Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Pearl Darter, 64857-64868 [2016-22752]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
these species, we will act to provide
immediate protection.
INFORMATION CONTACT
References Cited
ADDRESSES:
Lists of the references cited in the
petition findings are available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Unified
Listing Team, Ecological Services
Program.
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–22453 Filed 9–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0037;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BB55
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
for Pearl Darter
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Pearl darter (Percina aurora), a
fish from Mississippi, as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act’s
protections to this species. The effect of
this proposed regulation will be to add
this species to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
November 21, 2016. 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
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
by November 7,
2016.
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2016–0037, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2016–
0037; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office, 6578
Dogwood Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi
39213, by telephone 601–321–1122 or
by facsimile 601–965–4340. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
64857
This document does not propose
critical habitat for the Pearl darter. We
have determined that critical habitat is
prudent, but not determinable at this
time.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that water quality
decline from point and nonpoint source
pollution continues to impact portions
of this species’ habitat. In addition,
geomorphology changes attributed to
past sand and gravel mining operations
within the drainage are considered an
ongoing threat. This species has been
extirpated from the Pearl River
watershed and is confined today to the
Pascagoula River Basin where this
species’ small population size and
apparent low genetic diversity increases
its vulnerability to extirpation from
catastrophic events.
We will seek peer review. We will seek
comments from independent specialists
to ensure that our designation is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment
on our listing proposal.
Information Requested
Executive Summary
Public Comments
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if we determine that a species
is an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within one year. Listing a
species as an endangered or threatened
species can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
What this document does. This
document proposes the listing of the
Pearl darter (Percina aurora) as a
threatened species. The Pearl darter is a
candidate species for which we have on
file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for
which until now development of a
listing regulation has been precluded by
other higher priority listing activities.
This proposed rule reassesses all
available information regarding status of
and threats to the Pearl darter.
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The Pearl darter’s biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
64858
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
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 a threatened or endangered
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Because we will consider all
comments and information received
during the comment period, our final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
determinations may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we have sought the expert opinions of
three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in the Pearl
darter’s biology, habitat, and physical or
biological factors that will inform our
determination.
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the Pearl darter (Pearl
channel darter, Percina sp.) as a
Category 2 Candidate in the November
21, 1991, Animal Candidate Review for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species; Notice of Review (56 FR
58804). Category 2 Candidates were
defined as species for which we had
information that proposed listing was
possibly appropriate, but conclusive
data on biological vulnerability and
threats were not available to support a
proposed rule at the time. The species
remained so designated in the
subsequent November 15, 1994, annual
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59
FR 58982). In the February 28, 1996,
CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued
the designation of Category 2 species as
candidates; therefore, the Pearl darter
was no longer a candidate species.
Subsequently, in 1999, the Pearl
darter was once again added to the
candidate list (64 FR 57534, October 25,
1999). Candidates are now defined as
those fish, wildlife, and plants for
which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support preparation of a
listing proposal, but for which
development of a listing regulation is
precluded by other higher priority
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
listing activities. The Pearl darter was
included in all of our subsequent annual
CNORs: 66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001;
67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR
24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May
11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12,
2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;
73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR
57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 77 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015.
The Pearl darter has a listing priority
number of 8, which reflects a species
with threats that are both imminent and
moderate to low in magnitude.
On May 11, 2004, we were sent a
petition to list the Pearl darter by the
Center for Biological Diversity. Because
no new information was provided in the
petition, and we had already
determined the species warranted
listing, no further action was taken on
the petition.
On May 10, 2011, the Service
announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the
Service’s listing process. As part of an
agreement with one of the agency’s most
frequent plaintiffs, the Service filed a
work plan with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. The work
plan enables the agency to, over a
period of 6 years, systematically review
and address the needs of more than 250
species listed within the 2010 CNOR,
including the Pearl darter, to determine
if these species should be added to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This
work plan enables the Service to again
prioritize its workload based on the
needs of candidate species, while also
providing State wildlife agencies,
stakeholders, and other partners clarity
and certainty about when listing
determinations will be made. On July
12, 2011, the Service reached an
agreement with another frequent
plaintiff group and further strengthened
the work plan, which allows us to focus
our resources on the species most in
need of protection under the Act. These
agreements were approved by the court
on September 9, 2011. The timing of
this proposed listing is, in part, an
outcome of the work plan.
Background
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Pearl darter (Percina aurora) is a
small fish with a blunt snout, horizontal
mouth, large eyes located high on the
head, and a medial black spot at the
base of the caudal (tail) fin (Ross 2001,
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
p. 498). Described in 1994 (Suttkus et al.
1994, pp. 13–17) from the Strong River
in Simpson County, MS (Ross 2001, p.
500), the Pearl darter is one of three
members of the subgenus Cottogaster.
The Pearl darter is closely allied to the
channel darter (P. copelandi) (Ross et al.
1989, p. 25). It is distinguished from the
channel darter by its larger body size,
lack of tubercles (small, raised, skin
structures) and heavy pigmentation of
breeding males, high number of
marginal spines on the belly scales of
breeding males, and fully scaled cheeks.
Breeding males have two dark bands
across the spinous dorsal (back) fin, a
broad, diffuse, dusky marginal band,
and a pronounced dark band across the
fin near its base. Breeding females lack
pigmentation on their ventral body
surface. The Pearl darter reaches a
maximum standard length (SL) of 57
millimeters (mm) (2.2 inches (in.)) in
females and 64 mm (2.5 in.) in males
(Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 16).
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution
Historical Range
The Pearl darter is historically known
from localized sites within the Pearl and
Pascagoula River drainages of
Mississippi and Louisiana, based on
collection records from 16 counties/
parishes of Mississippi and Louisiana.
The quantified range of the Pearl darter,
expressed in river miles, has not been
well-defined by researchers (Slack et al.
2005, pp. 5–10; Ross 2001, p. 499; Ross
et al. 2000, pp. 5–8; Bart and Piller
1997, pp. 3–10; Bart and Suttkus 1996,
pp. 3–4, Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15–18).
However, a recent reanalysis of
collection records compiled from the
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science
(MMNS) (2016, unpublished data)
estimates the species’ historical range to
be approximately 708 kilometers (km)
(440 miles (mi)) in the Pearl River and
539 km (335 mi) in the Pascagoula River
system, for a total historical range of
1,247 km (775 mi).
Pearl River Watershed—Examination
of site records of museum fish
collections from the Pearl River
drainage (compiled from Suttkus et al.
1994, pp. 15–18) suggest that the darter
once inhabited the large tributaries and
main channel habitats from St.
Tammany Parish, LA, to Simpson
County, MS. This area included
approximately 364 km (226 mi) of the
lower Pearl River, 21 km (13 mi) of the
Strong River, and 322 km (200 mi) of
Bogue Chitto River for a total of
approximately 708 km (440 mi), all of
which is below the Ross Barnett
Reservoir (compiled from MMNS 2016,
unpublished data; Slack et al. 2005, pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
5–10; Ross 2001, p. 499; Ross et al.
2000, pp. 2–5, Bart and Piller 1997, pp.
3–10; Bart and Suttkus 1996, pp. 3–4;
Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15–18).
Despite annual collection efforts by
Suttkus from 1958 to 1973 (Bart and
Suttkus 1996, pp. 3–4; Bart and Suttkus
1995, pp. 13–14; Suttkus et al. 1994, pp.
15–18), the Pearl darter was collected
from only 14 percent of 716 fish
collections from site-specific locations
within the Pearl River drainage. There
have been no records of Pearl darters
from the Pearl River drainage since
1973, despite Suttkus’ 64 fish
collections from this time through the
middle 1990s from the Pearl River (Bart
and Piller 1997, p. 1) and other various
collection efforts in the lower Pearl
River system (Roberts 2015, pers.
comm.; Slack et al. 2005, pp. 5–10; Ross
2001, p. 499). There are no records of
Pearl darters in the upper Pearl River
system (upstream of the Ross Barnett
Dam), and collection efforts by Schaefer
and Mickel in 2011 (p. 10) confirmed its
absence from this part of the Pearl River.
A recent survey at the type locality in
the Strong River verified its absence
from that area also (Roberts 2015, pers.
comm.). There have been no verifiable
records of the Pearl darter from the Pearl
River drainage in over 40 years, thus,
this species is considered extirpated
from that system, representing a 57
percent loss of its historical range.
Pascagoula River Watershed—Site
records from museum fish collections
before 2005 suggested that the Pearl
darter inhabited the main channels of
large Pascagoula drainage tributaries
from Jackson to Lauderdale Counties
(Ross 2001, pp. 499–500). Although
collection data from Ross (2001, p. 500),
Bart and Piller (1997, p. 4), Bart and
Suttkus (1996, p. 4), and Suttkus et al.
(1994, p. 19) suggested that the Pearl
darter was very rare in the Pascagoula
River system. Bart and Piller (1997, p.
4) examined Suttkus’ work before 1974
and found that only 19 Pearl darters
were collected out of 19,300 total fish in
10 Tulane University Museum of
Natural History collections.
Additionally, from the Mississippi
Freshwater Fishes Database, Ross (in
Bart and Piller 1997, p. 4) estimated the
rarity of the Pearl darter within the
Pascagoula drainage from 379
collections (81,514 fish specimens)
since 1973 and found that only one
Pearl darter was collected for every
4,795 specimens. This species’
historical range within the Pascagoula
River system totaled approximately 539
km (335 mi), which included 48 km (30
mi) of the Pascagoula River, 11 km (7
mi) of Black Creek, 131 km (82 mi) of
the Leaf River, 34 km (21 mi) of
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64859
Okatoma Creek, 262 km (163 mi) of the
Chickasawhay River, 39 km (24 mi) of
the Bouie River, and 13 km (8 mi) of
Chunky Creek (compiled from MMNS
2016 unpublished data; Slack et al.
2005, pp. 5–10; Ross 2001, p. 499; Ross
et al. 2000, pp. 1–28; Bart and Piller
1997, pp. 3–10; Bart and Suttkus 1996,
pp. 3–4; Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19; Ross
et al. 1992, pp. 2–10).
Current Range and Population Size
Today, Pearl darters are thought to
occur only in scattered sites within
approximately 449 km (279 mi) of the
Pascagoula drainage, including the
Pascagoula, Chickasawhay, Chunky,
Leaf, and Bouie Rivers, and Okatoma
and Black Creeks. In recent years, the
species has been found sporadically
within the Pascagoula, Chickasawhay,
and Leaf Rivers. There have been no
collecting attempts within the Bouie
and Chunky Rivers, nor Okatoma and
Black Creeks, in the last 15 years; thus,
the status of populations in those
systems is unknown.
Collections of Pearl darters over the
last 20 years in the Pascagoula River
drainage have included: 10 Pearl darters
from 4 sites out of 27 fish collections in
1996 and 1997 from the Pascagoula
River (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 3); 3
specimens from the Leaf River in 1998;
and 7 collections (total of 45 Pearl
darters) in the Pascagoula River at the
confluence with Big Black Creek (Dead
Lake) and downstream of Dead Lake for
22 km (14 mi) (Slack et al. 2002, p. 15).
Slack et al. (2005, p. 5) sampled for
Pearl darters within the Leaf and
Chickasawhay rivers beginning near the
confluence with the Pascagoula River
and extending through portions of the
Chickasaway and Leaf Rivers. The
species was present in 78 localities
among the 2 systems but were typically
in low abundance when present. These
survey efforts by Slack et al. (2005, pp.
1–15) indicated range of the Pearl darter
within the Pascagoula drainage system
was further upstream than previously
known.
