[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28701-28715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office []
[FR Doc No: 2025-12009]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0033; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BI18
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Barrens Darter
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Barrens darter (Etheostoma forbesi), a fish species from
Cannon, Coffee, Grundy, and Warren Counties, Tennessee, as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a
petition to list the Barrens darter. After a review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the
species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Barrens
darter as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule
as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We
find that designating critical habitat for this species is not
determinable at this time.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
September 2, 2025. 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 a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by August 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: . In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2025-0033,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2025-0033, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on . This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's
website at /office/tennessee-ecological-services, at
at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0033, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office;
telephone 931-431-2480; [email protected]. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0033 on for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other 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 species' 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
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting 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;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status 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, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A)
of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific 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 , your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you
[[Page 28702]]
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 .
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on .
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if
any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the
Barrens darter that occurred prior to April 2019, please refer to the
12-month not-warranted finding we published in the Federal Register on
April 4, 2019 (84 FR 13237).
On September 27, 2022, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
filed a complaint challenging the merits of our 2019 12-month not-
warranted finding (Center for Biological Diversity v. Service, et al.,
No. 1:22-cv-02922 (D.D.C.)). Subsequently, the CBD and Service entered
into a stipulated settlement agreement whereby both parties agreed the
Service would submit to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication a new 12-month finding for the Barrens darter by June 30,
2025. By publishing this proposed rule, which constitutes our 12-month
finding and proposes to list the Barrens darter as an endangered
species under the Act, the Service is complying with the settlement
agreement.
Peer Review
To inform the new 12-month finding stipulated by the settlement
agreement, a species status assessment (SSA) team prepared, updated,
and revised the Barrens darter SSA report (Service 2025, entire). The
SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other
species experts. The SSA report (version 3.0: Service 2025, entire)
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including new
scientific information that has become available since our initial SSA
report (version 1.0: Service 2018, entire); the SSA report also
includes the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we will solicit the independent scientific review of the
Barrens darter SSA report (Service 2025, entire) from at least three
appropriate specialists. The SSA report will be made available for peer
and partner review concurrently with this proposed listing rule. We
will address and incorporate the results of the peer reviews, as
appropriate, into the updated SSA report and the final decision
document.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Barrens darter is presented in the SSA report (version 3.0; Service
2025, pp. 5-9).
The Barrens darter is a small fish endemic to streams in the
Barrens Plateau region of middle Tennessee. It is found in the Collins
River watershed, which is a tributary to the Caney Fork of the
Cumberland River drainage (see figure 1, below). The Barrens darter
belongs to the Stigmacerca clade (lineage of species that includes a
common ancestor and its descendants), with all 11 member species
sharing the distinguishing characteristic of a vertical row of three
black dots at the base of the tail fin. Per the formal species
description that is part of a larger review of closely related species
(Page et al. 1992, entire), females and non-breeding males in the clade
have a pattern of brown mottling on a light tan background, 9 to 13
small blotches along the sides, and 6 to 8 dark brown saddles on the
back. In breeding male Barrens darters, the second dorsal fin is black
with a yellow-gold margin that is lightly speckled with black.
Barrens darters occur almost exclusively in small headwater streams
with slab rock substrates and strong groundwater influence. They likely
prey on larval aquatic insects and microcrustaceans, as has been
observed for other species in Stigmacerca. Spawning occurs between mid-
March and early June. During spawning, the male establishes a territory
around a cavity under a slab rock and, based on its body size and
quality of its nest cavity, attracts females. Males also produce sounds
to court females and defend the nest cavity from other males. Once a
female has chosen to spawn with a male, the pair invert under the rock
and the female adheres eggs to the underside of the rock in a single
layer. Multiple females will lay eggs in a single nest, with average
count per nest of 457 eggs and a maximum count of 1,992 eggs observed
in one study (Bergen et al. 2012, p. 235). The male cleans the eggs and
guards them from predators until they hatch, in about 15.5 days on
average. After hatching larvae quickly drop toward the stream bottom,
remaining among the substrates near the nest rock. In the closely
related spottail darter (Etheostoma squamiceps), the transition from
the relatively non-mobile larval stage to the more mobile juvenile
stage was complete at approximately 2 months (Page 1974, pp. 11-12).
Time from larva to juvenile is likely similar in the Barrens darter.
Barrens darters reach adulthood (sexual maturity) between one to two
years post-hatching, have an approximate lifespan of 3 years, and may
rarely live to 4 years of age.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 28703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY25.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
We assessed the viability of the Barrens darter in our initial SSA
report (Service 2018, entire), which informed our 2019 not-warranted
12-month finding (84 FR 13237; April 4, 2019). Concurrent with
development of the initial SSA report, ichthyologists had initiated a
Barrens darter distribution and population genetics survey. The
analysis of the survey was published in a peer-reviewed journal and
mapped the expansion of native fringed darters (Etheostoma
crossopterum) upstream, in some cases into headwater streams occupied
by Barrens darters where fringed darters completely replaced Barrens
darters, through competition and hybridization (see Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, below), over time (Harrington et al.
