Okaloosa darter is a small (maximum size 49 millimeters (mm),
1.93 inches (in)) percid fish. General body coloration varies from red-
brown to green-yellow dorsally, and lighter ventrally, although
breeding males have a bright orange submarginal stripe on the first
dorsal fin (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 23). The Okaloosa darter is a
member of Order Perciformes, Family Percidae and is a distinct species
within the genus Etheostoma (Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 23), although it
remains uncertain as to which subgenus this species belongs (e.g., Song
et al. 1998 pp. 348-351; Smith et al. 2014 pp. 259-260).
The Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic, known to occur in only the
tributaries and main channels of six clear stream systems that drain
into three Choctawhatchee Bay bayous (Toms, Boggy, and Rocky) in Walton
and Okaloosa Counties in northwest Florida: Toms, Turkey, Mill, Swift,
Deer Moss (formerly known as East Turkey or Turkey Bolton), and Rocky
Creeks. Approximately 90 percent of the 457-square-kilometer (176-
square-mile) watershed drainage area that historically supported
Okaloosa darters is Federal property under the management of Eglin Air
Force Base (Eglin AFB), including about 98.7 percent of the stream
length in the current range of the Okaloosa darter. Eglin AFB
encompasses the headwaters of all six of these drainages, and the
remainder of these streams flow out of Eglin AFB into the urban complex
of the cities of Niceville and Valparaiso (USAF 2017c, p. 3-1; 76 FR
18088, April 1, 2011).
The Okaloosa darter's breeding season extends from late March
through October, although it usually peaks in April. Spawning pairs
attach small numbers of eggs to vegetation, woody debris, and root mats
(Collete and Yerger 1962, p. 226; Burkhead et al. 1994, p. 81);
however, little is known about larval development (Burkhead et al.
1992, p. 26). Okaloosa darter spawn in the morning hours (Burkhead et
al. 1992, p. 26), although courtship displays have also been observed
late in the afternoon (Jelks 2018, pers. comm.). During courtship, a
male will follow a single female and fertilize eggs as she deposits
them singly among vegetation, roots, or woody detritus. Males will
spawn with several females. As with most darters, fecundity is low
(Burkhead et al. 1992, p. 26). A mean of 76 total ova (eggs) and 29
mature ova were found in 201 female Okaloosa darters, although these
numbers may underrepresent annual fecundity as their prolonged spawning
season is an indication of fractional spawning (eggs develop and mature
throughout the spawning season) (Ogilvie 1980, p. 4; 76 FR 18088, April
1, 2011).
Longleaf pine-wiregrass-red oak sandhill communities dominate the
vegetation landscape in Okaloosa darter watersheds. These areas are
characterized by high sand ridges where soil nutrients are low and
woodland fire is a regular occurrence. Where water seeps from these
hills, acid bog communities develop, consisting of sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum sp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia sp.), and other plants
adapted to low-nutrient soils. In other areas, the water emerges from
seepage springs directly into clear flowing streams where variation of
both temperature and flow is moderated by the deep layers of sand. The
streams support a mixture of bog moss (Mayaca fluviatilis), bulrush
(Schoenoplectus etuberculatus), golden club (Orontium aquaticum), bur-
reed (Sparganium americanum), pondweed (Potamogeton diversifolius),
spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), and other aquatic and emergent plants.
Okaloosa darters typically inhabit the margins of moderate- to fast-
flowing streams where detritus (organic matter, including leaves,
twigs, and sticks), root mats, and vegetation are present (Burkhead et
al. 1992, p. 25; 76 FR 18088, April 1, 2011). They are rarely found in
areas with no current or in open sandy areas in the middle of the
stream channel. Creeks with Okaloosa darters have temperatures ranging
from 7 to 22 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (44 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) in the winter to 22 to 29 [deg]C (72 to 84 [deg]F) in the
summer (Mettee and Crittenden 1977, p. 5; Tate 2018, pers. comm.; Jelks
2018, pers. comm). Overhead canopies range from open to fully closed
depending on stream width and fire history (Jordan 2018, pers. comm.).
Okaloosa darter thrive in reaches with relatively open canopies, likely
due to either increased abundance of submerged vegetation that is used
preferentially for spawning or increased secondary production of insect
prey (Ingram 2018, p. 11).
Okaloosa darter abundance has been quantified by visual census at
multiple sites annually since 1995. Densities in 1995 averaged 1.2
( 0.8; 1 standard deviation) Okaloosa darter
per meter (3.28 feet) of stream length. In 2005, a rangewide survey
estimated the species' population size at 822,500 (95 percent
Confidence Interval 662,916 to 1,058,009). A repeat rangewide survey in
2014 indicated that overall abundance declined by about 24 percent from
2005 (Jordan and Jelks 2018, pp. 10-11). However, 2005 was an unusually
good year for Okaloosa darter, and the 2014 estimates reflect some
declines associated with dense canopy cover.
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of Okaloosa darters is presented in the SSA report
(USFWS 2019, entire; available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036).
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. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
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
[[Page 64161]]
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 objective of the Okaloosa darter recovery plan is to restore
and protect habitat and stream ecosystems so that Okaloosa darters may
be initially downlisted (which occurred in 2011) and eventually
delisted. The Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic that occupies the
unique habitats of only six stream systems. Recovery objectives are
focused on habitats within their historical range. The recovery plan
states that Okaloosa darters will be considered for delisting when:
1. (a) All downlisting criteria have been met; (b) historical
habitat of all six streams has been restored to support viable
populations of Okaloosa darters (including degraded sections of Mill,
Swift, and Tom Creeks); (c) erosion at clay pits, road crossings, and
steep slopes has been minimized to the extent that resembles historical
predisturbance condition; (d) longleaf restoration and watershed
management practices on Eglin AFB are in effect; (e) natural,
historical flow regimes are maintained; and (f) water quality and
riparian habitat have been significantly improved and maintained.
2. (a) Cooperative and enforceable agreements are in place to
protect habitat and water quality and quantity for the historical range
outside of Eglin AFB; and (b) management plans that protect and restore
habitat and water quality and quantity have been effective and are
still in place for the 90 percent of the historical range currently
managed by Eglin AFB.
3. Okaloosa darter populations at monitoring sites consist of two
or more age-classes and remain stable or increasing in all six streams
over a period of 20 consecutive years.
4. No foreseeable threats exist that would impact the survival of
this species (assumes military mission is compatible).
Recovery Plan Implementation
The following discussion summarizes the recovery criteria and
information on recovery actions that have been implemented under each
delisting criterion.
Recovery Criteria
Delisting Criterion #1: All reclassification criteria have been
met. (This criterion has been met.)
Delisting Criterion #2: Restore and protect habitat in the six
Okaloosa darter stream watersheds.
The Okaloosa darter is naturally restricted in distribution to six
streams, of which about 90 percent of the basins are on Eglin AFB and
the remaining 10 percent in the Niceville and Valparaiso municipal
area. Because of the specific habitat requirements and limited
distribution of the darter, habitat that is essential for spawning,
rearing, feeding, and cover needs to be restored and protected to
prevent the species from declining irreversibly and to recover the
species.
Much progress has been made towards actions identified for Okaloosa
darters under this criterion since the species was downlisted from
endangered to threatened. Erosion into the streams has been reduced to
background levels, nearly all fish passage barriers on Eglin AFB have
been removed, several projects have been completed to restore and
reconnect stream habitat, and conservation agreements with local
landowners have been put in place on private lands to protect stream
and floodplain habitat. The Eglin AFB erosion control program, habitat
restoration programs, and habitat protections agreed to by private
landowners have improved habitat for Okaloosa darters sufficient to
partially meet this criterion.
Delisting Criterion #3: Erosion at clay pits, road crossings, and
steep slopes has been minimized to the extent that resemble historical
pre-disturbance condition. (This criterion is partially fulfilled and
progress is ongoing.)
Delisting Criterion #4: Longleaf restoration and watershed
management practices on the Eglin AFB are in effect. (This criterion is
largely fulfilled. Both longleaf and watershed management practices are
in effect on Eglin AFB.)
Delisting Criterion #5: Natural, historical flow regimes are
maintained. (This criterion has been met.)
Delisting Criterion #6: Water quality and riparian habitat have
been significantly improved and maintained. (This criterion is
partially fulfilled, and progress is ongoing.)
Delisting Criterion #7: Cooperative and enforceable agreements are
in place to protect habitat and water quality and quantity for the
historical range outside of Eglin AFB ((2)(a), above), and management
plans that protect and restore habitat and water quality and quantity
have been effective and are still in place for the 90 percent of the
historical range currently managed by Eglin AFB ((2)(b), above).
About 90 percent of the 51,397 hectares (127,000 acres) that
represent the drainage basins of darter streams are managed by Eglin
AFB. Eglin AFB will continue to include management for Okaloosa darters
in the Eglin AFB's Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP), changes to which are reviewed and approved by both the Service
and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as
specified under the Sikes Act. Eglin AFB has no plans to remove
management from the INRMP or limit management within Okaloosa darter
watersheds (Tate 2020, pers. comm.). In fact, Eglin AFB is working with
the Service to shift prescribed fire management to reduce canopy cover
in Okaloosa darter streams to further bolster darter numbers and
stabilize monitoring sites with observed declines. Additionally, Eglin
AFB has placed protective buffers on Okaloosa darter streams to prevent
land use changes and management actions that might adversely affect
Okaloosa darters or their habitat, thus protecting 90 percent of the
darter's watershed area from impacts (Felix 2020, pers. comm.).