Over the last 15 years, Pearl darters
have been found from late summer
through fall in the upper Pascagoula
River drainage (Leaf and Chickasawhay
Rivers) and in the lower Pascagoula
River proper in spring and summer
(Clark and Schaeffer 2015, pp. 3, 9–10,
19, 23; Slack et al. 2002, p. 8). Young
of Year (YOY) (fish from the current
breeding season) were collected in both
2013 and 2014 in the Chickasawhay and
Leaf Rivers, indicating the existence of
reproducing populations and
recruitment in both of those systems
(Clark and Schaeffer 2015, pp. 10, 19,
23). Schaefer and Mickle (2011, pp. 1–
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
64860
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Breeding males have been observed
during May in shallow water (15 cm (5.9
in.)) over firm gravel and cobble in mid
channel in water temperatures from 17
to 21 degrees Celsius (°C) (62.6 to 69.8
degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Bart and Piller
1997, p. 9; Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19).
It is thought that subadult Pearl darters
migrate upstream during the fall and
winter to spawn in gravel reaches (Bart
et al. 2001, p. 14). Spawning of Pearl
darters in the Pearl and Strong Rivers
(Mississippi) has been documented
during March through May in the upper
reaches of the Bogue Chitto River
(Mississippi and Louisiana) (Suttkus et
al. 1994, pp. 19–20). YOY Pearl darters
were collected in June from the Pearl
River (Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19). Bart
and Pillar (1997, pp. 6–7) described the
Strong River rapids area, near the
geological outcroppings, as an important
historical spawning habitat for the
species in the Pearl River system.
Habitat
The Pearl darter occurs in lowgradient, coastal plain rivers (Suttkus et
al. 1994, p. 13). The species is
considered rare and is infrequently
collected; however, its preference for
deep water, main channels, and its
association with woody debris
accumulations can make sampling
difficult (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 1).
Pearl darters have been collected from
gravel riffles and rock outcrops; deep
runs over gravel and sand pools below
shallow riffles; swift (90 cm per sec (35
in. per sec)), shallow water over firm
gravel and cobble in mid-river channels;
and swift water near brush piles. Slack
et al. (2002, p. 10) found Pearl darters
associated with scour holes on the
inside bend of the river downstream
from point bars and in substrata of
coarse sand with detritus in troughs
perpendicular to the shore line. Other
collectors (Clark and Schaefer, 2015, pp.
11, 12, 19; Slack et al. 2005, p. 9; Bart
and Piller 1997, p. 10) have found Pearl
darters in areas with finer substrate (i.e.,
loose sand, mud, silt), including a
collection in loose detritus formed from
a large scouring flood event (Clark and
Schaefer 2015, p. 19). Very little aquatic
vegetation was found in the areas where
Slack et al. (2005, p. 9) collected the
species.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
3) highlighted similarities in numbers of
Pearl darters collected historically from
the Pascagoula River Basin museum
collections from 2000 to 2009 and found
them to trend closely with the CPUE
(Catch per Unit Effort) of 1980 to 1999
collections. Clark and Schaefer (2015,
pp. 5, 9) recently resampled collection
sites of Slack et al. (2005, pp. 1–13) in
the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers,
within the upper Pascagoula River, and
found CPUE similar between the 2004
and 2014 surveys. Together, Clark and
Schaefer (2015, pp. 5, 9), Schaefer and
Mickle (2011, pp. 1–3) and Slack et al.
(2005, pp. 1–13) suggest a stable
population of Pearl darters has existed
within these rivers in the upper
Pascagoula River Basin over the last
decade and speculate that populations
may exist in small numbers within the
other systems not recently sampled (e.g.,
Chunky and Bouie Rivers, Okatoma and
Black creeks).
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at
50 CFR part 424, set forth the
procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a
species based on: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below:
Biology
Very little is known about the
reproductive biology and general
ecology of the Pearl darter (Ross 2001,
p. 499). Most Pearl darters mature in 1
year. Female Pearl darters are sexually
mature at 39 mm (1.5 in) SL, while
males are mature at 42 mm (1.7 in.) SL
(Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 19–20).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
All members of Cottogaster are
undergoing range contractions and are
of potential conservation concern
throughout their respective distributions
(Dugo et al. 2008, p. 3; Warren et al.
2000, pp. 7–8; Goodchild 1994, pp. 433–
435). The Pearl darter has been
extirpated from the Pearl River drainage,
representing an approximately 57
percent loss of its historical range.
Suttkus et al. (1994, p. 19) attributed the
loss of the Pearl darter in the Pearl River
to increasing sedimentation from habitat
modification caused by the removal of
riparian vegetation and extensive
cultivation near the river’s edge. In
addition, the decline of the species in
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Pearl River was likely exacerbated
by the construction of low sill dams by
the West Pearl Navigation Waterway,
which blocked fish passage and is
thought to have led to the extirpation of
the Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae)
from the system (Mickel et al. 2010, p.
158).
Water Quality Degradation
Similar to the Pearl River system, the
Pascagoula River system suffers from
acute and localized water quality
degradation by nonpoint source
pollution in association with land
surface, stormwater, and effluent runoffs
from urbanization and municipal areas
(Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 2005c,
p. 23; 2005d, p. 16). TMDLs (Total
Maximum Daily Loads; regulatory term
in the U.S. Clean Water Act describing
a benchmark set for a certain pollutant
to bring water quality up to the
applicable standard) have been
established for 89 segments of the
Pascagoula River Basin, many of which
include portions of the Pearl darter’s
range (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18–21). For
sediment, one of the most pervasive
pollutants, the State of Mississippi has
TMDLs for various tributaries and main
stems of the Leaf and Chickasawhay
Rivers. To date, efforts by the State of
Mississippi to improve water quality in
the Pascagoula River basin to meet these
TMDL benchmarks have been
inadequate (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18–21).
Thirty-nine percent of the Pascagoula
River Basin tributaries are rated fair or
poor due to pollution impacts (MDEQ
2014a, pp. 18–21; MDEQ 2008a, p. 17).
Nonpoint source pollution is a
localized threat to the Pearl darter
within the drainage, and is more
prevalent in areas outside those lands
protected by The Nature Conservancy
and other areas managed by the State of
Mississippi where Best Management
Practices (BMPs) are utilized. Most
water quality threats outside of
protected lands are due to increased
sediment loads and variations in pH
(MDEQ 2014a, pp. 1–51; 2008a, pp. 13–
15). Sediment in stormwater runoff
increases water turbidity and
temperature and originates locally from
poorly maintained construction sites,
timber harvest tracts, agricultural fields,
clearing of riparian vegetation, and
gravel extraction in the river floodplain.
Excessive sediments disrupt feeding and
spawning of fish and aquatic insects,
abrade and suffocate periphyton
(mixture of algae, bacteria, microbes,
and detritus that is attached to
submerged surfaces), and impact fish
growth, survival, and reproduction
(Waters 1995, pp. 55–62). A localized
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
portion of the Chickasawhay River is on
the State Section 303(d) List of Water
Bodies as impaired due to sediment
(MDEQ 2005b, p. 17).
Additionally, some contaminants may
bind with one another within the
Pascagoula River drainage (i.e., heavy
metals bind with sediments or other
contaminants in the water column).
These bound chemical contaminants
have not been addressed in TMDLs.
Only seven TMDLs for metals have been
completed (MDEQ 2008a, pp. 1–55).
The Davis Dead River, a tributary at the
most downstream site of the Pearl
darter’s range, is considered critically
impaired by mercury (MDEQ 2011, pp.
1–29), and fish consumption advisories
continue for mercury in certain
gamefish species in the Pascagoula
River main stem (MDEQ 2008a, p. 43).
There are 15 permitted point source
discharge sites within the Bouie River
system (MDEQ 2005a, p. 6) and an
unknown amount of nonpoint runoff
sites. Municipal and industrial
discharges during periods of low flow
(i.e., no or few rain events) intensify
water quality degradation by increasing
water temperatures, lowering dissolved
oxygen, and changing pH. Within the
Pascagoula River basin, pollutants
causing specific channel or river reach
impairment, (i.e., those pollutants
preventing the water body from
reaching its applicable water quality
standard (Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 2012, pp. 1–9), include
sedimentation (117 km (73 mi));
chemicals and nutrients in the water
column (50 km (31 mi)); and various
toxins, such as heavy metals like lead or
cadmium (137 km (85 mi)). TMDLs were
completed for pesticides such as DDT,
toxaphene, dioxin, and
pentachlorophenol, although much of
the data and results are not finalized
and remain unavailable for the
designated reaches (EPA 2012, pp. 1–7;
MDEQ 2003, pp. 5–10; Justus et al.
1999, p. 1; MDEQ 1994, pp. 1–13). No
Pearl darters have been collected in the
Bouie River (Bart et al. 2001, pp. 6–7)
since 1997 (Ross et al. 2000, p. 3),
though there is no specific data
correlating the species’ decline to the
presence of these toxins.
Localized wastewater effluent into the
Leaf River from the City of Hattiesburg
is negatively impacting water quality
(Hattiesburg American 2015, pp. 1–2;
Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p.
1; The Student Printz 2014, pp. 1–2).
Existing housing, recreational cabins,
and trailers along the banks of the Leaf
River between I–59 to the town of
Estabutchie add nutrient loading
through sewage and septic water
effluent (Mississippi River Collaboration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
2014, p. 1). In 1997, Bart and Piller (p.
12) noted extensive algal growth during
warmer months in the Leaf and Bouie
Rivers, indicating nutrient and organic
enrichment and decreases in dissolved
oxygen and pH changes. Today, at
specific locations, the water quality of
the Bouie and Leaf Rivers continues to
be negatively impacted by organic
enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliform and elevated nutrients (MDEQ
2005a, pp. 1–26; 2004, pp. 1–29).
Oil and Gas Development
Nonpoint and point source pollution
from oil and gas exploration, including
drill field construction, active drilling,
and pipeline easements, may add
localized pollutants into the Pascagoula
River Basin during stormwater runoff
events if BMPs are not used. There is
one major oil refinery within the basin
along with 6 oil pumping stations, 10
major crude pipelines, 4 major product
oil pipelines, and 5 major gas and more
than 25 lesser gas lines stretching
hundreds of miles and crisscrossing the
main stem Pascagoula, Bouie, Leaf, and
Chickasawhay Rivers and tributaries; in
addition, there are more than 100 active
oil producing wells within the Pearl
darters’ watersheds (compiled from Oil
and Gas map of Mississippi in Phillips
2013, pp. 10, 23). All have the potential
to rupture and/or leak and cause
environmental and organismal damage
as evidenced by the Genesis Oil Co. and
Leaf River oil spill of 2000
(Environmental Science Services, Inc.
2000, pp. 1–50; Kemp Associates, PA,
2000, pp. 4–5; The Clarion-Ledger,
December 23, 1999, p. 1B) and Genesis
Oil spill in Okatoma Creek in February
2016 (Drennen pers. observ. 2016). In
addition to gas pipelines, there are
numerous railways that cross Pearl
darter habitat that are subject to
accidental and catastrophic spilling of
toxins such as fuel oil, methanol, resin,
and fertilizer (MDEQ 2014b, pp. 1–23).
Alternative oil and gas collection
methods (i.e., hydraulic fracturing
(‘‘fracking’’) and horizontal drilling and
injection) have allowed for the
expansion of oil and gas drilling into
deposits that were previously
inaccessible (Phillips 2013, p. 21),
which has led to increased activity
within southern Mississippi, including
portions of the Pascagoula River Basin.
There are more than 100 water injection
disposal wells and enhanced oil
recovery wells within the Basin
(compiled from Active Injection Well
Map of Mississippi in Phillips 2013, p.
49). A variety of chemicals (e.g.,
hydrochloric acid, surfactants,
potassium chloride) are used during the
drilling and fracking process (Colborn et
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64861
al. 2011, pp. 1040–1042), and their
wastes are stored in open pits (retention
basins) or storage facilities. Spills
during transport or releases due to
retention basin failure or overflow pose
a risk for surface and groundwater
contamination, which can cause
significant adverse effects to water
quality and aquatic organisms that
inhabit these watersheds (Osborn et al.
