Vol. 81 Thursday, No. 67 April 7, 2016

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Big Sandy and Status for the Guyandotte River Crayfish; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR may warrant protection through listing inviting general public comment was if it is endangered or threatened published in the Lexington Herald on Fish and Wildlife Service throughout all or a significant portion of April 9, 2015, and in the Coalfield its range. Listing a species as an Progress and Charleston Gazette on 50 CFR Part 17 endangered or can April 10, 2015. We did not receive any [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0015; only be completed by issuing a rule. requests for a public hearing. On 4500030113] This rule makes final the listing of the December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77598), we ( reopened the public comment period for RIN 1018–BA85 callainus) as a threatened species and an additional 30 days to make the the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. results of two 2015 summer surveys of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife veteranus) as an endangered species. the species available for public review and Plants; Threatened Species Status The basis for our action. Under the and comment. for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Act, we may During the initial 60-day public Endangered Species Status for the determine that a species is an comment period (April 7, 2015, to June Guyandotte River Crayfish endangered or threatened species based 8, 2015) and the reopened 30-day AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, on any of five factors: (A) The present comment period (December 15, 2015, to Interior. or threatened destruction, modification, January 14, 2016), we received public ACTION: Final rule. or curtailment of its or range; (B) comments from 42,026 individuals or overutilization for commercial, organizations. Of these, 41,974 were SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and recreational, scientific, or educational form letters submitted by individuals Wildlife Service (Service), determine purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) associated with several threatened species status under the the inadequacy of existing regulatory nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), mechanisms; or (E) other natural or that expressed support for the listing of as amended, for the Big Sandy crayfish manmade factors affecting its continued the two species but did not provide any (Cambarus callainus), a freshwater existence. We have determined that the new or substantive information. One from , , and Guyandotte River crayfish is in danger NGO also submitted a separate comment , and endangered status for of (i.e., is endangered) and letter on behalf of itself and 26 other the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. that the Big Sandy crayfish is likely to NGOs. This comment letter was veteranus), a freshwater crustacean from become in endangered within the supportive of listing the Big Sandy and West Virginia. This rule adds these foreseeable future (i.e., is threatened) Guyandotte River and species to the Federal List of due primarily to the threats of land- generally reiterated information from Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. disturbing activities that increase the proposed rule. We also received five DATES: This rule is effective May 9, erosion and sedimentation, which comments from government agencies. 2016. degrade the stream habitat required by Two were generally supportive of the both species (Factor A), and of the proposed listing, one was opposed, and ADDRESSES: This final rule is available effects of small population size (Factor two did not offer an opinion. on the Internet at http:// E). We received 46 comments from www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Peer review and public comment. We individuals, including peer reviewers FWS–R5–ES–2015–0015 and at our Web sought comments from independent and various industry groups or site at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ specialists to ensure that our companies. Of these 46, 18 were crayfish/. Comments and materials we designation is based on scientifically supportive of listing the two species, 14 received, as well as supporting sound data, assumptions, and analyses. were opposed, and 7 did not offer an documentation we used in preparing We invited these peer reviewers and the opinion. The remaining seven public this rule, are available for public public to comment on our listing commenters submitted comments on inspection at http:// proposal during two comment periods, topics related to other issues not www.regulations.gov. Comments, for a total of 90 days. We considered all specific to the listing proposal, such as materials, and documentation that we comments and information we received general criticism of the Act (16 U.S.C. considered in this rulemaking will be during the comment periods. 1531 et seq.) or of coal mining. Because available by appointment, during these seven comments are not normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Previous Federal Actions substantive regarding the proposed Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Please refer to the proposed listing listing rule, we do not address them Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, rule for the Big Sandy crayfish and the further. Comments regarding Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413–253– Guyandotte River crayfish (80 FR 18710; recommendations for research or 8615; facsimile 413–253–8482. April 7, 2015) for a detailed description conservation actions are outside the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of previous Federal actions concerning scope of this final listing rule, but such Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered these species. recommended actions will be Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, considered during the recovery Summary of Comments and Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate planning process. All substantive Recommendations Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; information provided during the telephone 413–253–8615; facsimile In the proposed rule published on comment periods is summarized below 413–253–8482. Persons who use a April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we and has either been incorporated telecommunications device for the deaf requested that all interested parties directly into this final determination or (TDD) may call the Federal Information submit written comments on the is addressed in the response to Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. proposal by June 8, 2015. We also comments below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and Comments From Peer Reviewers Executive Summary organizations, and other interested In accordance with our peer review Why we need to publish a rule. Under parties and invited them to comment on policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR the Endangered Species Act, a species the proposal. A newspaper notice 34270), we solicited expert opinion

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20451

from seven knowledgeable individuals 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire) proposed rule, the Service funded with expertise in the field of astacology generally confirmed our previous additional crayfish surveys (224 (the study of crayfishes) and stream analysis of each species’ status and individual survey sites) throughout the ecology. We received individual range, and are discussed in more detail ranges of both species (see Loughman responses from six of these peer under Summary of Biological Status and 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). reviewers. Threats, below. The surveys found two All Big Sandy and Guyandotte River In general, the peer reviewers all new stream occurrences (four sites) for crayfish collected during these surveys commented that we had thoroughly and the Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Tug were associated with faster-flowing accurately summarized the best Fork basin (Loughman 2015a, pp. 10– waters in streams with unembedded available scientific data. We 17). These data, along with the 2009 substrates and slab boulders. At sites incorporated revisions into the final rule confirmation of the species in the lower where these habitat conditions were as a result of the peer reviewer , support our conclusion that degraded or absent, more generalist comments. Any substantive comments the Big Sandy crayfish historically crayfish species (e.g., the spiny stream are discussed below. occupied suitable habitat in the lower crayfish ( cristavarius)) were (1) Comment: We received conflicting portions of these river basins. As dominant and were found utilizing comments from five of the six peer discussed in the proposed rule, other other instream including woody reviewers about the sufficiency of the lines of evidence that the species once debris snags and leaf packs. Neither the data from which we determined the occupied a much greater range in the Big Sandy crayfish nor Guyandotte population status and trends for the Big lower reaches of the Levisa and Tug River crayfish was found associated Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes. Fork basins than it currently does with woody debris or leaf packs. Two of the reviewers indicated that include: (1) Genetic evidence that the (3) Comment: One peer reviewer additional quantitative evidence was range of the species within the Big questioned our conclusion that the needed to support our conclusions Sandy basin was once much larger than Flannagan Reservoir posed a barrier that regarding declines in range, population, it is presently; (2) the opinion of prevented Big Sandy crayfish movement or abundance for the Big Sandy crayfish, crayfish experts who have surveyed for between the Pound River and the Cranes including the historical presence of the the species; and (3) the analogous range Nest River subpopulations. The species in the lower Levisa Fork and reduction of the closely related reviewer correctly noted that the basins. In contrast to the Guyandotte River crayfish, which is Flannagan Reservoir was not sampled concern regarding a lack of data, a third subject to similar environmental for the Big Sandy crayfish. The reviewer reviewer commented that the proposed stressors and threats as the Big Sandy referenced a scientific study on a rule was based on more quantitative crayfish. different species of stream crayfish data than are available for most crayfish Additionally, the new occurrence native to Arkansas and Missouri that species, which supports a fourth locations in the lower Tug Fork, had been found to inhabit a reservoir in reviewer’s conclusion that the recent specifically the three Pigeon Creek sites, Missouri as evidence that the Flannagan survey data were sufficient to suggest indicate an increase in the Big Sandy Reservoir might not be a barrier to the declining ranges and possibly crayfish’s redundancy above what was Big Sandy crayfish. abundances for both species. Finally, a known when we published the fifth reviewer observed that, while data proposed rule. This increase in Our Response: We are not aware of to inform precise population trends for redundancy also contributes to the any surveys for the Big Sandy crayfish these (and most other) crayfish species species’ overall resiliency and is in the Flannagan Reservoir, but because are lacking, the decline in population discussed under Summary of Biological reservoirs generally lack flowing water and range for both the Big Sandy and Status and Threats, below. and accumulate bottom sediments at an Guyandotte River crayfishes was (2) Comment: One peer reviewer accelerated rate (Baxter 1997, p. 259; undebatable. commented that the existing scientific Appalachian Power Company 2008, pp. Our Response: The Act requires that data may have been insufficient to 28–33), it is reasonable to conclude that the Service make listing determinations provide for an accurate assessment of the bottom substrate in the Flannagan based solely on the best scientific and the habitat preferences of the Big Sandy Reservoir (and the lower reaches of the commercial data available. When we crayfish. This reviewer noted that our Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers, which published the proposed rule on April 7, cited sources consisted of status and form arms of the reservoir) lacks 2015 (80 FR 18710), we relied on the distribution surveys that were not unembedded slab boulders and is best quantitative and qualitative data designed to determine specific therefore likely not suitable habitat for available at that time to determine the microhabitats used by the species the Big Sandy crayfish. However, status of each species, including among the suite of all habitats present. because no physical barrier separates previous crayfish surveys and habitat However, this reviewer further stated the subpopulations of Big Sandy assessments, range maps, genetic that the available information does crayfish in the Pound River and Cranes evidence, analysis of museum likely support that the Big Sandy Nest Rivers, we do not rule out that specimens, and expert scientific crayfish is associated with unembedded these subpopulations may interact with opinion. As we discussed in the slab boulders. each other, perhaps seasonally when proposed rule, the available scientific Our Response: As we described in the reservoir levels are lowered and the data indicated that the range of each proposed rule, there is consensus among lower portions of these rivers species has been reduced and that most crayfish experts that have surveyed for temporarily assume more riverine existing subpopulations of these species the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River characteristics. However, the best had low abundance. crayfishes that these species are available data support our ongoing Since publishing the proposed rule, naturally associated with the faster- conclusions that the Flannagan Dam the Service funded additional crayfish flowing sections of streams and rivers poses a barrier between the Pound River surveys in the Upper Guyandotte and because these sections maintain an and Cranes Nest River subpopulations Big Sandy River basins to better inform abundance of unembedded slab and the wider and Levisa our final analysis. The results of these boulders that provide shelter for the Fork populations because it physically new crayfish surveys (see Loughman species. Following publication of the separates areas of suitable habitat, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

that is a threat to status of each species. And while there in Virginia, the species is extant in at the species. may be other methods for analyzing the least 10 sites in the Russell Fork (4) Comment: Several peer reviewers existing data, we concluded, and the six watershed and 1 site in the Levisa Fork commented on other potential threats to scientific peer reviewers (including this watershed. The VDGIF also provided the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River reviewer) generally concurred, that our information on an occurrence location crayfishes and suggested that we discuss analysis was sufficient to make a listing within the Russell Fork watershed that the effects of climate change and dams determination for these two species. We we were unaware of and noted two on the two species. welcome any new data the reviewer can locations in the upper Levisa Fork Our Response: We agree that the provide and may consider his watershed from which the species potential effects of dams and climate suggestions during the recovery appears to have been extirpated. change on the two species warrant planning process to help inform However, the agency does not believe further analyses; we have incorporated potential conservation measures. the addition of the new occurrence these below, under Factors A and E, location affects the listing proposal. respectively, in this final rule. Comments From Federal Agencies Our Response: We appreciate the (5) Comment: One peer reviewer (7) Comment: One Federal agency VDGIF’s additional data on Big Sandy examined the genetic data in GenBank® stated that it works with landowners on crayfish occurrence locations in (a database of genetic sequence data a voluntary basis to implement Virginia, and we have incorporated this maintained by the National Center for conservation measures, some of which information into this final rule. We look Biotechnology Information; see http:// may provide direct and indirect benefits forward to continuing our conservation www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) and to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River partnership with the VDGIF as we commented that the available molecular crayfishes or their habitats. In order to develop a recovery strategy for the evidence suggests that the Big Sandy continue their successful conservation species. and Guyandotte River crayfishes are partnerships with private landowners, (10) Comment: The VDGIF distinct taxonomic entities that are only the Federal agency expressed a commented that while recent survey distantly related to each other. The willingness to work with the Service to data describe Big Sandy crayfish reviewer also commented that develop mutually acceptable avoidance distribution in the Commonwealth, data additional genetic analysis of coexisting measures and practices that will benefit on population sizes and trends do not Cambarus crayfish species in the region these species. exist. They noted that while Big Sandy is needed to better understand their Our Response: The Service crayfish surveys conducted in 2009 (see relationships. appreciates the work of the Federal Thoma 2009b) were not necessarily Our Response: We appreciate this agency and looks forward to working designed to determine the species’ additional independent analysis that with them as conservation partners population numbers, the agency supports our conclusion that the Big regarding the Big Sandy and Guyandotte interpreted the results as evidence that Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes River crayfishes. the Big Sandy crayfish subpopulations are separate taxonomic entities. And in the Russell Fork, Indian Creek, and Comments From States while we also agree that additional Dismal Creek appeared to be stable and genetic research on the native crayfish (8) Comment: The Kentucky reproducing, and the subpopulations in of this region would help inform future Department of Fish and Wildlife the Pound River and Cranes Nest River conservation efforts, we must base our Resources (KDFWR) commented that it appeared smaller and did not appear to listing decision on the best available is difficult to determine Big Sandy be stable. scientific data. crayfish population changes based on Our Response: As we indicated in the (6) Comment: One peer reviewer the supporting documents and survey proposed rule, we agree that suggested several potential new lines of information. The agency also quantitative data on which to base inquiry or alternative methods of commented that the species’ present population estimates for this species are analyzing or presenting existing data distribution appears to differ from its sparse, and we concur that, based on the that would provide additional support historical distribution, but that it is best available data, the species’ health for our proposed decision to list the Big difficult to determine the magnitude appears to vary at different occurrence Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. and implication of these changes. The locations throughout its range. For example, the commenter suggested KDFWR also concurred that the Following publication of the proposed we use probabilistic analyses of State available information indicates that rule, the Service funded additional water quality data to better infer the physical habitat quality is correlated crayfish surveys in the Big Sandy River degree of impairment across the species’ with the presence or absence of the Big basin to better inform our final analysis ranges. Sandy crayfish. (Loughman 2015a, entire). These new Our Response: We appreciate the Our Response: We appreciate the data confirmed that the Big Sandy reviewer’s suggestions and recognize KDFWR’s review and comments on the crayfish is generally present throughout that alternative analyses could be used proposed rule and acknowledge the the Russell Fork basin, with eight of the to assess the primary and contributing challenges in analyzing the best nine surveyed stream systems threats affecting the Big Sandy and available data to determine the status of supporting the species. However, in the Guyandotte River crayfishes. However, the Big Sandy crayfish (please see our upper Levisa Fork basin, six streams the Act requires that the Service make response to Comment 1, above). We look were surveyed, and the species was listing determinations based solely on forward to working with the KDFWR as confirmed to be present in only one. the best scientific and commercial data a conservation partner as we develop a The 2015 data also indicated that the available, and the analyses suggested by recovery strategy for the species. species is notably absent from many the reviewer would require data that are (9) Comment: The Virginia other streams within its range, not available. When we published the Department of Game and Inland especially in the lower Levisa Fork and proposed rule on April 7, 2015 (80 FR Fisheries (VDGIF) commented that its Tug Fork basins. 18710), we relied on the best data on the Big Sandy crayfish support Additionally, in January 2016, the quantitative and qualitative data our determination to list the species as VDGIF provided the Service with 12 Big available at that time to determine the endangered. The agency confirmed that Sandy crayfish survey and relocation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20453

reports for work conducted in the habitat designation, and we look We used this information in developing Russell Fork and upper Levisa Fork forward to working with the agency as this final rule. We received no other watersheds in Virginia between 2009 we develop a recovery plan for the substantive information regarding the and 2014. These crayfish survey and species. sufficiency or accuracy of the available relocation efforts were associated with (14) Comment: The West Virginia data and note that the six scientific peer infrastructure projects (i.e., pipeline Department of Environmental reviewers indicated that we conducted stream crossings, bridge replacements, Protection, Division of Mining and a thorough review and analysis of the culvert replacement) and generally Reclamation (WVDEP/DMR) concurred best available data. There is no confirmed the species’ presence in with our conclusion that both species substantial disagreement regarding the streams for which we already had have reduced ranges and generally low sufficiency or accuracy of the available occurrence records. Because most of abundances at existing occurrence data to indicate the need for a 6-month these efforts were intended to remove locations, but the agency recommended extension. all Big Sandy crayfish from pending the two species not be listed at this (15) Comment: The WVDEP/DMR construction areas, the raw numbers of time. The WVDEP/DMR requested that expressed concern that only three Big individual crayfish captured provides additional time be afforded to research Sandy crayfish survey sites were some indication of the species’ existing museum, academic, and identified in the West Virginia portion population densities and supports our government crayfish collections to of the species’ range and that this conclusion (80 FR 18710, pp. 18719– verify the distribution and abundance of indicated insufficient information 18720) that where suitable habitat the two species within their described regarding the species’ status in West conditions exist, about 20 to 25 ranges. Virginia. individual Big Sandy (or Guyandotte Our Response: We appreciate the Our Response: As we indicated in River) crayfish should be present at a WVDEP/DMR’s comments on the Table 2b in the proposed rule (80 FR survey location. The numbers of proposed listing rule and their request 18710, p. 18721), between 2006 and individual crayfish captured at the that additional time be afforded to 2014, 25 individual sites in West Russell Fork sites surveyed (n=22) conduct more research. However, Virginia were surveyed for the Big ranged from 0 to 99, with a mean of 21.7 section 4(b)(6)(A) of the Act provides a Sandy crayfish. Of these, the species Big Sandy crayfish per site. statutory timeline for making listing was confirmed at four of these sites. (11) Comment: The VDGIF determinations: within 1 year from the During the summer of 2015, the Service commented that the available evidence date a proposed regulation is published, funded additional survey work that indicates that the Russell Fork and the Secretary will either publish a final included 32 sites in West Virginia. The Levisa Fork subpopulations of Big regulation, provide notice that the Big Sandy crayfish was confirmed at 11 Sandy crayfish are genetically distinct proposed regulation is being withdrawn, of these sites. These new data provided and may warrant conservation as or provide notice that the 1-year period the first occurrence records for the separate management units. is being extended for up to 6 months species in the lower Tug Fork and Our Response: We agree that the best because of substantial disagreement confirmed the species’ presence in 7 of available scientific data indicate there regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 17 stream systems in the Tug Fork basin are genetic distinctions between the the available data relevant to the (this includes streams in both Kentucky various subpopulations of the Big Sandy determination. In addition to the and West Virginia). This information crayfish. The potential species statutory time limitations described has been incorporated into this final management implications of these above, the Act requires that the rule. genetic differences will be discussed Secretary make listing determinations (16) Comment: The WVDEP/DMR during the recovery planning process. based solely on the best scientific and disagreed with our inclusion of water (12) Comment: The VDGIF commercial data available. quality degradation, specifically high commented that a female crayfish with When we published the April 7, 2015, conductivity levels, as one of the instars was found during the month of proposed rule, we relied on the best greatest threats to the two crayfish May, which could indicate either that scientific and commercial data available species. The agency contends that the late-breeding females from the previous at that time to determine the evidence provided in the proposed rule mating season overwinter instars longer distribution and abundance of the Big indicates that bottom sedimentation is than previously reported or that the Sandy and the Guyandotte River the primary threat to the species and species can spawn earlier in the year crayfishes. As described in the proposed that because of the marine ancestry of than previously reported. rule, these data included a Service- the taxonomic order (which Our Response: We appreciate this funded biological status review of the includes crayfish), the Big Sandy and new information. While this observation two species, which included an Guyandotte River crayfishes are not does not alter our listing determination, examination of records and vouchered likely sensitive to elevated conductivity it may be useful in developing the specimens in all known crayfish levels. species’ recovery plan and other collections from the region. These Our Response: As we indicated in the conservation measures. collections are held by the proposed rule, the best available (13) Comment: The VDGIF provided National Museum, Illinois Natural scientific data indicate that degradation comments related to critical habitat and History Survey, Eastern Kentucky of stream habitat from sedimentation future recovery options for the Big University, Ohio State University, West and substrate embeddedness is the Sandy crayfish. Liberty University, and the Virginia primary threat to the Big Sandy and Our Response: We appreciate the Department of Game and Inland Guyandotte River crayfishes. However, VDGIF’s interest in contributing to the Fisheries. The only relevant new data the best available data also suggest that conservation of the Big Sandy crayfish. we received during the public comment water quality degradation is likely a However, these comments related to period were three new stream contributing threat to these species. critical habitat and recovery planning occurrence records, two for the Big The Service funded new crayfish are outside the scope of this final listing Sandy crayfish (Pigeon Creek and lower surveys during the summer of 2015 that rule. We will consider these comments Tug Fork mainstem) and one for the compared crayfish presence and when developing a proposed critical Guyandotte River crayfish (Clear Fork). abundance (as catch per unit effort