2020, entire). The information provided in Harrington et al. (2020)
highlighted the immediacy of the threat posed by the fringed darter,
which was not well understood when we produced our 2018 SSA report. It
also documented the current rangewide distribution of the Barrens
darter, detecting extirpations and adding occurrence records in
previously undocumented sites. As discussed in this proposed rule, we
compiled and used the best scientific information currently available,
including the data provided in Harrington et al. (2020) to update our
SSA (Service 2025, entire) and subsequent 12-month finding and status
determination.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
[[Page 28704]]
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at ).
We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific
period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the
potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our
decision on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the viability of the Barrens darter, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to
characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain
populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our
regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2025-0033 on .
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
To maintain viability at the individual level and species level,
Barrens darters need third-order (method in Strahler 1957, p. 914) or
smaller headwater streams (Zuber 2014, p. 46), as they are not
generally found in larger streams. Areas with intact, rather than
eroded, stream banks are another important habitat feature that support
Barrens darters (Zuber 2014, p. 47). Intact stream banks harbor
vegetation that provides shade that moderates water temperatures, and
these banks ensure rocks used for shelter and spawning are not covered
by excessive sediments. Barrens darters have been observed mostly in
streams with moderate pH (average 7.3, but in one case, as high 9.0),
and relatively low total dissolved solids (less than 135 parts per
million) (Zuber 2014, p. 45), indicating these values are reasonable
parameters for viability. Observations during the March to June
spawning season indicated important habitat features for individuals,
including flat rocks for nesting, relatively low water depth (40
centimeters (15.7 inches) or less), and water temperatures ranging from
6 to 23 degrees Celsius (43 to 73 degrees Fahrenheit) (Bergen et al.
2012, pp. 436-437). As discussed below (see Threats), fringed darters
are a threat to Barrens darter persistence. Therefore, Barrens darters
need sites that are free of fringed darters.
At the species level, the Barrens darter needs connected
populations distributed across multiple streams and watersheds. The
Barrens darter also needs sufficient resources (food, space,
[[Page 28705]]
refugia, etc.) to sustain enough individuals so that populations can
withstand normal demographic and environmental stochasticity
(resiliency). In addition, dispersion of populations within multiple
streams and watersheds (redundancy) reduces the likelihood of rangewide
impacts from catastrophic events, such as an extreme drought or flood
that kills individuals or causes them to move to unsuitable habitats,
or invasion of a species that competes for spawning and feeding
resources. Long-term viability will require multiple resilient
populations to persist into the future; for the Barrens darter, this
means good habitat (resiliency) to support multiple populations in
close enough proximity and with sufficient connectivity to allow for
emigration/immigration (redundancy). Sufficient connectivity will also
support maintenance of genetic diversity and adaptive capacity
(representation).
Threats
The greatest threat to the Barrens darter is competition and
hybridization with the fringed darter, which has expanded its range in
the Collins River drainage over the past several decades (Harrington et
al. 2020, entire). The spatial pattern of fringed darter incursion into
and near streams occupied by Barrens darters was not fully assessed and
mapped until 2020 (Harrington et al. 2020, entire). Due to temporal and
spatial gaps in fish surveys in the Collins River system, the intensity
of the fringed darter invasion remained unclear prior to the new
Barrens darter and fringed darter distribution records reported in
2020. Additionally, the taxonomic identity of several collected
specimens held in museum collections was uncertain prior to 2020. This
uncertainty was resolved as the museum specimens that were not
confidently identified as Barrens darter, fringed darter, or hybrids
were verified genetically or morphologically in the study reported in
2020. In summary and as reported in Harrington et al. (2020, entire),
compiling all historical distribution data, resurveying historical
sites and surveying new sites, and verifying the taxonomic identity of
female specimens and hybrids using genetics and morphology provided the
most comprehensive information to date on the changes in the
distribution of the two species in the Collins River system. This
information clearly showed the broad expansion of the fringed darter
into or close to streams occupied by Barrens darters. Because fringed
darters hybridize and compete with Barrens darters for nesting space
(see ``Fringed Darter Threat of Native Invasion'', below), the ongoing
expansion of fringed darters into Barrens darter habitat is the
greatest threat to the Barrens darter. This threat was not fully
understood or incorporated in the 2019 status determination (84 FR
13237), which was informed by a Species Status Assessment completed in
2018 (Service 2018, entire); however, the imminence and magnitude of
this threat is now fully recognized and used to inform this
determination.