2011, pp. 8172–8176; Kargbo et al. 2010,
pp. 5680–5681; Wiseman 2009, pp. 127–
142). There is currently no routine water
quality monitoring in areas where the
Pearl darter currently occurs, so it is
unlikely that the effects of a leak or spill
would be detected quickly to allow for
a timely response.
Geomorphology Changes
Pearl darters are not found in
impounded waters and are intolerant of
lentic (standing water) habitats that may
be formed by gravel mining or other
landscape-altering practices. The results
of historical sand and gravel dredging
impacts have been a concern for the
Bouie and Leaf Rivers (MDEQ 2000, pp.
1–98). Historically, the American Sand
and Gravel Company (ASGC) (1995, p.
B4) has mined sand and gravel using a
hydraulic suction dredge, operating
within the banks or adjacent to the
Bouie and Leaf Rivers. Large gravel bars
of the river and its floodplain have been
removed over the past 50 years, creating
open-water areas that function as deep
lake systems (ASGC 1995, pp. B4–B8).
The creation of these large, open-water
areas has accelerated geomorphic
processes, specifically headcutting
(erosional feature causing an abrupt
drop in the streambed), that has
adversely affected the flora and fauna of
many coastal plain streams (Patrick et
al. 1993, p. 90). Mining in active river
channels typically results in incision
upstream of the mine by knickpoints
(break in the slope of a river or stream
profile caused by renewed erosion
attributed to a bottom disturbance that
may retreat upstream), sediment
deposition downstream, and an
alteration in channel morphology that
can have impacts for years (Mossa and
Coley 2004, pp. 1–20). The upstream
migration of knickpoints, or
headcutting, may cause undermining of
structures, lowering of alluvial water
tables (aquifer comprising
unconsolidated materials deposited by
water and typically adjacent to rivers),
channel destabilization and widening,
and loss of aquatic and riparian habitat.
This geomorphic change may cause the
extirpation of riparian and lotic (flowing
water) species (Patrick et al. 1993, p.
96). Lyttle (1993, p. 70) and Brown and
Lyttle (1992, pp. 2, 46) found that
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
64862
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
instream gravel mining reduces overall
fish species diversity in Ozark streams
and favors a large number of a few small
fish species, such as the Central
stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum)
and most darters (Etheostoma sp.).
The decline of the Pearl darter in the
Bouie River and Black Creek may be
from sedimentation caused by unstable
banks and loose and unconsolidated
streambeds (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 12).
Mossa and Coley (2004, p. 17)
determined that, of the major tributaries
in the Pascagoula basin, the Bouie River
was the least stable. Channel
enlargement of the Bouie River showed
higher than background values
associated with avulsions (the rapid
abandonment of a river channel and the
formation of a new river channel) into
floodplain pits and increased
sedimentation. In addition, channel
enlargement of 400 to 500 percent in the
Bouie River has occurred at specific
sites due to instream gravel mining
(Mossa et al. 2006, entire; Mossa and
Coley 2004, p. 17). Ayers (2014, pp. 43–
45) also found significant and lengthy
instream channel form changes in the
Chickasawhay River floodplain. Clark
and Schaefer (2015, pp. 13–14) noted a
slight decrease in fish species richness
in the upper Pascagoula River basin
from their 2004 sampling, which they
attributed to past anthropogenic
influences such as gravel mining,
bankside practices, and construction.
In the Bogue Chitto River of the Pearl
River basin, Stewart et al. (2005, pp.
268–270) found that the assemblages of
fishes had shifted over 27 years. In this
time period, the sedimentation rates
within the system had increased
dramatically and caused the decrease in
the relative abundance of all fish in the
family Percidae (Stewart et al. 2005, pp.
268–270) from 35 percent to 9 percent,
including the extirpation of Pearl
darters. Ross et al. (1992, pp. 8–9)
studied threats to the Okatoma Creek
(Pascagoula Basin) fish diversity and
predicted that geomorphic changes to
the stream would reduce the fish habitat
diversity resulting in a decline of the
fish assemblages, including the rare
Pearl darter.
Impoundments
The proposed damming of Little and
Big Cedar Creeks, tributaries to the
Pascagoula River, for establishment of
two recreational lakes (George County
Lakes) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2015, pp. 1–13) has prompted the
American Rivers organization to
recently list the Pascagoula River as the
10th most endangered river in the
country (American Rivers 2016, pp. 20–
21). Though the proposed project is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
directly within known Pearl darter
habitat, the lakes will decrease water
quantity entering the lower Pascagoula
Basin, and will likely concentrate
pollutants, reduce water flow, and alter
downstream food webs and aquatic
productivity (Poff and Hart 2002, p.
660).
Summary of Factor A
Habitat modification and resultant
water quality degradation are occurring
within the Pearl darter’s current range.
Increased sedimentation from the
removal of riparian vegetation and
extensive cultivation is thought to have
led to the extirpation of the Pearl darter
from the Pearl River drainage. Water
quality degradation occurs locally from
point and nonpoint source pollution in
association with land surface,
stormwater, and effluent runoff from
urbanization and municipal areas.
Increased sediment from a variety of
sources, including geomorphological
changes and bank instability from past
habitat modification, appears to be the
major contributor to water quality
declines in this species’ habitat.
Localized sewage and waste water
effluent also pose a threat to this species
and its habitat. The Pearl darter’s
vulnerability to catastrophic events,
particularly the release of pollutants in
its habitat from oil spills, train
derailments, and hydraulic fracturing, is
also a concern due to the abundance of
oil wells, pumping stations, gas lines,
and railways throughout its habitat, and
the increased interest in alternative oil
and gas collection methods in the area.
The proposed damming of Big and Little
Cypress creeks may decrease water flow
and increase nutrients and
sedimentation into the Pascagoula
River. These threats continue to impact
water quality and habitat conditions
through much of this species’ current
range. Therefore, we conclude that
habitat degradation is presently a
moderate threat to the Pearl darter that
is expected to continue and possibly
increase into the future.
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In general, Pearl darters are unknown
to the public and are not used for either
sport or bait purposes. Therefore,
collection of this species by the public
is not currently identified as a threat.
Scientific collecting is controlled by the
State through permits; thus, scientific
collecting and take by private and
institutional collectors are not presently
identified as threats. Therefore,
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
purposes does not pose a threat to the
Pearl darter now or in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Predation on the Pearl darter by other
fish, reptiles, and other organisms
undoubtedly occurs; however, there is
no evidence to suggest that any
predators threaten this species. There is
also no evidence that disease is a threat.
Therefore, neither disease nor predation
poses a threat to the Pearl darter now or
in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of Mississippi classifies the
Pearl darter as endangered in the State
(Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
2015, p. 2), and prohibits the collection
of the Pearl darter for scientific
purposes without a State-issued
collecting permit. However, as
discussed under Factor B, we have no
evidence to suggest that scientific
collection poses a threat to this species.
This State endangered designation
conveys no legal protection for the Pearl
darter’s habitat nor prohibits habitat
degradation, which is the primary threat
to the species. The Pearl darter receives
no protection in Louisiana, where it is
considered historic in the State
(Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries 2016, p. 5).
The Pearl darter and its habitats are
afforded some protection from water
quality and habitat degradation under
the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) and the Mississippi Water
Pollution Control Law, as amended,
1993 (Code of Mississippi, §§ 49–17–1,
et seq.) and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Mississippi
Commission on Environmental Quality.
Although these laws have resulted in
some temporary enhancement in water
quality and habitat for aquatic life, they
have been inadequate in fully protecting
the Pearl darter from sedimentation and
other nonpoint source pollutants.
The State of Mississippi maintains
water-use classifications through
issuance of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits to
industries, municipalities, and others
that set maximum limits on certain
pollutants or pollutant parameters. For
water bodies on the Clean Water Act
section 303(d) list, the State is required
to establish a TMDL for the pollutants
of concern that will improve water
quality to the applicable standard. The
establishment of TMDLs for 89 river or
stream segments and ratings of fair to
poor for 39 percent of the tributaries
within the Pascagoula basin are
indicative of pollution impacts within
the Pearl darter’s habitat (MDEQ 2008a,
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
p. 17). TMDLs are not an enforced
regulation, and only reflect benchmarks
for improving water quality; they have
not been successful in reducing water
quality degradation within this species’
habitat.
Mississippi Surface Mining and
Reclamation Law, Miss. Code Ann.
§ 53–7–1 et seq., and Federal laws
regarding oil and gas drilling (42 U.S.C.
6921) are generally designed to protect
freshwater resources like the Pearl
darter, but these regulatory mechanisms
do not contain specific provisions
requiring an analysis of project impacts
to fish and wildlife resources. They also
do not contain or provide for any formal
mechanism requiring coordination with,
or input from, the Service or the
Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks regarding the
presence of federally endangered,
threatened, or candidate species, or
other rare and sensitive species. In the
case of surface mining, penalties may be
assessed if damage is serious, but there
is no immediate response for
remediation of habitats or species. As
demonstrated under Factor A, periodic
declines in water quality and
degradation of habitat for this species
are ongoing despite these protective
regulations. These mechanisms have
been inadequate to protect the species
from sediment runoff and turbidity
within its habitat associated with land
surface runoff and municipal/industrial
discharges, as described under Factor A.
There are currently no requirements
within the scope of other statewide
environmental laws to specifically
consider the Pearl darter or ensure that
a project will not significantly impact
the species.
The Pearl darter likely receives
ancillary protection (i.e., water quality
improvements, protection from
geomorphological changes) where it cooccurs with two other federally listed
species, the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrhynchus desotoi) and yellow
blotched map turtle (Graptemys
flavimaculata), during the course of
consultation on these species under
section 7 of the Act. However,
protective measures through section 7 of
the Act would only be triggered for
those projects having a Federal nexus,
which would not address many of the
water quality disturbances caused by
industry, municipalities, agriculture, or
private landowners.
Additional ancillary protection of
53,520 hectares (ha) (132,128 acres (ac))
within the Pascagoula basin watershed
occurs due to the Mississippi Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks’ management of six
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)
within the drainage for recreational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
hunting and fishing. Point and nonpoint
sediment sources are decreased or
reduced by using and monitoring BMP’s
during silviculture, road maintenance,
and other landscape-altering methods.
Four of the six WMAs (Chickasawhay
and Leaf Rivers, Mason and Red Creeks)
do not directly border the river system,
but they do contain and protect parcels
of upland buffer, wetland, and
tributaries to the basin. The Pascagoula
River and Ward Bayou WMAs include
20,329 ha (50,234 ac) consisting of
mainly wetland buffer and river/stream
reach of the basin within the current
range of the Pearl darter, protecting
approximately 106 km (66 mi) of the
Pascagoula River main stem (Stowe,
pers. comm., 2015). The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) protects 14,164 ha
(35,000 ac) within the Pascagoula River
watershed and approximately 10 km (6
mi) of the Pascagoula River shoreline in
Jackson County, Mississippi. Of that
amount, the Charles M. Deaton Nature
Preserve (1,336 ha, 3,300 ac) protects
the headwaters of the Pascagoula River,
where the Leaf and Chickasawhay
Rivers converge, and is part of a 19,020ha (47,000-ac) swath of public lands
surrounding the Pascagoula River,
which includes approximately 8 km (5
mi) of the Chickasawhay River and
approximately 7 km (4 mi) of the Leaf
River shorelines (Becky Stowe 2015,
pers. comm.).
These State-managed WMAs and TNC
preserves provide a measure of
protection for approximately 134 km (84
mi) or 30 percent of the river reaches
within this species’ current range. Even
though 116 of these 134 km (72 of 84
mi) are located within the Pascagoula
River mainstem, only short segments of
shoreline are protected in the
Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers. The
remaining segments, not within WMA’s
and TNC preserves, are vulnerable to
farming and timbering to the bankside
edge, and construction of structures
such as houses, septic facilities, dams,
and ponds. Each land management
action increases stormwater runoff
laden with sediment and agricultural
and wastewater chemicals.