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

(CPUE)) with various habitat funded those surveys, as discussed Thoma 2010; Loughman and Welsh parameters, including conductivity above. On December 15, 2015, the 2010) was funded by several of these levels (Loughman 2015a, entire; results of these survey efforts were made same State agencies. Loughman 2015b, entire). The results of available to the public and the public (20) Comment: Several commenters both of these studies clearly comment period was reopened for 30 stated that we should withdraw or demonstrated that high instream habitat days (80 FR 77598) to afford the public postpone our listing decision or that we quality, as measured by the Qualitative an opportunity to comment on these should make a ‘‘warranted but Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), is survey results and to submit any new precluded’’ finding until more data are positively correlated with the presence data or analysis that became available available upon which to base our listing of both species. While Loughman found since the close of the initial comment decisions. Some commenters stated that a statistical relationship between high period. This reopened comment period the Service’s timeline for developing the conductivity levels and the absence of closed on January 14, 2016. We received listing rule was governed by the Guyandotte River crayfish, the data for six new comments during the reopened settlement agreement with the Center the Big Sandy crayfish did not indicate comment period, including substantive for Biological Diversity rather than such a relationship (Loughman 2015a, information that has been incorporated sufficient study or data development. entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). into this final rule. Our Response: The Act requires that However, studies of a different crayfish Because the two public comment we make listing determinations based species did indicate that high periods totaled 90 days and because we solely on the best scientific and conductivity levels were harmful, received few comments during the commercial data available. As we especially during certain crayfish life reopened comment period, we believe discussed in response to Comment 1, stages (see ‘‘Water Quality that there has been sufficient time for above, when we published the proposed Degradation,’’ under the Factor A the public to review and provide rule on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we discussion in Summary of Factors comments on the proposed rule and relied on the best quantitative and Affecting the Species). supporting information. While we qualitative data available at that time. (17) Comment: The West Virginia welcome new information about these Furthermore, as we discussed Division of Natural Resources species at any time, as previously stated, previously, the Act requires us to, (WVDNR), which funded some of the the Service must make listing within 1 year after the date the proposed survey work referenced in the proposed determinations based solely on the best rule is published, either publish a final rule, indicated that they have no available data and within certain regulation, provide notice that the additional data regarding the status of statutory timeframes (see our response proposed regulation is being withdrawn, the two species and generally concurred to Comment 14). or provide notice that the 1-year period with our analysis and conclusions that (19) Comment: Several commenters is being extended for up to 6 months the existing data indicate that the ranges expressed concern that we published because of substantial disagreement of both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte the proposed listing rule prior to regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of River crayfishes have decreased from submitting it for peer review or that we the available data relevant to the their historical distributions, that did not seek input from the State determination. While some commenters existing populations are small and wildlife agencies. disagreed with our interpretation of the vulnerable, and that habitat degradation Our Response: In accordance with our best available data or our conclusions, continues to affect both species. Based peer review policy published on July 1, we received no new substantive data on the available data, the WVDNR 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the that would indicate the listing proposal concurred that listing of the two species expert opinion of seven independent should be withdrawn or that substantial is warranted. specialists regarding the pertinent disagreement existed regarding the Our Response: We appreciate the scientific or commercial data and sufficiency or accuracy of the available WVDNR’s contribution toward assessing assumptions related to the proposed data. the status of the two species within listing of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte A ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ finding West Virginia and their comments on River crayfishes. Our policy provides means the Service has enough the proposed rule. We look forward to that this process take place during the information to list a species as continuing our conservation partnership public comment period on the proposed endangered or threatened, but is with the WVDNR as we develop a rule. precluded from undertaking the recovery strategy for these species. Prior to drafting the proposed rule, we rulemaking process because of other did seek input from the State wildlife or actions for species with higher Comments From the Public environmental resource agencies in conservation priorities. Given the best (18) Comment: Several commenters Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. available scientific data that indicated requested that the 60-day public We also submitted notice of the the Guyandotte River crayfish was comment period be extended by 60 to proposed rule to the affected States in known only from a single location and 180 days to provide additional time to: accordance with the Act. In response, was subject to ongoing threats to the (1) Review the available data; (2) seek we received substantive data and/or species’ habitat and to individual new data; (3) examine the data in light comments from the Kentucky Division crayfish, the Guyandotte River crayfish of the taxonomic split of Cambarus of Water (KDOW), the VDGIF, the was the Service’s highest priority at the callainus from C. veteranus or; (4) WVDEP/DMR, and the WVDNR. We time. In addition, the data for the Big prepare comments. addressed the agency comments (see Sandy crayfish indicated that it too was Our Response: The 60-day comment Comments from States, above) and in decline and facing threats similar to period for the April 7, 2015, proposed incorporated them into this rule where those faced by the Guyandotte River rule closed on June 8, 2015. At that appropriate. As we discussed above, crayfish. Therefore, we appropriately time, we declined to extend the these comments generally supported our prioritized the proposed listing of both comment period because we intended to analysis in the proposed rule. We note species. These determinations were reopen the comment period after the also that much of the recent survey within the Service’s discretion. results of new surveys became available. work for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte (21) Comment: Several commenters During the summer of 2015, the Service River crayfishes (see Thoma 2009b; expressed concern that if the Big Sandy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20455

and Guyandotte River crayfishes are encourages cooperation between discussion in the April 7, 2015, listed, various extractive industries in stakeholders and calls for recovery proposed rule; 80 FR 18710, pp. 18723– the region would be negatively affected actions for listed species. However, 18724), modern-day regulated activities or off-road vehicle (ORV) trail articulating these measures or are much less harmful and do not pose development would be restricted. The describing how listing will aid a risk to the species. commenters believe listing of either or conservation of the species is not a Our Response: As we discussed in the both species would cause economic standard for listing a species under the proposed rule, the past industrialization harm to the industries or local Act, but will be developed through the of the region severely degraded the communities. recovery planning process for both habitat required by the Big Sandy and Our Response: While we appreciate species. Guyandotte River crayfishes and likely the concerns about the possible (24) Comment: Several commenters led to their extirpation from many economic impact of potential claimed that we did not adequately streams within their ranges. The management actions that may result consider the positive effects existing crayfish subpopulations that survived from listing the Big Sandy and Federal and State environmental laws through this period of widespread Guyandotte River crayfishes, the Act (e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. environmental degradation are now does not allow us to factor those 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control largely isolated from one another concerns into our listing decision. and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA; because of dams or inhospitable Rather, listing decisions under the Act 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and others), intervening habitat (resulting from past must be made solely on the basis of the regulations, and best management and ongoing activities) in each river best scientific and commercial data and practices (BMPs) have had on the two system and individual crayfish are in consideration of the five factors in species and stated that because of the found in low numbers at most of the section 4(a)(1) of the Act. That said, we protections afforded by these regulatory remaining sites. These now isolated and are committed to working with industry mechanisms, listing under the Act is not generally low-abundance crayfish organizations, State and Federal necessary. subpopulations do not maintain the agencies, local communities, ORV Our Response: We agree that the same resiliency or redundancy of the various Federal and State environmental groups, and other stakeholders to original widespread and interconnected regulations and BMPs, when fully develop protections for the two crayfish (at least initially) populations that were complied with and enforced, have species and their habitats while subjected to the rapid industrialization resulted in improvements in water and allowing continued use of the region’s of the region in the 1900s and are at an habitat quality when compared to resources. increased risk of extirpation (see Factor (22) Comment: One commenter conditions prior to enactment of these E discussion, below). We, therefore, expressed that all of the information the laws. However, as we described in the conclude that current regulated Service relied upon in making the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR activities, while not causing widespread proposed listing should be made readily 18710, pp. 18724–18729, 18732) and degradation on the scale seen in the available (i.e., in electronic form) to the this final rule, State water quality public. reports, published scientific articles, 1900s, continue to pose a risk to the two Our Response: When we published and expert opinion indicate that the species as they now exist. the proposed rule and opened the aquatic habitat required by the Big (26) Comment: Several commenters public comment period, we included an Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes expressed that the proposed rule electronic version of our reference list continues to be degraded despite these incorrectly identified or focused on coal with citations for all of the data we regulatory mechanisms. The best mining and timber operations as relied upon in drafting the proposed available scientific data demonstrate specific threats to the Big Sandy and rule. In the proposed rule, we also that the range of the Guyandotte River Guyandotte River crayfishes and that we provided contact information and crayfish has declined since enactment of ignored other threats, including human instructions to allow the public to the CWA, the SMCRA, and the various development, roads, dams, and natural inspect the supporting documentation at other regulations and BMPs. And flood events. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although we have less temporal data for Our Response: As we described in the Northeast Regional Office. We note that the Big Sandy crayfish, the genetic data Factor A discussion under the Summary we received no requests to review the and expert opinion strongly suggest that of Factors Affecting the Species in the supporting documentation. this pattern of range reduction is similar April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR (23) Comment: Several commenters for that species. We also emphasize that 18710), the primary threat to the Big stated that we did not articulate the the threats to the Big Sandy and Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes needed conservation and recovery Guyandotte River crayfishes that we is habitat degradation caused by erosion measures for the two species or how discuss under Factor E, below, are not and sedimentation from land-disturbing listing either species would add to addressed by any existing regulatory activities, including coal mining, existing conservation efforts. mechanism. Therefore, we conclude commercial timber operations, road Our Response: We appreciate the that the best available data indicate that construction, ORV use, oil and gas commenters’ concern for the existing regulations, by themselves, development, and unpaved road conservation and recovery of these have not been sufficient to prevent the surfaces (80 FR 18710, pp. 18722– species. As we discussed under the continued degradation of the habitat of 18731). We also identified several heading Available Conservation these two species. contributing factors related to human Measures in the April 7, 2015, proposed (25) Comment: One commenter stated population growth in the area, including rule (80 FR 18710, p. 18736), the general that because the Big Sandy and wastewater discharges and unpermitted conservation benefits of listing include Guyandotte River crayfishes survived stream channel dredging. The best increased public awareness; through the severe environmental available scientific data, including conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, degradation that characterized the published articles and State water and local agencies and private region’s largely unregulated quality reports, support our conclusion organizations; and prohibitions of industrialization in the early to mid- that these activities degrade the aquatic certain practices. The Act also 1900s (see the Historical context habitat required by these species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

In the proposed rule, we did not We concur that the best available data and because these species appear to be identify natural flood events as a threat indicate that Statewide BMP particularly sensitive to stream to either the Big Sandy or the implementation rates for commercial sedimentation and bottom Guyandotte River crayfishes. Because forestry operations in Kentucky, embeddedness, we maintain that these species evolved to live in the fast- Virginia, and West Virginia are sedimentation resulting from forestry is flowing streams and rivers in the generally high. However, as we noted in likely a contributing threat to these Appalachian Plateaus physiographic the proposed rule, in Kentucky and species. We are also committed to province, where episodic flood events West Virginia, some categories of working with State and Federal are natural and recurring phenomena, forestry, such as tree clearing in advance agencies, the timber industry, and we did not consider floods as a threat of coal mining, gas drilling, or other landowners to help minimize erosion to either species’ existence. However, as construction activities, are specifically from commercial forestry operations we discussed in the proposed rule, and exempted from implementing forestry and maintain the instream habitat below in this final rule (see BMPs. Regardless of specific forestry quality for these species. ‘‘Residential/Commercial Development BMP implementation rates or situational (28) Comment: Several commenters and Associated Stream Modifications’’ efficacies, the State water quality questioned our determination that the under the Factor A discussion in monitoring reports (WVDEP 2012; Big Sandy and Guyandotte River Summary of Factors Affecting the KDOW 2013; VADEQ 2014) list timber crayfishes are distinct species or Species), human attempts to modify the operations (along with mining, roads, expressed concern that the taxonomic streams and rivers to control flooding or urban development, agriculture, and change confounds the interpretation of mitigate flood damage may degrade the riparian clearing) as contributing excess earlier survey reports. Commenters habitat that these species require. In the sediments to streams and rivers within stated that prior to our making a final proposed rule, we discussed the effects the ranges of the Big Sandy and listing determination, studies on of stream dredging or bulldozing on the Guyandotte River crayfishes. possible interbreeding of the two habitat of these species, and while we Although we do not have sufficient crayfish populations or on variation in did not list dams as specific threats, we data to produce comprehensive demographic traits among conspecific did identify habitat fragmentation, sediment budgets for each land- populations should be conducted. caused at least in part by dams, as a disturbing activity, in the proposed rule Our Response: As we described in the threat. Based on input from some peer we did use the best available data to April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR reviewers and public commenters, we estimate the annual erosion potential 18710), our determination that the Big have reconsidered the effects of dams on within the ranges of the two species and Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte the two species and have added new stated that ‘‘. . . if the forest is River crayfish are distinct species was based upon a peer-reviewed scientific language to this final rule discussing undisturbed, about 3,906 tonnes (3,828 article, which represented the best direct historical aquatic habitat loss tons) of sediment will erode, while available scientific data. We did not resulting from reservoir creation. logging the same area will produce perhaps 67,158 to 149,436 tonnes receive any substantive data during the (27) Comment: Two commenters that (65,815 to 146,447 tons) of sediment’’ public comment period, nor are we expressed concern about our finding (80 FR 18710, p. 18730). One aware of any new data, that contradict that forestry is a contributing threat to commenter indicated these estimates these genetic and morphological data the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River appeared too high and used data from demonstrating that the Big Sandy crayfishes provided information on the much older studies to produce lower crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish implementation rates and effectiveness estimates. This comment led to our are distinct, reproductively isolated of forestry BMPs and cited various discovering two errors in our original species. In addition, one of the peer studies purported to demonstrate that calculations. However, upon correcting reviewers conducted an independent forestry BMPs minimize erosion and these errors (one transcription error and analysis of the available genetic data sediment transport to streams below one unit conversion error), we have and concluded that the taxonomic split levels that degrade aquatic habitats and/ revised the estimated erosion rate from is valid (see Comment 5, above). or harm aquatic species, including the an undisturbed forested site in the We do not agree that the taxonomic Big Sandy and Guyandotte River southern Appalachians from 0.31 tonnes split of the Big Sandy crayfish and the crayfishes. One of the commenters also per hectare (ha) per year (yr) (0.12 tons Guyandotte River crayfish confounds expressed that our estimate of soil per acre (ac) per year (yr)) to 0.47 the interpretation of earlier survey erosion from timber harvesting appears tonnes/ha/yr (0.21 tons/ac/yr). This reports. While historically the two to be too high. results in our original estimate of species were identified collectively as Our Response: We appreciate the erosion from undisturbed forest, ‘‘3,906 , we have little commenters’ support of forestry BMPs tonnes (3,828 tons)’’, being corrected to evidence that earlier surveys routinely as a means of protecting water quality, ‘‘5,922 tonnes (6,456 tons).’’ We also confused C. veteranus with any other and we concur that when properly corrected a ‘‘tonnes’’ to ‘‘tons’’ crayfish species (we discussed implemented, forestry BMPs can reduce conversion error (‘‘65,815 to 146,447 exceptions to this in the April 7, 2015, erosion and sedimentation levels, tons’’ is in error and should be ‘‘73,173 proposed rule, 80 FR 18710, pp. 18715– especially as compared to past forestry to 162,641 tons’’). As to the 18716). As we described in the practices. However, as we noted in the commenter’s use of older studies (dated proposed rule, independent crayfish April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 1965 to 1979) to estimate lower erosion experts have examined all known 18710), the best available data indicate potentials, we concluded that the data museum specimens identified as C. that even when forestry BMPs are we used (see Hood et al. 2002) rely on veteranus from both the Big Sandy basin properly implemented, erosion rates at an improved methodology and and the Upper Guyandotte basin along timbered sites, skid trails, unpaved haul constitute the best available data. with more recently collected specimens roads, and stream crossings are Based on our estimate of annual, from each river basin. These experts significantly higher than from ongoing soil erosion from rotational determined that in both the museum undisturbed sites (80 FR 18710, p. forestry within the ranges of the Big specimens and recent captures, the 18728). Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, morphological characteristics that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20457

distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish from indicate that the Big Sandy crayfish is especially in the lower Levisa Fork and the Guyandotte River crayfish were endemic to the Big Sandy River basin Tug Fork systems. His work generally consistent with the geographical and the Guyandotte River crayfish is confirmed the previously known location (i.e., Big Sandy basin or Upper endemic to the Upper Guyandotte River occurrence locations, but did note four Guyandotte basin) where the specimens basin. new occurrence locations in the lower were acquired. As we noted in the (30) Comment: Several commenters Tug Fork basin (one in the Tug Fork proposed rule, when discussing the questioned our conclusions on the mainstem and three in the Pigeon Creek earlier survey work (pre-taxonomic population status of the Big Sandy system). These areas had not been revision) we ascribed the appropriate crayfish or stated that the map of Big surveyed previously and provide no species name based on the river basin Sandy crayfish occurrence locations direct evidence on population trends. from which specimens were collected. (figure 4 in the April 7, 2015, proposed However, as we described in the Therefore, we conclude that the best rule; 80 FR 18710, p. 18719) was proposed rule (see text and Table 2a; 80 available data identify the appropriate confusing and that it actually indicated FR 18710, pp.18719–18721), the fact taxonomic entity such that we can that the Big Sandy crayfish population that researchers were unable to confirm accurately analyze the two species’ had increased from pre-2006 levels to the species’ presence at most locations status. the present time. throughout its historical range (29) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: As we noted in the (displayed as open circles on figure 4 of questioned our delineation of the proposed rule and in responses to the proposed rule) indicates that the historical range of the Big Sandy and Comments 1 and 10, above, we relied on species’ range and population is Guyandotte River crayfishes and the best quantitative and qualitative reduced and that the existing asserted that we discounted information data available at that time to determine subpopulations are fragmented from that indicated the historical range of the the status of the Big Sandy crayfish, each other. Additionally, at many sites two species included river systems including crayfish surveys and habitat where the Big Sandy crayfish does still outside of the Big Sandy and Upper assessments, range maps, genetic exist, especially outside of the Russell Guyandotte basins, or that the two evidence, analysis of museum Fork basin, the CPUE data indicate the species co-occurred in the Big Sandy specimens, and expert scientific species is found in relatively low and Upper Guyandotte basins. opinion. While we agree that numbers (see Population Status, below). Our Response: We appreciate these quantitative population trend data are (31) Comment: One commenter commenters’ concerns, but do not agree sparse, these other lines of scientific provided preliminary results of the that we omitted or improperly analyzed evidence indicate that the range and survey efforts funded by the Service and the best available data in determining population of the Big Sandy crayfish is conducted in the Upper Guyandotte and the historical ranges of the Big Sandy reduced and that the existing Tug Fork basins of West Virginia. and Guyandotte River crayfishes. As we subpopulations are fragmented from one (32) Comment: One commenter stated described in the April 7, 2015, proposed another. We note also that this pattern that the Big Sandy and Guyandotte rule (80 FR 18710), we relied upon is consistent with the severe range River crayfishes are sensitive to elevated Statewide crayfish survey reports, reduction observed in the closely stream sedimentation and substrate targeted survey reports, range maps and related Guyandotte River crayfish, for embeddedness. Additionally, during the descriptions from historical crayfish which we had more data. And as we reopened comment period (December surveys, genetic evidence, data from described under the discussions of 15, 2015, to January 14, 2016), this State wildlife agencies, analysis of Factors A and E in the proposed rule (80 commenter submitted an additional museum collections, and the best FR 18710, pp. 18722–18731, and 18732– letter that supported both species professional judgment of crayfish 18735, respectively), and discussed receiving Federal protection and experts to determine the historical range below in this final rule, threats to the provided additional observations from of each species. In the proposed rule, we species continue. the Service-funded 2015 rangewide noted several erroneous or dubious In the proposed rule, figure 4 shows surveys. crayfish records from outside of the Big all known survey sites and occurrence Our Response: We appreciate these Sandy or Upper Guyandotte River locations for the Big Sandy crayfish, observations regarding the preferred basins and discussed the evidence broken down by time period (pre-2006 habitat and status of the Big Sandy and indicating why these records do not and 2006 to 2014). We acknowledge that Guyandotte River crayfishes and have support the historical presence of either figure 4 could be perceived as showing incorporated this new information into the Big Sandy or the Guyandotte River that the range of the Big Sandy crayfish this final rule. crayfish outside of these two river has expanded since 2006, but we (33) Comment: One commenter basins or the cross-basin presence (i.e., emphasize that this is only an artifact disagreed with our determination that Guyandotte River crayfish in the Big resulting from greatly increased the Big Sandy crayfish population was Sandy basin or Big Sandy crayfish in the sampling effort since 2006, especially in decline and described an abundance Upper Guyandotte basin) of either outside of the Russell Fork drainage of crayfish on his property near species. basin. Along with the known occurrence Clintwood, Virginia (Pound River/ In addition, neither the peer locations (pre-2006), the more recent Cranes Nest River drainage). The reviewers, including two with extensive surveys included streams throughout commenter described these crayfish as experience surveying for crayfish in the the Big Sandy crayfish’s range that were destroying his property by creating Appalachian region, nor the VDGIF or identified by crayfish experts as being holes in the ground, thus presenting a the WVDNR disagreed with our analysis likely to harbor the species. Because hazard to individuals using his and description of the historical ranges these new sites are not known to have property. of the two species. We did not receive been surveyed previously, they provide Our Response: We appreciate the any new data during the public no direct evidence that the species’ commenter’s concern, but note that comment period that indicated either range or population has increased or these observations appear to describe species historically occupied sites decreased in recent years. Loughman behavior of a burrowing crayfish outside of their respective river basins. (2015a, entire) expanded the survey species. As we described in the April 7, Therefore, the best available data coverage in the Big Sandy basin, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710), the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

best available data indicate the Big present in the runoff from roads could further supports our analysis in the Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes degrade the habitat of the Big Sandy and proposed rule of land-disturbing are wholly aquatic species that naturally Guyandotte River crayfishes. The activities occurring within the current inhabit the faster moving portions of commenter requested that we remove range of the Guyandotte River crayfish. streams and rivers with abundant this discussion from the final rule. (38) Comment: One commenter unembedded slab boulders for cover. As Our Response: As we noted in the concurred with our determination that ‘‘tertiary burrowers,’’ these species are April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR the crayfish population has declined not known to construct burrows or dig 18710), the best available data indicate (the commenter did not distinguish holes in upland or semi-aquatic areas. that the primary threat to the Big Sandy between Big Sandy crayfish and Therefore, it is unlikely that the and Guyandotte River crayfishes is Guyandotte River crayfish), but commenter’s observations are related to excessive erosion and sedimentation disagreed that this decline was caused Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish. that leads to stream bottom solely by construction, logging, or ORV (34) Comment: Two commenters embeddedness. However, the data also use. The commenter advocated that described the effects of coal mining suggest that other stressors, such as plastic litter and/or the invasive plant operations on streams adjacent to their water quality degradation, may also kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) properties. Both commenters provided contribute to the decline of these could be causes of water contamination anecdotal information on the species. While the commenter correctly and should be investigated. The degradation of water quality as a result noted that we have no specific studies commenter also suggested that similar of mine runoff and noted the on the effects of road runoff crayfish from other areas could be disappearance of aquatic species, contaminants to the Big Sandy and introduced to areas where Big Sandy or including unspecified crayfish species, Guyandotte River crayfishes, the best Guyandotte River crayfishes following construction of the mines. available data do indicate that road (presumably) are rare or absent. The Our Response: While we have no data runoff can contain a complex mixture of commenter also expressed concern that or details on these specific examples contaminants, including pesticides and Federal listing of these species could with which to respond further, the herbicides, metals, organic chemicals, cause economic harm to the region or observations of these commenters nutrients, and deicing salts and that the Hatfield-McCoy ORV trail system. appear similar to some of the findings these contaminants, alone or in Our Response: As we described in the described in the scientific literature on combination, can degrade receiving April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR the effects that coal mining can have on waters and be detrimental to aquatic 18710), the best available data indicate aquatic resources (see the April 7, 2015, organisms (see ‘‘Water Quality the primary threat to the Big Sandy and proposed rule’s Historical context, Degradation’’ under the Factor A Guyandotte River crayfishes is excessive Current conditions, and Coal mining discussion, below). We note also that erosion and sedimentation that leads to sections under the Factor A discussion pesticides and herbicides may be stream bottom embeddedness. We also in Summary of Factors Affecting the released to roadways as a result of described a variety of land-disturbing Species (80 FR 18710). accidents or spills or in concentrations activities, in addition to those listed by (35) Comment: One commenter noted or mixtures contrary to U.S. the commenter, known to cause erosion that we incorrectly implied that suitable Environmental Protection Agency and sedimentation within the ranges of habitat for the Big Sandy and (USEPA) pesticide registration labeled the species. The commenter did not Guyandotte River crayfishes includes directions. Under such circumstances, provide any supporting information that ‘‘headwater streams,’’ which they these chemicals could pose a higher risk kudzu could degrade water quality, and described as small, nonperennial to aquatic species, including the Big we were unable to locate any such data. streams. Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes And, while we acknowledge plastic Our Response: We appreciate the (Buckler and Granato 1999, entire; litter is an aesthetic concern that may commenter’s observation and agree that, Boxall and Maltby 1997, entire; NAS pose a physical hazard to some species as we indicated in the April 7, 2015, 2005, pp. 72–75, 82–86). (e.g., from entanglement or perhaps proposed rule, based on the best (37) Comment: One commenter ingestion), we found no information available data, small, nonperennial provided information on the reduction indicating that plastic debris is related streams are not suitable habitat for of forest cover within the range of the to the decline of the Big Sandy or either species of crayfish. In the Guyandotte River crayfish between 1973 Guyandotte River crayfishes, nor did the proposed rule, we described the and 2013. The commenter reported that commenter provide such supporting historical range and distribution of the there was a 5.5 percent loss of forest information. Big Sandy crayfish to include ‘‘suitable cover within the Upper Guyandotte While we appreciate the concern streams throughout the basin, from the basin during that period and that the about potential management actions that Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the loss of forest cover was largely the result may result from listing the Big Sandy headwaters.’’ Our use of ‘‘to the of coal mining. The commenter and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the headwaters’’ was intended to convey concluded that coal mining likely Act does not allow us to factor those that the best available data suggest that contributed to the decline of the economic concerns into our listing the species likely occupied suitable Guyandotte River crayfish. decision (see our response to Comment habitat (i.e., fast-flowing, medium-sized Our Response: The data on land use 21, above). However, we must consider streams and rivers with an abundance of changes documented in the report economic impacts into designations of slab boulders on an unembedded (Arneson 2015) referenced by the critical habitat, should critical habitat be bottom substrate) throughout the commenter support the conclusion that, proposed for either or both species. interconnected stream network of the since 1973, coal mining has larger river basin, up to, but not significantly reduced forest cover in the Summary of Changes From the including the small, sometimes Upper Guyandotte River basin. At the Proposed Rule intermittent headwater streams. subwatershed scale, Pinnacle Creek This final rule incorporates (36) Comment: One commenter experienced the greatest loss of forest appropriate changes to our proposed disagreed with our conclusion that cover during the period. We appreciate listing based on the comments we pesticides and herbicides that may be this new scientific information that received, as discussed above, and newly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20459

available scientific and commercial burrowing behavior; instead, they valleys (Ehlke et al. 1982, pp. 4, 8; data. The main substantive change is shelter in shallow excavations under Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 8). The dominant that, based on new data on the Big loose cobbles and boulders on the land cover in the two basins is forest, Sandy crayfish’s distribution, its habitat, stream bottom. The two species are with the natural vegetation community and analysis of the species’ redundancy closely related and share many basic being characterized as mixed and resiliency, we have determined that physical characteristics and behaviors. mesophytic (moderately moist) forest the Big Sandy crayfish does not meet Adult body lengths range from 75.7 to and Appalachian oak forest (McNab and the definition of an endangered species, 101.6 millimeters (mm) (3.0 to 4.0 Avers 1996, section 221E). contrary to our proposed rule published inches (in)), and the cephalothorax Suitable habitat for both species is on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710). (main body section) is streamlined and generally described as clean, third order Specifically, the 2009 to 2015 survey elongate, and has two well-defined or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 data, which became available after the cervical spines. The elongate convergent to 66 feet (ft))), fast-flowing, permanent proposed rule was published, indicate: rostrum (the beak-like shell extension streams and rivers with an abundance of The species is known to occur in an located between the crayfish’s eyes) large, unembedded slab boulders on a additional population in the lower Tug lacks spines or tubercles (bumps). The sand, cobble, or bedrock stream bottom Fork subwatershed; some occurrences in gonopods (modified legs used for (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Channell all four subwatersheds are supported by reproductive purposes) of Form I males 2004, pp. 21–23; Taylor and Shuster good quality habitat; and in some (those in the breeding stage) are bent 90 2004, p. 124; Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma streams, especially in the Russell Fork, degrees to the gonopod shaft (Loughman 2010, pp. 3–4, 6; Loughman 2013, p. 1; the species likely occurs throughout the 2014, p. 1). Diagnostic characteristics Loughman 2014, pp. 22–23; Loughman entire stream rather than only in that distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish 2015a, pp. 1, 29, 41–43; Loughman discrete sections. We conclude that the from the Guyandotte River crayfish 2015b, pp. 1, 9–12, 28–30, 35–36). species has additional redundancy include the former’s narrower, more Under natural (i.e., undegraded) above what was known when we elongate rostrum; narrower, more conditions, this habitat was common in published the proposed rule. This elongate chelea (claw); and lack of a streams throughout the entire upper Big increase in redundancy also contributes well-pronounced lateral impression at Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River to the species’ overall resiliency to the the base of the claw’s immovable finger basins, and historically, both species ongoing threats in its range, all of which (Thoma et al. 2014, p. 551). likely occurred throughout their indicates that the Big Sandy crayfish is Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) respective ranges where this habitat not currently in danger of extinction. reported demographic and life-history existed. However, by the late 1800s, Therefore, this final rule lists the Big observations for the Big Sandy crayfish commercial logging and coal mining, Sandy crayfish as a threatened, rather in Virginia and Kentucky. He concluded coupled with rapid human population than an endangered, species. As in the that the general life cycle pattern of the growth and increased development in proposed rule, this final rule lists the species is 2 to 3 years of growth, the narrow valley riparian zones, began Guyandotte River crayfish as an maturation in the third year, and first to severely degrade the aquatic habitat endangered species. See the Population mating in midsummer of the third or throughout both river basins. We Status and Determination sections, fourth year. Following midsummer conclude, based on the best available below, for more detail. mating, the annual cycle involves egg data, this widespread habitat Other substantive changes include the laying in late summer or fall, spring degradation, most visible as stream following: (1) We incorporated the release of young, and late spring/early bottom embeddedness, likely led to results of new crayfish survey efforts, summer molting. Thoma hypothesized each species’ decline and their eventual including new occurrence records for the likely lifespan of the Big Sandy extirpation from many streams within the Big Sandy crayfish and the crayfish to be 5 to 7 years, with the much of their respective historical Guyandotte River crayfish, into this possibility of some individuals reaching ranges. final rule; and (2) we analyzed several 10 years of age. There is less Both species appear to be intolerant of additional potential threats to both information available specific to the life excessive sedimentation and species, including instream projects, history of the Guyandotte River crayfish, embeddedness of the stream bottom dams, climate change, unstable streams, but based on other shared substrate. This statement is based on and transportation spills. characteristics with the Big Sandy observed habitat characteristics from crayfish, we conclude the life span and sites that either formerly supported the Background age to maturity are similar. The best Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish The information in the following available data indicate both species are or from sites within either of the sections is summarized from the opportunistic , feeding on species’ historical ranges that were proposed listing rule for the Big Sandy plant and matter (Thoma 2009b, predicted to be suitable for the species, crayfish and the Guyandotte River pp. 3, 13; Loughman 2014, pp. 20–21). but where neither of the species (and in crayfish (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) The best available data indicate that some cases no crayfish from any and its citations are incorporated by the historical range of the Guyandotte species) were observed (Jezerinac et al. reference unless otherwise noted. For a River crayfish is limited to the Upper 1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. 22–23; complete summary of the species’ Guyandotte River basin in West Virginia Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3– information, please see the proposed and that the historical range of the Big 4; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman listing rule. Sandy crayfish is limited to the upper 2015a, pp. 29, 41–43; Loughman 2015b, Big Sandy River basin in eastern pp. 28–30, 35–36). See Summary of Species Information Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and Factors Affecting the Species, below, for The Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus southern West Virginia. Both river additional information. callainus) and the Guyandotte River basins are in the Appalachian Plateaus crayfish (C. veteranus) are freshwater, physiographic province, which is Summary of Biological Status and tertiary burrowing of the characterized by rugged, mountainous Threats family. Tertiary burrowing terrain with steep hills and ridges Here, we summarize the two species’ crayfish do not exhibit complex dissected by a network of deeply incised distribution, abundance, and threats

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

information that was previously from the Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa percent) and in 21 of the 55 surveyed provided in the proposed rule (80 FR Fork, and Tug Fork subwatersheds (all stream systems (38 percent). A notable 18710; April 7, 2015) and has been confirmed between 1999 and 2002). result of the 2015 rangewide survey was updated as appropriate from new The Big Sandy crayfish is currently confirmation of the species’ presence in information we received since the known from a total of 21 stream systems the lower Tug Fork basin, where a single proposed rule’s publication. Unless in the same four subwatersheds. occurrence was found in the Tug Fork otherwise noted, citations for the However, we emphasize this apparent mainstem and three occurrences were summarized information are from the increase in occupied stream systems is noted in the Pigeon Creek system. proposed rule and incorporated by an artifact of increased sampling effort, While the species is still found in all reference. See Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, above, for what and not necessarily an increase in the four subwatersheds, current data (2006 has been updated. species’ redundancy. From 2006 to to 2015) indicate notable differences in 2015, a series of surveys were the species’ distribution in each Big Sandy Crayfish conducted that effectively covered the subwatershed. In the Russell Fork Historically (prior to 2006), the Big species’ historical range, including the subwatershed, the Big Sandy crayfish Sandy crayfish was known from 11 first comprehensive rangewide survey was found in 92 percent of the stream stream systems in the 4 larger for the species, which was funded by systems surveyed (52 percent of sites). subwatersheds in the upper Big Sandy the Service in 2015 (see Loughman In the other subwatersheds, the species River watershed: Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, 2015a, entire). During this period, a total was less well distributed. In the Levisa Upper Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork of 276 sites (including all historical Fork and Upper Levisa Fork watersheds, (see figure 1, below). However, pre-2006 locations and additional ‘‘semi-random’’ only 13 percent of the surveyed stream survey data for the species is sparse, locations (e.g., appropriately-sized systems were occupied (19 and 24 with only 25 surveyed sites in 13 stream streams for the species)) were surveyed percent of sites, respectively) and in the systems. Most of these records were throughout the Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, Tug Fork subwatershed, 35 percent of from the Russell Fork subwatershed Upper Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork surveyed stream systems were occupied (with multiple records dating back to watersheds. The Big Sandy crayfish was (23 percent of sites) (see figure 1 and 1937), and single records were available confirmed at 86 of the surveyed sites (31 tables 1a through 1d, below).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20461

Upper Big Sandy River BtJSin

Figure 1. Historical and current survey results for the Big Sandy crayfish. A. Pre-2006 survey results; B. 2006 through 2015 survey results. Positive species occurrences are indicated by black diamonds, negative results are open circles.