Outside the Eglin AFB boundary, the remaining 485.6 hectares (1,200
acres) of Okaloosa darter habitat are situated in the Niceville-
Valparaiso urban complex. Okaloosa darters are found at reduced levels
or absent from much of this area. Current stream impacts include
erosion, non-point discharge of nutrients and pollutants, impoundment,
alteration of flow, and culverting. Conservation agreements and habitat
buffering on private property further prevent adverse impacts to an
additional 3-4 percent of the potential range (Ruckel Properties 2018,
entire). In total, 90-95 percent of the watershed area has established
protections, and monitoring will ensure this criterion continues to be
met.
Delisting Criterion #8: Management plans that protect and restore
habitat and water quality and quantity have been effective and are
still in place for the 90 percent of the historical range currently
managed by Eglin AFB. (This criterion is largely fulfilled through
Eglin's 2007 INRMP.)
Delisting Criterion #9: Okaloosa darter populations at monitoring
sites consist of two or more age-classes and remain stable or
increasing in all six streams over a period of 20 consecutive years.
Monitoring for Okaloosa darters has been conducted annually at 21
core sites distributed throughout the range since 1995. In 2005, 2014,
and 2020,
[[Page 64162]]
expanded monitoring efforts of 58 sites were conducted to estimate the
population size and inform the status review and species status
assessment. Additional monitoring has been conducted to support
specific research projects. In general, Okaloosa darter numbers
increased in the late 1990's through early 2000's, at which time
declines were observed at a subset of sites (Jordan and Jelks 2020).
Multiple year classes have been recorded in each of the six watersheds
in all years of study, regardless of declines (Jordan and Jelks 2020).
Although declines have been identified in portions of the range, the
majority of the declines could be associated with dense canopy cover
limiting vegetation and primary productivity in the stream (Jordan and
Jelks 2020). Eglin AFB natural resource managers are working to shift
habitat management activities like prescribed fire, vegetative
spraying, or mechanical timber stand improvement to limit excessive
riparian growth along Okaloosa darter streams. Monitoring data will
continue to be collected and used to assess and inform management
actions in Okaloosa darter watersheds.
Regardless of declines, the overall population estimate for
Okaloosa darters was greater than 500,000 individuals in 2020 (Jordan
and Jelks 2020) and range-wide densities generally remain above 2
darters per meter of inhabited stream (Jordan and Jelks 2020), which is
approximately 90% of the species' historic range. Maintaining multiple
viable populations substantially reduces the risk of species
extinction, and future scenario modelling suggests that resiliency and
redundancy will persist into the foreseeable future (USFWS 2019). This
criterion has been fully met.
Delisting Criterion #10: No foreseeable threats exist that would
impact the survival of this species.
Potential future threats to the Okaloosa darter are to its habitat,
particularly in three of the smaller basins: Mill Creek, Swift Creek,
and Deer Moss Creek. Human activity has degraded physical and chemical
habitat quality in these basins, though only the Deer Moss Creek
population exhibits declines. Mill Creek is almost entirely within the
Eglin AFB golf course, who sponsored a major stream restoration in 2007
that nearly doubled the inhabited stream in this watershed. The golf
course has also implemented best management practices (BMPs) for
herbicide and pesticide application that limit impacts to Mill Creek.
The lower portions of Swift Creek are nearly completely urbanized, but
our models show that the planned restoration of College Pond would
nearly double the population size. Stream restoration at College Pond
would not only add substantial habitat to the watershed, it would also
remove a fish passage barrier to multiple tributaries that are
currently unoccupied by Okaloosa darters. Eglin AFB is currently
working with USFWS, FWC, and community partners to begin engineering
designs for this project.
The portions of Deer Moss Creek outside Eglin AFB are currently
subject to development pressure; however, during the FWC endangered
species permit process, developments and other actions must show a net
benefit to the species before approval by the State. In the case of
Deer Moss Creek, a conservation plan was developed that prevents
construction in all wetlands and an upland buffer, requires bridges
that completely span all wetlands, and requires the removal of two fish
passage barriers within the watershed, among other provisions (Ruckel
Properties, 2014). In addition to protections from urbanization in
lower Deer Moss Creek, the Niceville wastewater treatment facility was
upgraded in 2010 to reduce nutrients in sprayfield effluent. Recent
studies at Eglin AFB have found that groundwater transport in the Deer
Moss Creek watershed is approximately 12-18 years (Landmeyer 2020,
unpublished data), so the water quality in the stream should improve
over time.
Because the range of the Okaloosa darter is almost entirely on
Federal lands, nearly all actions in this area were subject to the
interagency cooperation requirements of section 7. Following delisting,
the protections under section 7 will no longer apply; however, Eglin
AFB plans to maintain protections for the Okaloosa darter by
maintaining a buffer around Okaloosa darter streams during
infrastructure and mission planning, developing enhanced BMPs to limit
erosion during construction projects and continue monitoring stream
health (Felix 2020, pers. comm.). Additionally, any action on Federal
or private lands that impact wetlands would require permits under the
Clean Water Act. Eglin protection and restoration of Okaloosa darter
streams is a substantial component of natural resources management on
Eglin AFB. Approximately 90 percent of the species' range is under the
management of Eglin AFB; urbanization will have little to no future
effect. Because Okaloosa darters occur in multiple stream systems,
which provides redundancy, and no long-term threats are presently
impacting Okaloosa darters at the species level in the foreseeable
future, this criterion has been met.
Regulatory and Analytical 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 expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species
[[Page 64163]]
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 Service
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. In the discussion of threats and the
species' response to those threats that follows, we include, where
possible, either a qualitative or quantitative assessment of the timing
of the threats and species' responses to those threats.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
stressors to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision
by the Service on whether the species should be proposed for delisting.
However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
In this section, we summarize the key conclusions from the SSA report;
the full SSA report can be found on the Southeast Region website at
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036.
To assess the Okaloosa darter's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency
describes 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
changes). In general, the more redundant and resilient a species is,
and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain
populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions.
Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological
requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk
factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Summary of Threats and Conservation Measures That Affect the Species
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Stressors to Okaloosa darter stem from two main sources: Land use
and management practices on Eglin AFB and urbanization around the lower
reaches of streams outside of Eglin AFB. Urbanization is the greatest
threat to Okaloosa darter, as development leads to pollution, erosion,
and sedimentation, altered water flows, and dispersal barriers through
multiple pathways. Land use and management practices such as road
building, timber harvesting, and fire suppression can affect abundance
of Okaloosa darter on Eglin AFB. The effects of a changing climate,
such as increasing stream temperatures, could become a threat to
Okaloosa darters throughout their geographic range in the future;
however, the degree and magnitude of any impacts are uncertain at this
time. Impending development along Deer Moss Creek would likely be
completed in 20 years; however, a conservation plan is in place to
minimize impacts to Deer Moss Creek.
Sedimentation and Erosion
Sediment loading is perhaps the primary factor continuing to impact
Okaloosa darter. The primary sources of sediment to aquatic ecosystems
on Eglin AFB are: accelerated streamside erosion, borrow pits (areas
where clay, sand, or gravel are removed for use at other locations),
developed areas, weapon test ranges, silviculture, and roads (Rainer et
al. 2005, p. 1-1). Sedimentation can result from unpaved roads, road
crossings, road or development projects (e.g., solar power grids), and
can also result from poor stormwater control or runoff during heavy,
localized rains. Even though the species has been impacted by these
threats, the current population estimate is approximately 1.2 million
darters across its range.
Management for Okaloosa darters is outlined in Eglin AFB's INRMP,
which includes specific goals and objectives to improve Okaloosa darter
habitat, and Eglin AFB has demonstrated a commitment to recovery of the
species. Therefore, management and other conservation actions are much
more likely to occur on Eglin AFB than surrounding properties (USFWS
2007, p. 5). These streams on Eglin AFB flow mostly through forested,
natural settings, whereas off-installation, they interface mostly with
urban and suburban areas. Eglin AFB personnel have implemented this
effective habitat restoration program to control erosion from roads,
borrow pits, and cleared test ranges. Since 1995, Eglin AFB personnel
have restored 317 sites covering 196.2
[[Page 64164]]
hectares (484.8 acres) that were eroding into Okaloosa darter streams,
including borrow pits and other non-point sources (pollution created
from larger processes and not from one concentrated point source, like
excess sediment from a construction site washing into a stream after a
rain) of stream sedimentation (76 FR 18090, April 1, 2011). Erosion
into the streams has been reduced to background levels, nearly all fish
passage barriers on Eglin AFB have been removed, several restoration
projects have been completed to restore and reconnect stream habitat,
and conservation agreements with local landowners (on 3-4 percent of
potential Okaloosa darter range) have been put in place on private
lands to protect stream and floodplain habitat (Wetland Sciences 2011,
entire).
Eglin AFB personnel estimate that these and other restoration
efforts have reduced soil loss from roughly 69,000 tons/year in
Okaloosa darter watersheds in 1994 to approximately 2,500 tons/year in
2010 (Pizzolato 2017, pers. comm.). While soils will always be highly
susceptible to disturbance and sedimentation and erosion could impact
the species, habitat restoration work has improved Okaloosa darter
habitat within the base. Improvements like bottomless culverts, bridges
over streams, and bank restoration and revegetation have resulted in
increased clarity of the water, stability of the channel and its banks,
and expansion of Okaloosa darters into new areas within drainages (76
FR 18090, April 1, 2011). Poorly designed silviculture programs can
result in accelerated soil erosion and stream sedimentation, but Eglin
AFB personnel have designed their program within Okaloosa darter
habitat to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic ecosystems such
that the program is not likely to adversely affect Okaloosa darters
(USAF 2017, pp. 4-23; USFWS 2017, pp. 11-12).