Summary of Factor D
Outside of the areas protected or
managed by the State and TNC, and
despite existing authorities, such as the
Clean Water Act, pollutants continue to
impair the water quality throughout
much of the current range of the Pearl
darter. State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms have helped reduce the
negative effects of point source and
nonpoint source discharges, yet there is
inconsistency in the implementation of
these regulations and BMPs, which are
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64863
not mandatory for all activities. Thus,
we conclude that existing regulatory
mechanisms do not adequately protect
the Pearl darter from the impact of other
threats.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small Population Size and Loss of
Genetic Diversity
The Pearl darter is included on the
Southeastern Fishes Council list of the
12 most imperiled species (Kuhajda et
al. 2009, pp. 17–18). This species has
always been considered rare (Deacon et
al. 1979, p. 42) and is currently
restricted to localized sites within the
Pascagoula River drainage. Genetic
diversity has likely declined due to
fragmentation and separation of
reproducing Pearl darter populations.
Kreiser et al. (2012, p. 12) found that
disjunct populations of Pearl darters
within the Leaf and Chickasawhay
Rivers showed some distinct alleles
suggesting that gene flow between the
two rivers was restricted and perhaps
that the total gene pool diversity was
declining.
Species that are restricted in range
and population size are more likely to
suffer loss of genetic diversity due to
genetic drift, potentially increasing their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
decreasing their ability to adapt to
environmental changes, and reducing
the fitness of individuals (Allendorf and
´
Luikart 2007, pp. 117–146; Soule 1980,
pp. 157–158). It is likely that some of
the Pearl darter populations are below
the effective population size required to
maintain long-term genetic and
´
population viability (Soule 1980, pp.
162–164). Collecting data (Ross 2001, p.
500; Bart and Piller 1997, p. 4; Bart and
Suttkus 1996, p. 4; Suttkus et al. 1994,
p. 19) indicate that the Pearl darter is
rare in the Pascagoula River system, as
when this species is collected it is
typically in low numbers and a
disproportionately low percentage of the
total fish collected.
In addition, preliminary information
indicates that there may be low genetic
diversity within the Pearl darter
populations, especially among
populations within the Leaf and
Chickasawhay Rivers where it appears
gene flow between the two rivers may
be restricted (Kreiser et al. 2013, pp. 14–
17). The long-term viability of a species
is founded on the conservation of
numerous local populations throughout
its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp.
93–104). The presence of viable,
separate populations is essential for a
species to recover and adapt to
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
64864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
environmental change (Noss and
Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264–297; Harris
1984, pp. 93–104). Inbreeding and loss
of neutral genetic variation associated
with small population size reduce the
fitness of the population (Reed and
Frankham 2003, pp. 230–237) and
accelerate population decline (Fagan
and Holmes 2006, pp. 51–60). The
species’ small numbers within scattered
locations coupled with its lack of
genetic variability may decrease the
species’ ability to adapt or recover from
major hydrological events that impact
potential spawning habitat (Clark and
Schaeffer 2015, pp. 18–22).
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Hurricanes
Fish and aquatic communities and
habitat, including that of the Pearl
darter, may be changed by hurricane
influences (Schaefer et al. 2006, pp. 62–
68). In 2005, Hurricane Katrina
destroyed much of the urban and
industrial areas along the lower
Pascagoula River basin and also
impacted the ecology upriver to the
confluence with the Leaf and
Chickasawhay Rivers. Many toxic
chemicals that leaked from grounded
and displaced boats and ships, storage
facilities, vehicles, septic systems,
business sites, and other sources were
reported in the rivers, along with
saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of
Mexico. Initial assessment identified
several fish kills and increased surge of
organic material into the waters, which
lowered dissolved oxygen levels
(Schaefer et al. 2006, pp. 62–68).
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is
unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3).
Numerous long-term climate changes
have been observed including changes
in arctic temperatures and ice,
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, p. 4). Species that
are dependent on specialized habitat
types, limited in distribution, or at the
extreme periphery of their range may be
most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change (see 75 FR 48911,
August 12, 2010); however, while
continued change is certain, the
magnitude and rate of change is
unknown in many cases.
Climate change has the potential to
increase the vulnerability of the Pearl
darter to random catastrophic events
(Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145–148;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6060–6074).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
An increase in both severity and
variation in climate patterns is
expected, with extreme floods, strong
storms, and droughts becoming more
common (IPCC 2014, pp. 58–83).
Thomas et al. (2004, pp. 145–148) report
that frequency, duration, and intensity
of droughts are likely to increase in the
Southeast as a result of global climate
change. Kaushal et al. (2010, p. 465)
reported that stream temperatures in the
Southeast have increased roughly 0.2–
0.4 °C (0.3–0.7 °F) per decade over the
past 30 years, and as air temperature is
a strong predictor of water temperature,
stream temperatures are expected to
continue to rise. Predicted impacts of
climate change on fishes, related to
drought, include disruption to their
physiology (e.g., temperature tolerance,
dissolved oxygen needs, and metabolic
rates), life history (e.g., timing of
reproduction, growth rate), and
distribution (e.g., range shifts, migration
of new predators) (Comte et al. 2013, pp.
627–636; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp.
350–351; Heino et al. 2009, pp. 41–51;
Jackson and Mandrak 2002, pp. 89–98).
However, estimates of the effects of
climate change using available climate
models typically lack the geographic
precision needed to predict the
magnitude of effects at a scale small
enough to discretely apply to the range
of a given species. Therefore, there is
uncertainty about the specific effects of
climate change (and their magnitude) on
the Pearl darter; however, climate
change is almost certain to affect aquatic
habitats in the Pascagoula River basin
through increased water temperatures
and more frequent droughts (Alder and
Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–12), and species
with limited ranges, fragmented
distributions, and small population size
are thought to be especially vulnerable
to the effects of climate change (Byers
and Norris 2011, p. 18). Thus, we
consider climate change to be a threat to
the Pearl darter.
Summary of Factor E
Because the Pearl darter has a limited
geographic range, small population
numbers, and low genetic diversity, it is
vulnerable to several other ongoing
natural and manmade threats. These
threats include the loss of genetic
fitness, susceptibility to spills and other
catastrophic events, and impacts from
climate change. These threats are
current and are likely to continue or
increase in the future.
Cumulative Effects of Factors A
Through E
The threats that affect the Pearl darter
are important on a threat-by-threat basis
but are even more significant in
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
combination. Due to the loss of the
species from the Pearl River system, the
Pearl darter is now confined to a single
drainage system. The species is
continuing to experience water quality
degradation from point and nonpoint
source pollution in association with
land-altering activities, discharges from
municipalities, and geomorphological
changes from past gravel mining. The
laws and regulations directed at
preventing water quality degradation
have been ineffective at providing for
the conservation of the Pearl darter.
Furthermore, these threats and their
effect on this species are exacerbated
due to the Pearl darter’s small
population numbers and low genetic
diversity, which reduce its genetic
fitness and resilience to possible
catastrophic events. Though projecting
possible synergistic effects of climate
change on the Pearl darter is somewhat
speculative, climate change and its
effects of increased water temperatures
and more frequent droughts will have a
greater negative impact on species with
limited ranges and small population
sizes, such as the Pearl darter. While
these threats or stressors may act in
isolation, it is more probable that many
stressors are acting simultaneously (or
in combination) on the Pearl darter.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Pearl darter. As
described in detail above, the Pearl
darter has been extirpated from about 57
percent of its historical range and it is
now confined to the Pascagoula River
watershed. The species occurs in low
numbers within its current range, and
continues to be at risk throughout all of
its range due to the immediacy, severity,
and scope of threats from habitat
degradation and range curtailment
(Factor A) and other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E). Existing regulatory
mechanisms have been inadequate in
ameliorating these threats (Factor D).
Anthropogenic activities such as land
development, agriculture, silviculture,
oil and gas development, inadequate
sewage treatment, stormwater runoff,
past gravel mining and resultant
geomorphological changes, and
construction of dams or sills, have all
contributed to the degradation of stream
habitats and particularly water quality
within this species’ range (Factor A).
These land use activities have led to
chemical and physical changes in the
mainstem rivers and tributaries that
continue to affect the species through
negative impacts to its habitat. Specific
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
threats include inputs of sediments,
siltation of stream substrates, turbidity,
and inputs of dissolved solids. These
threats, especially the inputs of
dissolved solids and sedimentation,
have had profound negative effects on
Pearl darter populations and have been
the primary factor in the species’
decline. Existing regulatory mechanisms
(e.g., the Clean Water Act) have
provided for some improvements in
water quality and habitat conditions
across the species’ range, but these laws
and regulations have been inadequate in
protecting the species’ habitat (Factor
D), as evidenced by the extirpation of
the species within the Pearl River basin
and the number of section 303(d) listed
streams within the species’ historical
range. The Pearl darter’s vulnerability to
these threats is even greater due to its
reduced range, fragmented populations,
small population sizes, and low genetic
diversity (Factor E). The effects of
certain threats, particularly habitat
degradation and loss, increase in
magnitude when population size is
small (Primack 2012, pp. 150–152).
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
We find that the Pearl darter is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within
the foreseeable future, based on the
immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats currently impacting the species.
The overall range has been reduced
substantially and the remaining habitat
and populations are threatened by a
variety of factors acting in combination
to reduce the overall viability of the
species over time. The risk of becoming
endangered is high because populations
are confined to a single watershed, most
are small in size, and numerous threats
are impacting them. However, we find
that endangered species status is not
appropriate. Despite low population
numbers and numerous threats,
populations in the Chickasawhay and
Leaf Rivers, which are the largest,
appear to be stable and reproducing. In
addition, the magnitude of threats is
considered to be moderate overall, since
the threats are having a localized impact
on the species and its habitat. For
example, water quality degradation, the
most prevalent threat, is not as
pervasive within areas protected with
BMPs, and geomorphic changes, caused
by past sand and gravel mining, are also
sporadic within its habitat. Therefore,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we propose listing the Pearl darter as
threatened in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that Pearl darter is threatened
throughout all of its range, no portion of
its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for
purposes of the definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened
species.’’ See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed
. . . on which are found those physical
or biological features (I) Essential to the
conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed . . . upon a determination by
the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.’’
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The
species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical
habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species; or (2)
such designation of critical habitat
would not be beneficial to the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of
take attributed to collection or
vandalism under Factor B for this
species, and identification and mapping
of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. In the absence
of finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a
species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, a finding
that designation is prudent is warranted.
Here, the potential benefits of
designation include: (1) Triggering
consultation under section 7 of the Act,
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64865
in new areas for action in which there
may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for
example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State
or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing inadvertent
harm to the species. Accordingly,
because we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat will not
likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure
of benefit, we determine that
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the Pearl darter.
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the species is determinable. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further
state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist: (i)
Information sufficient to perform
required analysis of the impacts of the
designation is lacking; or (ii) The
biological needs of the species are not
sufficiently well known to permit
identification of an area as critical
habitat.
As discussed above, we have
reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the
species and habitat characteristics
where the species is located. On the
basis of a review of available
information, we find that critical habitat
for the Pearl darter is not determinable
because the specific information
sufficient to perform the required
analysis of the impacts of the
designation is currently lacking, such as
information on areas to be proposed for
designation and the potential economic
impacts associated with designation of
these areas. We are in the process of
obtaining this information. We will
make a determination on critical habitat
no later than 1 year following any final
listing determination.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
64866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
and the prohibitions against certain
activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan also identifies recovery
criteria for review of when a species
may be ready for downlisting or
delisting, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also
establish a framework for agencies to
coordinate their recovery efforts and
provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery
teams (composed of species experts,
Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. If the species is
listed, the recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery
plan would be available on our Web site
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands. If
this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the State of Mississippi would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Pearl
darter. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Pearl darter is only
proposed for listing under the Act at
this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in
conservation efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service; issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act permits by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; construction and
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance of gas and oil pipelines
and power line rights-of-way by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Environmental Protection Agency
pesticide registration; and construction
and maintenance of roads or highways
by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied
to threatened wildlife and codified at 50
CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to take (which includes harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt
any of these) threatened wildlife within
the United States or on the high seas. In
addition, it is unlawful to import;
export; deliver, receive, carry, transport,
or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other
Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. Based on the best available
information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of
section 9, if these activities are carried
out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements;
this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Normal agricultural and
silvicultural practices, including
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
64867
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
herbicide and pesticide use, which are
carried out in accordance with existing
regulations, permit and label
requirements, and best management
practices.