Tables la, lb, lc, ld. Survey effort and results for the four subwatersheds. 1• ...... _..._t.hafork ...... _ S!n:!Jft! c. ..., ...... S!n:!Jft! c. ..., ...... 1 1

Ill liiPu'Lidul'ft .... hii!IINflr ~ .._...... !uwJel c. .u..... PHidre !uwJel c.~ PHidre ::= ~ I ! I :: I : I ! I :: I

141 T.. f'ork IIIII l'ollltiNflr ~ ~ l'ollltiNflr ~ S!n:!Jft! c....,,.,...... ,..,.. c...... , ......

::= ! I 23 :: I 20 I ~ ::

Guyandotte River Crayfish on the best available data at the time of Upper Guyandotte River mainstem). In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, the proposed rule, we considered the Therefore, for the purpose of we indicated that the Guyandotte River species’ distribution based on its understanding the species’ overall crayfish was historically known from occupancy status in each individually distribution, we concluded that primary nine individual streams in the Upper named stream. On closer analysis of the streams and their tributaries should be Guyandotte River basin (80 FR 18710, watershed, we determined that some of considered together as a ‘‘stream pp. 18717–18720); we have since these individually named streams were system.’’ Previous surveys (see Jezerinac revised this to be six individual streams actually smaller tributaries connected et al. 1995) identified a species (or stream systems where their smaller into a primary tributary stream (i.e., the occurrence in ‘‘Little Indian Creek.’’ tributaries were also surveyed). Based streams that connect directly to the However, based on the site description

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.000 20462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

provided in the report and our analysis no longer a known occurrence location stream systems in the Upper Guyandotte of the relevant U.S. Geological Survey for the Guyandotte River crayfish. River basin. In 2015, the Service funded topographic maps, we have determined Regardless of this revised information, additional rangewide surveys for the that this creek is not unique, but a multiple survey efforts dating back to species (see Loughman 2015b). A total misnamed section of Indian Creek. Also, 1900 show a significant reduction in the of 71 likely sites (in 21 stream systems) for the purpose of assessing the status of number of occupied streams. Rangewide were surveyed throughout the Upper the Guyandotte River crayfish, we surveys in 1988 and 1989 confirmed the Guyandotte River basin, including all determined that Brier Creek, a tributary species in two stream systems, the historical locations and additional to Indian Creek, is more appropriately historical Huff Creek system and a new ‘‘semi-random’’ locations). The species considered part of the larger Indian stream record, Pinnacle Creek. In 2002, was confirmed at 10 individual sites (in Creek system. Finally, the two museum a study failed to confirm the species at two stream systems). In Pinnacle Creek, specimens collected from Little Huff any historical site (Channell 2004, pp. the last known occupied stream, the Creek in 1971, and previously identified 17–18), but a more comprehensive as Cambarus veteranus, were re- survey in 2009 did find several species was found at 4 of 9 sites examined in 2014, and determined to be individuals in Pinnacle Creek surveyed. And in Clear Fork, which is C. theepiensis (National Museum of (Loughman 2013, p. 6) (see figure 2, a new stream record for the species, the Natural History http://collections.nmnh. below). Guyandotte River crayfish was found at si.edu/search/iz/; accessed December The Guyandotte River crayfish is 6 of 9 sites (see figure 2 and table 2, 21, 2015). Therefore, Little Huff Creek is currently known from two disjunct below).

Population Status connectedness, current distribution (or occurred) along the stream data, genetic evidence, and expert continuum wherever suitable slab There are no historical or current total opinion support that these species once boulder habitat exists (Appalachian population estimates for the Big Sandy occupied most, perhaps all, third order Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) 2010, crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. or larger stream systems throughout entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, However, the best available data provide their respective ranges. The evidence entire; Loughman 2015a, p. 23; information on the distribution and further supports the conclusion that, Loughman 2015b, pp. 9–10). abundance of each species. Historical under natural (i.e., undegraded) Historically, this slab boulder habitat survey information, historical stream conditions, these species likely occur was common throughout most of both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.001 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20463

species’ ranges, however it may be effort’’ (CPUE). In general, sites In 2015, 10 sites in the Upper naturally patchy in some streams in the described as ‘‘robust’’ or ‘‘healthy’’ Guyandotte River basin (representing 14 lower Levisa Fork and Tug Fork maintained CPUE values of 5 or more percent of those surveyed) were positive subwatersheds in the Big Sandy River crayfish per hour (Thoma 2009, pp. 17– for the Guyandotte River crayfish. The basin and in some of the lower tributary 18; Thoma 2010, p. 6; Loughman 2014, actual CPUE values for these occupied streams in the Upper Guyandotte River p. 15). sites ranged from 2 to 15 Guyandotte basin (Loughman 2015a, pp. 5–29; In 2015, 39 sites in the Big Sandy River crayfish per hour (mean 5.0 Loughman 2015b, pp. 9–25). Currently, River basin (representing 25 percent of crayfish per hour). In Pinnacle Creek, suitable slab boulder habitat is limited those surveyed) were positive for the none of the occupied sites had a CPUE by anthropogenic degradation Big Sandy crayfish. The actual CPUE value indicative of a ‘‘robust’’ (discussed below under Factor A). Guyandotte River crayfish population; Survey data from 1900 (prior to the values for these occupied sites ranged the highest CPUE value in Pinnacle widespread industrialization of the from 1 to 5 Big Sandy crayfish per hour region) and from current occupied (mean 2.1 crayfish per hour). However, Creek was 4 crayfish per hour (mean 2.8 streams that maintain high-quality only four sites had ‘‘robust’’ CPUE crayfish per hour, n=4). In Clear Fork, habitat indicate that unrestricted values of 5, and approximately half four of the sites had CPUE values sampling at a ‘‘healthy’’ site should (n=19) of occupied sites had a CPUE indicative of ‘‘robust’’ Guyandotte River produce 20 to 25 individual Big Sandy value of 1, indicating low Big Sandy crayfish populations; the highest CPUE or Guyandotte River crayfish specimens crayfish abundance. The basinwide value was 15 crayfish per hour (mean (Faxon 1914, pp. 389–390; Thoma average CPUE value (including 6.5 crayfish per hour, n=6). The 2009a, p. 10; ATS 2010, entire; ATS occupied and unoccupied sites) was 0.5 basinwide average CPUE (including 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; Big Sandy crayfish per hour. Where data occupied and unoccupied sites) was 0.7 Virginia Department of Transportation exist to make a temporal comparison, Guyandotte River crayfish per hour. The (VDOT) 2014b, entire; VDOT 2015, between 2007 and 2015, seven stream temporal data for Pinnacle Creek do not entire). Between 2006 and 2015, where systems showed a decline in CPUE indicate a significant change in CPUE possible, survey data were normalized values and four stream systems did not values between 2009 and 2015 (see table to a common metric, ‘‘catch per unit appear to change (see table 3, below). 3).

As with the distribution data basin, the average CPUE value Fork and Levisa Fork basins appeared to discussed above, the 2015 survey data (including occupied and unoccupied be less ‘‘healthy,’’ with average CPUE indicate differences in CPUE values and sites) was 1.1 Big Sandy crayfish per values of 0.4 and 0.2, respectively, and overall habitat quality (as measured by hour and the average QHEI score was average QHEI scores of 65 and 61, the standard QHEI) between the four 74. In the Upper Levisa Fork basin, the respectively. major subwatersheds (see tables 4a, 4b, average CPUE value was 0.7 and the 4c, and 4d, below). In the Russell Fork average QHEI score was 73. The Tug

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.002 20464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Additionally, Big Sandy crayfish Summary presumed historically suitable stream relocation surveys conducted in the systems within its historical range. Russell Fork basin between 2009 and The best available data indicate that Within these two streams, the species is 2015 indicate that, in the relatively high the distribution and abundance of both currently found at 12 percent of the quality streams of this subwatershed, the Big Sandy crayfish and the individual sites surveyed. The CPUE the species appears to occur along Guyandotte River crayfish are reduced data also indicate that, at currently significant stream distances, not from their historical levels. The Big occupied sites, both species are Sandy crayfish currently occupies necessarily just discrete locations. generally found in low numbers, with approximately 38 percent of the During these relocation surveys, the few sites indicating ‘‘robust’’ presumed historically suitable stream species was also collected in high populations of Big Sandy crayfish or systems within its historical range. numbers at many sites. Based on these Guyandotte River crayfish. It is possible Within these stream systems, the most relocation survey data and the that additional occurrences of either recent survey data indicate that the species could be found, but not probable distribution data that indicated 92 species occupies 31 percent of the given the extent of the current survey percent of the streams in the Russell surveyed sites. However, as described efforts (see figures 1 and 2, above) Fork basin are occupied (see table 1c, above, this percentage varies markedly combined with habitat quality above), we conclude that the population among the four major subwatersheds, information (either natural or human of Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell with the species being poorly mediated conditions) discussed below. Fork subwatershed is likely more represented in the Levisa Fork and In addition to occupying fewer streams resilient than indicated by the data Upper Levisa Fork subwatersheds. The and sites within streams, the species’ available at the time we published the Guyandotte River crayfish currently stream occurrences are fragmented and April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR occupies only two streams, or isolated from each other (see figures 3 18710). approximately 8 percent of the and 4, below).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.003 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20465

Upper Big Sandy River Basin (Levisa, Upper Levisa, Russell, and Tug Fork Subwatersheds)

Isolated occurrences in Lower Levisa and Tog Forks

Pound River occnrrences:---+...,.11!!!!!111

Cranes Nest River occorrences Levisa Fork/Russell Fork occurrences 20km I

Figure 3. Fragmentation ofthe existing Big Sandy crayfish subpopulations. Based on the reasonable assumption that suitable habitat should exist within the shaded areas to permit crayfish movement and/or occupation between current confmned survey sites.

Upper Guyandotte River Basin

10km occurrences

Figure 4. Fragmentation of the existing Guyandotte River crayfish subpopulations. Based on the reasonable assumption that suitable habitat should exist within the shaded areas to permit crayfish movement and/or occupation between current confmned survey sites.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.004 20466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Factors Affecting the were classified as ‘‘Good.’’ No Big MTR mining, breaks down this Species Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River inherently erosion-resistant bedrock crayfish were collected at sites classified into unconsolidated ‘‘spoil’’ material Factor A. The Present or Threatened as ‘‘Fair,’’ ‘‘Poor,’’ or ‘‘Very Poor.’’ that is much more vulnerable to Destruction, Modification, or erosional forces, especially flowing Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Coal Mining water. Through the removal of this Within the historical range of both the The past and ongoing effects of coal stable bedrock material in order to Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River mining in the Appalachian Basin are access coal seams, and subsequent crayfish, the aquatic habitat has been well documented, and both disposal of the unconsolidated mine severely degraded by past and ongoing underground and surface mines are spoil in adjacent valley fills, surface human activities (Hunt et al. 1937, p. 7; reported to degrade water quality and coal mining causes significant Eller 1982, pp. 162, 184–186; Jezerinac stream habitats (Matter and Ney 1981, geomorphic disturbances with long-term et al. 1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. pp. 67–70; Williams et al. 1996, pp. 41– consequences for the region’s streams 16–23; Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 2010, 46; Sams and Beer 2000, entire; (Kite 2009, pp. 4, 6–9). pp. 3–4; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Demchak et al. 2004, entire; Hartman et The legacy effects of surface coal Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; al. 2005, pp. 94–100; Pond et al. 2008, mining persist long after active mining Loughman 2014, pp. 10–11). Visual entire; Lindberg et al. 2011, entire; ceases. While post-Surface Mining evidence of habitat degradation, such as Merriam et al. 2011, entire; Pond 2011, Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 excessive bottom sedimentation, entire; USEPA 2011b, entire; Bernhardt (SMCRA) mine reclamation techniques discolored sediments, or stream et al. 2012, entire; Hopkins et al. 2013, help reduce erosion following mine channelization and dredging, is often entire; Wang et al. 2013, entire; Palmer closure, especially as compared to pre- obvious, while other water quality and Hondula 2014, entire). The common SMCRA conditions, comparisons of issues such as changes in pH, low physical changes to local waterways recently mined and reclaimed dissolved oxygen levels, high dissolved associated with coal mining include watersheds to unmined watersheds solids, high conductivity, high metals increased erosion and sedimentation, indicate streams below reclaimed MTR concentrations, and changes in other changes in flow, and in many cases the sites can be unstable (Fox 2009, pp. chemical parameters are less visibly complete burial of headwater streams 1286–1287; Jaeger 2015, pp. 30–32). For obvious. Within the range of each (USEPA 1976, pp. 3–11; Matter and Ney example, research indicates that after species, water quality monitoring 1981, entire; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. surface coal mining reclamation is reports, most recently from the 91–92; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717–718; complete, the altered geomorphology Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) USEPA 2011b, pp. 7–9). These mining- and hydrology in the watershed causes (2013, entire), the U.S. Environmental related effects, which can contribute to streams to adjust to these new Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004, stream bottom embeddedness, are conditions (Fox 2009, pp. 1286–1287). entire), the Virginia Department of commonly noted in the streams and This adjustment process includes Environmental Quality (VADEQ 2012, rivers within the ranges of the Big streambank erosion that contributes entire), and the West Virginia Sandy and the Guyandotte River sediments to streams downstream of the Department of Environmental Protection crayfishes (USEPA 2004; WVDEP 2012; mined watersheds. Other indicators of (WVDEP 2014, entire), have linked these KDOW 2013; VADEQ 2014) and are of unstable streams downstream of mined widespread and often interrelated direct particular concern for these species, sites include increased maximum and indirect stressors to coal mining which, as tertiary burrowers, rely on stream depth, changes in stream profile, and abandoned mine land (AML), unembedded slab boulders for shelter. more exposed bedrock, and increased commercial timber harvesting, Underground mining accounts for frequency of fine sediment loads (Jaeger residential and commercial most of the coal excavated in the region, 2015, pp. 30–32). development, roads, and sewage but since the 1970s, surface mining The sedimentation effects from stream discharges. (including ‘‘mountaintop removal instability differ from site to site, and The best available data indicate that mining’’ or MTR) has become more there is uncertainty as to the time the presence and abundance of both the prevalent. Mountaintop removal mining required for streams to reach a new Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte is differentiated from other mining equilibrium after surface mining ends. River crayfish are correlated with techniques by the shear amount of Additionally, numerous failures (i.e., habitat quality, specifically streams with overburden (i.e., rock and other geologic major erosion events) of reclaimed slab boulders and low levels of material) that is removed to access the slopes have been observed following sedimentation and substrate coal seams below and the use of ‘‘valley heavy rainfall events, and the long-term embeddedness (Jezerinac et al. 1995, fills’’ to dispose of the overburden. This durability of reclaimed mine land in the entire; Channell 2004, pp. 22–24; practice has occurred and continues to absence of active reclamation Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3, occur within the two species’ ranges maintenance has not been tested (Kite 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 22–23; and results in the destruction of springs 2009, pp. 6–7). The historical effects of Loughman 2015a, pp. 29–30; Loughman and headwater streams and can lead to pre-SMCRA mining continue to cause 2015b, pp. 25–30). In 2015, rangewide water quality degradation in stream instability and sedimentation surveys for both species measured downstream reaches (USEPA 2011, pp. throughout the Appalachian coalfields habitat quality using the QHEI that 7–10). (Kite 2009, p. 9; Witt 2015, entire). In includes measures of substrate quality The best available data indicate that 2015, the Virginia Department of Mines, and embeddedness (Loughman 2015a, much of the residual erosion and Minerals, and Energy reported a series entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). Based sedimentation effects from surface coal of debris slides and flows originating on QHEI scores, 31 percent of sites mining are likely to continue from mine spoils associated with occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish indefinitely. The geology of the abandoned, pre-1981, coal mines. One (n=39) and 80 percent of sites occupied mountain ridges in the Appalachian of these debris flows in the Upper by the Guyandotte River crayfish (n=10) Plateaus physiographic province makes Levisa basin inundated an area of had habitats classified as ‘‘Excellent.’’ them resistant to erosion. However approximately 8,100 square meters (m2) Habitats at all remaining occupied sites surface coal mining, and especially (0.8 hectares (ha)) (2 acres (ac)) and was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20467