Other major threats influencing the viability of the Barrens darter
are habitat loss from degradation of stream banks, loss of instream
cover, degradation of water quality, and habitat fragmentation and
isolation. When these threats are combined with effects from the
invasion of the fringed darter, they act synergistically to negatively
impact Barrens darter populations. The habitat-related threats stem
from agricultural activities and associated riparian clearing that
alters instream habitat and hydrology needed by the Barrens darter. In
addition to row crops and grazing, agriculture on the Barrens Plateau
includes several plant nurseries, which require water withdrawals that
may reduce flows in headwater streams and exacerbate the effects of
drought.
Fringed Darter Threat of Native Invasion
The fringed darter has a large native range, occurring in the
middle and lower Cumberland River system, middle and lower Tennessee
River system, and two Mississippi River tributaries. Fringed darters
occupy a broader range of stream sizes than Barrens darters, and based
on historical records, fringed darters likely occurred in tributaries
to the lower Collins River system (see figure 2, below). One fringed
darter specimen voucher (University of Tennessee Etnier Ichthyological
Collection, UT 91.646) was collected in the mainstem of Barren Fork, in
McMinnville, in 1972. Records from 1994 show several sites with fringed
darter occurrences in Mountain Creek (where Barrens darters are not
known to have occurred), which is the lower-most tributary to the
Collins River, and in tributaries of the Caney Fork, downstream from
the mouth of the Collins River (Madison 1995, p. 78). Further, fringed
darters likely are native to the lower Collins River system as
indicated by the presence of a mitochondrial DNA haplotype found in the
Upper Caney River and Collins River systems that is not found elsewhere
in the Cumberland River system (Harrington et al. 2020, p. 6).
Over the past 40 to 50 years, fringed darters have expanded their
range into the upper reaches of the Collins River system, which may be
due to a phenomenon called native invasion (Scott and Helfman 2001, pp.
9-11). This occurs when changes to the landscape make habitats in
headwater streams resemble those in medium and larger streams, creating
favorable conditions for invasion by species that naturally occur and
once were limited to downstream habitats. Fringed darters have replaced
Barrens darters in the West Fork Hickory Creek system, where Barrens
darters were extirpated sometime between 1983 and 2001, and in Mud
Creek (Barren Fork system), where Barrens darters were extirpated
sometime between 2009 and 2018 (Harrington et al. 2020, p. 4; see
figure 2, below). Both creek systems are impaired by alteration of
streamside vegetation, and West Fork Hickory Creek is also impaired by
E. coli and nutrients (Tennessee 2024 List of Impaired and Threatened
Waters), suggesting native invasion as a factor in the extirpations.
Data collected to date suggest gene flow from Barrens darters into
fringed darter populations, and possible bias of female Barrens darters
hybridizing with male fringed darters, which is the larger of the two
species (Service 2018, p. 15; Harrington et al. 2020, pp. 17-19). Of
364 Collins River system fringed darters examined, 4 specimens from the
West Fork Hickory Creek system and 8 specimens from the Mud Creek and
McAfee Creeks in the South Fork Barren system were found to have
Barrens darter mitochondrial DNA and fringed darter nuclear DNA
(Harrington et al. 2020, pp. 14-15). Mitochondrial DNA is inherited
only from the mother in most species, including fishes. Therefore, the
occurrence of Barrens darter DNA in fringed darters (based on
morphology) may point to female Barrens darters preferentially
selecting the larger male fringed darters to breed with when the
species co-occur or that fringed darters are more successful in
competing for spawning cavities. Because female Barrens darters must
mate in spawning cavities, male fringed darters successfully competing
for the spawning cavities results in female Barrens darters mating with
male fringed darters rather than with male Barrens darters.
Fringed darters are a substantial threat to Barrens darters by
competing for spawning space and mates, and likely for other resources
including prey and cover. After fringed darters colonize a Barrens
darter site, the Barrens darter population is at high risk of becoming
replaced over time, as some of the Barrens darters lose their genetic
identity through hybridization. The
[[Page 28706]]
male Barrens darters, due to competition for mates and spawning
cavities or female preference for fringed darters, may fail to produce
offspring at sufficient rates to sustain future generations. Because
Barrens darters have a short 3-year lifespan, most males survive long
enough to attempt spawning in two seasons per lifetime. Thus, if only a
few male Barrens darters successfully produce annually due to
competition with fringed darters, the pace of replacing generations
will be insufficient, quickly driving the Barrens darter population to
extirpation.