(2) Normal residential and urban
landscape activities, such as mowing,
edging, fertilizing, etc.
(3) Normal pipeline/transmission line
easement maintenance.
(4) Normal bridge, culvert, and
roadside maintenance consistent with
appropriate best management practices
for these activities.
Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the species.
(2) Introduction of nonnative fish that
compete with or prey upon the Pearl
darter.
(3) Discharge or dumping of toxic
chemicals, contaminants, sediments,
waste water effluent, or other pollutants
into waters supporting the Pearl darter
that kills or injures individuals, or
otherwise impairs essential lifesustaining behaviors such as spawning,
feeding, or sheltering.
(4) Destruction or alteration of the
species’ habitat (e.g., unpermitted
instream dredging, impoundment, water
diversion or withdrawal,
channelization, discharge of fill
material, modification of tributaries,
channels, or banks) that impairs
essential behaviors such as spawning,
feeding, or sheltering, or results in
killing or injuring a Pearl darter.
(5) Mining, oil and gas processes,
silviculture, and agricultural processes
that result in direct or indirect
destruction of riparian bankside habitat
or in channel habitat in waters
supporting the Pearl darter that kills or
injures individuals, or otherwise
impairs essential life-sustaining
behaviors such as spawning, feeding, or
sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Common name
*
FISHES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a
species as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
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
Scientific name
*
19:07 Sep 20, 2016
Where listed
*
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Status
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
There are no tribal lands located within
the range of this species.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this proposed rulemaking is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the
Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
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—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for
‘‘Darter, Pearl’’ to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical
order under FISHES to read as set forth
below:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
Sfmt 4702
*
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
*
21SEP1
*
64868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Common name
Scientific name
Where listed
*
Darter, Pearl ....................
*
*
Percina aurora ................
*
Wherever found ..............
*
*
*
*
Status
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
T
*
*
[Federal Register citation when published as a
final rule].
*
*
Dated: August 30, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–22752 Filed 9–20–16; 8:45 am]
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:24 Sep 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64857-64868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22752]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0037; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB55
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Pearl Darter
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Pearl darter (Percina aurora), a fish from Mississippi, as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we
finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections
to this species. The effect of this proposed regulation will be to add
this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 21, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by November 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2016-0037,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2016-0037; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213, by telephone
601-321-1122 or by facsimile 601-965-4340. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within one year. Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This document proposes the listing of the
Pearl darter (Percina aurora) as a threatened species. The Pearl darter
is a candidate species for which we have on file sufficient information
on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a
listing proposal, but for which until now development of a listing
regulation has been precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. This proposed rule reassesses all available information
regarding status of and threats to the Pearl darter.
This document does not propose critical habitat for the Pearl
darter. We have determined that critical habitat is prudent, but not
determinable at this time.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that water quality decline from
point and nonpoint source pollution continues to impact portions of
this species' habitat. In addition, geomorphology changes attributed to
past sand and gravel mining operations within the drainage are
considered an ongoing threat. This species has been extirpated from the
Pearl River watershed and is confined today to the Pascagoula River
Basin where this species' small population size and apparent low
genetic diversity increases its vulnerability to extirpation from
catastrophic events.
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment on our listing proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Pearl darter's biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
[[Page 64858]]
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
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 a threatened or endangered
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 https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Because we will consider all comments and information received
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we have sought the
expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the
Pearl darter's biology, habitat, and physical or biological factors
that will inform our determination.
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the Pearl darter (Pearl channel darter, Percina sp.)
as a Category 2 Candidate in the November 21, 1991, Animal Candidate
Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of
Review (56 FR 58804). Category 2 Candidates were defined as species for
which we had information that proposed listing was possibly
appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and
threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time. The
species remained so designated in the subsequent November 15, 1994,
annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 58982). In the February
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of
Category 2 species as candidates; therefore, the Pearl darter was no
longer a candidate species.
Subsequently, in 1999, the Pearl darter was once again added to the
candidate list (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999). Candidates are now
defined as those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. The Pearl darter was included in all of our subsequent
annual CNORs: 66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13,
2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756,
September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176,
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November
10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21,
2012; 77 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80
FR 80584, December 24, 2015.
The Pearl darter has a listing priority number of 8, which reflects a
species with threats that are both imminent and moderate to low in
magnitude.
On May 11, 2004, we were sent a petition to list the Pearl darter
by the Center for Biological Diversity. Because no new information was
provided in the petition, and we had already determined the species
warranted listing, no further action was taken on the petition.
On May 10, 2011, the Service announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the Service's listing process.
As part of an agreement with one of the agency's most frequent
plaintiffs, the Service filed a work plan with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. The work plan enables the agency to, over
a period of 6 years, systematically review and address the needs of
more than 250 species listed within the 2010 CNOR, including the Pearl
darter, to determine if these species should be added to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This work plan
enables the Service to again prioritize its workload based on the needs
of candidate species, while also providing State wildlife agencies,
stakeholders, and other partners clarity and certainty about when
listing determinations will be made. On July 12, 2011, the Service
reached an agreement with another frequent plaintiff group and further
strengthened the work plan, which allows us to focus our resources on
the species most in need of protection under the Act. These agreements
were approved by the court on September 9, 2011. The timing of this
proposed listing is, in part, an outcome of the work plan.
Background
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Pearl darter (Percina aurora) is a small fish with a blunt
snout, horizontal mouth, large eyes located high on the head, and a
medial black spot at the base of the caudal (tail) fin (Ross 2001,
[[Page 64859]]
p. 498). Described in 1994 (Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 13-17) from the
Strong River in Simpson County, MS (Ross 2001, p. 500), the Pearl
darter is one of three members of the subgenus Cottogaster. The Pearl
darter is closely allied to the channel darter (P. copelandi) (Ross et
al. 1989, p. 25). It is distinguished from the channel darter by its
larger body size, lack of tubercles (small, raised, skin structures)
and heavy pigmentation of breeding males, high number of marginal
spines on the belly scales of breeding males, and fully scaled cheeks.
Breeding males have two dark bands across the spinous dorsal (back)
fin, a broad, diffuse, dusky marginal band, and a pronounced dark band
across the fin near its base. Breeding females lack pigmentation on
their ventral body surface. The Pearl darter reaches a maximum standard
length (SL) of 57 millimeters (mm) (2.2 inches (in.)) in females and 64
mm (2.5 in.) in males (Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 16).
Distribution
Historical Range
The Pearl darter is historically known from localized sites within
the Pearl and Pascagoula River drainages of Mississippi and Louisiana,
based on collection records from 16 counties/parishes of Mississippi
and Louisiana. The quantified range of the Pearl darter, expressed in
river miles, has not been well-defined by researchers (Slack et al.
2005, pp. 5-10; Ross 2001, p. 499; Ross et al. 2000, pp. 5-8; Bart and
Piller 1997, pp. 3-10; Bart and Suttkus 1996, pp. 3-4, Suttkus et al.
1994, pp. 15-18). However, a recent reanalysis of collection records
compiled from the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science (MMNS) (2016,
unpublished data) estimates the species' historical range to be
approximately 708 kilometers (km) (440 miles (mi)) in the Pearl River
and 539 km (335 mi) in the Pascagoula River system, for a total
historical range of 1,247 km (775 mi).
Pearl River Watershed--Examination of site records of museum fish
collections from the Pearl River drainage (compiled from Suttkus et al.
1994, pp. 15-18) suggest that the darter once inhabited the large
tributaries and main channel habitats from St. Tammany Parish, LA, to
Simpson County, MS. This area included approximately 364 km (226 mi) of
the lower Pearl River, 21 km (13 mi) of the Strong River, and 322 km
(200 mi) of Bogue Chitto River for a total of approximately 708 km (440
mi), all of which is below the Ross Barnett Reservoir (compiled from
MMNS 2016, unpublished data; Slack et al. 2005, pp. 5-10; Ross 2001, p.
499; Ross et al. 2000, pp. 2-5, Bart and Piller 1997, pp. 3-10; Bart
and Suttkus 1996, pp. 3-4; Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15-18).
Despite annual collection efforts by Suttkus from 1958 to 1973
(Bart and Suttkus 1996, pp. 3-4; Bart and Suttkus 1995, pp. 13-14;
Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 15-18), the Pearl darter was collected from
only 14 percent of 716 fish collections from site-specific locations
within the Pearl River drainage. There have been no records of Pearl
darters from the Pearl River drainage since 1973, despite Suttkus' 64
fish collections from this time through the middle 1990s from the Pearl
River (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 1) and other various collection efforts
in the lower Pearl River system (Roberts 2015, pers. comm.; Slack et
al. 2005, pp. 5-10; Ross 2001, p. 499). There are no records of Pearl
darters in the upper Pearl River system (upstream of the Ross Barnett
Dam), and collection efforts by Schaefer and Mickel in 2011 (p. 10)
confirmed its absence from this part of the Pearl River. A recent
survey at the type locality in the Strong River verified its absence
from that area also (Roberts 2015, pers. comm.). There have been no
verifiable records of the Pearl darter from the Pearl River drainage in
over 40 years, thus, this species is considered extirpated from that
system, representing a 57 percent loss of its historical range.
Pascagoula River Watershed--Site records from museum fish
collections before 2005 suggested that the Pearl darter inhabited the
main channels of large Pascagoula drainage tributaries from Jackson to
Lauderdale Counties (Ross 2001, pp. 499-500). Although collection data
from Ross (2001, p. 500), Bart and Piller (1997, p. 4), Bart and
Suttkus (1996, p. 4), and Suttkus et al. (1994, p. 19) suggested that
the Pearl darter was very rare in the Pascagoula River system. Bart and
Piller (1997, p. 4) examined Suttkus' work before 1974 and found that
only 19 Pearl darters were collected out of 19,300 total fish in 10
Tulane University Museum of Natural History collections. Additionally,
from the Mississippi Freshwater Fishes Database, Ross (in Bart and
Piller 1997, p. 4) estimated the rarity of the Pearl darter within the
Pascagoula drainage from 379 collections (81,514 fish specimens) since
1973 and found that only one Pearl darter was collected for every 4,795
specimens. This species' historical range within the Pascagoula River
system totaled approximately 539 km (335 mi), which included 48 km (30
mi) of the Pascagoula River, 11 km (7 mi) of Black Creek, 131 km (82
mi) of the Leaf River, 34 km (21 mi) of Okatoma Creek, 262 km (163 mi)
of the Chickasawhay River, 39 km (24 mi) of the Bouie River, and 13 km
(8 mi) of Chunky Creek (compiled from MMNS 2016 unpublished data; Slack
et al. 2005, pp. 5-10; Ross 2001, p. 499; Ross et al. 2000, pp. 1-28;
Bart and Piller 1997, pp. 3-10; Bart and Suttkus 1996, pp. 3-4; Suttkus
et al. 1994, p. 19; Ross et al. 1992, pp. 2-10).
Current Range and Population Size
Today, Pearl darters are thought to occur only in scattered sites
within approximately 449 km (279 mi) of the Pascagoula drainage,
including the Pascagoula, Chickasawhay, Chunky, Leaf, and Bouie Rivers,
and Okatoma and Black Creeks. In recent years, the species has been
found sporadically within the Pascagoula, Chickasawhay, and Leaf
Rivers. There have been no collecting attempts within the Bouie and
Chunky Rivers, nor Okatoma and Black Creeks, in the last 15 years;
thus, the status of populations in those systems is unknown.