‘‘actively shedding mud and fine (Cooper et al. 2011a, p. 27; Cooper et al. studied the long-term effects of timber debris’’ into a headwater tributary, 2011b, pp. 26–27; Piva and Cook 2011, harvesting at a site in the Blue Ridge which then caused sedimentation in an p. 46), we estimate that within the physiographic province in North amount sufficient to obstruct flow in a ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte Carolina, and determined that 15 years downstream tributary of Elkins Branch River crayfishes, approximately 12,600 postharvest, the annual sediment yield (Witt 2015, entire). ha (30,745 ac) of forest are harvested was still 50 percent above Of particular concern to the annually, representing approximately predisturbance levels. While we do not Guyandotte River crayfish are several 1.9 percent of the total forest cover have specific information on timber active surface coal mines in the within this area. harvesting in areas directly adjacent to, Pinnacle Creek watershed that may pose Erosion rates from logged sites in the or upslope from, streams historically an immediate threat to the continued mountainous terrain of the southern occupied, currently occupied, or likely existence of that subpopulation, one of Appalachians are significantly higher to be occupied by the Big Sandy or only two known to exist. These mines than from undisturbed forest sites (Hood Guyandotte River crayfishes, we do are located either on Pinnacle Creek et al. 2002, entire). Applying the erosion know based on past practices that (e.g., encroaching to within 0.5 rates from Hood et al. (2002, entire) to timber harvesting occurs year to year on kilometers (km) (0.31 miles (mi)) of the the estimated harvested area above a rotational basis throughout the Big creek) and directly upstream (e.g., indicates that timber harvesting within Sandy and Upper Guyandotte within 7.0 km (4.4 mi)) of the the ranges of the Big Sandy and watersheds. Excess sedimentation from Guyandotte River crayfish occurrence Guyandotte River crayfishes could timber harvested sites may take decades locations or on tributaries that drain produce 67,158 to 149,436 tonnes to flush from area streams. Based on the into Pinnacle Creek upstream of the (73,173 to 162,641 tons) of sediment rotational nature of timber harvesting, occurrence locations (WVDEP 2014a; annually, as compared to an estimated we conclude that commercial timber WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 2014c; WVDEP 5,922 tonnes (6,456 tons) of sediment harvesting in the region is likely 2014d). Some of these mines have from undisturbed forest of the same relatively constant, ongoing, and likely reported violations related to mandatory area. Hood et al. (2002, p. 54) provide to continue. We also conclude that erosion and sediment control measures the caveat that the model they used does timber harvesting, particularly when (e.g., 3 to 37 violations) within the last not account for additional erosion harvesters do not use sufficient erosion 3 years (WVDEP 2014a; WVDEP 2014b; associated with forest disturbance, such control measures, is likely to WVDEP 2014d). as gully erosion, landslides, soil creep, continually degrade the aquatic habitat Historically, coal mining has been stream channel erosion, or episodic required by the Big Sandy and ubiquitous within the ranges of both the erosion from single storms, and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Big Sandy and Guyandotte River therefore, their estimates of actual crayfishes. While coal extraction from sediment transport are low. Therefore, Gas and Oil Development the southern Appalachian region has our analysis of potential erosion within The Appalachian Plateaus declined from the historical highs of the the ranges of the two species likely physiographic province is underlain by 20th century, and is unlikely to ever underestimates actual erosion rates. numerous geological formations that return to those levels (Milici and Forestry ‘‘best management practices’’ contain natural gas and, to a lesser Dennen 2009, pp. 9–10; McIlmoil et al. (BMPs) are designed to reduce the extent, oil. The Marcellus shale 2013, pp. 1–8, 49–57), significant amount of erosion at logging sites, formation underlies the entire range of mining still occurs within the ranges of however the rates of BMP adherence the Guyandotte River crayfish and a both species. The U.S. Department of and effectiveness at logging sites within high proportion of the range of the Big Energy (2013, table 2) reports that in the ranges of the Big Sandy and Sandy crayfish, specifically McDowell 2012, there were 192 active coal mines Guyandotte River crayfishes vary. The County, West Virginia, and part of (119 underground mines and 73 surface best available data indicate that BMP Buchanan County, Virginia (U.S. mines) in the counties that constitute implementation rates in the region range Department of Energy (USDOE) 2011, p. the core ranges of the Big Sandy and from about 80 to 90 percent; however, 5), and various formations that make up Guyandotte River crayfishes. Because of we could not locate current data on the the Devonian Big Sandy shale gas play the scale of historical coal mining in the actual efficacy of BMPs in the steep (e.g., a favorable geographic area that region and the magnitude of the terrain that characterizes Big Sandy and has been targeted for exploration) geomorphological changes in mined Upper Guyandotte River basins. underlie the entire range of the Big areas, we conclude that the erosion and Additionally, the implementation of Sandy crayfish and some of the range of sedimentation effects of coal mining forestry BMPs is not required for certain the Guyandotte River crayfish (USDOE will continue indefinitely. timber cutting operations. For example, 2011, p. 9). In addition to these shale in Kentucky, tree clearing incidental to gas formations, natural gas also occurs Forestry preparing coal mining sites is in conventional formations and in coal The dominant land cover within the specifically exempted, and in West seams (referred to as ‘‘coal bed ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte Virginia, tree-clearing activities methane’’ or CBM) in each of the River crayfishes is forest. Commercial incidental to ground-disturbing counties making up the ranges of the timber harvesting occurs throughout the construction activities, including those two species. The intensity of resource region and, especially in areas directly related to oil and gas development, are extraction from these geological adjacent to, or on the steep slopes exempted (Kentucky Division of formations has varied over time above, streams and rivers, has the Forestry undated fact sheet, depending on market conditions and potential to degrade aquatic habitats, downloaded February 5, 2015; West available technology, but since the mid- primarily by increasing erosion and Virginia Division of Forestry 2014, pp. to late 20th century, many thousands of sedimentation (Arthur et al. 1998, 3–4). gas and oil wells have been installed entire; Stone and Wallace 1998, entire; While Hood et al. (2002, entire) found within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Stringer and Hilpp 2001, entire; Swank that erosion rates improved quickly in Guyandotte River crayfishes (Kentucky et al. 2001, entire; Hood et al. 2002, subsequent years following logging, Geological Survey (KGS) 2015; Virginia entire). Based on the best available data Swank, et al. (2001, pp. 174–176) Department of Mines, Minerals and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20468 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Energy (VDMME) 2015; West Virginia Inc. (2013, p. 4), produced for the al. 2005, entire; Christopher and Visser Department of Environmental Protection American Petroleum Institute, which 2007, p. 24; YouTube.com 2008; (WVDEP) 2015). indicate that the ‘‘recent surge in oil and YouTube.com 2010; YouTube.com Numerous studies have reported that gas transportation and storage 2011; Switalski and Jones 2012, pp. 14– natural gas development has the infrastructure investment is not a short 15; YouTube.com 2013). Nearly all of potential to degrade aquatic habitats lived phenomenon. Rather, we find that the land within the ranges of the Big (Boelter et al. 1992, pp. 1192–1195; a sustained period of high levels of oil Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes Adams et al. 2011, pp. 8–10, 18; Drohan and gas infrastructure investment will is privately owned, and ORV use on and Brittingham, 2012, entire; McBroom continue through the end of the private land is largely unregulated. We et al. 2012, pp. 953–956; Olmstead et al. decade.’’ While this projection is found no comprehensive information on 2013, pp. 4966–4967; Papoulias and generalized across all oil and gas the extent of off-road ridership or the Velasco 2013, entire; Vidic et al. 2013, infrastructure within the United States, effects to local streams. However, the entire; Warner et al. 2013, entire; an increase of new infrastructure within Hatfield-McCoy Trail system, which USEPA 2014, entire; Vegosh et al. 2014, the ranges of the Big Sandy and was created in 2000 to promote tourism pp. 8339–8342; Harkness et al. 2015, Guyandotte River crayfishes is also and economic development in southern entire). The construction of well pads anticipated because of the yet untapped West Virginia, may provide some and related infrastructure (e.g., gas Marcellus and Devonian Big Sandy insight into the scale of ORV recreation pipelines, compressor stations, shale resources discussed above. within the ranges of the Big Sandy and wastewater pipelines and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Pardue et On- and Off-Road Transportation impoundments, and access roads) can al. 2014, p. 1). As of 2014, the Hatfield- increase erosion and sedimentation, and Unpaved Roads—Unpaved forest McCoy Trail system had eight the release of drilling fluids, other roads (e.g., haul roads, access roads, and individual trail networks totaling more industrial chemicals, or formation skid trails constructed by the extractive than 1,127 km (700 mi) of cleared trails, brines can contaminate local streams. industries or others) can degrade the with the stated long-term goal being Within the ranges of the Big Sandy aquatic habitat required by the Big approximately 3,219 km (2,000 mi) of and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. accessible trails (Pardue et al. 2014, pp. topography is rugged and the dominant In this region, these roads are often 4–5), and in 2013, 35,900 trail permits land cover is forest; therefore, the located on the steep hillsides and are were sold (Hatfield-McCoy presentation construction of new gas wells and recognized as a major source of 2013, p. 8). Two of the designated related infrastructure usually involves sediment loading to streams and rivers Hatfield-McCoy trail networks, Pinnacle timber cutting and significant earth (Greir et al. 1976, pp. 1–8; Stringer and Creek and Rockhouse, are located in the moving to create level well pads, access Taylor 1998, entire; Clinton and Vose Upper Guyandotte basin, and one, roads, and pipeline rights-of-way, all of 2003, entire; Christopher and Visser Buffalo Mountain, is in the Tug Fork which increases the potential for 2007, pp. 22–24; MacDonald and Coe basin. erosion. For example, Drohan and 2008, entire; Morris et al. 2014, entire; The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, Brittingham (2012, entire) analyzed the Wade et al. 2012, pp. 408–409; Wang et opened in 2004, is located entirely runoff potential for shale gas al. 2013, entire). In addition to erosion within the Pinnacle Creek watershed development sites in the Allegheny from unpaved road surfaces, unpaved and may pose a significant threat to the Plateau region of , and road stream crossings can contribute continued existence of the Guyandotte found that 50 to 70 percent of existing significant sediment loading to local River crayfish population in this stream. or permitted pad sites had medium to waters (Wang et al. 2013, entire). These Approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of the very high runoff potential and were at unpaved roads and stream crossings, Pinnacle Creek trail is located in the an elevated risk of soil erosion. often associated with mining, forestry, riparian zone adjacent to the stream McBroom et al. (2012, entire) studied and oil and gas activities, are ubiquitous reach that currently harbors the soil erosion from two well pads throughout the range of the Big Sandy Guyandotte River crayfish. At several constructed in a forested area in the and Guyandotte River crayfishes. We locations along this section of trail, Gulf Coastal Plain of east Texas and anticipate the number of unpaved roads riders are known to operate their determined a significant increase in throughout the crayfishes’ ranges to vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent erosion from the well pads as compared remain the same or expand as new oil ‘‘mud holes’’ (You Tube 2008; You Tube to undisturbed forested sites. Based on and gas facilities are built, new areas are 2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; this information, which represents the logged, and new off-road vehicle (ORV) Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, lower end of the potential risk given the trails are constructed. 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that less mountainous topography where Off-road Vehicles—Recreational ORV these activities increase erosion and these studies took place, it is reasonable use contributes to the erosion and sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and to conclude that erosion from well sites sedimentation problems associated with degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte within the ranges of the Big Sandy and unpaved roads and stream crossings and River crayfish. In addition, the instream Guyandotte River crayfishes is has become increasingly popular in the operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has significantly higher than from region (see http://www.riderplanet- the potential to crush or injure undisturbed sites, especially when those usa.com, last accessed March 1, 2016). individual crayfish directly. sites do not use sufficient erosion Recreational ORV use, which includes Road Construction—The construction control measures and are directly the use of unimproved stream crossings, of new roads also has the potential to adjacent to, or upslope from, streams stream channel riding, and ‘‘mudding’’ further degrade the aquatic habitat in occupied or likely to be occupied by (the intentional and repeated use of wet the region, primarily by increasing either species. or low-lying trail sections that often erosion and sedimentation, especially We anticipate the rate of oil and gas results in the formation of deep ‘‘mud when the new roads do not use development within the ranges of the holes’’), may cause increased sediment sufficient erosion control measures and Big Sandy and Guyandotte River loading to streams and possibly kill are directly adjacent to, or upslope from, crayfishes to increase based on benthic organisms directly by crushing streams occupied or likely to be projections from a report by IHS Global, them (Chin et al. 2004, entire; Ayala et occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20469

Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, of a section that will parallel and cross connecting completed segments to other roadways are also known to introduce Pinnacle Creek, one of two known existing roadways. Some of these feeder contaminants to local streams (see locations for the species. roads will further bisect the two species’ ‘‘Water Quality Degradation,’’ below). In West Virginia, the Coalfields ranges and will likely be a source of Two new, multi-lane highway projects Expressway right-of-way crosses additional sedimentation, especially if totaling 330 km (205 mi), the King Coal Wyoming and McDowell Counties these roads do not use sufficient erosion Highway and the Coalfields roughly perpendicular to the King Coal control measures and are directly Expressway, are in various stages of Highway and continues into Buchanan, adjacent to, or upslope from, streams Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia development within the Big Sandy and occupied or likely to be occupied by the (see figure 5, below). This project runs Upper Guyandotte River watersheds Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River through the Upper Guyandotte, Tug (VDOT 2015; West Virginia Department Fork, Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork crayfish. Because the highways are of Transportation (WVDOT) 2015a; watersheds and has the potential to being built in phases when funding is WVDOT 2015b) (see figure 5, below). In affect the aquatic habitats in each basin. available, the original planned West Virginia, the King Coal Highway Of particular concern are sections of the completion schedule of approximately right-of-way runs along the McDowell Coalfields Expressway planned through 2018 has been delayed, and we and Wyoming County line, the dividing perhaps the most robust Big Sandy anticipate construction will continue line between the Tug Fork and Upper crayfish populations in Dickenson until approximately 2030 (see http:// Guyandotte watersheds, and continues County, Virginia, especially when those www.wvkingcoal.com/; http://www. into Mingo County (which is largely in populations are directly adjacent to, or virginiadot.org/projects/bristol/route_ the Tug Fork watershed). This highway downslope from, the construction sites 121.asp; http://www.transportation.wv. project will potentially affect the current and if those construction sites do not gov/highways/highways-projects/coal occupied habitat of both crayfish use sufficient erosion control measures. fieldsexpressway/, last accessed March species, but is of particular concern for Both highways will also have a yet 3, 2016). the Guyandotte River crayfish because undetermined number of feeder roads

Instream Construction—Since 2009, known or suspected Big Sandy crayfish construction area, agencies are required the VDGIF has requested companies or streams to conduct crayfish surveys to capture and relocate Big Sandy other agencies undertaking construction prior to any construction activities crayfish to suitable habitats outside of activities (e.g., pipeline stream (Brian Watson, VDGIF 2016, pers. the affected area, typically upstream of crossings, bridge replacements, bank comm.; Va. Code sec. 29.1–563 to 570). the disturbance. While these efforts stabilization work) in or adjacent to If the species is discovered within the likely afford individual crayfish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER07AP16.005 20470 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

protection from the direct effects of the pollutants, sewage, and other refuse into Big Sandy and Guyandotte River construction activities, it is unknown if the aquatic systems (WVDEP 2012, crayfishes. Under the Stream relocated crayfish survive and entire; KDOW 2013, entire; VADEQ channelization and dredging category, successfully establish in their new 2014, entire), which degrades habitat we stated that channel modification for locations. quality and complexity (Merriam et al. flood control activities can cause Data indicate that between 2009 and 2011, p. 415). The best available data streambank erosion, lateral stream 2015, 12 projects were conducted in the indicate that the human population in migration, channel downcutting, and Russell Fork and upper Levisa Fork these areas will continue to decrease sedimentation (80 FR 18710, p. 18730). subwatersheds of Virginia that involved over the next several decades However, such ‘‘stream instability’’ the potential relocation of Big Sandy (University of Louisville 2011, entire; concerns can also be caused by stream crayfish (Appalachian Energy 2009; University of Virginia 2012, entire; West modifications associated with ATS 2009, entire; ATS 2010, entire; D.R. Virginia University 2012, entire). residential and commercial Allen and Associates 2010, entire; However, while the human populations development activities and by the large- Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 2011, may decline, the human population scale topographic alterations resulting entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, centers are likely to remain in the from surface coal mining. entire; VDOT 2014a, entire; VDOT riparian valleys. As noted above, within the ranges of 2014b, entire; VDOT 2014c, entire; Stream Channelization and the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River VDOT 2014d, entire; VDOT 2015, Dredging—Flooding is a recurring crayfishes, most development occurs entire). While these data indicate problem for people living in the adjacent to streams and rivers within instream projects occur within the range southern Appalachians, and many the narrow valleys and can alter the of the Big Sandy crayfish, we do not individuals and mountain communities local hydrology and lead to increased have any information on the total have resorted to unpermitted stream erosion and sedimentation from number of instream projects within the dredging or bulldozing to deepen disturbed land surfaces (80 FR 18710, Kentucky or West Virginia areas of the channels and/or remove obstructions in pp. 18723–18724, 18728; April 7, 2015). species’ range, nor do we have this an attempt to alleviate damage from Because human infrastructure and information for the Guyandotte River future floods (West Virginia streams are in close proximity to each crayfish, because the two crayfish are Conservation Agency (WVCA), pp. 4, other, streams are often realigned and/ not State-listed species in Kentucky or 36–38, 225–229). In fact, as recently as or channelized to increase the amount West Virginia (see further discussion 2009, Loughman (pers. comm., October of usable land area or to protect existing below under Factor D). However, 24, 2014) observed heavy equipment structures through the aforementioned existing pipelines, bridges, and culverts being operated in stream channels in the flood control. These modifications, such have scheduled maintenance and Upper Guyandotte basin. Unfortunately, as straightening, dredging, and armoring replacement schedules, in addition to these unpermitted efforts are rarely stream channels, increases stream flow ad hoc work when those structures are effective at reducing major flood damage velocities, or stream energy, and often damaged. While we do not have and often cause other problems such as leads to increased bed and bank erosion information to project the scope and streambank erosion, lateral stream either in the modified stream reach or magnitude of new instream projects migration, channel downcutting, and in downstream reaches (Keller 1978, pp. within the two species’ ranges, the sedimentation (WVCA, pp. 225–229). 119, 124–125; Brooker 1985, p. 1; maintenance and repair activities of Stream dredging or bulldozing also Edwards et al. 2015, p. 67). Because existing infrastructure are expected to causes direct damage to the aquatic these types of historical channel continue indefinitely. habitat by removing benthic structure, modifications are common in both Summary of On- and Off-Road such as slab boulders, and likely kills watersheds, the total continual sediment Transportation—We conclude that benthic organisms by crushing or burial. contribution from unstable channels is erosion and sedimentation from Because these dredging and bulldozing likely considerable (Loughman and unpaved roads and trails, ORV use, road activities are unpermitted, we have little Welsh 2013, p. 23; WVCA undated, pp. construction projects, and potential data on exactly how widespread or how 227–231). For example, a proposed injury resulting from instream often they occur within the ranges of the stream restoration project on the Cranes construction projects within the ranges Big Sandy or Guyandotte River Nest River (Russell Fork basin) of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. However, during their 2009 estimated that approximately 3,530 ft crayfishes are ongoing threats to each survey work for Cambarus veteranus in (1.1 km) of historical stream species. the Upper Guyandotte and Tug Fork channelization and resultant bank basins, Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. erosion at a small homestead annually Residential/Commercial Development 23) noted that 54 percent of the sites contributes 140 tons of excess sediment and Associated Stream Modifications they surveyed (these were sites to the Cranes Nest River (U.S. Residential and Commercial predicted to be suitable to the species) Department of Transportation 2015, Development—Because of the rugged appeared to have been dredged, entire). In addition, documentation from topography within the ranges of the Big evidenced by monotypic gravel or the 2015 Big Sandy crayfish surveys Sandy and the Guyandotte River cobble bottoms and a conspicuous indicate that Prater Creek in the Lower crayfishes, most residential and absence of large slab boulders. These Levisa Fork of Kentucky show incised commercial development and the sites were thus rendered unsuitable for and eroding streambanks, and at least 23 supporting transportation infrastructure occupation by C. veteranus and surveyed sites in the Levisa Fork, as is confined to the narrow valley confirmed so by the absence of the well as in Pigeon Creek of the Tug Fork, floodplains (Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 14; species. were reported to have visible bank Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 14). The close Stream Channel Instability—Under erosion (Loughman 2015a, entire). proximity of this development to the the Factor A discussion in the April 7, Summary of Residential/Commercial region’s streams and rivers has 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. Development and Associated Stream historically resulted in the loss of 18722–18731), we discussed multiple Modification—We conclude that stream riparian habitat and the continued activities that increase erosion and channel instability caused by historical direct discharge of sediments, chemical sedimentation within the ranges of the stream channel modifications associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20471