Forest and timber management in Okaloosa darter drainages is
generally directed toward habitat management for the red-cockaded
woodpecker or fuel reduction near military test ranges and in the urban
interface, which involve the use of prescribed fire, mechanical or
chemical timber stand improvement as well as traditional forestry
practices for timber harvest and fuel-wood. Recently timbered areas may
leave exposed sandy patches, which can be susceptible to wind erosion.
However, erosion has been reduced to background levels; all of these
habitat management programs are coordinated through Eglin AFB and are
conducted in accordance with State and Federal best management
practices (USAF 2017, p. 77, INRMP forestry component plan).
Road Development Projects
Unpaved roads, their low-water stream crossings, and subsequent
bank erosion probably have the greatest impact because of their
distribution on Eglin AFB, relative permanence as base infrastructure,
and long-term soil disturbance characteristics. The largest remaining
source of sediment input to Okaloosa darter streams is the unpaved road
network, which allows sediment to be washed off the road and into
nearby streams, especially where they cross the stream itself. As of
2005, 87 percent (4,348 km) of the roads in Eglin AFB's road network
were unpaved, and remain so currently (Felix 2018, pers. comm.).
Road crossings can be detrimental to Okaloosa darter depending on
their design. Pipe culverts alter stream flow and impede movement of
Okaloosa darter, whereas bridges and bottomless culverts do not. Of the
153 road crossings that previously existed in Okaloosa darter
drainages, 57 have been eliminated--28 in Boggy Bayou streams and 29 in
Rocky Bayou streams. Although many road crossings have been removed and
restored through road closures and restoration efforts over the last
few years, others remain and pose a threat to Okaloosa darter and their
habitat. For example, five road crossings in the Turkey Creek drainage
have repeatedly exceeded State water quality standards for turbidity
(USFWS 2017, p. 11).
Road development projects also present potential threats that may
negatively impact Okaloosa darter. The Mid-Bay Bridge Authority's Mid-
Bay Connector Road (Connector Road), a road constructed from the
terminus of the Mid-Bay Bridge to SR 85 north of Niceville, was
completed in February 2014 (USFWS 2017, p. 13). Although the Connector
Road crosses Okaloosa darter drainages, conservation measures included
19 stipulations to minimize impacts to darter drainages. For example,
the project used environmentally sensitive bridge construction
techniques and measures to minimize erosion and ground disturbance at
each stream crossing and to maintain channel stability. Because the
bridges were designed to maintain natural stream geomorphology and were
built using appropriate methods to stabilize stream banks and provide
erosion control along the stream, long-term erosion and degradation of
Okaloosa darter habitat is not anticipated. Monitoring before, during,
and after construction detected no significant project-related changes
in abundance of Okaloosa darter above or below any of the new stream
crossings (Jordan and Jelks, unpublished data). However, the project
impacted multiple areas of Okaloosa darter streams via erosion
associated with large storm events, and in 2012 violated erosion
controls. One of the stream crossings required a full stream
restoration within the project limits and downstream from the project
area. Erosion-related issues were also reported in 2013 (USFWS 2017, p.
13). As part of further mitigation of the Connector Road's accumulated
negative impacts on Okaloosa darters, to date the Mid-Bay Bridge
Authority has improved road crossings of Okaloosa darter streams at
seven sites on Eglin AFB and at one site off of Eglin AFB. As of
February 2019, the Mid-Bay Bridge Authority has no plans for future
corridors; however, the existing corridor could be widened to four
lanes if future traffic projections justify the need (USFWS 2017, p.
13).
The construction of the Connector Road created several relatively
small ``orphaned'' parcels of Eglin AFB-owned property, whereby the
road effectively separated those parcels from the natural resources
management practices employed elsewhere over the contiguous Eglin AFB
reservation properties. Three of these orphan parcels lie within the
Okaloosa darter geographic range (approximately 740, 170, and 260
acres) and surround segments of four occupied streams (Mill, Swift,
Turkey, and Deer Moss Creeks). Eglin AFB has historically considered
orphan parcels candidates both for leasing through enhanced use
agreements and for real property transaction or exchange to public and
private entities in order to maximize the effectiveness of its real
property in supporting the United States Air Force (USAF) mission.
Eglin AFB may consider the three parcels mentioned above for such
transactions. However, the Eglin AFB has indicated its intent to
coordinate with the Service on the impacts of any environmental impact
analysis for such transactions (Felix 2018, pers. comm.).
In 2012, the Service issued a biological opinion for widening SR
123 from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway
from SR 85 South to SR 85 North to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) (USFWS 2017, p. 13). The widening included new two-lane bridges
at Toms Creek and Turkey Creek, and replacement of the culvert at the
unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek with two single-span bridges. The
biological opinion concluded that, while the effects of the project
included
[[Page 64165]]
displacement, injury, and mortality to Okaloosa darter resulting from
construction debris, equipment movement, dredge and fill activities,
sedimentation, introduction of contaminants, and habitat alteration, it
would not jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Okaloosa
darter if certain measures were implemented.
In 2015 and 2016, multiple erosion control failures resulted in
sediment from the project site discharging into streams occupied by
Okaloosa darter: Toms Creek, Shaw Still Branch, Turkey Creek, and an
unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek following storm events. The Service
worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, and the Florida
Department of Transportation to develop a restoration and compensation
plan; implementation began in 2018. The plan was designed to fully
offset all impacts and provide a net conservation benefit to the
species due to unforeseen, but preventable, impacts. In summer 2017,
the Service identified additional impacts of this highway project to
steepheads (deep ravines) outside of the initial defined Action Area
for this project (Tate 2018, pers. comm.; USFWS 2017, pp. 13-14).
Additionally, a working group including the Service and Eglin AFB was
formed to develop BMPs that would prevent erosion events and that would
be applied to base projects during site preparation and construction
(Tate 2018, pers. comm.). The goal of this effort is to prepare BMPs
and language/requirements to be included in the real estate leasing
agreements, which may help ensure the species' conservation if the
Act's protections are removed.
Stormwater Control
Development and construction activity in residential areas outside
of Eglin AFB and primarily in the downstream-most portion of the
Okaloosa darter range pose a threat due to poor stormwater runoff
control and pollution prevention measures that degrade habitat and
sometimes create barriers to movement between basins. Although this
threat is greater in urban areas, recent failures in erosion control
and stormwater management on Eglin AFB highlight the importance of
thoroughly understanding how proposed activities contribute to erosion
and stormwater management problems and implementing practices to
minimize those effects (USFWS 2017, p. 11).
For example, in June 2017, a significant stormwater retention pond
failure occurred on Eglin AFB property leased to Gulf Power and run by
Gulf Coast Solar Center I, LLC (Coronal Energy), for a solar energy
project. This failure caused extensive soil loss both on the leased
site and offsite on Eglin AFB property. Okaloosa darter habitat in an
unnamed tributary to Toms Creek was completely lost to sedimentation,
and additional sediment is still located throughout the floodplain.
However, this event impacted less than 0.1 percent of the estimated
populations involved, and design changes have been made that are
expected to fully offset all impacts and provide a net conservation
benefit to the species due to unforeseen, but preventable, impacts
(USFWS 2017, p. 14).
Borrow Pits
Borrow pits were a major source of sediment loading to Okaloosa
darter streams cited in the 1998 darter recovery plan. At that time, 29
of 39 borrow pits located within or immediately adjacent to Okaloosa
darter drainages had been restored. As of 2004, all borrow pits within
Okaloosa darter drainages had been restored (59.3 ha; 146.5 ac) (USAF
2017b, pp. 3-18; USFWS 2017, p. 11).
Pollution
Pollution, other than sedimentation, poses a potential threat to
darters. One stream in the darter's range, lower Turkey Creek (WBID
495A), is on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
(2018) Verified List as impaired, listing iron from a closed landfill
as the pollutant (USFWS 2018, entire). Using aquatic insect sampling
methods, the Service (Thom and Herod 2005, entire) found 12 sites out
of 42 sampled within the darter's range to be impaired. One notable
source of pollution in Shaw Still Branch and Deer Moss Creek results
from wastewater treatment sprayfields (the Niceville-Valparaiso
Regional Effluent Land Application Sprayfield) (USFWS 2017, pp. 12-13).
Abundance declines from about 45 Okaloosa darter per 20 m in the
headwaters just above the sprayfield down to 1 or fewer Okaloosa darter
per 20 m in the remaining 4 km or so of stream downstream from the
sprayfield (Jordan 2017, pp. 5-7; Jordan, unpublished data, Figure 8).
The actual pollutant has yet to be determined, but impacted streams
have high conductivity compared to the relatively sterile, ion-poor,
and slightly acidic streams that are typical of the area and likely
similar to streams where Okaloosa darter evolved. Contaminants found in
the portions of Deer Moss Creek exposed to sprayfield effluent were
shown to affect the biological processes of other species of fish in
those streams (Weil et al. 2012, p. 185). Municipal wastewater with
increased conductivity has been shown to negatively affect other
species of darters (Hitt et al. 2016, entire; Fuzzen et al. 2016,
entire).
Water Withdrawals
Water withdrawals for human consumption in and around the range of
Okaloosa darters are presently served by wells that tap the Floridan
Aquifer, which is declining in the most populated areas near the coast
(Pascale 1974, pp. 12). At this time, there is no evidence that pumping
from that aquifer has reduced flows in darter streams (USFWS 2017, p.