Collections of Pearl darters over the last 20 years in the
Pascagoula River drainage have included: 10 Pearl darters from 4 sites
out of 27 fish collections in 1996 and 1997 from the Pascagoula River
(Bart and Piller 1997, p. 3); 3 specimens from the Leaf River in 1998;
and 7 collections (total of 45 Pearl darters) in the Pascagoula River
at the confluence with Big Black Creek (Dead Lake) and downstream of
Dead Lake for 22 km (14 mi) (Slack et al. 2002, p. 15). Slack et al.
(2005, p. 5) sampled for Pearl darters within the Leaf and Chickasawhay
rivers beginning near the confluence with the Pascagoula River and
extending through portions of the Chickasaway and Leaf Rivers. The
species was present in 78 localities among the 2 systems but were
typically in low abundance when present. These survey efforts by Slack
et al. (2005, pp. 1-15) indicated range of the Pearl darter within the
Pascagoula drainage system was further upstream than previously known.
Over the last 15 years, Pearl darters have been found from late
summer through fall in the upper Pascagoula River drainage (Leaf and
Chickasawhay Rivers) and in the lower Pascagoula River proper in spring
and summer (Clark and Schaeffer 2015, pp. 3, 9-10, 19, 23; Slack et al.
2002, p. 8). Young of Year (YOY) (fish from the current breeding
season) were collected in both 2013 and 2014 in the Chickasawhay and
Leaf Rivers, indicating the existence of reproducing populations and
recruitment in both of those systems (Clark and Schaeffer 2015, pp. 10,
19, 23). Schaefer and Mickle (2011, pp. 1-
[[Page 64860]]
3) highlighted similarities in numbers of Pearl darters collected
historically from the Pascagoula River Basin museum collections from
2000 to 2009 and found them to trend closely with the CPUE (Catch per
Unit Effort) of 1980 to 1999 collections. Clark and Schaefer (2015, pp.
5, 9) recently resampled collection sites of Slack et al. (2005, pp. 1-
13) in the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers, within the upper Pascagoula
River, and found CPUE similar between the 2004 and 2014 surveys.
Together, Clark and Schaefer (2015, pp. 5, 9), Schaefer and Mickle
(2011, pp. 1-3) and Slack et al. (2005, pp. 1-13) suggest a stable
population of Pearl darters has existed within these rivers in the
upper Pascagoula River Basin over the last decade and speculate that
populations may exist in small numbers within the other systems not
recently sampled (e.g., Chunky and Bouie Rivers, Okatoma and Black
creeks).
Habitat
The Pearl darter occurs in low-gradient, coastal plain rivers
(Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 13). The species is considered rare and is
infrequently collected; however, its preference for deep water, main
channels, and its association with woody debris accumulations can make
sampling difficult (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 1). Pearl darters have
been collected from gravel riffles and rock outcrops; deep runs over
gravel and sand pools below shallow riffles; swift (90 cm per sec (35
in. per sec)), shallow water over firm gravel and cobble in mid-river
channels; and swift water near brush piles. Slack et al. (2002, p. 10)
found Pearl darters associated with scour holes on the inside bend of
the river downstream from point bars and in substrata of coarse sand
with detritus in troughs perpendicular to the shore line. Other
collectors (Clark and Schaefer, 2015, pp. 11, 12, 19; Slack et al.
2005, p. 9; Bart and Piller 1997, p. 10) have found Pearl darters in
areas with finer substrate (i.e., loose sand, mud, silt), including a
collection in loose detritus formed from a large scouring flood event
(Clark and Schaefer 2015, p. 19). Very little aquatic vegetation was
found in the areas where Slack et al. (2005, p. 9) collected the
species.
Biology
Very little is known about the reproductive biology and general
ecology of the Pearl darter (Ross 2001, p. 499). Most Pearl darters
mature in 1 year. Female Pearl darters are sexually mature at 39 mm
(1.5 in) SL, while males are mature at 42 mm (1.7 in.) SL (Suttkus et
al. 1994, pp. 19-20). Breeding males have been observed during May in
shallow water (15 cm (5.9 in.)) over firm gravel and cobble in mid
channel in water temperatures from 17 to 21 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)
(62.6 to 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 9;
Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19). It is thought that subadult Pearl darters
migrate upstream during the fall and winter to spawn in gravel reaches
(Bart et al. 2001, p. 14). Spawning of Pearl darters in the Pearl and
Strong Rivers (Mississippi) has been documented during March through
May in the upper reaches of the Bogue Chitto River (Mississippi and
Louisiana) (Suttkus et al. 1994, pp. 19-20). YOY Pearl darters were
collected in June from the Pearl River (Suttkus et al. 1994, p. 19).
Bart and Pillar (1997, pp. 6-7) described the Strong River rapids area,
near the geological outcroppings, as an important historical spawning
habitat for the species in the Pearl River system.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below:
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
All members of Cottogaster are undergoing range contractions and
are of potential conservation concern throughout their respective
distributions (Dugo et al. 2008, p. 3; Warren et al. 2000, pp. 7-8;
Goodchild 1994, pp. 433-435). The Pearl darter has been extirpated from
the Pearl River drainage, representing an approximately 57 percent loss
of its historical range. Suttkus et al. (1994, p. 19) attributed the
loss of the Pearl darter in the Pearl River to increasing sedimentation
from habitat modification caused by the removal of riparian vegetation
and extensive cultivation near the river's edge. In addition, the
decline of the species in the Pearl River was likely exacerbated by the
construction of low sill dams by the West Pearl Navigation Waterway,
which blocked fish passage and is thought to have led to the
extirpation of the Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) from the system
(Mickel et al. 2010, p. 158).
Water Quality Degradation
Similar to the Pearl River system, the Pascagoula River system
suffers from acute and localized water quality degradation by nonpoint
source pollution in association with land surface, stormwater, and
effluent runoffs from urbanization and municipal areas (Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 2005c, p. 23; 2005d, p. 16).
TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads; regulatory term in the U.S. Clean
Water Act describing a benchmark set for a certain pollutant to bring
water quality up to the applicable standard) have been established for
89 segments of the Pascagoula River Basin, many of which include
portions of the Pearl darter's range (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18-21). For
sediment, one of the most pervasive pollutants, the State of
Mississippi has TMDLs for various tributaries and main stems of the
Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers. To date, efforts by the State of
Mississippi to improve water quality in the Pascagoula River basin to
meet these TMDL benchmarks have been inadequate (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18-
21). Thirty-nine percent of the Pascagoula River Basin tributaries are
rated fair or poor due to pollution impacts (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 18-21;
MDEQ 2008a, p. 17).
Nonpoint source pollution is a localized threat to the Pearl darter
within the drainage, and is more prevalent in areas outside those lands
protected by The Nature Conservancy and other areas managed by the
State of Mississippi where Best Management Practices (BMPs) are
utilized. Most water quality threats outside of protected lands are due
to increased sediment loads and variations in pH (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 1-51;
2008a, pp. 13-15). Sediment in stormwater runoff increases water
turbidity and temperature and originates locally from poorly maintained
construction sites, timber harvest tracts, agricultural fields,
clearing of riparian vegetation, and gravel extraction in the river
floodplain. Excessive sediments disrupt feeding and spawning of fish
and aquatic insects, abrade and suffocate periphyton (mixture of algae,
bacteria, microbes, and detritus that is attached to submerged
surfaces), and impact fish growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters
1995, pp. 55-62). A localized
[[Page 64861]]
portion of the Chickasawhay River is on the State Section 303(d) List
of Water Bodies as impaired due to sediment (MDEQ 2005b, p. 17).
Additionally, some contaminants may bind with one another within
the Pascagoula River drainage (i.e., heavy metals bind with sediments
or other contaminants in the water column). These bound chemical
contaminants have not been addressed in TMDLs. Only seven TMDLs for
metals have been completed (MDEQ 2008a, pp. 1-55). The Davis Dead
River, a tributary at the most downstream site of the Pearl darter's
range, is considered critically impaired by mercury (MDEQ 2011, pp. 1-
29), and fish consumption advisories continue for mercury in certain
gamefish species in the Pascagoula River main stem (MDEQ 2008a, p. 43).
There are 15 permitted point source discharge sites within the
Bouie River system (MDEQ 2005a, p. 6) and an unknown amount of nonpoint
runoff sites. Municipal and industrial discharges during periods of low
flow (i.e., no or few rain events) intensify water quality degradation
by increasing water temperatures, lowering dissolved oxygen, and
changing pH. Within the Pascagoula River basin, pollutants causing
specific channel or river reach impairment, (i.e., those pollutants
preventing the water body from reaching its applicable water quality
standard (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2012, pp. 1-9), include
sedimentation (117 km (73 mi)); chemicals and nutrients in the water
column (50 km (31 mi)); and various toxins, such as heavy metals like
lead or cadmium (137 km (85 mi)). TMDLs were completed for pesticides
such as DDT, toxaphene, dioxin, and pentachlorophenol, although much of
the data and results are not finalized and remain unavailable for the
designated reaches (EPA 2012, pp. 1-7; MDEQ 2003, pp. 5-10; Justus et
al. 1999, p. 1; MDEQ 1994, pp. 1-13). No Pearl darters have been
collected in the Bouie River (Bart et al. 2001, pp. 6-7) since 1997
(Ross et al. 2000, p. 3), though there is no specific data correlating
the species' decline to the presence of these toxins.
Localized wastewater effluent into the Leaf River from the City of
Hattiesburg is negatively impacting water quality (Hattiesburg American
2015, pp. 1-2; Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p. 1; The Student
Printz 2014, pp. 1-2). Existing housing, recreational cabins, and
trailers along the banks of the Leaf River between I-59 to the town of
Estabutchie add nutrient loading through sewage and septic water
effluent (Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p. 1). In 1997, Bart
and Piller (p. 12) noted extensive algal growth during warmer months in
the Leaf and Bouie Rivers, indicating nutrient and organic enrichment
and decreases in dissolved oxygen and pH changes. Today, at specific
locations, the water quality of the Bouie and Leaf Rivers continues to
be negatively impacted by organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliform and elevated nutrients (MDEQ 2005a, pp. 1-26; 2004, pp.
1-29).
Oil and Gas Development
Nonpoint and point source pollution from oil and gas exploration,
including drill field construction, active drilling, and pipeline
easements, may add localized pollutants into the Pascagoula River Basin
during stormwater runoff events if BMPs are not used. There is one
major oil refinery within the basin along with 6 oil pumping stations,
10 major crude pipelines, 4 major product oil pipelines, and 5 major
gas and more than 25 lesser gas lines stretching hundreds of miles and
crisscrossing the main stem Pascagoula, Bouie, Leaf, and Chickasawhay
Rivers and tributaries; in addition, there are more than 100 active oil
producing wells within the Pearl darters' watersheds (compiled from Oil
and Gas map of Mississippi in Phillips 2013, pp. 10, 23). All have the
potential to rupture and/or leak and cause environmental and organismal
damage as evidenced by the Genesis Oil Co. and Leaf River oil spill of
2000 (Environmental Science Services, Inc. 2000, pp. 1-50; Kemp
Associates, PA, 2000, pp. 4-5; The Clarion-Ledger, December 23, 1999,
p. 1B) and Genesis Oil spill in Okatoma Creek in February 2016 (Drennen
pers. observ. 2016). In addition to gas pipelines, there are numerous
railways that cross Pearl darter habitat that are subject to accidental
and catastrophic spilling of toxins such as fuel oil, methanol, resin,
and fertilizer (MDEQ 2014b, pp. 1-23).