with human development is a source of Loughman 2015b; entire). While these crayfish specimens, we are uncertain sediments in the streams and rivers studies found no correlation between the extent to which these deposits occur within the range of the Big Sandy and high conductivity levels and the across the species’ ranges or if and to Guyandotte River crayfishes. Because of absence of the Big Sandy crayfish and what extent the effects of the manganese the presumed permanence of human- a statistically weak correlation for the and iron exposure has contributed to the occupied areas, we conclude that these Guyandotte River crayfish, we note that decline of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte effects will continue indefinitely. 90 percent (n=139) of the sites in the Big River crayfishes. Sandy River basin and 86 percent Water Quality Degradation Ancillary to the coal mines are the (n=61) of the sites in the Upper processing facilities that use various While the best available data indicate Guyandotte River basin exceeded the mechanical and hydraulic techniques to that erosion and sedimentation leading USEPA’s freshwater aquatic life separate the coal from rock and other to stream substrate embeddedness is the benchmark for conductivity, which is a geological waste material. This process primary threat to both the Big Sandy level intended to protect aquatic life results in the creation of large volumes and Guyandotte River crayfishes, other specifically in Appalachian streams and of ‘‘coal slurry,’’ a blend of water, coal pollutants also degrade the streams and rivers (USEPA 2011a, p. xv). fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, rivers within the ranges of these species Species presence/absence may be a which is commonly disposed of in large and likely contributed to their decline poor measure for assessing the potential impoundments created in the valleys and continued reduced distribution and for high salinity levels (measured as near the coal mines. In multiple abundance. As described in the April 7, conductivity) to affect the Big Sandy instances, these impoundments have 2015, proposed rule, the best available and Guyandotte River crayfishes. The failed catastrophically and caused data indicate widespread water quality studies described above provide no data substantial damage to downstream problems throughout the Big Sandy on potential sublethal effects (e.g., aquatic habitats (and in some cases the River basin and the Upper Guyandotte reduced reproductive success, loss of human life) (Michalek et al. River basin (USEPA 2004, entire; physiological stress, reduced fitness) or 1997, entire; Frey et al. 2001, entire; WVDEP 2012, pp. 32–33; KDOW 2013, the potential lethal effects to the species National Academy of Sciences (NAS) appendix E; VADEQ 2014, pp. 1098– at various life stages (e.g., juvenile 2002, pp. 23–30; Michael et al. 2010, 1124). The pollutants commonly cited survival, survival during ecdysis entire). In 2000, a coal slurry are metals (e.g., selenium) and pH (molting, a particularly vulnerable stage impoundment in the Tug Fork impairments associated with coal in the animal’s lifecycle)). The potential watershed failed and released mining and bacteria related to sewage for high conductivity levels to be approximately 946 million liters (250 discharges. The response of aquatic associated with these more subtle effects million gallons) of viscous coal slurry to species to these and other pollutants are is supported by an Ohio study using several tributary creeks of the Tug Fork, often observed as a shift in a stream’s juvenile Appalachian brook crayfish which ultimately affected 177.5 km macroinvertebrate (e.g., insect larva or ( cavatus), a stream- (110.3 mi) of stream length, including nymphs, aquatic worms, snails, clams, dwelling species in the same as the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork crayfish) or fish community structure the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River mainstems (Frey et al. 2001, entire). The and resultant loss of sensitive taxa and crayfishes. This study found that high authors reported a complete fish kill in an increase in tolerant taxa (Diamond conductivity levels during ecdysis 92.8 km (57.7 mi) of stream length, and and Serveiss 2001, pp. 4714–4717; caused the crayfish difficulties in Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 96–97; Hitt and completing their molt, with subsequent based on their description of the Chambers 2014, entire; Lindberg et al. increased mortality (Gallaway and instream conditions following the event, 2011b, p. 1; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. Hummon 1991, pp. 168–170). it is reasonable to conclude that all 66–67; Pond et al. 2008). Based on the best available data, we aquatic life in these streams was killed, Mining-related Issues—High salinity, conclude that elevated conductivity including individuals of the Big Sandy caused by increased concentrations of levels, which are common throughout crayfish, if they were present at that sulfate, calcium, and other ions the Big Sandy and Upper Guyadotte time. Coal slurry impoundments are associated with coal mining runoff, is a River basins, may cause physiological common throughout the ranges of the widespread problem in Appalachian stress in the Big Sandy and Guyandotte Big Sandy and Guyandotte River streams (USEPA 2011a, pp. 35–38). A River crayfishes. This stress may result crayfishes, and releases have been study of crayfish distributions in the in subtle, perhaps sublethal, effects that documented in each of the States within heavily mined upper Kanawha River contribute to the decline and continued these ranges (NAS 2002, pp. 25–30). basin in southern West Virginia did not poor distribution and abundance of Natural Gas Development—Natural determine a relationship between these species. gas well drilling and well stimulation, conductivity levels (a measure of Other common byproducts of coal especially the technique of hydraulic salinity) and the presence or absence of mining, such as dissolved manganese fracturing, can also degrade aquatic the species studied (Welsh and and iron, may also affect the Big Sandy habitats when drilling fluids or other Loughman 2014, entire). However the and Guyandotte River crayfishes. associated chemicals or high salinity author’s noted that stream conductivity Manganese and iron can be absorbed by formation waters (e.g., flowback water levels can vary seasonally or with flow crayfish through gill respiration or and produced water) are released, either conditions, making assumptions ingestion and may cause sublethal intentionally or by accident, into local regarding species’ presence or absence effects such as reduced reproductive surface waters (McBroom et al. 2012, p. at the time of surveys difficult to capacity (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 951; Papoulias and Velasco 2013, entire; correlate with prior ephemeral 73). Iron and manganese also physically Vidic et al. 2013, entire; Warner et al. conductivity conditions. In 2015, bond to crayfish exoskeletons, which 2013, entire; USEPA 2014, entire; Service-funded crayfish surveys in the may interfere with crayfish sensory Harkness et al. 2015, entire). As Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River sensila (e.g., receptors) (Loughman described above, the intensity of oil and basins determined electrical 2014, p. 27). While manganese gas development is expected to increase conductivity levels at each survey site encrustations have been found on both throughout the species’ ranges, which (n=225) (Loughman 2015a, entire; Guyandotte River and Big Sandy increases the risk of spills of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20472 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

contaminants and degradation of the contaminants, it is likely that poor water Guyandotte River crayfishes not only species’ habitat. quality is an ongoing stressor to both fragmented the species’ available Highway Runoff—Paved roads, species throughout much of their habitat, but also caused a decrease in coincident with and connecting areas of existing range. available habitat within their historical residential and commercial ranges. However, we consider the loss- Dams development, generally occur in the of-habitat effect to be historical and to narrow valley bottoms adjacent to the In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 have already influenced the species’ region’s streams and rivers. Runoff from FR 18710, pp. 18732–18734), we current distribution. The fragmentation these paved roads can include a discussed the effects of habitat effects are ongoing and contribute to the complex mixture of metals, organic fragmentation caused by dams and threat of small population sizes chemicals, deicers, nutrients, pesticides reservoirs within the ranges of the Big addressed below under Factor E. and herbicides, and sediments that, Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. when washed into local streams, can We did not, however, address the Summary of Factor A degrade the aquatic habitat and have a potential for dams to cause direct effects The best available data indicate that detrimental effect on resident organisms to the aquatic habitat, which was the primary threats to both the Big (Boxall and Maltby 1997, entire; Buckler brought to our attention by a peer Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and Granato 1999, entire; NAS 2005, pp. reviewer. The most obvious change throughout their respective ranges are 72–75, 82–86). We are not aware of any caused by dam construction is the land-disturbing activities that increase studies specific to the effects of highway conversion of flowing riverine habitat to erosion and sedimentation, which runoff on the Big Sandy or Guyandotte lacustrine (lake) habitat, thereby making degrades the stream habitat required by River crayfishes; however, one it unsuitable for the Big Sandy or both species. Identified sources of laboratory study from Khan et al. (2006, Guyandotte River crayfishes (see our ongoing erosion and sedimentation that pp. 515–519) evaluated the effects of response to Comment 2, above). Our occur throughout the ranges of the cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc analysis indicates that in the upper Big species include active surface coal exposure on juvenile Orconectes Sandy basin, the three major flood mining, commercial forestry, unpaved immunis, a species of pond crayfish. control dams created reservoirs that roads, gas and oil development, road These particular metals, which are inundated approximately 89 km (55 mi) construction, and stream modifications known constituents of highway runoff of riverine habitat. The Dewey Dam, in that cause channel instability. These (Sansalone et al. 1996, p. 371), were Floyd County, Kentucky, was built in activities are ongoing (e.g., imminent) found to inhibit oxygen consumption in 1949, and inundated 29 km (18 mi) of and expected to continue at variable O. immunis. We are uncertain to what Johns Creek (in the Levisa Fork rates into the future. For example, while extent these results may be comparable subwatershed). The Fishtrap Dam, in active coal mining may decline, the to how Big Sandy or Guyandotte River Pike County, Kentucky, was built in legacy effects will continue, and oil and crayfishes may react to these 1969, and inundated 27 km (16.5 mi) of gas activities and road construction are contaminants, but it was the only the Levisa Fork. The Flannagan Dam in expected to increase. An additional relevant study exploring the topic in Dickenson County, Virginia, was built threat specific to the Guyandotte River crayfish. Boxall and Maltby (1997, pp. in 1964, and inundated an estimated 33 crayfish is the ongoing operation of 14–15) studied the effects of roadway km (20.5 mi) of the Pound and Cranes ORVs in and adjacent to one of only two contaminants (specifically the Nest Rivers. In the Upper Guyandotte known locations for the species; this polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or River basin, the R.D. Bailey Dam in ORV use is expected to continue. PAHs) on Gammarus pulex, a Wyoming County, West Virginia, was freshwater amphipod crustacean built in 1980, and inundated Factor B. Overutilization for commonly used in toxicity studies. The approximately 13 km (8.1 mi) of the Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or authors noted an acute toxic response to Guyandotte River. These estimates of Educational Purposes some of the PAHs, and emphasized that altered habitat are conservative, as they In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, because of possible interactions between do not include any tributary streams we found no information indicating that the various runoff contaminants, inundated or account for changes in overutilization has led to the loss of including deicing salts and herbicides, stream geomorphology and flow populations or a significant reduction in the toxicity of road runoff likely varies conditions directly upstream of the numbers of individuals for either the depending on the mixture. We are reservoir pools or below the dams that Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River uncertain to what extent these results likely also make these areas less suitable crayfish. No new information from peer may be comparable to how Big Sandy or for either crayfish species. Additionally, review or public comments indicates Guyandotte River crayfishes may react numerous scientific studies note that overutilization is a concern for to these contaminants. However, as significant ecological and water quality either of these species. In addition, discussed above, the number of roads changes downstream of dams, including when this final listing becomes effective within the species’ ranges is increasing, increased or decreased water (see DATES, above), research and thus potentially increasing temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen collection of these species will be contaminated runoff into the species concentrations, elevated levels of regulated through scientific permits habitat. certain metals or nutrients, and shifts in issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Summary of Water Quality fish and macroinvertebrate community Act. Degradation—The best available data structure (Power et al. 1996, entire; U.S. indicate that water quality in much of Army Corps of Engineers 1996, p. 12; Factor C. Disease or Predation the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte Baxter 1997, pp. 271–274; Lessard and In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, River basins is degraded from a variety Hayes 2003, pp. 90–93; Arnwine et al. we found no information indicating that of sources. While it is difficult to 2006, pp. 149–154; Hartfield 2010, pp. disease or predation has led to the loss attribute the decline or general low 43–44; Adams 2013, pp. 1324–1330). of populations or a significant reduction abundance of the Big Sandy and Therefore, we conclude that the past in numbers of individuals of the Big Guyandotte River crayfishes to a construction of flood control dams Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River specific contaminant, or combination of within the ranges of the Big Sandy and crayfish. No new information from peer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20473

review or public comments indicates pollutants. In addition, at many of the and not sufficient to offset the that disease or predation is a concern for sites that do continue to harbor the rangewide threats to either species. either of these species. species, the Big Sandy crayfish is Summary of Factor D generally found only in low numbers, Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing with individual crayfish often reported Degradation of Big Sandy and Regulatory Mechanisms to be in poor physical condition (Thoma Guyandotte River crayfish habitat Few existing Federal or State 2010, p. 6; Loughman, pers. comm., (Factor A) is ongoing despite existing regulatory mechanisms specifically October 24, 2014; Loughman 2015a, regulatory mechanisms. While these protect the Big Sandy or Guyandotte entire). Reduction in the range of the Big regulatory efforts have led to some River crayfishes or the aquatic habitats Sandy crayfish and continued improvements in water quality and where they occur. The species’ habitats degradation of its habitat lead us to aquatic habitat conditions, the declines are afforded some protection from water conclude that neither the CWA nor the of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River quality and habitat degradation under SMCRA has been adequate in protecting crayfishes within most of their ranges the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 this species. have continued to occur. In addition, U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the SMCRA (30 As discussed in the April 7, 2015, there are no existing regulatory U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), along with State proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and in this mechanisms that address effects to the laws and regulations such as the rule, erosion and sedimentation caused species associated with the species’ Kentucky regulations for water quality, by various land-disturbing activities, endemism and their isolated and small coal mining, forest conservation, and such as surface coal mining, roads, population sizes, as well as the natural gas development (401 KAR, 402 forestry, and oil and gas development, contributing stressor of climate change KAR, 405 KAR, 805 KAR); the Virginia pose an ongoing threat to the Big Sandy (discussed below under Factor E). State Water Control Law (Va. Code sec. and Guyandotte River crayfishes. State 62.1–44.2 et seq.); and the West Virginia Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade efforts to address excessive erosion and Water Pollution Control Act (WVSC sec. Factors Affecting Its Continued sedimentation involve the 22–11) and Logging and Sediment Existence implementation of BMPs; however, as Control Act (WVSC sec. 19–1B). discussed in detail in the April 7, 2015, Locally Endemic, Isolated, and Small Additionally, the Big Sandy crayfish is proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and under Population Size listed as endangered by the State of Factor A, above, BMPs are often not Virginia (Va. Code sec. 29.1–563 to 570), It is intuitive and generally accepted which provides that species some direct strictly applied, are sometimes that the key factors governing a species’ protection within the Virginia portion of voluntary, or are situationally risk of extinction include small its range. However, while water quality ineffective. Additionally, studies population size, reduced habitat size, has generally improved since 1977, indicate that, even when BMPs are and fragmented habitat (Pimm et al. when the CWA and SMCRA were properly applied and effective, erosion 1988, pp. 757, 774–777; Lande 1993, enacted or amended, there is rates at disturbed sites are still entire; Hakoyama et al. 2000, pp. 327, continuing, ongoing degradation of significantly above erosion rates at 334–336; Wiegand et al. 2005, entire). habitat for both species, as detailed in undisturbed sites (Grant and Wolff Relevant to wholly aquatic species, such the proposed rule (80 FR 18710; April 1991, p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56; as the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 7, 2015) and under the Factor A Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 22–24; crayfishes, Angermeier (1995, pp. 153– discussion, above. Therefore, despite McBroom et al. 2012, pp. 954–955; 157) found that fish species that were the protections afforded by these laws Wang et al. 2013, pp. 86–90). limited by physiographic range or range and implementing regulations, both the Although the majority of the land of waterbody sizes were also more Big Sandy and Guyandotte River throughout the ranges of the two species vulnerable to extirpation or extinction, crayfishes continue to be affected by is privately owned, publicly managed especially as suitable habitats became degraded water quality and habitat lands in the region include a portion of more fragmented. conditions. the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, As detailed in this final rule and in In 1989, 12 years after enactment of and 10 State wildlife management areas the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR the CWA and SMCRA, the Guyandotte and parks in the remainder of the Big 18710), both the Big Sandy crayfish and River crayfish was known to occur in Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed the Guyandotte River crayfish are low numbers in Huff Creek and (1 in Russell Fork, 3 in Levisa Fork, 4 known to exist only in the Appalachian Pinnacle Creek (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. in Tug Fork, 2 in Upper Guyandotte). Plateaus physiographic province and are 170). However, surveys since 2002 However, three of these parcels limited to certain stream classes and indicate the species has been extirpated surround artificial reservoirs that are no habitat types within their respective from Huff Creek and continues to be longer suitable habitat for either the Big river basins. Furthermore, the extant found only in low numbers in Pinnacle Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River populations of each species are limited Creek. Despite more than 35 years of crayfish, and six others are not in to certain subwatersheds, which are CWA and SMCRA regulatory protection, known occupied crayfish habitat. Only physically isolated from the others by the range of the Guyandotte River the Jefferson National Forest and the steep topography, stream distance, crayfish has declined substantially, and Breaks Interstate Park in the Russell human-induced inhospitable the two known populations contain Fork watershed at the Kentucky/ intervening habitat conditions, and/or small numbers of individuals (see Virginia border appear to potentially physical barriers (e.g., dams and Loughman 2015b, entire). Information offer additional protections to extant Big reservoirs). about the Big Sandy crayfish indicates Sandy crayfish populations, presumably that the species’ current range is through stricter management of land- Genetic Fitness reduced from its historical range (see disturbing activities that cause erosion Species that are restricted in range Loughman 2015a, entire), and, as and sedimentation. However, the extent and population size are more likely to discussed above, that much of the of publically owned land adding to the suffer loss of genetic diversity due to historical habitat continues to be protection of the Big Sandy and genetic drift, potentially increasing their degraded by sediments and other Guyandotte River crayfishes is minimal susceptibility to inbreeding depression,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20474 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