13). To the extent that the darter drainages are spring fed (by and
large they are fed by seepage), the springs are from the shallow sand
and gravel aquifer that is not currently used for human consumption.
Additionally, the low permeability of the Pensacola Clay confining bed
likely severely limits hydraulic connectivity between the two aquifers
(Schumm et al. 1995, p. 288). As long as withdrawals from the sand and
gravel aquifer are minimal, local human population growth should not
adversely affect water flows in the darter drainages (USFWS 2017, p.
13).
Effects of Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, entire).
Numerous long-term changes have been observed including changes in
arctic temperatures and ice, and widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of extreme weather
including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity
of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, entire). While continued change is
certain, the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases
(USFWS 2017, p. 14).
The current occupied range of the darter is restricted to
approximately 402 km of streams in Walton and Okaloosa Counties,
Florida. While science shows that global-scale increases in stream
temperatures have occurred (Kaushal et al. 2010, entire; Song et al.
2018, entire), streams within the Okaloosa darter range are seepage and
spring-fed, and thus thought to be thermally moderated (USFWS 2017, p.
14). However, thermal mediation varies among nearby Okaloosa darter
streams, and streams that support Okaloosa darter are strongly affected
by increases in air temperature (Jordan 2018, unpublished data).
Information required to evaluate whether increased temperatures in
streams will adversely affect Okaloosa darter is lacking; however,
declines in abundance following the impoundment
[[Page 64166]]
of small stream reaches are likely due in part to increased
temperatures, and the loss of darters below larger impoundments, such
as Brandt Pond and Swift Creek, are generally assumed to be due to
temperature change (Jordan 2018, pers. comm.). Because the distribution
of Okaloosa darters is limited, and they cannot expand northward,
stream temperature increases or sea level rise that would cause stream
inundation could pose a threat to Okaloosa darter by isolating the
populations. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2017, entire; NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer 2018) projects sea
level rise will be around 1.84 feet by year 2050 (Sweet et al. 2017,
Intermediate High scenario). While this increase will not inundate much
of the darter stream systems due to topography, it could isolate the
stream systems from each other, limiting genetic exchange (Tate 2018,
pers. comm., NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer 2018). However, the species has
maintained genetic exchange among populations despite current and
historic saltwater isolation (Austin et al. 2011).
Impoundments
Many streams within the range of Okaloosa darters have a history of
impoundment. These impoundments were either deliberately created to
produce recreational ponds or unintentionally formed following
installation of a poorly designed road crossing. Culverts and other
installations can also facilitate the creation of permanent
impoundments by North American beavers (Castor canadensis), which take
advantage of human-made alterations (Nicholson 2009, p. 5; Reeves et
al. 2016, p. 1376). Okaloosa darter do not occupy impounded stream
reaches (Mettee et al. 1976, p. 2; Nicholson 2009, p. 6) due to their
depth and low flow rates, variable water temperatures, more
accumulation of organic substrates, and higher numbers of predatory
fishes than free-flowing stream reaches (Nicholson 2009, pp. 34; Reeves
et al. 2016, p. 1376). Okaloosa darter living downstream of
impoundments are also negatively affected, sometimes for a considerable
distance. For instance, the roughly 3 km (60 percent) of Swift Creek
below College Pond and roughly 2 km (100 percent) of Foxhead Branch
below Brandt Pond currently lack Okaloosa darter (Jordan 2018, pers.
comm.). In the absence of predators, beaver populations can become
overpopulated (Nicholson 2009, p. 5). Eglin AFB currently traps and
relocates nuisance beavers and removes beaver impoundments in order to
improve stream habitats for Okaloosa darter and plans to continue this
work indefinitely (USAF 2017, pp. 512).
Barriers to Dispersal
All of the aforementioned threats could pose barriers to dispersal.
Road crossings and impoundments, however, create the most obvious
barriers, and many of these barriers have been removed. In 2011, when
Okaloosa darters were downlisted to threatened status, 4 of the 153
road crossings and 25 impoundments that were barriers to fish passage
remained. A few of these road crossings were culverts with the
downstream end perched above the stream bed, precluding the upstream
movement of fish during normal and low-flow conditions. However, some
of these barriers were determined to have little to no adverse
consequence to darter habitat connectivity because they occurred on the
outskirts of the current range or were immediately adjacent to another
barrier or impoundment.
To date, all but three of the problematic road crossings have been
removed. One of these, located at the headwaters of Rocky Creek, is
scheduled for removal in coming years. Additionally, 19 impoundments
still exist, 11 of which are caused by beaver activity. Nine of these
impoundments are scheduled for removal in the next 3 years. Beavers
that remain are primarily in the headwater reaches where Okaloosa
darters are either not present or would be in very low density. Thus,
since the time of listing, most of the barriers to dispersal have been
removed, and most of the problematic ones that remain are scheduled to
be removed, contributing to improved habitat and reduced population
fragmentation.
Canopy Closure
Overhead canopies range from open to fully closed depending on
stream width and fire history (Jordan 2018, pers. comm.). Okaloosa
darters thrive in reaches with relatively open canopies, likely due to
either increased abundance of submerged vegetation that is used
preferentially for spawning or increased secondary production of insect
prey (Ingram 2018, p. 11). During the past 25 years, several monitored
stream sections have changed from open with submerged vegetation to
closed canopies with no vegetation. Closed canopy may reduce densities
of Okaloosa darters. Once canopy is removed, Okaloosa darter densities
increase quickly and dramatically (USFWS 2019, p. 30). In addition to
increased riparian density along the streams, the use of low-intensity
fire for forest management as opposed to historically high-intensity
wildfires could have cascading effects on the watershed through changes
in nutrient cycling, hydrology (evapotranspiration), or simply charcoal
buffering (changes in pH levels) of water chemistry in the creeks. The
Eglin AFB fire management program may shift toward the use of higher
intensity prescribed fires in the growing season along stream margins
to control growth of canopy trees.
Invasive Species
The introduction and colonization by nonnative invasive species
that could compete with or prey on Okaloosa darters is a potential
threat. The Okaloosa darter recovery plan lists competitive exclusion
by the then-thought-to-be invasive brown darter (Etheostoma edwini) to
be a threat to Okaloosa darters. The brown darter is native to Okaloosa
darter watersheds (Austin, unpublished data) and is not altering the
distribution or abundance of Okaloosa darters where they coexist (USFWS
2019, p. 23). Flathead catfish (Pylodictus olivaris) are already
present in the surrounding river systems, and conditions could become
suitable for several cichlid species to successfully reproduce in
Okaloosa darter habitat (Jelks 2018, pers. comm.). Tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus), for instance, are highly invasive and are well documented
to cause local extinctions of native species through resource
competition, predation, and habitat alteration (Canonico et al. 2005,
pp. 467-474; Zambrano et al. 2006, pp. 1906-1909). Release of aquarium
species also remains a possibility. While this threat is speculative
and dependent on an intentional release of an unknown invasive species,
introduction of a highly competitive predator could lead to severe
population depression or potential extirpation of Okaloosa darters.
Dispersal of an invasive species among Okaloosa darter's watersheds,
however, would likely be limited by saltwater, giving managers time to
take control measures within a single population. Eglin AFB and Service
personnel have long-established invasive species monitoring programs,
and both agencies are committed to routine monitoring, early detection,
and control of aquatic invasive species. Early detection and targeted
management of invasive species will minimize or eliminate this threat
to Okaloosa darters in the future (Tate 2019, pers. comm.).
[[Page 64167]]
Summary of Factors Influencing Viability
The vast majority of the range of Okaloosa darters is located on
Eglin AFB, where many conservation and restoration actions have been
successful in restoring Okaloosa darters to regions it had previously
been extirpated from and increasing darters densities since the time of
listing. Much progress has been made in implementing conservation
actions since the Okaloosa darter was downlisted to threatened. For
example, Eglin AFB has restored more than 534 acres of erosional sites
and completed multiple stream restoration projects to reconnect
fragmented populations. Stream erosion levels have been reduced, and
most of the fish passage barriers have been removed. Many restoration
projects have been completed, and conservation agreements have been
implemented. Collectively, the habitat restoration programs have
restored Okaloosa darter habitat, and management agreements will secure
the habitat into the future (USAF 2017, p. 94 Wetland Sciences 2011,
entire).
However, portions of the Okaloosa darter's range still face
threats, mostly from urbanization. The sedimentation, pollution and
water quality impacts, and changes to water flow from impoundments that
can result from urbanization can lead to a decrease in Okaloosa
darters. In areas where there is development, either on Eglin AFB main
base or the surrounding cities, darters decrease in abundance or
disappear (USFWS 2019, p. 23). Darters also still face threats from
canopy closure, accidental spills, or other severe events. However, the
vast majority of the Okaloosa darter's range is expected to remain
under the management of the Air Force, limiting the impacts from
urbanization to less than 10 percent of the historical range for the
species.
Okaloosa darters react quickly to restoration activities. For
instance, erosion control and other restoration activities began
earlier in the Boggy Bayou drainages, progressing to the Rocky Bayou
drainages (Pizzalato 2018, pers. comm.). Accordingly, darter numbers
increased in the Boggy Bayou drainages earlier than in the Rocky Bayou
drainages (Jordan and Jelks 2018, p. 9). Okaloosa darters have also
been shown to quickly recolonize restored streams (Reeves et al. 2016,
entire) and reclaimed beaver impoundments (Nicholson 2009, entire).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Current Condition
Resiliency
For Okaloosa darters to maintain viability and withstand stochastic
disturbance events, its populations must be sufficiently resilient,
which is associated with population size, growth rate, and habitat
quality. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect Okaloosa
darter include temperature changes, drought, localized pollutants/
contaminants or other disturbances, or severe weather events such as
hurricanes, which can impact individuals or the habitat they require
for critical life functions such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering.