Alternative oil and gas collection methods (i.e., hydraulic
fracturing (``fracking'') and horizontal drilling and injection) have
allowed for the expansion of oil and gas drilling into deposits that
were previously inaccessible (Phillips 2013, p. 21), which has led to
increased activity within southern Mississippi, including portions of
the Pascagoula River Basin. There are more than 100 water injection
disposal wells and enhanced oil recovery wells within the Basin
(compiled from Active Injection Well Map of Mississippi in Phillips
2013, p. 49). A variety of chemicals (e.g., hydrochloric acid,
surfactants, potassium chloride) are used during the drilling and
fracking process (Colborn et al. 2011, pp. 1040-1042), and their wastes
are stored in open pits (retention basins) or storage facilities.
Spills during transport or releases due to retention basin failure or
overflow pose a risk for surface and groundwater contamination, which
can cause significant adverse effects to water quality and aquatic
organisms that inhabit these watersheds (Osborn et al. 2011, pp. 8172-
8176; Kargbo et al. 2010, pp. 5680-5681; Wiseman 2009, pp. 127-142).
There is currently no routine water quality monitoring in areas where
the Pearl darter currently occurs, so it is unlikely that the effects
of a leak or spill would be detected quickly to allow for a timely
response.
Geomorphology Changes
Pearl darters are not found in impounded waters and are intolerant
of lentic (standing water) habitats that may be formed by gravel mining
or other landscape-altering practices. The results of historical sand
and gravel dredging impacts have been a concern for the Bouie and Leaf
Rivers (MDEQ 2000, pp. 1-98). Historically, the American Sand and
Gravel Company (ASGC) (1995, p. B4) has mined sand and gravel using a
hydraulic suction dredge, operating within the banks or adjacent to the
Bouie and Leaf Rivers. Large gravel bars of the river and its
floodplain have been removed over the past 50 years, creating open-
water areas that function as deep lake systems (ASGC 1995, pp. B4-B8).
The creation of these large, open-water areas has accelerated
geomorphic processes, specifically headcutting (erosional feature
causing an abrupt drop in the streambed), that has adversely affected
the flora and fauna of many coastal plain streams (Patrick et al. 1993,
p. 90). Mining in active river channels typically results in incision
upstream of the mine by knickpoints (break in the slope of a river or
stream profile caused by renewed erosion attributed to a bottom
disturbance that may retreat upstream), sediment deposition downstream,
and an alteration in channel morphology that can have impacts for years
(Mossa and Coley 2004, pp. 1-20). The upstream migration of
knickpoints, or headcutting, may cause undermining of structures,
lowering of alluvial water tables (aquifer comprising unconsolidated
materials deposited by water and typically adjacent to rivers), channel
destabilization and widening, and loss of aquatic and riparian habitat.
This geomorphic change may cause the extirpation of riparian and lotic
(flowing water) species (Patrick et al. 1993, p. 96). Lyttle (1993, p.
70) and Brown and Lyttle (1992, pp. 2, 46) found that
[[Page 64862]]
instream gravel mining reduces overall fish species diversity in Ozark
streams and favors a large number of a few small fish species, such as
the Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) and most darters
(Etheostoma sp.).
The decline of the Pearl darter in the Bouie River and Black Creek
may be from sedimentation caused by unstable banks and loose and
unconsolidated streambeds (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 12). Mossa and
Coley (2004, p. 17) determined that, of the major tributaries in the
Pascagoula basin, the Bouie River was the least stable. Channel
enlargement of the Bouie River showed higher than background values
associated with avulsions (the rapid abandonment of a river channel and
the formation of a new river channel) into floodplain pits and
increased sedimentation. In addition, channel enlargement of 400 to 500
percent in the Bouie River has occurred at specific sites due to
instream gravel mining (Mossa et al. 2006, entire; Mossa and Coley
2004, p. 17). Ayers (2014, pp. 43-45) also found significant and
lengthy instream channel form changes in the Chickasawhay River
floodplain. Clark and Schaefer (2015, pp. 13-14) noted a slight
decrease in fish species richness in the upper Pascagoula River basin
from their 2004 sampling, which they attributed to past anthropogenic
influences such as gravel mining, bankside practices, and construction.
In the Bogue Chitto River of the Pearl River basin, Stewart et al.
(2005, pp. 268-270) found that the assemblages of fishes had shifted
over 27 years. In this time period, the sedimentation rates within the
system had increased dramatically and caused the decrease in the
relative abundance of all fish in the family Percidae (Stewart et al.
2005, pp. 268-270) from 35 percent to 9 percent, including the
extirpation of Pearl darters. Ross et al. (1992, pp. 8-9) studied
threats to the Okatoma Creek (Pascagoula Basin) fish diversity and
predicted that geomorphic changes to the stream would reduce the fish
habitat diversity resulting in a decline of the fish assemblages,
including the rare Pearl darter.
Impoundments
The proposed damming of Little and Big Cedar Creeks, tributaries to
the Pascagoula River, for establishment of two recreational lakes
(George County Lakes) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2015, pp. 1-13) has
prompted the American Rivers organization to recently list the
Pascagoula River as the 10th most endangered river in the country
(American Rivers 2016, pp. 20-21). Though the proposed project is not
directly within known Pearl darter habitat, the lakes will decrease
water quantity entering the lower Pascagoula Basin, and will likely
concentrate pollutants, reduce water flow, and alter downstream food
webs and aquatic productivity (Poff and Hart 2002, p. 660).
Summary of Factor A
Habitat modification and resultant water quality degradation are
occurring within the Pearl darter's current range. Increased
sedimentation from the removal of riparian vegetation and extensive
cultivation is thought to have led to the extirpation of the Pearl
darter from the Pearl River drainage. Water quality degradation occurs
locally from point and nonpoint source pollution in association with
land surface, stormwater, and effluent runoff from urbanization and
municipal areas. Increased sediment from a variety of sources,
including geomorphological changes and bank instability from past
habitat modification, appears to be the major contributor to water
quality declines in this species' habitat. Localized sewage and waste
water effluent also pose a threat to this species and its habitat. The
Pearl darter's vulnerability to catastrophic events, particularly the
release of pollutants in its habitat from oil spills, train
derailments, and hydraulic fracturing, is also a concern due to the
abundance of oil wells, pumping stations, gas lines, and railways
throughout its habitat, and the increased interest in alternative oil
and gas collection methods in the area. The proposed damming of Big and
Little Cypress creeks may decrease water flow and increase nutrients
and sedimentation into the Pascagoula River. These threats continue to
impact water quality and habitat conditions through much of this
species' current range. Therefore, we conclude that habitat degradation
is presently a moderate threat to the Pearl darter that is expected to
continue and possibly increase into the future.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In general, Pearl darters are unknown to the public and are not
used for either sport or bait purposes. Therefore, collection of this
species by the public is not currently identified as a threat.
Scientific collecting is controlled by the State through permits; thus,
scientific collecting and take by private and institutional collectors
are not presently identified as threats. Therefore, overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not
pose a threat to the Pearl darter now or in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Predation on the Pearl darter by other fish, reptiles, and other
organisms undoubtedly occurs; however, there is no evidence to suggest
that any predators threaten this species. There is also no evidence
that disease is a threat. Therefore, neither disease nor predation
poses a threat to the Pearl darter now or in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of Mississippi classifies the Pearl darter as endangered
in the State (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 2015, p. 2), and
prohibits the collection of the Pearl darter for scientific purposes
without a State-issued collecting permit. However, as discussed under
Factor B, we have no evidence to suggest that scientific collection
poses a threat to this species. This State endangered designation
conveys no legal protection for the Pearl darter's habitat nor
prohibits habitat degradation, which is the primary threat to the
species. The Pearl darter receives no protection in Louisiana, where it
is considered historic in the State (Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries 2016, p. 5).
The Pearl darter and its habitats are afforded some protection from
water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Mississippi Water Pollution Control
Law, as amended, 1993 (Code of Mississippi, Sec. Sec. 49-17-1, et
seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Mississippi
Commission on Environmental Quality. Although these laws have resulted
in some temporary enhancement in water quality and habitat for aquatic
life, they have been inadequate in fully protecting the Pearl darter
from sedimentation and other nonpoint source pollutants.
The State of Mississippi maintains water-use classifications
through issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits to industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum
limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. For water bodies
on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list, the State is required to
establish a TMDL for the pollutants of concern that will improve water
quality to the applicable standard. The establishment of TMDLs for 89
river or stream segments and ratings of fair to poor for 39 percent of
the tributaries within the Pascagoula basin are indicative of pollution
impacts within the Pearl darter's habitat (MDEQ 2008a,
[[Page 64863]]
p. 17). TMDLs are not an enforced regulation, and only reflect
benchmarks for improving water quality; they have not been successful
in reducing water quality degradation within this species' habitat.
Mississippi Surface Mining and Reclamation Law, Miss. Code Ann.
Sec. 53-7-1 et seq., and Federal laws regarding oil and gas drilling
(42 U.S.C. 6921) are generally designed to protect freshwater resources
like the Pearl darter, but these regulatory mechanisms do not contain
specific provisions requiring an analysis of project impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. They also do not contain or provide for any
formal mechanism requiring coordination with, or input from, the
Service or the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
regarding the presence of federally endangered, threatened, or
candidate species, or other rare and sensitive species. In the case of
surface mining, penalties may be assessed if damage is serious, but
there is no immediate response for remediation of habitats or species.
As demonstrated under Factor A, periodic declines in water quality and
degradation of habitat for this species are ongoing despite these
protective regulations. These mechanisms have been inadequate to
protect the species from sediment runoff and turbidity within its
habitat associated with land surface runoff and municipal/industrial
discharges, as described under Factor A. There are currently no
requirements within the scope of other statewide environmental laws to
specifically consider the Pearl darter or ensure that a project will
not significantly impact the species.
The Pearl darter likely receives ancillary protection (i.e., water
quality improvements, protection from geomorphological changes) where
it co-occurs with two other federally listed species, the Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) and yellow blotched map turtle
(Graptemys flavimaculata), during the course of consultation on these
species under section 7 of the Act. However, protective measures
through section 7 of the Act would only be triggered for those projects
having a Federal nexus, which would not address many of the water
quality disturbances caused by industry, municipalities, agriculture,
or private landowners.
Additional ancillary protection of 53,520 hectares (ha) (132,128
acres (ac)) within the Pascagoula basin watershed occurs due to the
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks' management of six Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs) within the drainage for recreational hunting
and fishing. Point and nonpoint sediment sources are decreased or
reduced by using and monitoring BMP's during silviculture, road
maintenance, and other landscape-altering methods. Four of the six WMAs
(Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers, Mason and Red Creeks) do not directly
border the river system, but they do contain and protect parcels of
upland buffer, wetland, and tributaries to the basin. The Pascagoula
River and Ward Bayou WMAs include 20,329 ha (50,234 ac) consisting of
mainly wetland buffer and river/stream reach of the basin within the
current range of the Pearl darter, protecting approximately 106 km (66
mi) of the Pascagoula River main stem (Stowe, pers. comm., 2015). The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) protects 14,164 ha (35,000 ac) within the
Pascagoula River watershed and approximately 10 km (6 mi) of the
Pascagoula River shoreline in Jackson County, Mississippi. Of that
amount, the Charles M. Deaton Nature Preserve (1,336 ha, 3,300 ac)
protects the headwaters of the Pascagoula River, where the Leaf and
Chickasawhay Rivers converge, and is part of a 19,020-ha (47,000-ac)
swath of public lands surrounding the Pascagoula River, which includes
approximately 8 km (5 mi) of the Chickasawhay River and approximately 7
km (4 mi) of the Leaf River shorelines (Becky Stowe 2015, pers. comm.).
These State-managed WMAs and TNC preserves provide a measure of
protection for approximately 134 km (84 mi) or 30 percent of the river
reaches within this species' current range. Even though 116 of these
134 km (72 of 84 mi) are located within the Pascagoula River mainstem,
only short segments of shoreline are protected in the Chickasawhay and
Leaf Rivers. The remaining segments, not within WMA's and TNC
preserves, are vulnerable to farming and timbering to the bankside
edge, and construction of structures such as houses, septic facilities,
dams, and ponds. Each land management action increases stormwater
runoff laden with sediment and agricultural and wastewater chemicals.