Except for the upper Collins River, fringed darters have advanced
relatively rapidly into the headwater habitats that Barrens darters
need for survival. Habitat degradation present in many stream reaches
of the Collins River system is a major threat to Barrens darters
because, in addition to its direct effect of lost cover, it promotes
invasion of fringed darters into the headwaters. Where Barrens darters
and fringed darters have been observed to co-occur, Barrens darters
became extirpated within 15 years. Therefore, due to competition,
hybridization, and their ongoing expansion in the Collins River system,
which comprises the entirety of the range of the Barrens darter,
fringed darters pose the greatest threat to the viability of the
Barrens darter.
Although fish survey records prior to the 1980s are sparse, it
appears that the Barrens darter's decline did not start (or the decline
was not noticed) until fringed darters began moving into the Barrens
darter's headwater habitat. Because Barrens darters withstood habitat
and water quality disturbances for a long period prior to the fringed
darter invasions, including times prior to the CWA or when the CWA
regulations were first being implemented, it is more likely that the
invasions together with habitat and water quality impacts, rather than
habitat and water quality impacts alone, are a crucial driver of
Barrens darter declines. In summary, competition and hybridization with
the fringed darter is occurring in two of the three systems that
comprise the Barren darter's range and is highly likely to continue.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 28707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY25.001
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Habitat Threats From Agricultural Activities and Riparian Clearing
Land cover and land use have a strong influence on the quality and
quantity of water in streams (Allan 2004, entire; Freeman and Marcinek
2006, entire). Vegetation coverage and type can affect the timing,
amount, temperature, and quality of water in streams, and livestock
with free access to stream channels and streambanks can have direct and
indirect effects on water quality through waste and sedimentation. The
Barrens Plateau area of Tennessee is very susceptible to impacts from
agriculture according to the Tennessee State Wildlife Action Plan
(Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) 2015, p. 23).
Many of the streams within the Barrens darter's range are used as
water sources for cattle and other livestock. Reduced riparian
vegetation on lands where livestock have access to streams and where
vegetation is destroyed by livestock or fencing is absent or
insufficiently maintained can lead to increased water temperatures due
to loss of shade. Elevated temperatures may reduce Barrens darter nest
success
[[Page 28708]]
by reducing the number of eggs produced, hatching rates, or larval
survival, as was observed in a laboratory study of temperature effects
on the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola) (Bonner et al 1998 p.
974). Unfettered cattle access increases bank erosion, which is
negatively associated with Barrens darter occurrence (Zuber 2014, p.
95), and unfettered cattle access increases turbidity and sedimentation
in streams. Sedimentation from livestock and other sources has the
potential to cover cobble and other instream substrates, resulting in
lower habitat quality, fewer food items, and fewer spawning cavities.
In addition, influxes of large amounts of animal waste increase the
amount of nutrients in streams and further reduce visibility, which can
impact the spawning displays of Barrens darters. Increased bacterial
levels, associated with nutrification, may increase the risk of
infection to eggs, reducing egg viability (Pat Rakes, Conservation
Fisheries, Inc. 2018, pers. comm.). Fungus-covered eggs in Barrens
darter nests have been observed in Lewis Creek and Duke Creek in the
Barren Fork system (Hansen et al. 2006, p. 66; Bergen et al. 2012, p.
438).
Several streams currently occupied by the Barrens darter have
impaired water, impaired habitat quality, or both (Tennessee 2024 List
of Impaired and Threatened Waters, not paginated). Charles Creek, a
direct tributary to the lower Collins River, is impaired by Escherichia
coli (E. coli) along its entire length, but the State reports the
source of the E. coli is unknown. Liberty Creek, in the Barren Fork
system, is impaired by alteration of stream-side vegetation and cover
due to crop production and grazing in the riparian area. Two
tributaries to the Upper Collins River, Savage Cove Creek and Taylor
Creek, are listed by the State as impaired. Savage Cove Creek is
impaired by alteration of streamside vegetative cover due to specialty
crop production (nurseries) and grazing in the riparian area. Taylor
Creek is impaired by alteration of streamside vegetative cover, low
dissolved oxygen, and sedimentation due to nurseries and silviculture
activities. In summary, all three MUs currently occupied by the Barrens
darter contain streams listed by the State as impaired and 4 of the 8
streams occupied by the species are experiencing impaired water or
habitat quality, or both, and that impairment is expected to continue.
Effects of Drought
Barrens darter habitat can be diminished during droughts, and some
streams in the Collins River system have occasionally dried out
completely during periods of moderate drought (Harrington et al. 2020,
p. 19). Flow in Duke Creek and Lewis Creek in the Barren Fork system
ceased during parts of May and June 2009, coinciding with the species'
spawning period, when the streams were reduced to stretches of isolated
pools (Bergen et al. 2012, p. 237). As a headwater species, Barrens
darters are likely adapted and resilient to occasional intermittent
reduced flows or streambed drying. During moderate droughts, unless
there is strong groundwater influence, the pattern of drying typically
starts near the head of the stream channel and progresses downstream,
and Barrens darters have adapted to this headwater flow dynamic.