Sufficiently resilient Okaloosa darter populations need quality
habitat. Okaloosa darters require clear, clean, flowing water provided
by deep layers of sand that regulate temperature and flow, with aquatic
vegetation, root mats, leaf snags, and other substrates that provide
cover. This habitat is maintained by land management practices on
adjacent land that limit sedimentation and pollution. Streams that
support Okaloosa darter should be free of impoundments created as
human-made retention ponds, by poorly designed road crossings that
impede flow and genetic exchange, or by beaver dams. Okaloosa darter
also benefit from open riparian canopies that allow sunlight to reach
the stream below (Ingram 2018, p. 11).
For analysis purposes, we delineated resiliency units for Okaloosa
darters based on genetic analysis and obvious barriers to dispersal.
Genetic variation exists between the six stream systems (Austin et al.
2011, p. 987). Because limited genetic exchange occurs between streams,
the population in each stream is likely to be demographically
independent; therefore, we used abundance data for each of the six
stream systems to assess resiliency.
Additionally, we assessed barriers to dispersal within each stream
system that would indicate a further breakdown into additional
populations. However, Eglin AFB has been effective in removing
impoundments and poorly designed road crossings that served as barriers
to dispersal, so that the remaining impoundments occur at the
headwaters or the lower reaches of each stream, leaving each stream's
population mostly intact, allowing genetic exchange to occur within
each stream system. Outside of Eglin AFB, Shaw Still Branch has
Okaloosa darter that are isolated from other Okaloosa darter in the
upper reaches of Swift Creek by College Pond; however, the numbers of
darters in this small stream are likely fewer than 150. Therefore, we
considered this population separately. The watersheds of each of the
bayous (Toms, Boggy, and Rocky) where the species has been historically
found constitute the three resiliency units for the purposes of this
analysis. The Toms representative unit consists only of the Toms
population; the Boggy unit consists of the Turkey and Mill populations;
and the Rocky unit consists of the Swift, Deer, and Rocky populations.
Habitat metrics, such as conductivity, other water quality metrics,
and management, influence darter presence and abundance, but due to a
lack of explained variation within the data, no quantitative predictive
model has been successfully used. However, numerous data exist that
draw causal relationships between habitat metrics and darter presence
and abundance, such that we can draw some conclusions. First, it is
clear that Okaloosa darter does not inhabit impounded stream reaches.
Further, when an impounded stream is restored, Okaloosa darter will
quickly colonize the restored habitat, often at higher densities than
initially found (Jordan and Jelks 2018, p. 29). When water conductivity
gets too high, Okaloosa darter abundance drops (Service 2019, p. 33).
We assess current resiliency for Okaloosa darters in terms of
population factors, including the species' presence and density. To
estimate a population size, we multiplied the estimated average
abundance per meter by the estimated meters occupied (USFWS 2019, Table
5). The average abundance was derived from annual sampling at each of
the 21 core monitoring sites over the past 20 years. In populations
with multiple core sites, a grand mean was
[[Page 64168]]
calculated for the entire population by averaging the long-term means
within the population. Due to statistical constraints, population
estimates using the expanded monitoring data from 2005 and 2014 only
estimate the population of darters present in stream reaches between
monitoring sites (USFWS 2019, p. 23) and do not include headwaters and
tributary systems known to be inhabited. The calculations made during
the SSA and used for this assessment apply the average abundance to all
known inhabited stream reaches, generally producing a larger but more
complete population estimate.
Using this method, the total rangewide population estimate of
Okaloosa darter is approximately 1,249,499 (1,010,0171,488,982) (see
Table 1, below). The Rocky Creek population is the largest, comprising
713,458 darters, or 57 percent of this total, followed by the Turkey
Creek population, comprising 490,456 darters, or 39 percent. The other
four resiliency units (Toms, Mill, Swift, and Deer Moss) together total
only four percent of the estimate: Toms Creek has an estimated 23,099
darters; Mill Creek, 1,317; Swift Creek, 18,810; and Deer Moss Creek,
2,353.
These numbers reflect a significant (40 percent) decline between
2005 and 2014. However, the population is still significantly greater
than when the species was originally listed. Our professional judgment
is that the reduction was caused by an increase in the canopy cover and
that more aggressive clearing of the canopy cover will result in
rebounding population numbers. This conclusion is consistent with
experimental data, in which darter populations increased within months
after canopy removal.
Table 1--Resiliency Scores for Okaloosa Darter Based on Estimated Population Size
[Population sizes <10,000 Okaloosa darters are ranked as ``low,'' populations of 10,000 to 50,000 are ``moderate,'' and values >50,000 are considered to
have ``high'' resiliency. Population trends and vulnerability are also provided.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population trend Population
Population Estimated population slope (avg. count/ Population trend Resiliency vulnerability
year) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toms.................................. 23,099 (7,610)
Turkey................................ 490,456 (90,045)
Mill.................................. 1,317 (288)
Swift................................. 18,810 (9,875)
Deer Moss............................. 2,353 (1,658)
Rocky................................. 713,458 (130,006)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the resilience analysis are as follows: Two of the
populations (Turkey and Rocky) currently have high resiliency, two
(Toms and Swift) are considered moderately resilient, and two (Deer
Moss and Mill) are considered to have low resiliency.
We classified resiliency by species' presence, density, and
population sizes. Population sizes of <10,000 Okaloosa darters are
considered ``low,'' 10,000 to 50,000 are ``moderate,'' and >50,000 are
``high.'' Based on the population numbers presented above, the results
of the resiliency analysis are as follows: Two of the populations
(Turkey and Rocky) currently have high resiliency, two (Toms and Swift)
have moderate resiliency, and two (Deer Moss and Mill) are considered
to have low resiliency.
Redundancy
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events. Measured by the number of populations, their
resiliency, and their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy
gauges the probability that the species has a margin of safety to
withstand or to bounce back from catastrophic local events such as
collapse of a restored borrow pit, infestation by beavers, or spill of
toxic chemicals that affect part or all of one population. We report
redundancy for Okaloosa darters as the total number of populations and
the resiliency of population segments and their distribution within and
among representative units. Also, there are multiple populations in two
of the stream systems.
Six populations comprise the vast majority of the historical range
of Okaloosa darters within the three representative units. Redundancy
is demonstrated through the darter's presence in multiple tributaries
within most watersheds, and representation is demonstrated through the
genetic structure of the populations. All six extant populations
exhibit genetic differentiation, and the species is extant across all
three representation units. Adequate redundancy is demonstrated through
the darter's presence in multiple tributaries within most watersheds
encompassing its historical range.
Representation
Representation can be characterized by genetic variability within
the range of the species. These three representative units, each
identified as containing unique and significant historical variation
(Austin et al. 2011, pp. 983, 987), have not been reduced over time.
The Toms Bayou representative unit comprises just the Toms population,
which is currently considered moderately resilient. However, the Toms
population is vulnerable to upstream impacts, which could affect the
representation of this unit were a major impact to occur. The Boggy
Bayou representative unit comprises the Turkey and Mill populations, of
which Turkey is considered highly resilient and has low vulnerability.
The Rocky Bayou unit comprises the Swift, Deer Moss, and Rocky
populations, of which Swift is considered moderately resilient and
Rocky is considered highly resilient, with low vulnerability. Given
that each unit still contains at least one population that is
moderately or highly resilient (>10,000 individuals), Okaloosa darters
have sufficient genetic variability. Representation is demonstrated
through the genetic structure of the populations.
Future Condition
The biggest potential threat to Okaloosa darter in the future is
development on and off Eglin AFB. Neighborhoods, roads, commercial
structures, and associated utilities such as sprayfields are potential
sources of sedimentation, pollution, and altered stream flow throughout
the range of this species. Natural factors resulting from long-term
forest management practices (e.g., prescribed fire) could also have
potentially negative impacts on Okaloosa darters. For instance,
[[Page 64169]]
excessive canopy closure over streams might limit Okaloosa darter
abundance by shading out aquatic vegetation preferred for spawning,
refuge, or foraging (USFWS 2019, p. 23). The effects of canopy closure
were built into all the future scenarios through general population
increases or declines. For instance, in the ``Ideal Management''
scenario, we would expect that prescribed fire or other management
limits excessive canopy cover and contributes to increases in darter
numbers. The opposite would be expected in the ``Poor'' and ``Worst''
scenarios. Because we have not established a quantitative relationship
between darter numbers and canopy closure, we decided to incorporate
this factor into a general increase or decrease in populations over
time.
While there are several restoration activities, developments, or
other proposed activities that have anticipated locations and
quantifiable outcomes, specific information on the location, and
therefore effects to Okaloosa darters, of other potential threats are
unknown. Therefore, because it is impossible to predict the specific
locations or impacts of future developments or other management
decisions that could impact Okaloosa darter streams, we assess the
future resiliency of each population based on general management and
development scenarios. Accordingly, to assess the future viability of
Okaloosa darters, we considered four future scenarios that account for
some degree of future development and restoration activities,
considering effects of whether these activities are implemented or not,
and also considered general impacts from unknown future management or
land use changes or impacts, at varying levels with positive or
negative impacts to each population. For each population, we consider
its current condition, including the length of each stream that is
unimpounded, the length considered occupied, and the average abundance
per meter, to assess the future viability under each of these
scenarios.