and reducing the fitness of individuals barrier, as well as generally long stream system), by linear distance (of (Soule 1980, pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, distances of often marginal habitat downstream and upstream segments), pp. 97–101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, between potentially suitable sites, inhospitable intervening habitat, dams, pp. 117–146). Similarly, the random makes it unlikely that individuals from or a combination of these. Therefore, the loss of adaptive genes through genetic the extant Clear Fork and Pinnacle status and risk of extirpation of each drift may limit the ability of the Big Creek populations will successfully individual subpopulation must be Sandy crayfish and, especially, the disperse to recolonize other locations in considered in assessing the species’ risk Guyandotte River crayfish to respond to the basin. of extinction. changes in their environment such as Also, as noted in the April 7, 2015, Based on habitat connectedness (or the chronic sedimentation and water proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and above lack thereof), we consider there to be six quality effects described above or under Factor A, the persistence of existing Big Sandy crayfish catastrophic events (Noss and Pinnacle Creek subpopulation is subpopulations: lower Tug Fork Cooperrider 1994, p. 61). Small exceptionally vulnerable to several population (Pigeon Creek), upper Tug population sizes and inhibited gene proximate active surface coal mines and Fork population, the Upper Levisa Fork flow between populations may increase ORV use in the Pinnacle Creek population (Dismal Creek), the Russell the likelihood of local extirpation watershed. This subpopulation lacks Fork/Levisa Fork population (including (Gilpin and Soule´ 1986, pp. 32–34). The significant redundancy (e.g., the ability Shelby Creek), the Pound River long-term viability of a species is of a species to withstand catastrophic population, and the Cranes Nest River founded on the conservation of events) and representation (e.g., the population (see figure 3, above). While numerous local populations throughout ability of a species to adapt to changing the Pound River and Cranes Nest River its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. environmental conditions), and has very are in the same subwatershed, they both 93–104). These separate populations are little resiliency (e.g., the ability of the flow into the Flannagan Reservoir, essential for the species to recover and species to withstand stochastic events); which is unsuitable habitat for the adapt to environmental change (Harris therefore, this small subpopulation is at species (see our response to Comment 3, 1984, pp. 93–104; Noss and Cooperrider an increased risk of extirpation from above). Therefore, the Big Sandy 1994, pp. 264–297). The populations of natural demographic or environmental crayfish populations in these streams the Big Sandy crayfish are isolated from stochasticity, a catastrophic event, or are not only isolated from other other existing populations and known even a modest increase in any existing populations by the dam and reservoir, historical habitats by inhospitable threat at the two known stream but also most likely isolated from each stream conditions and dams that are occurrences. other by the inhospitable habitat in the barriers to crayfish movement. The Big Sandy crayfish—Survey work reservoir itself (Loughman, pers. comm., demonstrates that the geographic extent current population of the Guyandotte December 1, 2014). Also, because the of the Big Sandy crayfish’s occupied River crayfish is restricted to two Fishtrap Dam physically isolates the habitat, in the context of the species’ disjunct stream systems that are isolated upper Levisa Fork (Dismal Creek) historical range, is reduced (Thoma from other known historical habitats by population from the remainder of the 2009b, p. 10; Thoma 2010, p. 6; inhospitable stream conditions or by a species’ range, only the Tug Fork and Loughman 2013, pp. 7–8; Loughman dam. The level of isolation and the the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork 2015a, entire). Additionally, these best restricted ranges seen in each species subpopulations still maintain any available data indicate that, because of possible connection. make natural repopulation of historical widespread habitat degradation, the There are two occurrences that are habitats or other new areas following species is notably absent from many unlikely to represent viable previous localized extirpations virtually individual streams where its presence subpopulations. One is an occurrence in impossible without human intervention. would otherwise be expected, and at the lower Levisa Fork mainstem near Guyandotte River crayfish—As most sites where it does still persist, it the town of Auxier, Kentucky. This site discussed previously, the historical is generally found in low numbers. was last confirmed (a single Big Sandy range of the Guyandotte River crayfish Because the Big Sandy crayfish is crayfish was recovered) in 2009 (Thoma has been greatly reduced. Based on the wholly aquatic and therefore limited in 2010, p. 6). This location is more than Guyandotte River crayfish’s original its ability to move from one location to 50 km (31 mi) downstream of the distribution and the behavior of other another by the basin’s complex nearest other occupied site. In 2009, similar stream-dwelling crayfish, it is hydrology, the species’ overall eight other likely sites in the lower reasonable to surmise that, prior to the distribution and abundance must be Levisa system were surveyed and found widespread habitat degradation in the considered carefully when evaluating its negative for the species, and in 2015, basin, individuals from the various risk of extinction. Prior to the significant nine additional sites were surveyed and occupied sites were free to move habitat degradation that began in the found negative in this area of the lower between sites or to colonize (or late 1800s, the Big Sandy crayfish likely Levisa Fork subwatershed. Therefore, recolonize) suitable vacant sites (Momot occurred in suitable stream habitat we conclude that the lower Levisa Fork 1966, entire; Kerby et al. 2005, pp. 407– throughout its range (from the Levisa system does not represent a viable 408). Huff Creek, where the species was Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the subpopulation. However, because the last noted in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995, headwater streams in the Russell Fork, exact site near Auxier, Kentucky, was p. 170), is one of the few streams in the Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork basins) not surveyed in 2015, and because the basin that still appears to maintain (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Thoma et al. 2014, Big Sandy crayfish has an estimated habitat conducive to the species p. 549), and individuals were free to lifespan of 7 to 10 years, and because we (Loughman 2013, p. 9; Loughman move between occupied sites or to have no evidence that habitat conditions 2015b, pp. 14–15). However, Huff Creek colonize (or recolonize) suitable vacant have changed, it is reasonable to is physically isolated from the extant sites. The current situation is quite conclude that this site may remain Clear Fork and Pinnacle Creek different, with the species’ occupied occupied. Secondly, in 2015, a new populations by the R.D. Bailey Dam on subwatersheds being isolated from each occurrence location was also reported in the Guyandotte River near the town of other, and from large areas of their the lower Tug Fork mainstem, with two Justice, West Virginia. This physical unoccupied range (e.g., the Johns Creek Big Sandy crayfish captured (one was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20475

described as ‘‘malformed’’) from an Interspecific Competition States will experience: (1) An increase isolated boulder cluster (Loughman A contributing factor to the in the frequency, intensity, and duration 2015a, p. 16). Because this site is 35 km imperilment of the habitat-specialist Big of heat waves; (2) a decrease in the (22 mi) downstream of the nearest other Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes frequency, intensity, and duration of occupied location (Pigeon Creek) and 11 may be increased interspecific cold air outbreaks; (3) an increase in the other lower Tug Fork sites were competition brought about by habitat frequency of heavy precipitation events; surveyed and found negative for the degradation (Loughman 2015a, pp. 42– (4) an increase in the risk of seasonal species, we do not consider this a viable 43; Loughman 2015b, p. 36). Both the droughts; and (5) an increase in the subpopulation. Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte strength of tropical storms (Melillo et al. 2014, pp. 374, 398–399). The U.S. The six subpopulations differ in their River crayfish are associated with faster Geological Survey’s and individual resiliency. The upper Levisa Fork, moving water of riffles and runs with State’s climate predictions support a unembedded substrate, while other Pound River, and Cranes Nest River finding that conditions within the native species such as the spiny stream populations generally persist in single ranges of both the Big Sandy and crayfish (Orconectes cristavarius) are stream reaches. While the species Guyandotte River crayfishes are typically associated with the lower appears to be moderately abundant in expected to undergo significant velocity portions of streams and appear these streams, the available CPUE data temperature and precipitation changes to be tolerant of higher levels of indicate that the species has declined in by 2050 (Byers and Norris 2011, pp. 19– sedimentation. Because the lower abundance in the Pound and Cranes 21; Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife velocity stream habitats suffer the Nest Rivers since 2007 (see table 3, Conservation Strategy (KCWCS) 2013, above). The fact that they are restricted effects of increased sedimentation and pp. 12–16; Kane et al. 2013, pp. 11–13; to single streams (versus a network of bottom embeddedness before the effects Alder and Hostetler 2014, entire). streams) makes them especially are manifested in the faster moving An increasingly large body of susceptible to catastrophic loss (e.g., reaches, the native crayfish using these scientific research indicates climate contaminant spill, stream dredging, or habitats likely migrated into the change poses a significant threat to a other perturbation). The lower Tug Fork relatively less affected riffle and run variety of species and ecosystems population in the Pigeon Creek system habitats that are normally the niche of (Thomas, et al. 2004, entire; Byers and also appears to be vulnerable, with the the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River Norris 2011, pp. 7–17; Kane et al. 2013, three occupied sites having a CPUE crayfishes (Loughman 2014, pp. 32–33). pp. 14–48; KCWCS 2013, pp. 17–26; value of 1 Big Sandy crayfish per hour In the ensuing competition between the IPCC 2014, Chapter 4, entire), with and relatively low stream system QHEI habitat-specialist Big Sandy and freshwater ecosystems being considered scores (mean 62, n = 9). The upper Tug Guyandotte River crayfishes and the especially vulnerable to the direct Fork and the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork more generalist species, the former are effects of climate change, such as altered populations are perhaps more secure, thought to be at a competitive thermal regimes and altered with multiple streams being occupied. disadvantage (Loughman 2015a, pp. 42– precipitation and flow regimes (IPCC However, the available CPUE data 43; Loughman 2015b, p. 36). The 2015 2014, pp. 312–314; McDonnell et al. indicate declines in abundance in survey data indicated generally that at 2015, pp. 14–16). As climate change several of these streams (see table 3, degraded sites, species such as O. alters freshwater ecosystems, aquatic above). cristavarius were dominant, with the species will either adapt to the new Big Sandy and Guyandotte River This isolation, caused by habitat conditions, migrate to waters that crayfish being absent or occurring in maintain suitable conditions, or become fragmentation, reduces the resiliency of low numbers. However, at high-quality the species by eliminating the potential locally extirpated. Species with small sites where either the Big Sandy or geographical ranges or those limited in movement of individuals from one Guyandotte River crayfish were present, subpopulation to another, or to their ability to disperse because of the other species were found in watershed boundaries and fragmented unoccupied sites that could become relatively low numbers. habitable in the future. This inhibits river networks (for example by dams gene flow in the species as a whole and Climate Change and impoundments) may be particularly will likely reduce the genetic diversity vulnerable to climate change (Eaton and The Intergovernmental Panel on Scheller 1996, p. 1113; Ficke et al. 2007, and perhaps the fitness of individuals in Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that p. 602; Capinha et al. 2013, p. 732; the remaining subpopulations. The the evidence for warming of the global Trumbo et al. 2014, pp. 182–185; individual subpopulations are also at an climate system is unequivocal (IPCC McDonnell et al. 2015, pp. 2, 14–18). increased risk from catastrophic events 2013, p. 3). Numerous long-term climate Perhaps the most obvious and direct such as spills or to stochastic decline. changes have been observed including effect of climate change to the Big Sandy Direct Mortality Due to Crushing changes in arctic temperatures and ice, and Guyandotte River crayfishes is an widespread changes in precipitation increase in average ambient air As discussed above under Factor A, amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, temperature, which by 2050 is predicted ORV use of unpaved trails are a source and aspects of extreme weather to rise by 1.9 to 2.8 degrees Celsius (°C) of sedimentation into the aquatic including droughts, heavy precipitation, (3.4 to 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) habitats within the range of the heat waves, and the intensity of tropical within the ranges of these species (Byers Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition cyclones (IPCC 2013, p. 4). The general and Norris 2011, p. 20; Alder and to this habitat degradation, there is the climate trend for Hostetler 2013, entire; KCWCS 2013, p. potential for direct crayfish mortality as includes increases in mean annual 13). As ambient air temperatures a result of crushing when ORVs use temperatures and precipitation and the increase, stream water temperatures are stream crossings, or when they deviate increased likelihood of extreme weather also expected to rise, although the from designated trails or run over slab events by the mid-21st century (IPCC precise relationship between air boulders that the Guyandotte River 2014, pp. 1452–1456). The U.S. National temperature and water temperature may crayfish use for shelter (Loughman Climate Assessment predicts that over vary based on a variety of factors, such 2014, pp. 30–31). the next century, the eastern United as groundwater inflow, riparian

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20476 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

vegetation, or precipitation rates (Webb poor reproductive success in the defined as ‘‘abundance and/or range and Nobilis 2007, pp. 82–84; Kaushal et generalist white tubercled crayfish extent within geographical area assessed al. 2010, pp. 464–465; Trumbo et al. ( spiculifer) (Taylor 1982, likely to decrease significantly by 2014, pp. 178–185; McDonnell et al. pp. 294–296). Therefore, based on the 2050.’’ We note that this vulnerability 2015, pp. 12–18). We are unaware of best available data, we conclude that as index was completed prior to the information on the specific thermal water temperatures increase above the taxonomic split that described C. tolerances of the Big Sandy or Big Sandy and Guyandotte River callainus and, therefore, assumed a Guyandotte River crayfishes, but note crayfishes’ assumed preferred single crayfish species with a that Loughman (2015a, p. 28; 2015b, p. temperature of 21 to 22 °C (71 to 72 °F) geographic range that included both the 35) collected the former species in June, and approach the species’ assumed Big Sandy River basin and the Upper July, and September from waters that maximum thermal threshold of 28 to 29 Guyandotte River basin. It is probable ranged from 19.0 to 27.3 °C (66.2 to 81.1 °C (82 to 84 °F), individual crayfish will that if the two species were re-evaluated °F) with a mean temperature of 21.7 °C likely suffer physiological stress, poor separately, the reduced geographic (71.1 °F), and he collected the latter reproductive success, and perhaps range of each species would produce an species in May and June from waters increased mortality. increased climate change vulnerability that ranged from 14.9 to 23.0 °C (58.8 to As temperature regimes within the score for either or both species. 73.4 °F) with a mean of 19.7 °C (67.5 °F). range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte The ranking of ‘‘highly vulnerable’’ These data and information on the River crayfishes begin to exceed their for Cambarus veteranus produced by thermal preferences of other stream- thermal optimum, it is likely that these the vulnerability index is supported by dwelling crayfishes indicate that the species will attempt to adjust their two distribution models developed for likely preferred temperature for the Big ranges to locations that maintain stream crayfish in Europe. A study of Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes favorable conditions. In general, the potential effects of climate change is around 21 to 22 °C (71 to 72 °F) ambient temperatures decrease with on the distribution of five relatively (Espina et al. 1993, pp. 37–38; Keller increasing elevation and/or latitude; wide-ranging European crayfish species and Hazlett 2010, p. 619). therefore, we would expect these predicted that, by 2080, suitable crayfishes to attempt to relocate to While crayfish are considered accessible habitat for these species will locations higher in elevation or higher relatively tolerant to temperature decrease by 14 to 75 percent (Capinha in latitude (northerly direction in the fluctuations, data indicate that the et al. 2013, pp. 734–735). This study northern hemisphere) (McDonnell et al. also indicated that the future upper incipient lethal temperature (the 2015, entire). However, because both the distribution of native and nonnative temperature at which 50 percent of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish species will lead to increased test organisms die) for stream-dwelling crayfishes are confined in latitude to ° incidences of co-occurrence between crayfish is about 29 to 32 C (84 to 90 their respective river basins, and ° these species with presumably negative F) (Becker et al. 1975, pp. 376–378; because suitable habitats in the lower consequences (Capinha et al. 2013, p. Mirenda and Dimock 1985, p. 255; reaches of each river system are limited 738). Another European study evaluated Espina et al. 1993, p. 37); however, there (primarily as a result of past the joint effects of climate change and may be significant variability in thermal environmental degradation), both the presence of an invasive crayfish on tolerance depending on a species’ species have already been largely the distribution of another wide-ranging geographic distribution and the size, restricted to the higher elevation sex, and reproductive status of streams within each river basin. but endangered crayfish, the white- individual crayfish (Becker et al. 1975, Additionally, as discussed in the April clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pp. 384–386). While important 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. pallipes) (per the International Union information, the upper lethal 18732–18734), habitat fragmentation for Conservation of Nature ‘‘Red List’’ at temperature limit is a poor measure by caused by dams and poor habitat http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2430/ which to assess the potential for climate conditions further restricts the 0). This study predicted a range change to affect the Big Sandy and movement of individual crayfish within reduction for both species coupled with Guyandotte River crayfishes. Mirenda their respective watersheds. a decreased incidence of co-occurrence and Dimock (1985, p. 255) studied the An independent assessment of the by 2050 (Gallardo and Aldridge 2013, acuminate crayfish (Cambarus potential effects of climate change on pp. 230–231). acuminatus), a more generalist species the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River While uncertainty exists, the best native to the mid-Atlantic coastal plain. crayfishes was incorporated into an available scientific data indicate that by The authors noted that prolonged Appalachian climate change about 2050, climate change will alter the exposure (greater than 48 hours) to vulnerability index (Young et al., 2015). ambient air temperature and temperatures below that species’ upper This vulnerability index integrates a precipitation regimes within the already thermal limit (33 °C (91.4 °F)), but still species’ predicted exposure to climate limited ranges of both the Big Sandy within the zone of tolerance, could change with three sets of factors and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Such cause incapacitation or loss of condition associated with climate change alterations will increase the likelihood sufficient to cause population-level sensitivity, each supported by published that streams will experience higher effects to the species. A study of another studies: (1) Indirect exposure to climate incidences of temperatures above the stream species, the common crayfish change, (2) species-specific sensitivity species’ thermal optimum, perhaps (Cambarus bartonii bartonii), showed and adaptive capacity factors (including approaching or exceeding their upper that its tolerance to acidic conditions dispersal ability, temperature and thermal limit. Because these species decreased as temperatures approached precipitation sensitivity, physical have little or no ability to migrate in the maximum thermal tolerance for the habitat specificity, interspecific response to increasing stream organism (DiStefano et al. 1991, pp. interactions, and genetic factors), and temperatures (or other climate change- 1586–1589). Relatedly, drought (3) documented response to climate induced perturbations), we conclude conditions (and assumed temperature change. The climate change there is a likelihood that climate change increases) in a north Georgia stream vulnerability index ranked Cambarus will act as an ongoing stressor to each resulted in population declines and veteranus ‘‘highly vulnerable,’’ which is species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20477