However, periods of drought require movement, usually downstream, to
access wetted stream channels. Currently, the suitability of these
downstream areas as drought refugia is diminished because they have
impaired habitat quality, are occupied by fringed darters, or both (see
``Fringed Darter Threat of Native Invasion,'' above).
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Application of best management practices (BMPs), such as fencing
livestock away from streambanks and riparian areas, providing
alternative watering sources, and maintaining or planting riparian
buffers with native vegetation, can positively affect the viability of
the Barrens darter. However, outside of the few surveys and life-
history studies that informed our SSA report, there have not been any
targeted conservation efforts for the Barrens darter. This species
occurs in streams located entirely on private land and does not receive
the benefits of public conservation land. Efforts have been made to
fence livestock out of streams and provide them alternate water sources
in some places where Barrens darters occur. These are very limited in
scale and amount of overlap with the Barrens darter's range. Most of
these efforts have been funded and organized through Partners for Fish
and Wildlife agreements with landowners, but most of the agreements
have expired, so it is unclear whether riparian buffer maintenance is
continuing at sites where the agreements were applied.
The Barrens darter is afforded some protection via State and
Federal regulatory mechanisms. It is listed as endangered by the State
of Tennessee (TWRA 2024, p. 2), making it unlawful to take the Barrens
darter without a State permit. Additionally, the bluemask darter
(Etheostoma akatulo) is federally listed as an endangered species under
the Act, and the Barrens darter currently benefits from the Act's
protections where these species' ranges overlap along approximately 2.3
mi (3.7 km) of the upper Collins River. The Clean Water Act of 1977
(CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, which is implemented by
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation through Tennessee's
Water Quality Control Act of 1977 and its implementing State
regulations, provides a level of protection to Barrens darter habitat
and water quality. While the protections afforded by these regulatory
mechanisms have not fully prevented the degradation of some habitats
used by the Barrens darter, as some streams occupied by the Barrens
darter are recognized as having impaired water and habitat quality, the
species has benefited from improvements in water quality and habitat
conditions stemming from these mechanisms. For example, CWA section 319
grants for States to address nonpoint source runoff or CWA section 402
permits to reduce pollutants in point source discharges to levels that
are protective of aquatic life have served to reduce impacts to
Tennessee streams from effluents, runoff, and landscape disturbance.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report (Service 2025,
entire), we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats
and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the
relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats
and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just
the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively
influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the
cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-
effects analysis.
Current Condition
Historically, the Barrens darter occurred in four watersheds in the
Collins River system: Charles Creek, Barren Fork, West Fork Hickory
Creek, and the upper Collins River. West Fork Hickory Creek feeds
Hickory Creek, which feeds the lower Barren Fork upstream from the
Barren Fork confluence with the Collins River (see figure 2, above).
Charles Creek and Barren Fork feed the lower Collins River directly.
The Barrens darter is extirpated
[[Page 28709]]
from the West Fork Hickory Creek system, where it was last collected in
1982.
Each of the three watersheds where the Barrens darter is extant and
the watershed where it is extirpated is treated as a management unit
(MU) in our SSA report (version 3.0: Service 2025, entire). To assess
the current resiliency of the MUs, we selected seven metrics that
included two habitat factors and five population factors (see table 1,
below). For habitat factors, the physical habitat metric was determined
using the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
stream habitat assessment protocol for moderate to high gradient
streams (TDEC 2017, p. I.I-D-1-24). This protocol scores habitat
quality based on factors such as sediment deposition, substrate
availability, channel alteration, riparian vegetation, etc. Water
quality was rated based on designations from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and TDEC, such as the List of Impaired and
Threatened Waters (covered by CWA section 303(d)) (see Habitat Threats
from Agricultural Activities and Riparian Clearing section, above) as
well as observations from field surveys.
We obtained population factor data from surveys and other records
for the Barrens darter from 2009 through 2019 (Harrington et al. 2020,
entire; Mattingly and Johansen 2017, entire; and Zuber 2014, entire).
These survey efforts were standardized and used methods to specifically
target darters across all size classes. Age structure criteria (high,
moderate, or low categories) were based on the number of age classes
present and whether juveniles were collected in the most recent survey.
Due to population variability through time and across sites, as well as
differential collection techniques between surveys, we characterized
approximate abundance as the average number of Barrens darters
collected at all the sites in a management unit. Occurrence extent was
measured as the distance between the upstream-most and downstream-most
occurrence record in a MU stream network, which approximated the size
of the Barrens darter's range within each MU. Occurrence complexity
describes the dispersion of the Barrens darter in each MU as the number
of occupied tributaries feeding the mainstem. Presence of fringed
darters characterizes the degree of threat they pose to Barrens darters
via competition, hybridization, and likely replacement of Barrens
darters once the two species come into contact. Within each MU, the
fringed darter presence metric was measured as the ratio of streams
occupied by the fringed darter to streams occupied by the Barrens
darter. If fringed darters are present in a MU, the overall current
resiliency is rated as low, given the scope and magnitude of this
threat to the species, which outweigh all other threats combined.