Please see the SSA report (USFWS 2019, entire) for a more detailed
discussion of these considerations.
We projected these future scenarios both over 20 years and 50
years. Any planned restoration efforts, should they be realized, as
well as the impending development along Deer Moss Creek, would likely
be completed in 20 years. Okaloosa darters respond very quickly to
habitat changes, both good and bad. Improved conditions would result in
an increase in Okaloosa darters, possibly within the same year (Reeves
et al. 2016, pp. 1379-1382), but areas can also lose Okaloosa darters
equally quickly if habitat conditions worsen. In some cases where
habitat is restored in areas without nearby Okaloosa darters, 20 years
would be sufficient to ensure that they would recolonize that area. Not
only would 20 years encompass several generations of Okaloosa darter,
but it is the time period outlined in the recovery plan for delisting.
We projected to 50 years as it is considered the outer limit that
projections of base realignment, hydrologic cycles, or climate
alteration may be relied upon, based on expert opinion, and will
encompass a timeframe in which projected sea level rise as a result of
climate change could have realized impacts.
To account for the uncertainty in the management implications of
some proposed actions (Deer Moss Creek development and cleanup of the
sprayfields) and other unforeseen/unknown future conditions (future
land management/development and accidents), we generalize the future
stream conditions/management in four categories: status quo (current
conditions continue), ideal, poor, and worst. The ``ideal,'' or ``best-
case,'' scenario assumes that all potential stream habitat is colonized
at normal densities. ``Poor'' management assumes that accidents
stemming from errors in management may occur but are unlikely to affect
the population in the worst possible place or are unlikely to have a
high-magnitude impact; however, over time, these accidents add up and
eventually have a larger impact. ``Worst'' management assumes that
accidents stemming from errors in management occur and affect the
population in a location that will affect the largest portion of the
stream or will be of such a magnitude to have a similar effect. In all
long-term scenarios, we anticipate the potential negative impacts of
climate change by applying reductions in population estimates of 0.5
standard deviations from the current population mean abundance.
Below we assess the future resiliency of Okaloosa darter
populations both in the short (20-year) and long term (50-year) for the
four different scenarios. Of the four scenarios, the status quo and the
ideal scenario are the most likely to occur. The poor and worst
management are the least likely to occur. Because these four scenarios
encompass the broad changes to management, which would encompass water
quality and render land ownership irrelevant, we model future
resiliency based on how each scenario would affect the amount of
occupied habitat and average abundance estimates within each
population. Please see the SSA report for further description of the
methodologies we used to model these scenarios and their impacts to
Okaloosa darter.
Scenario 1: Status Quo
In this scenario, we modeled current management coupled with both
no restoration efforts (1a) and with restoration of the beaver dams on
Toms Creek and College Pond on Swift Creek (1b). Under scenario 1a,
nothing changed by way of management or restoration, meaning the
impounded stream and abundance estimates stayed the same as is current.
The development of Deer Moss Creek did not affect the resiliency of
this population because the section of stream that would be developed
is currently, and remains, unoccupied. For the species as a whole,
population estimates did not change much in the short term but
decreased in the long term due to a loss of potential habitat (due to
sea level rise resulting in stream inundation) and other possible
climate-related threats, which we modeled as a 0.5 standard deviation
reduction for each population. Not surprisingly, the smallest and most
fragmented populations, Mill, Deer Moss, Toms, and Swift Creeks, are
potentially susceptible to climate change impacts alone. Habitat
restoration in Toms and Swift Creeks would offset our modelled impacts
from climate change. Even though saltwater inundation will fragment
about 5 percent of the two large populations in Turkey and Rocky
Creeks, our models exhibited minimal loss of resiliency as a result of
climate change under this scenario.
For the species as a whole, our modelling suggested that, under
current management conditions, there are likely to be nearly 1 million
Okaloosa darters beyond the 50-year timeframe. In the long term under
this scenario, Mill Creek would lose over 30 percent of its population
(dropping below 1,000), as would Deer Moss, and Toms Creek too, unless
restoration occurs. Swift Creek would lose almost 60 percent of its
population unless habitat restoration occurs, but if restoration
occurs, the population would more than double in the short term and
still increase by nearly 60 percent in the long term. Saltwater
inundation in the long term would cause the Rocky, Turkey, and Swift
populations to split into three streams each. While Rocky and Turkey
would see about 5 percent of their populations cut off from the main
segment, the inundation of Swift Creek would also cut off that
population from the current location in the absence of restoration
efforts. With no restoration,
[[Page 64170]]
we can expect that 70 percent of the population in Swift Creek will be
above College Pond in Swift Creek, with fewer than 100 in Shaw Still
Branch, although neither of these populations are unlikely to remain at
all in 50 years. With restoration, about 83 percent of the population
would remain in the Swift Creek population and about 17 percent in a
Shaw Still Branch population, with likely no dispersal between them
(see Table 2, below). Due to the continued impacts of the urbanization
in the watershed within the city of Niceville, we estimated population
sizes as if inhabited under moderate management conditions (long-term
average minus one standard deviation). Sanders Branch would remain
unoccupied.
Table 2--Scenario 1 of Management for Okaloosa Darter Recovery
[Total stream lengths that would be unimpounded, the occupied meters and the percent that represents, abundance
estimates per meter, and the projected population size, both with and without restoration efforts on Toms and
Swift Creeks, in both the short term and long term. Scenario 1b shown for Toms (r) and Swift (r) assume
restoration of uninhabited portions of the watershed.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
unimpounded Occupied (m) Abundance/m Population
streams (m) size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Term:
Toms........................................ 14,936 11,300 2.0 23,011
Turkey...................................... 150,040 147,911 3.3 486,243
Mill........................................ 1,993 846 1.6 1,317
Swift....................................... 21,130 5,292 3.5 18,631
Deer Moss................................... 8,396 5,780 0.4 2,354
Rocky....................................... 282,068 276,683 2.6 707,791
Toms (r).................................... 16,336 12,360 2.0 25,167
Swift (r)................................... 22,276 14,767 3.5 46,622
Long Term:
Toms........................................ 14,111 9,265 1.7 15,759
Turkey...................................... 149,063 132,041 3.0 394,227
Mill........................................ 1,993 647 1.4 896
Swift....................................... 19,533 2,939 2.6 7,631
Deer Moss................................... 7,981 4,696 0.3 1,239
Rocky....................................... 280,096 246,739 2.3 573,683
Toms (r).................................... 15,511 11,736 1.7 19,960
Swift (r)................................... 20,679 11,031 2.6 20,509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 2: Ideal Restoration, Good Management
This scenario represented the highest population size that the
species could attain. Under this scenario, all impoundments were
removed, and management removed most existing threats, increasing the
occupied lengths of each stream to almost all of the inhabitable area.
In other words, we modelled the potential population for all streams as
if they were completely free-flowing by applying our current population
estimates to the entire potential length of stream habitat in the
watershed. This scenario represented the ``best case scenario'' for the
species. Because of this, we modelled an expected population expansion
of 1.0 standard deviation from the current mean abundance for each
population. As expected, short-term estimates increased for all
populations, with the highest relative increases in fragmented
populations (Swift and Toms) or those impaired by urbanization (Deer
Moss and Mill). Because we apply the same negative influence of climate
change to the long-term models in this scenario, the long-term
population estimates are dampened but still increasing in the four
smaller populations with a very slight (<1 percent) reduction in Turkey
and Rocky Creeks due to fragmentation and saltwater inundation. Under
this scenario, our model indicated there will be more than 1.3 million
Okaloosa darters and increased resiliency in all of the smaller
populations, even when negative impacts of climate change are applied
in the long term.
In the short term, the population would increase for all stream
systems, although by a much higher percent in Mill and Swift than in
Rocky and Turkey Creeks. In the long term, all populations except
Turkey and Rocky still see an increase from current conditions, though
not quite as large. Turkey and Rocky would decrease slightly from the
current situation (see Table 3, below). Saltwater inundation in the
long term would cause the Rocky, Turkey, and Swift stream systems to
split into three streams each. While Rocky and Turkey would see about 5
percent of their populations cut off from the main segment, the
inundation of Swift Creek in the long term, given ideal restoration and
management, would split the population such that about 15 percent would
be cut off into a Shaw Still Branch population, and about 11 percent
would be cut off into a Sanders Branch population.
Table 3--Scenario 2 of Management for Okaloosa Darter Recovery
[Total stream lengths that would be unimpounded, the occupied meters and the percent that represents, abundance
estimates per meter, and the projected population size in both the short term and long term. Saltwater
inundation in the long term causes the Swift stream systems to split into three streams.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
unimpounded Occupied (m) Abundance/m Population
streams (m) size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Term:
[[Page 64171]]
Toms........................................ 18,510 18,247 2.7 49,397
Turkey...................................... 152,692 150,525 3.9 585,687
Mill........................................ 4,555 4,490 1.9 8,520
Swift....................................... 24,510 24,162 5.4 129,717
Deer Moss................................... 8,396 8,277 0.7 5,746
Rocky....................................... 282,731 278,719 3.0 842,921
Long Term:
Toms........................................ 17,685 15,666 2.4 37,153
Turkey...................................... 151,715 134,390 3.6 482,352
Mill........................................ 4,555 4,035 1.7 6,968
Swift....................................... 22,913 14,816 4.4 65,852
3,146 4.4 13,982
2,334 4.4 10,374
Deer Moss................................... 7,981 7,070 0.6 3,894
Rocky....................................... 280,759 248,699 2.8 694,169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 3: Poor Management
To model what the future effect of poor management decisions,
developments, or other habitat impacts would be in terms of a decrease
in average Okaloosa darter abundance per meter, we considered the
configuration (or geography) of each stream system for each population.