Summary of Factor D
Outside of the areas protected or managed by the State and TNC, and
despite existing authorities, such as the Clean Water Act, pollutants
continue to impair the water quality throughout much of the current
range of the Pearl darter. State and Federal regulatory mechanisms have
helped reduce the negative effects of point source and nonpoint source
discharges, yet there is inconsistency in the implementation of these
regulations and BMPs, which are not mandatory for all activities. Thus,
we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately
protect the Pearl darter from the impact of other threats.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small Population Size and Loss of Genetic Diversity
The Pearl darter is included on the Southeastern Fishes Council
list of the 12 most imperiled species (Kuhajda et al. 2009, pp. 17-18).
This species has always been considered rare (Deacon et al. 1979, p.
42) and is currently restricted to localized sites within the
Pascagoula River drainage. Genetic diversity has likely declined due to
fragmentation and separation of reproducing Pearl darter populations.
Kreiser et al. (2012, p. 12) found that disjunct populations of Pearl
darters within the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers showed some distinct
alleles suggesting that gene flow between the two rivers was restricted
and perhaps that the total gene pool diversity was declining.
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more
likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift,
potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental changes, and
reducing the fitness of individuals (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp.
117-146; Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 157-158). It is likely that some of the
Pearl darter populations are below the effective population size
required to maintain long-term genetic and population viability
(Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 162-164). Collecting data (Ross 2001, p. 500;
Bart and Piller 1997, p. 4; Bart and Suttkus 1996, p. 4; Suttkus et al.
1994, p. 19) indicate that the Pearl darter is rare in the Pascagoula
River system, as when this species is collected it is typically in low
numbers and a disproportionately low percentage of the total fish
collected.
In addition, preliminary information indicates that there may be
low genetic diversity within the Pearl darter populations, especially
among populations within the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers where it
appears gene flow between the two rivers may be restricted (Kreiser et
al. 2013, pp. 14-17). The long-term viability of a species is founded
on the conservation of numerous local populations throughout its
geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). The presence of viable,
separate populations is essential for a species to recover and adapt to
[[Page 64864]]
environmental change (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264-297; Harris
1984, pp. 93-104). Inbreeding and loss of neutral genetic variation
associated with small population size reduce the fitness of the
population (Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 230-237) and accelerate
population decline (Fagan and Holmes 2006, pp. 51-60). The species'
small numbers within scattered locations coupled with its lack of
genetic variability may decrease the species' ability to adapt or
recover from major hydrological events that impact potential spawning
habitat (Clark and Schaeffer 2015, pp. 18-22).
Hurricanes
Fish and aquatic communities and habitat, including that of the
Pearl darter, may be changed by hurricane influences (Schaefer et al.
2006, pp. 62-68). In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the
urban and industrial areas along the lower Pascagoula River basin and
also impacted the ecology upriver to the confluence with the Leaf and
Chickasawhay Rivers. Many toxic chemicals that leaked from grounded and
displaced boats and ships, storage facilities, vehicles, septic
systems, business sites, and other sources were reported in the rivers,
along with saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico. Initial
assessment identified several fish kills and increased surge of organic
material into the waters, which lowered dissolved oxygen levels
(Schaefer et al. 2006, pp. 62-68).
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3).
Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed including changes
in arctic temperatures and ice, 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, p. 4). Species that are dependent on
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme
periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change (see 75 FR 48911, August 12, 2010); however, while
continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is
unknown in many cases.
Climate change has the potential to increase the vulnerability of
the Pearl darter to random catastrophic events (Thomas et al. 2004, pp.
145-148; McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6060-6074). An increase in both
severity and variation in climate patterns is expected, with extreme
floods, strong storms, and droughts becoming more common (IPCC 2014,
pp. 58-83). Thomas et al. (2004, pp. 145-148) report that frequency,
duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to increase in the
Southeast as a result of global climate change. Kaushal et al. (2010,
p. 465) reported that stream temperatures in the Southeast have
increased roughly 0.2-0.4 [deg]C (0.3-0.7 [deg]F) per decade over the
past 30 years, and as air temperature is a strong predictor of water
temperature, stream temperatures are expected to continue to rise.
Predicted impacts of climate change on fishes, related to drought,
include disruption to their physiology (e.g., temperature tolerance,
dissolved oxygen needs, and metabolic rates), life history (e.g.,
timing of reproduction, growth rate), and distribution (e.g., range
shifts, migration of new predators) (Comte et al. 2013, pp. 627-636;
Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp. 350-351; Heino et al. 2009, pp. 41-51;
Jackson and Mandrak 2002, pp. 89-98). However, estimates of the effects
of climate change using available climate models typically lack the
geographic precision needed to predict the magnitude of effects at a
scale small enough to discretely apply to the range of a given species.
Therefore, there is uncertainty about the specific effects of climate
change (and their magnitude) on the Pearl darter; however, climate
change is almost certain to affect aquatic habitats in the Pascagoula
River basin through increased water temperatures and more frequent
droughts (Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 1-12), and species with limited
ranges, fragmented distributions, and small population size are thought
to be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Byers and
Norris 2011, p. 18). Thus, we consider climate change to be a threat to
the Pearl darter.
Summary of Factor E
Because the Pearl darter has a limited geographic range, small
population numbers, and low genetic diversity, it is vulnerable to
several other ongoing natural and manmade threats. These threats
include the loss of genetic fitness, susceptibility to spills and other
catastrophic events, and impacts from climate change. These threats are
current and are likely to continue or increase in the future.
Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E
The threats that affect the Pearl darter are important on a threat-
by-threat basis but are even more significant in combination. Due to
the loss of the species from the Pearl River system, the Pearl darter
is now confined to a single drainage system. The species is continuing
to experience water quality degradation from point and nonpoint source
pollution in association with land-altering activities, discharges from
municipalities, and geomorphological changes from past gravel mining.
The laws and regulations directed at preventing water quality
degradation have been ineffective at providing for the conservation of
the Pearl darter. Furthermore, these threats and their effect on this
species are exacerbated due to the Pearl darter's small population
numbers and low genetic diversity, which reduce its genetic fitness and
resilience to possible catastrophic events. Though projecting possible
synergistic effects of climate change on the Pearl darter is somewhat
speculative, climate change and its effects of increased water
temperatures and more frequent droughts will have a greater negative
impact on species with limited ranges and small population sizes, such
as the Pearl darter. While these threats or stressors may act in
isolation, it is more probable that many stressors are acting
simultaneously (or in combination) on the Pearl darter.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Pearl darter. As described in detail above, the Pearl darter has
been extirpated from about 57 percent of its historical range and it is
now confined to the Pascagoula River watershed. The species occurs in
low numbers within its current range, and continues to be at risk
throughout all of its range due to the immediacy, severity, and scope
of threats from habitat degradation and range curtailment (Factor A)
and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence
(Factor E). Existing regulatory mechanisms have been inadequate in
ameliorating these threats (Factor D).
Anthropogenic activities such as land development, agriculture,
silviculture, oil and gas development, inadequate sewage treatment,
stormwater runoff, past gravel mining and resultant geomorphological
changes, and construction of dams or sills, have all contributed to the
degradation of stream habitats and particularly water quality within
this species' range (Factor A). These land use activities have led to
chemical and physical changes in the mainstem rivers and tributaries
that continue to affect the species through negative impacts to its
habitat. Specific
[[Page 64865]]
threats include inputs of sediments, siltation of stream substrates,
turbidity, and inputs of dissolved solids. These threats, especially
the inputs of dissolved solids and sedimentation, have had profound
negative effects on Pearl darter populations and have been the primary
factor in the species' decline. Existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g.,
the Clean Water Act) have provided for some improvements in water
quality and habitat conditions across the species' range, but these
laws and regulations have been inadequate in protecting the species'
habitat (Factor D), as evidenced by the extirpation of the species
within the Pearl River basin and the number of section 303(d) listed
streams within the species' historical range. The Pearl darter's
vulnerability to these threats is even greater due to its reduced
range, fragmented populations, small population sizes, and low genetic
diversity (Factor E). The effects of certain threats, particularly
habitat degradation and loss, increase in magnitude when population
size is small (Primack 2012, pp. 150-152).
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Pearl darter is
likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy,
severity, and scope of the threats currently impacting the species. The
overall range has been reduced substantially and the remaining habitat
and populations are threatened by a variety of factors acting in
combination to reduce the overall viability of the species over time.
The risk of becoming endangered is high because populations are
confined to a single watershed, most are small in size, and numerous
threats are impacting them. However, we find that endangered species
status is not appropriate. Despite low population numbers and numerous
threats, populations in the Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers, which are the
largest, appear to be stable and reproducing. In addition, the
magnitude of threats is considered to be moderate overall, since the
threats are having a localized impact on the species and its habitat.
For example, water quality degradation, the most prevalent threat, is
not as pervasive within areas protected with BMPs, and geomorphic
changes, caused by past sand and gravel mining, are also sporadic
within its habitat. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the Pearl
darter as threatened in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that Pearl
darter is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its
range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Final Policy
on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) Essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.''
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate critical habitat at the time a
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent
when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is
threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species; or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species. There is currently no imminent threat of
take attributed to collection or vandalism under Factor B for this
species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not
expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that
the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a
species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, a
finding that designation is prudent is warranted. Here, the potential
benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for action in which there may be a
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example,
it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to
State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing
inadvertent harm to the species. Accordingly, because we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely
increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide some
measure of benefit, we determine that designation of critical habitat
is prudent for the Pearl darter.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
species is determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further
state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist: (i) Information sufficient to perform
required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (ii)
The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where the species is located. On the basis of a review
of available information, we find that critical habitat for the Pearl
darter is not determinable because the specific information sufficient
to perform the required analysis of the impacts of the designation is
currently lacking, such as information on areas to be proposed for
designation and the potential economic impacts associated with
designation of these areas. We are in the process of obtaining this
information. We will make a determination on critical habitat no later
than 1 year following any final listing determination.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies
[[Page 64866]]
and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. If the
species is listed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan would be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Mississippi would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Pearl darter. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Pearl darter is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in conservation efforts for this species. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers; construction and maintenance of gas and oil pipelines and
power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Environmental Protection Agency pesticide registration; and
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to
threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife
within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is
unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity;
or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed
species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including
[[Page 64867]]
herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with
existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best
management practices.
(2) Normal residential and urban landscape activities, such as
mowing, edging, fertilizing, etc.
(3) Normal pipeline/transmission line easement maintenance.
(4) Normal bridge, culvert, and roadside maintenance consistent
with appropriate best management practices for these activities.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species.
(2) Introduction of nonnative fish that compete with or prey upon
the Pearl darter.
(3) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, contaminants,
sediments, waste water effluent, or other pollutants into waters
supporting the Pearl darter that kills or injures individuals, or
otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining behaviors such as spawning,
feeding, or sheltering.
(4) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat (e.g.,
unpermitted instream dredging, impoundment, water diversion or
withdrawal, channelization, discharge of fill material, modification of
tributaries, channels, or banks) that impairs essential behaviors such
as spawning, feeding, or sheltering, or results in killing or injuring
a Pearl darter.
(5) Mining, oil and gas processes, silviculture, and agricultural
processes that result in direct or indirect destruction of riparian
bankside habitat or in channel habitat in waters supporting the Pearl
darter that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs
essential life-sustaining behaviors such as spawning, feeding, or
sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared
in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. There are no tribal lands located
within the range of this species.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rulemaking is
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
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--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), add an entry for ``Darter, Pearl'' to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under FISHES
to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
[[Page 64868]]
* * * * * * *
Darter, Pearl................... Percina aurora.... Wherever found.... T [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 30, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22752 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P