Table 1--Factors and Criteria for Assessing Population (MU) Resiliency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Type High Moderate Low Unsuitable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Habitat Score...... Habitat....... 151-200........ 101-150........ 0-100.......... Does not
support
survival.
Water Quality............... Habitat....... Minimal issues. Issues Issues known to Does not
recognized, impact support
e.g., CWA populations. survival.
303(d) streams.
Age Structure............... Population.... Two to three One adult age One age class.. Extirpated.
age classes, class and
including juveniles.
juveniles.
Approximate Abundance....... Population.... Greater than 15 5 to 15 fish Fewer than 5 Extirpated.
fish per 100 per 100 m (328 fish per 100 m
meters (m) ft). (328 ft).
(328 feet
(ft)).
Occurrence Extent........... Population.... Range greater Range 5 to 10 Range less than Extirpated.
than 10 stream stream mi (8.0 5 stream mi
mi (16.1 km). to 16.1 km). (8.0 km).
Occurrence Complexity....... Population.... Occupies main Occupies main Occupies main Extirpated.
channel and channel and channel only.
multiple one tributary.
tributaries.
Fringed Darter Occurrence... Population.... None in MU..... Ratio of Ratio of Extirpated.
tributaries tributaries
occupied by occupied by
fringed darter fringed darter
to those to those
occupied by occupied by
Barrens darter Barrens darter
less than 50 greater than
percent. 50 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the Barren Fork and Charles Creek MUs have low
resiliency, the Upper Collins River MU has moderate to high resiliency,
and the Barrens darter is extirpated from the Hickory Creek MU (table
2). Although occurrence extent is classified as ``high'' in the Upper
Collins River and Barren Fork MUs, the stream lengths that approximate
the range in these units are small, measuring 10.4 mi (16.7 km) and
14.7 mi (23.7 km), respectively. The Barren Fork system's overall
moderate habitat and water quality (table 2) derives from averaging the
classifications for those two metrics in all streams currently and
historically occupied by Barrens darters, although both metrics are low
in some occupied streams (discussed below). Occurrence extent is only 1
mi (1.6 km) in the Charles Creek unit, in a single reach of the
mainstem (low occurrence complexity).
Table 2--Classification of Resiliency Factors and Current Resiliency of Barrens Darter Management Units (MUs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Occurrence Fringed darter
MU Physical habitat Water quality Age structure abundance Occurrence extent complexity presence * Resiliency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Creek.................. Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Low............... Low............... Low.............. Low.............. Low.............. Low.
Barren Fork.................... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... High.............. High.............. High............. Moderate......... Low.............. Low.
Hickory Creek.................. Moderate.......... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated....... Extirpated....... Extirpated....... None (Extirpated).
Upper Collins River............ Moderate-Low...... Low............... High.............. Mod............... High............. High............. High............. Moderate-High.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Low resiliency rating is assigned for MUs with high levels of fringed darter presence.
Considering the strong negative influence that fringed darters have
on Barrens darters, coupled with the impacts of habitat and water
quality impairment in some of its tributaries, the Barren Fork MU has
low resiliency. Within the Barren Fork system since 2002, records of
Barrens darters are from only Duke (includes McMahan Creek
[[Page 28710]]
and its tributary, Lewis Creek), Mud, and Liberty Creeks. In Mud Creek,
fringed darters replaced Barrens darters between 2009 and 2018
(Harrington et al. 2020, p. 17). Mud and Liberty Creeks have poor
habitat quality and are listed as impaired by the State. By stream
miles, Liberty Creek comprises just over one-third of the stream
systems within the Barren Fork where the Barrens darter remains extant.
The Barrens darter is extirpated from the North Prong Barren Fork
system and Dog Branch, a direct tributary to mainstem Barren Fork.
North Prong Barren Fork is listed as impaired by the State, and fringed
darters currently occur in the lower end of Dog Branch. The mouth of
Mud Creek is just below the current record of Barrens darter in Liberty
Creek. Therefore, the Liberty Creek Barrens darters are at very high
risk of fringed darter invasion, owing both to poor habitat and fringed
darter proximity. The Duke Creek system is farther upstream (about 6 mi
(9.7 km)) from fringed darter records, but fringed darters have been
encroaching closer over the past 40 years. Water quality and habitat in
Duke Creek is moderate, and one of its tributary systems, McMahan Creek
(including Lewis Creek), has high habitat quality (Service 2018, p.