In streams that are complex (have many branching tributaries) or are
generally large, a severe negative impact (such as a chemical spill or
source of chronic sedimentation) at any of the headwaters would be more
likely to impact a smaller percentage of the population compared to a
similar impact in the headwaters of a low-complexity (few tributaries)
or small stream system. For scenarios 3 and 4, we first assessed the
effects of an impact that might occur at the worst possible placement
within each watershed by finding the longest length of stream that
could be affected by a major impact at the headwaters; in other words,
the longest possible downstream distance that could be affected by a
single upstream impact. We calculated this distance for each stream
(USFWS 2019, Figure 14) and then took that distance and calculated the
percent of the total unimpounded streams it would affect (USFWS 2019,
Table 7). This percent represents the maximum percent of the stream
system that could be affected by one management decision or
development. In real-world terms, if one of the outlying airfields that
are located in the upper reaches of these stream systems (USFWS 2019,
Figure 14) were to be reactivated for military or other uses, the
amount of stream impacted could come close to or meet these estimates
of ``largest percent affected.''
For both the ``Poor'' and ``Worst'' management scenarios, we used
this ``largest percent affected'' to model declines in Okaloosa darter
abundances based on whether management was considered ``poor'' or
``worst,'' and whether we were assessing the scenario in the long or
short term (USFWS 2019, Table 8).
For management that was ``poor,'' looking at the short term, we
considered a management decision or set of decisions or impacts that
would decrease the average abundance by 1 standard deviation across
this ``largest percent affected'' (this percent of the occupied
meters). The remainder of the occupied stream length stayed at current
Okaloosa darter abundances. In the long term, we proposed that
management impacts could continue to affect these streams either in
unfortunate locations or in great magnitude and, coupled with unknown
impacts of climate change and the associated warming over that time
span, will decrease all abundance estimates an additional 0.5 standard
deviation (USFWS 2019, Table 8). As with ``Status Quo,'' we modeled
poor management coupled with either no restoration efforts or removal
of beaver dams on Toms Creek and restoration of College Pond on Swift
Creek.
Under this scenario (see Table 4, below), all population sizes
decreased. In the long term, the Swift population dropped below 10,000
individuals unless College Pond is restored, in which case the
population almost doubled in the short term and still maintained 15
percent more than current in the long term. In the long term, the Swift
Creek population dropped below 10,000 individuals without restoration,
and the populations in both Deer Moss and Mill Creeks dropped below
1,000 individuals. Even so, long-term resiliency in Toms, Turkey,
Swift, and Rocky Creeks remained relatively unchanged from the ``Status
Quo'' models.
Table 4--Scenario 3 of Management for Okaloosa Darter Recovery
[Total stream lengths that would be unimpounded, the occupied meters and the percent that represents, abundance
estimates per meter, and the projected population size, both with and without restoration efforts on Toms and
Swift Creeks, in both the short term and long term.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
unimpounded Occupied (m) Avg. Abundance/ Population
streams (m) m size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Term:
Toms........................................ 14,936 11,300 1.8 20,333
[[Page 64172]]
Turkey...................................... 150,040 147,911 3.2 474,298
Mill........................................ 1,993 846 1.3 1,057
Swift....................................... 21,130 5,292 3.1 16,321
Deer Moss................................... 8,396 5,780 0.2 1,075
Rocky....................................... 282,068 276,683 2.5 692,277
Toms (r).................................... 16,336 12,360 1.8 21,913
Swift (r)................................... 22,276 14,767 2.8 41,688
Long Term:
Toms........................................ 14,111 9,265 1.5 13,563
Turkey...................................... 149,063 132,041 2.9 383,564
Mill........................................ 1,993 647 1.1 698
Swift....................................... 19,533 2,939 2.2 6,348
Deer Moss................................... 7,981 4,696 0.1 284
Rocky....................................... 280,096 246,739 2.3 559,848
Toms (r).................................... 15,511 10,184 1.4 14,640
Swift (r)................................... 20,679 13,290 1.9 25,238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 4: Worst Management
This scenario is very pessimistic. We considered a management
decision or set of decisions or impacts that would decrease the average
abundance by 2 standard deviations across the ``largest percent
affected,'' described above. The remainder of the occupied stream
length in Scenario 4 was then considered to be occupied at the ``poor''
Okaloosa darter abundances (a reduction of 1 standard deviation). As
with other scenarios, we modeled climate change impacts as an
additional reduction of 0.5 standard deviations from the long-term mean
and considered the impact of restoration in Toms and Swift Creeks in a
separate model.
This is the only scenario where we modelled an extirpation. All
populations were reduced by at least 20 percent, even in the short term
(see Table 5, below). Under this scenario, Mill and Deer Moss Creek
dropped below 1,000 individuals in the short term, and Deer Moss Creek
became extirpated in the long term. We estimated a population decline
in Toms Creek to approximately half the population estimate of the
``Status Quo'' scenario. Our model projected that Swift Creek could
drop to approximately one quarter the population anticipated under the
``Status Quo''; however, the restoration of College Pond would prevent
this population from dropping below 10,000 individuals in the short
term and more than quadruple the population estimate in the long term.
The Turkey and Rocky populations would maintain high resiliency, above
300,000 individuals, even in the long term.
Table 5--Scenario 4 of Management for Okaloosa Darter Recovery
[Total stream lengths that would be unimpounded, the occupied meters and the percent that represents, abundance
estimates per meter, and the projected population size, both with and without restoration efforts on Toms and
Swift Creeks, in both the short term and long term.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
unimpounded Occupied (m) Avg. Abundance/ Population
streams (m) m size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Term:
Toms........................................ 14,936 11,300 1.1 12,752
Turkey...................................... 150,040 147,911 2.6 385,027
Mill........................................ 1,993 846 0.9 769
Swift....................................... 21,130 5,292 1.3 6,760
Deer Moss................................... 8,396 5,780 0.0 159
Rocky....................................... 282,068 276,683 2.0 563,304
Toms (r).................................... 16,336 12,360 1.1 13,622
Swift (r)................................... 22,276 14,767 1.0 15,377
Long Term:
Toms........................................ 14,111 9,265 0.8 7,348
Turkey...................................... 149,063 132,041 2.3 303,870
Mill........................................ 1,993 647 0.7 478
Swift....................................... 19,533 2,939 0.6 1,680
Deer Moss................................... 7,981 4,696 0.0 0
Rocky....................................... 280,096 246,739 1.8 444,833
Toms (r).................................... 15,511 11,736 0.8 8,998
Swift (r)................................... 20,679 13,290 0.5 6,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64173]]
Future Resiliency
Our projections of how resiliency will change in the future are
based on the completion or success of specific restoration efforts,
nonspecific changes to the management of Okaloosa darter streams or
other unforeseen impacts, and the effects of climate change, including
unknown effects to the streams from temperature increases, drought,
frequent or heavy rainfalls, or invasive species. Our models showed
population increases only under ``ideal restoration--good management,''
with the exception of restoration efforts on Swift Creek, which
increase the population even under the ``poor'' management scenario. We
also took a pessimistic approach to climate change impacts by applying
population reductions to all populations in the long-term models.
Accordingly, population numbers declined in the long-term models across
all stream systems in the absence of future management efforts. Both
Mill Creek and Deer Moss Creek remained at low resiliency and decreased
to fewer than 1,000 individuals or became extirpated in the long term
under the ``poor'' and ``worst'' scenarios. Toms Creek maintained a
moderate resiliency in all but the ``worst'' scenario. Swift Creek
would see a huge benefit from the removal of beaver impoundments in
College Pond, which even under ``poor'' management conditions, would
almost double its population size in the short term. In the long term,
restoring College Pond resulted in the most robust population gains,
roughly quadrupling population estimates under ``poor'' and ``worst''
scenarios. Even under the worst projected management or impact
scenario, the estimated sizes of Rocky and Turkey populations did not
drop below 300,000, and resiliency in these populations remained
exceptionally high.
In general, in our scenarios, the larger populations were more
resilient and were more likely than small populations to maintain
resiliency in the future. The Deer Moss population is considered to
have a low resiliency in comparison to the other populations; however,
even under ideal conditions, our models suggested that this population
can increase to only about 4,000 individuals, which remains below our
designation of moderate resiliency. So, even under ``ideal''
conditions, this population will always have low resiliency.
Regardless, the Deer Moss Creek population has persisted over time,
even with a much lower resiliency than the other populations. When
comparing model outcomes to the most likely future scenario, ``status
quo,'' we do not see shifts in resiliency categorization for any of the
populations. Only under the ``worst'' scenario were the resiliency for
Toms and Swift Creeks depressed, indicating that the two large
populations, Turkey and Rocky, should maintain high to very high
resiliency in perpetuity. From a population standpoint, a reduction of
2.5 standard deviations from the long-term mean is massive and highly
unlikely, indicating the ``worst'' scenario is a depiction of a truly
catastrophic decline. Even under this scenario, five of the six
populations remain. At the species level, Okaloosa darters exhibit
moderate to high resiliency even under the worst-case scenario.