24). As noted above (see Threats), Duke Creek and Lewis Creek, as well
as other headwater streams in the Collins River system, have gone dry
during moderate drought, which has the potential to put Barrens darters
in contact with fringed darters as they move downstream to find watered
stream channels.
The ability of Barrens darters to disperse and recolonize
tributaries where they once occurred is likely precluded by the
occurrence of fringed darters along several pathways in the stream
network comprising the Barren Fork MU. This MU has moderate complexity
because there are three tributaries occupied by the Barrens darter but
Barrens darters are absent from the mainstem. Because fringed darters
are in the mainstem and have colonized several tributary systems in the
Barren Fork MU, including the North Prong Barren Fork, Dog Branch, and
Mud Creek systems (Harrington et al. 2020, pp. 17-19) where Barrens
darters are extirpated, opportunities for Barrens darters to recolonize
historically occupied tributaries are extremely reduced. Together, the
occurrence of fringed darters in multiple tributaries, several stream
reaches with poor habitat quality, and the threat of occasional
moderate droughts contribute to the low resiliency of the Barrens
darter in the Barren Fork MU.
In addition to population (MU) resiliency, we assessed species
redundancy, which is low. The Barrens darter is confined to three of
its four historically occupied MUs, and two of those MUs, Charles Creek
and Barren Fork, have low resiliency. Only the Upper Collins River MU
has moderate to high resiliency. There is likely no connectivity
allowing for dispersal from the Upper Collins River MU to colonize and
``rescue'' the two low resiliency MUs because fringed darters are in
the intervening stream reaches. With only one moderate to high
resiliency MU, no connectivity between the three occupied MUs, and the
close spatial arrangement of the three occupied MUs, which makes all of
the occupied MUs vulnerable to incurring the same harmful effect of a
catastrophic event, such as an extreme flood that passively pushes the
species downstream or a drought that prompts dispersal downstream to
sites occupied by fringed darters or that are unsuitable habitat,
Barrens darter redundancy is low.
Species representation is also low. The range of the Barrens darter
is naturally narrow, consisting of headwater streams in the Collins
River subbasin of the Caney Fork that drains four counties situated on
the Barrens Plateau within a single physiographic province, the Eastern
Highland Rim. There are no areas within the species' natural range that
contain unique habitat features that might promote development of
different adaptive traits. Genetic data show very little variation
between the Charles Creek and Barren Fork populations. However, the
Collins River population harbors a unique mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
haplotype, and the frequency of (mtDNA) haplotypes in the Collins
population is measurably different from Barren Fork and Charles Creek
populations (Harrington et al. 2020, pp. 16-17). Although this spatial
structuring of genetic variation is based on haplotypes from a single
region of mtDNA (locus) and should be interpreted with caution until
more loci can be assessed, it suggests there has been little recent
gene flow between the Upper Collins River MU and the other MUs
(Harrington et al. 2020, p. 16) and indicates there is potentially
greater adaptive capacity within the upper Collins system.
Nevertheless, Barrens darter representation is likely to erode over
time because the unique alleles (gene variants) in the Upper Collins
River MU that may bolster adaptive capacity cannot be shared with the
rest of the basin where there is little allelic diversity due to a lack
of connectivity among MUs. Overall, the Barrens darter's habitat
diversity and genetic diversity are low, indicating the species'
capacity to adapt to environmental changes, such as channel widening
that can result from streambank alteration or novel exposure to a
species such as the fringed darter, are limited. Therefore, the Barrens
darter's representation is low.
Future Condition
Considering the accumulation of the best scientific information to
date on the severity of threats currently affecting the viability of
the Barrens darter, which includes new data that clearly shows the
imminence and high magnitude of the threat posed by the ongoing fringed
darter expansion into or near streams occupied by the Barrens darter,
we determined that the current condition of the Barrens darter is
consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Barrens
Darter Status, below) and did not conduct a new future condition
analysis for the SSA report (version 3.0: Service 2025, entire). As
part of our initial SSA report (version 1.0: Service 2018, entire), we
developed three future-condition scenarios to capture the range of
uncertainties regarding future threats and the projected responses by
the Barrens darter. Our scenarios considered three main elements of
change: land development, conservation levels, and changes in
precipitation and drought. The scenarios differ by considering
variations that were forecast in each of the three elements of change
and capture the range of outcomes the Barrens darter was expected to
exhibit in the MUs by 2050. Effects of storms and drought were expected
to worsen regardless of scenario, whereas projected development and
conservation effects vary depending on scenario but were generally
expected to remain similar to current levels or worsen. Please refer to
the initial SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 25-39) for the full analysis
of future scenarios.
Determination of Barrens Darter Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The
[[Page 28711]]
Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
The Barrens darter has a small range, which has been reduced from
its historical size. Barrens darters currently occur in three of four
stream systems that we defined as management units (MUs) in our SSA
report (Service 2025, entire): Charles Creek, Barren Fork, and the
upper Collins River. The species is extirpated from the Hickory Creek
system. In Charles Creek, the Barrens darter's known range consists of
a single, linear, 1-mi (1.6 km) reach in the creek's mainstem. In
Barren Fork and the upper Collins River, the extent of the Barrens
darter's range (upstream to downstream-most occurrence) is 14.7 and
10.4 mi (23.7 and 16.7 km), respectively.
Some streams within each MU are listed by the State of Tennessee as
having impaired water and habitat quality along their entire length.
Degraded habitat likely provides conditions favorable for invasion by
fringed darters, and Barrens darters have been completely replaced in
all streams colonized by fringed darters, including in the entire
Hickory Creek MU. Species replacement has been rapid, with Barrens
darters disappearing within 15 years after contact between the two
species.
Overall, the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the
Barrens darter are low. Population resiliency in Charles Creek is low,
given the 1-mi (1.6-km), single occupied stream segment, and fringed
darter occupation of the downstream reach. Resiliency in the Barren
Fork also is low due the ongoing colonization of upstream reaches by
the fringed darter, and poor habitat conditions in some stream reaches
that favor the fringed darter and directly impact Barrens darter
populations via sedimentation and reduced cover. Resiliency in the
Upper Collins River MU is moderate to high, but there is no
connectivity between the Upper Collins River MU and the other MUs.
Barrens darter redundancy is low. Among the three extant MUs, Charles
Creek and the Barren Fork contribute little to redundancy, due to their
low resiliency. In addition, the close spatial arrangement of the MUs
leaves the species vulnerable to the effects of a single catastrophic
event. For example, an extreme or prolonged drought would likely affect
the entire range of the species, with individuals that survive
desiccation by moving downstream encountering fringed darters. An
extreme flooding event would likely affect the entire range of the
species by scouring or smothering nesting habitat and washing
individuals downstream and into contact with fringed darters.
Representation is low because the breadth of occupied habitat types and
number of physiographic regions occupied by Barrens darters is
naturally low, and genetic diversity is low rangewide, except for a
unique genetic marker in the Upper Collins River MU that cannot be
shared with the other MU populations because of the lost connectivity.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the primary threats influencing the viability of
the Barrens darter are habitat loss; degradation of stream banks,
instream cover, and water quality; and habitat fragmentation and
isolation (Factor A); and the invasion of Barrens darter-occupied
streams by the fringed darter (Factor E). The scope, magnitude, and
imminency of these threats have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the Barrens darter such that the species is in danger
of extinction throughout its range. We did not identify threats to the
continued existence of the Barrens darter due to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor
B); or disease or predation (Factor C). After evaluating the threats to
the species, we found that past and ongoing changes in habitat,
together with the current number of Barrens darter sites colonized by
fringed darters, result in conditions that present a high risk of
extinction for the Barrens darter. Thus, after assessing the best
scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Barrens
darter is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the Barrens darter is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
the Barrens darter warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its
range, our determination does not conflict with the decision in Center
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020),
because that decision related to significant portion of the range
analyses for species that warrant listing as threatened, not
endangered, throughout all of their ranges.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Barrens darter meets the Act's definition of an
endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the Barrens darter as
an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of 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, foreign
governments, 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, including the Service, 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. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. 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.
[[Page 28712]]
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``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. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (/program/endangered-species) or from our Tennessee 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 may 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 Tennessee would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Barrens darter. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at: /service/financial-assistance.
Although the Barrens darter is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Barrens darter that may
be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7
are actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.)) or actions funded by Federal agencies such as the
Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, or the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency--do not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should
coordinate with the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7
consultation and conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents 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 endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
[[Page 28713]]
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features.
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3(3) of the Act, means to
use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to
bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such
methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the listed species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further,
our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to:
[[Page 28714]]
(1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act;
(2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section
7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the
Act. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation
tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best
scientific data available at the time of designation will not control
the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of those planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Barrens darter and habitat characteristics where the
species is located. A careful assessment of the economic impacts is
pending, and we will begin working to acquire the complex information
needed to perform that assessment. Therefore, due to the current lack
of data sufficient to perform required analyses, we conclude that the
designation of critical habitat for the Barrens darter is not
determinable at this time. The Act allows the Service an additional
year to publish a critical habitat designation that is not determinable
at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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.
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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government
basis. In accordance with Secretary's 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. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Barrens darter, so
no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at and upon request from
the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on June 6, 2025, for publication. On June 25,
2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Darter, Barrens'' in
alphabetical order under FISHES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28715]]
* * * * * * *
Darter, Barrens.................. Etheostoma forbesi.. Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-12009 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P