Future Redundancy
Determined by the number of populations, their resiliency, and
their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy describes the
probability the species has a margin of safety to withstand or recover
from catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or
episode involving many populations). Okaloosa darters have a
constrained range, limited to just six populations in six streams, and
redundancy is naturally low. However, the Okaloosa darter inhabits its
historical range almost completely, exhibiting documented resiliency to
natural phenomena such as hurricanes and drought (USFWS 2019, p. 23).
Four of the populations, the ones with the lowest current
resiliency, are considered highly vulnerable to catastrophic events due
to their stream configuration. We determined the ``largest percent
affected'' in Mill Creek to be 90 percent (USFWS 2019, Table 7). Thus,
a major impact like a toxic chemical spill in the upper watershed could
result in drastic population declines. Further, climate change could
have consequences that make the streams uninhabitable to Okaloosa
darters; temperature rise is one potential threat, but other impacts
are possible. Invasive species could also extirpate an entire
population were a highly competitive predator to be introduced;
tilapia, for instance, are highly invasive and are well documented to
cause local extinctions of native species through resource competition,
predation, and habitat alteration (Canonico et al. 2005, pp. 467-474;
Zambrano et al. 2006, pp. 1906-1909). Given the species' limited range,
catastrophic events or the invasion of a nonnative species or steady
changes such as increased stream temperatures due to climate change
could impact one or more populations. Even so, our modeling resulted in
only one population completely failing in the long term under our
``worst'' management scenario, and that scenario assumed drastic
declines across all six populations. Thus, loss of redundancy is
unlikely in all but the most extreme circumstances. Accordingly, we do
not expect Okaloosa darter viability to be characterized by a loss in
redundancy unless management fails dramatically in the coming years or
a major impact occurs.
Future Representation
All representative units are predicted to retain the same number of
populations at least 50 years into the future, except in the scenario
where management is particularly bad (Worst scenario). In the Worst
scenario, the Deer Moss population becomes extirpated and the Mill
population would experience heavy declines. In both the Poor and Worst
scenarios, each representative unit will have populations with
decreased resiliency, both within the next 20 years (short term) and
next 50 years (long term); however, even under the Worst scenario, the
two large populations (Turkey Creek and Rocky Creek) will ensure
continued resiliency for those populations. The Toms Creek population,
being the only population in its representative unit, will see
decreased resiliency in the short term in all scenarios except those
with current or ideal management and in the long term, all scenarios
except those with ideal management.
Determination of Species Status
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 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, please see Regulatory and Analytical Framework.
Okaloosa darter is a narrow endemic, occurring only in six stream
systems in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. The darter currently
occurs within all
[[Page 64174]]
six historical watersheds. Populations in two of those watersheds are
currently highly resilient, two are moderately resilient, and two have
low resiliency. While the populations have been affected by
impoundments, urbanization (on the lower ends of the streams), and land
use impacts (e.g., sedimentation), current population estimates show
approximately one million darters across its range. Redundancy is
demonstrated through the darters' presence in multiple tributaries
within most watersheds, and representation is demonstrated through the
genetic structure of the populations. All six extant populations
exhibit genetic differentiation, and the species is extant across all
three representative units. Overall, the populations are robust.
Because approximately 90 percent of the species' range is under the
management of Eglin AFB, urbanization will have little to no future
effect. Okaloosa darters occur in multiple stream systems, which
provides redundancy, and no long-term threats are presently impacting
Okaloosa darters at the species level. Accordingly, we conclude that
the species is not currently in danger of extinction, and thus does not
meet the definition of an endangered species, throughout its range.
In considering whether the species continues to meet the definition
of a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future) throughout its range, we identified the
foreseeable future for Okaloosa darters to be 20-50 years based on our
ability to reliably predict the species' response to current and future
threats. Over 90 percent of the darter's range is located on Eglin AFB
and will continue to benefit from the conservation protections
resulting from the Eglin AFB INRMP. Overall, while there may be some
loss of resiliency due to climate change, in all but the worst-case
scenario, all extant populations will remain. Redundancy will remain
the same except under the worst-case scenario, as will representation.
Under all four management scenarios, two darter populations (Turkey
Creek and Rocky Creek) are expected to continue to be highly resilient.
Toms Creek will continue to be moderately resilient in all but the
worst-case scenario, in which case its resilience will fall to low. The
currently uninhabited tributaries in the Swift Creek watershed will
continue to be isolated due to sea level rise, and without restoration,
Swift Creek itself will be the only occupied tributary in this
population; however, the upper Swift Creek population will continue to
serve as a source for recolonization if restoration occurs. Deer Moss
Creek is the only population with potential for extirpation, and then
only under the worst-case scenario. Further, this population exhibits
low resiliency even under ``ideal'' conditions, and its extirpation
would not compromise the resiliency of the Rocky Creek representative
unit. In other words, while some populations may decline or even become
extirpated under the two negative scenarios, under all scenarios
Okaloosa darters will exhibit sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to maintain viability for the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, we conclude that the species is not likely to become in
danger of extinction in 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 Okaloosa 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 Okaloosa darters, we chose to
address the status question first--we considered 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 is endangered or threatened. We examined whether any threats
are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at
a biologically meaningful scale. It is important to note at the outset
that this is a narrow endemic with a naturally limited range. We
examined the following threats: Land use and management practices on
Eglin AFB and urbanization around the lower reaches of streams outside
of Eglin AFB. Urbanization is the greatest threat to Okaloosa darter,
as development leads to pollution, erosion, and sedimentation, altered
water flows, and dispersal barriers through multiple pathways. The
threats of sea level rise and urbanization are present in the southern
portion of each population, so they are not concentrated on any one
population.
As described above, no threats are concentrated in any portion of
that range. Although the main threat, urbanization, is present only in
the downstream portion of the watersheds--five of the six watersheds
pass through the cities of Niceville and Valparaiso before emptying
into Choctawhatchee Bay--these urban impacts are not concentrated on
any one population. Because the majority of the watersheds are forested
and geology is consistent throughout the Okaloosa darter's range, the
effects of canopy closure and erosion should be similar across all six
watersheds.
We found no concentration of threats in any portion of the Okaloosa
darter's 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 that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of
its range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings 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 available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Okaloosa 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 delist the Okaloosa darter from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposal, if finalized, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) and
17.44(bb) by removing Okaloosa darter from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and removing the section 4(d) rule
for this species. The prohibitions and conservation measures
[[Page 64175]]
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect
Okaloosa darter. However, approximately 90 percent of the 457-square-
kilometer (176-square-mile) watershed drainage area that historically
supported Okaloosa darters is Federal property under the management of
Eglin AFB, and about 98.7 percent of the stream length in the current
range of Okaloosa darters is within the boundaries of Eglin AFB.
As discussed above, Eglin AFB encompasses the headwaters of all six
of these drainages. Benefits from the conservation protections will
continue because the Air Force will maintain its INRMP for the benefit
of other listed species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (USAF
2017c, p. 3-1; (76 FR 18088, April 1, 2011). Thus, the INRMP will
continue to provide for the conservation of Okaloosa darters even if
the species is delisted. Because the Service is required to approve
INRMPs every 5 years, we will be able to ensure that this INRMP
continues to protect Okaloosa darters into the future. There is no
critical habitat designated for this species, so there would be no
effect to 50 CFR 17.95.
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 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 a threatened or endangered species 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
Okaloosa 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 Okaloosa darter numbers,
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling of
exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM
participants, will investigate causes of the declines. The
investigation will be to determine if the Okaloosa darter warrants
expanded monitoring, additional protection under the Act.
We are proposing to delist Okaloosa darters based on all six extant
populations exhibiting genetic differentiation and the species is
extant across all three representation units. Overall, the populations
are robust. Because approximately 90 percent of the species' range is
under the management of Eglin AFB, urbanization will have little to no
future effect. The Okaloosa darter occurs in multiple stream systems,
and no long-term threats are presently impacting the Okaloosa darter at
the species level. Since delisting would be, in part, due to
conservation actions taken by stakeholders, we have prepared a draft
PDM plan for Okaloosa darters. The draft PDM plan discusses the current
status of the taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring
if we delist the taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status
of Okaloosa darters at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes
frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods
and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers
will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5)
outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule
for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is
our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered
status of Okaloosa darters. We will seek public and peer reviewer
comments on the draft PDM plan, including its objectives and procedures
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and Information Requested, above),
with the publication of this proposed rule.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
PDM plan's availability for public review at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0036. The Service prepared this
draft PDM plan in coordination with Eglin AFB, based largely on
monitoring methods developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and Loyola
University New Orleans (USFWS 2021, p. 5). The Service designed the PDM
plan to detect substantial changes in habitat occupied by Okaloosa
darter and declines in Okaloosa darter occurrences with reasonable
certainty and precision. It meets the minimum requirement set forth by
the Act because it monitors the status of Okaloosa darter using a
structured sampling regime over a 10-year period.
Copies can also be obtained from the Service's Panama City
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
We anticipate finalizing this plan, considering all public comments,
prior to making a final determination on the proposed delisting rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed 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:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) 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
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
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 64176]]
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3207 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. There are no Tribes or Tribal lands
associated with this proposed regulation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0036 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Panama City
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Panama City
Ecological Services Field Office.
Signing Authority
The Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the
Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an
official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this document on October 21, 2021, for publication.
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, Okaloosa (Etheostoma okaloosae)'' under ``Fishes'' from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Sec. 17.44 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.44 by removing and reserving paragraph (bb).
Krista Bibb,
Acting Chief, Branch of Policy and Regulations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-25092 Filed 11-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P