Transportation Spills reported whether any aquatic species Summary of Factor E There are numerous active freight rail were affected (Associated Press 2013, The habitat of the Big Sandy and lines in the Big Sandy and Upper entire). Guyandotte River crayfishes is highly • On April 30, 2014, 15 crude oil tank Guyandotte River basins (Virginia fragmented, thereby isolating the cars derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia Department of Rail and Public remaining populations of each species (approximately 180 km (112 mi) east of Transportation (VDRPT) 2013, p. 3–7; from each other. The remaining the Upper Guyandotte River and Big West Virginia Department of individuals are generally found in low Sandy River basins). Three tank cars Transportation (WVDOT) 2013, p. 2–3; numbers at most locations where they slid into the James River, and at least Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) one car ruptured and released still exist. The level of isolation and the 2015, p. 2–5). These lines were built approximately 29,740 gallons of oil, restricted ranges seen in each species primarily to haul locally-mined coal to most of which reportedly burned. It was make natural repopulation of historical outside markets, but data indicate a shift not reported whether any aquatic habitats or other new areas following to more freight traffic through the species were affected (Roanoke Times previous localized extirpations highly region, crude oil shipments from 2014, entire; VADEQ 2015, entire). improbable, or perhaps impossible, Midwest shale oil fields to eastern • On March 5, 2015, a train without human intervention. This refineries or ports, and increased rail locomotive struck a boulder in reduction in redundancy and traffic associated with shale gas Dickenson County, Virginia, causing a representation significantly impairs the development in West Virginia (VDRPT rupture to the locomotive’s fuel tank. No resiliency of each species and poses a 2013, p. 5–14; WVDOT 2013, pp. 2–57– fuel reportedly reached the Russell Fork threat to their continued existence. In 2–59; KTC 2015, pp. 2–23–2–24). Rail (Sorrell 2015, entire). addition, direct mortality due to traffic in and through the region will • On February 16, 2015, a train crushing may have a significant effect likely vary in the short term as overall hauling crude oil derailed near Mount on the Guyandotte River crayfish. economic conditions fluctuate, but in Carbon, West Virginia (approximately Interspecific competition from other the long term, rail traffic is expected to 43 km (27 mi) north of the Upper native crayfish species that are more increase. Guyandotte River basin), and 27 tank adapted to degraded stream conditions As described previously, because of cars derailed. Approximately 378,000 may also act as a contributing threat to the rugged topography of the region, gallons of crude oil were released both species, as might climate change. these rail lines generally follow the during the incident, but it is unclear mountain valleys and run immediately Cumulative Effects From Factors A how much oil entered the Kanawha through E adjacent to streams and rivers, including River (most of it apparently burned). It those with current or historical records was not reported whether any aquatic Based on the risk factors described of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River species were affected (USEPA 2015, above, the Big Sandy crayfish and the crayfish occupation. This characteristic entire; FRA 2015, entire). Guyandotte River crayfish are at an of the rail infrastructure increases the While the above reports do not increased risk of extinction primarily risk to aquatic habitats in the event of indicate whether aquatic species were due to land-disturbing activities that accidental spills of petroleum or other injured, a spill report from Pennsylvania increase erosion and sedimentation, and hazardous materials. Between 2003 and did document mortality of aquatic subsequently degrade the stream habitat 2012, Virginia and West Virginia invertebrates. On June 30, 2006, a required by both species (Factor A), and reported a Statewide average of 41 and derailment in McKeon County, due to the effects of small population 25 train accidents per year, respectively Pennsylvania, resulted in three tank cars size (Factor E). Other contributing (VDRPT 2013, p. 3–36; WVDOT 2013, p. releasing 42,000 gallons of sodium factors are degraded water quality and 2–30). We do not have fine-scale (e.g., hydroxide adjacent to Sinnemahoning unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). county-level) data on rail safety and Portage Creek. The resulting Additional likely contributing factors note also that some categories of investigation determined that 63 to 98 are competition from other crayfish, accidents are not required to be reported percent of the aquatic invertebrates were toxic spills, and climate change (Factor to the Federal Railroad Administration estimated to be killed over 17.7 km (11.0 E). While events such as collection (FRA) (see https://www.fra.dot.gov/ mi) of Sinnemahoning Portage Creek (Factor B) or disease and predation Page/P0037); therefore, accident risk is (Hartel 2006, p.18). While this report is (Factor C) are not currently known to difficult to assess. However, several from outside the ranges of the Big Sandy affect either species, any future recent incidents in or near the Big or Guyandotte River crayfishes, it is incidences will further reduce the Sandy River and Upper Guyandotte indicative of the scale of potential lethal resiliency of the Guyandotte River and River basins illustrate the potential risk: injury that can result from Big Sandy crayfishes. • On March 23, 2013, a derailment in transportation spills in areas where rail Determination Dickenson County, Virginia, left four lines are in close proximity to streams train cars in the Russell Fork River and rivers. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), (which is known to be occupied by the Therefore, while there is uncertainty and its implementing regulations at 50 Big Sandy crayfish). One of the cars as to the likelihood or magnitude of CFR part 424, set forth the procedures reportedly leaked propionic acid, but it effects of railroad accidents, based on for adding species to the Federal Lists was not reported whether any aquatic the best available data regarding past of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species were affected (Morabito 2013, events coupled with estimates of future and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the entire). rail traffic, we conclude that railroad Act, we may list a species based on (A) • On December 27, 2013, 16 train cars accidents that result in the release of The present or threatened destruction, derailed in McDowell County, West petroleum or other hazardous material modification, or curtailment of its Virginia. At least one tank car into streams and rivers occupied by Big habitat or range; (B) overutilization for reportedly ruptured and leaked ‘‘tar’’ Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish commercial, recreational, scientific, or into Elkhorn Creek (an upper Tug Fork pose an ongoing risk to each species and educational purposes; (C) disease or tributary not known to be occupied by that this risk is expected to stay the predation; (D) the inadequacy of the Big Sandy crayfish). It was not same or increase. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20478 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

other natural or manmade factors unit-effort (CPUE) results that are extinction is foreseeable because most of affecting its continued existence. Listing indicative of more robust populations. the remaining populations are small and actions may be warranted based on any The two populations of the Guyandotte isolated, and there is limited potential of the above factors, singly or in River crayfish have limited redundancy, for recolonization. combination. with the Pinnacle Creek location being For the Guyandotte River crayfish, the As discussed above, we have carefully highly imperiled by ORV use and species has been reduced to two assessed the best scientific and upstream mining operations, and locations, and its habitat and population commercial information and data significantly reduced representation. are threatened by a variety of factors available regarding the past, present, The level of isolation and the restricted acting in combination to create an and future threats to the Big Sandy range of each species make natural imminent risk of extirpation of one of crayfish and the Guyandotte River repopulation of historical habitats or the locations, thereby reducing the crayfish. The primary threat of other new areas following previous overall viability of the species. The risk rangewide habitat loss and degradation localized extirpations virtually of extinction is high because the two (Factor A) is occurring from land- impossible without human intervention. populations are severely reduced and disturbing activities that increase The reduction in redundancy and isolated, and have essentially no erosion and sedimentation, which representation for each species impairs potential to be recolonized following degrades the stream habitat required by the Big Sandy crayfish’s resiliency and extirpation. both species. Identified sources of significantly impairs the Guyandotte Therefore, on the basis of the best ongoing erosion include active surface River crayfish’s resiliency, and poses a available scientific and commercial coal mining, commercial forestry, threat to both species’ continued information, we are listing the Big unstable stream channels, unpaved existence. The interspecific competition Sandy crayfish as a threatened species roads, gas and oil development, and (Factor E) from other native crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish as an road construction. An additional species (that are more adapted to endangered species in accordance with primary threat specific to the degraded stream conditions) and sections 3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the Guyandotte River crayfish is the climate change (Factor E) may act as Act. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, operation of ORVs in and adjacent to additional stressors to the Big Sandy all of these factors combined lead us to Pinnacle Creek, one of only two known and Guyandotte River crayfishes. These conclude that the danger of extinction is stream locations for the species. Factor A and Factor E threats are high and immediate, thus warranting a Contributing threats to both species rangewide and are not likely to be determination as an endangered species include water quality degradation reduced in the future. Several of the rather than a threatened species. In (Factor A) resulting from abandoned Factor A and Factor E threats are likely contrast, for the Big Sandy crayfish, all coal mine drainage; untreated (or poorly to increase. For Factor A, these threats of these factors combined lead us to treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; include oil and gas development and conclude that the danger of extinction is unpermitted stream dredging; and road construction, and for Factor E, foreseeable rather than immediate, thus potential catastrophic spills of coal these include extirpation and further warranting a determination as a slurry, fluids associated with gas well isolation of populations. In threatened species. development, or other contaminants. combination, these ongoing and Under the Act and our implementing The effects of habitat loss have resulted increasing threats are significant regulations, a species may warrant in a significant range contraction for the because they further restrict limited listing if it is endangered or threatened Guyandotte River crayfish and a available habitat and decrease the throughout all or a significant portion of reduction in abundance and distribution resiliency of the Big Sandy crayfish and its range. Because we have determined within the fragmented range for both Guyandotte River crayfish within those that the Big Sandy crayfish and the species, as evidenced by the results habitats. Guyandotte River crayfish are from multiple survey efforts. While the The Act defines an endangered threatened and endangered, 2015 surveys did document two species as any species that is ‘‘in danger respectively, throughout all of their additional occurrences of the Big Sandy of extinction throughout all or a ranges, no portion of their ranges can be crayfish in the lower Tug Fork, those significant portion of its range’’ and a ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the occurrences are isolated from other threatened species as any species ‘‘that definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and occurrences of the species. Occurrences is likely to become endangered ‘‘threatened species.’’ See the Final of both species are correlated with throughout all or a significant portion of Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase higher quality habitat conditions that its range within the foreseeable future.’’ ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the are fragmented by natural and human- As discussed above, we find that the Big Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of mediated areas of lower quality habitat. Sandy crayfish is likely to become ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Despite the existing State wildlife endangered in the foreseeable future Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). laws and Federal regulations such as the throughout its entire range, and the Available Conservation Measures CWA and SMCRA, habitat threats Guyandotte River crayfish is in danger continue to effect these species (Factor of extinction throughout its entire range Listing a species as endangered or D). Additionally, the habitat of the Big based on the severity and immediacy of threatened under the Act increases Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes threats currently affecting these species. recognition by Federal, State, Tribal and is highly fragmented by natural and For the Big Sandy crayfish, although local agencies; private organizations; human-mediated conditions, thereby the species still occupies sites located and individuals that the species requires isolating the remaining populations of throughout the breadth of its historical additional conservation measures. each species (Factor E) from each other. range, the remaining sites are reduced to These measures include recovery The remaining individuals are found in primarily the higher elevations within actions, requirements for Federal low numbers at most locations where the watersheds; the remaining habitat protection, and prohibitions against they still exist; however, there are some and most populations are threatened by certain practices. The Act encourages occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in a variety of factors acting in cooperation with the States and other the Russell Fork with higher levels of combination to reduce the overall countries and calls for recovery actions documented individuals and catch-per- viability of the species. The risk of to be carried out for listed species. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20479

protection required by Federal agencies many listed species cannot be preceding paragraph include land and the prohibitions against certain accomplished solely on Federal lands management agencies such as the U.S. activities are discussed, in part, below. because they may occur primarily or Forest Service or the Bureau of Land The primary purpose of the Act is the solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve Management. Or a Federal agency may conservation of endangered and recovery of these species requires have regulatory oversight, such as the threatened species and the ecosystems cooperative conservation efforts on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a upon which they depend. The ultimate private, State, and Tribal lands. We also section 404 CWA permit is issued; the goal of such conservation efforts is the recognize that for some species, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, recovery of these listed species, so that measures needed to help achieve and Enforcement when a coal mining they no longer need the protective recovery may include some that are of permit is issued or overseen; or the measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of a type, scope, or scale that is Federal Highway Administration when the Act calls for the Service to develop independent of land ownership status they assist with the funding or and implement recovery plans for the and beyond the control of cooperating construction and maintenance of roads, conservation of endangered and landowners. bridges, or highways. threatened species. The recovery Following publication of this final The Act and its implementing planning process involves the listing rule, additional funding for regulations set forth a series of general identification of actions that are recovery actions will be available from prohibitions and exceptions that apply necessary to halt or reverse the species’ a variety of sources, including Federal to endangered and threatened wildlife. decline by addressing the threats to its budgets; State programs; and cost share The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the survival and recovery. The goal of this grants for non-Federal landowners, the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for process is to restore listed species to a academic community, and endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 17.31 point where they are secure, self- nongovernmental organizations. In for threatened wildlife, make it illegal sustaining, and functioning components addition, pursuant to section 6 of the for any person subject to the jurisdiction of their ecosystems. Act, the States of Kentucky, Virginia, of the United States to take (which Recovery planning includes the and West Virginia will be eligible for includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, development of a recovery outline Federal funds to implement shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or shortly after a species is listed and management actions that promote the collect; or to attempt any of these) preparation of a draft and a final protection or recovery of the Big Sandy endangered or threatened wildlife recovery plan. The recovery outline crayfish, and the State of West Virginia within the United States or on the high guides the immediate implementation of will be eligible for Federal funds to seas. In addition, it is unlawful to urgent recovery actions and describes implement management actions that import; export; deliver, receive, carry, the process to be used to develop a promote the protection or recovery of transport, or ship in interstate or foreign recovery plan. Revisions of the plan the Guyandotte River crayfish. commerce in the course of commercial may be done to address continuing or Information on our grant programs that activity; or sell or offer for sale in new threats to the species, as new are available to aid species recovery can interstate or foreign commerce any substantive information becomes be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. listed species. It is also illegal to available. The recovery plan also Please let us know if you are possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or identifies recovery criteria for review of interested in participating in recovery ship any such wildlife that has been when a species may be ready for efforts for the Big Sandy crayfish or the taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply downlisting or delisting, and methods Guyandotte River crayfish. to employees of the Service, the for monitoring recovery progress. Additionally, we invite you to submit National Marine Fisheries Service, other Recovery plans also establish a any new information on these species Federal land management agencies, and framework for agencies to coordinate whenever it becomes available and any State conservation agencies. their recovery efforts and provide information you may have for recovery Under section 4(d) of the Act, the estimates of the cost of implementing planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER Service has discretion to issue recovery tasks. Recovery teams INFORMATION CONTACT). regulations that we find necessary and (composed of species experts, Federal Section 7(a) of the Act requires advisable to provide for the and State agencies, nongovernmental Federal agencies to evaluate their conservation of threatened species. As organizations, and stakeholders) are actions with respect to any species that discussed in the previous paragraph, the often established to develop recovery is proposed or listed as an endangered general prohibitions and exceptions that plans. When completed, the recovery or threatened species and with respect apply to threatened wildlife will apply outline, draft recovery plan, and the to its critical habitat, if any is to the Big Sandy crayfish upon the final recovery plan will be available on designated. Regulations implementing effective date of this final rule (see our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ this interagency cooperation provision DATES). However, we may revise these endangered), or from the Northeast of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part general prohibitions and exceptions as Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires they apply to the Big Sandy crayfish by INFORMATION CONTACT). Federal agencies to ensure that activities promulgating a species-specific rule Implementation of recovery actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not under section 4(d) of the Act detailing generally requires the participation of a likely to jeopardize the continued the prohibitions and exceptions that are broad range of partners, including other existence of the any endangered or necessary and advisable for the Federal agencies, States, Tribes, threatened species or destroy or conservation of the species. Therefore, nongovernmental organizations, adversely modify its critical habitat. If a we are investigating what specific businesses, and private landowners. Federal action may affect a listed prohibitions and exceptions to those Examples of recovery actions include species or its critical habitat, the prohibitions may be necessary and habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of responsible Federal agency must enter advisable for the Big Sandy crayfish’s native vegetation, removal of into consultation with the Service. conservation and intend to publish, as sedimentation), research, captive Federal agency actions within the appropriate, a proposed 4(d) rule for propagation and reintroduction, and species’ habitat that may require public review and comment in the outreach and education. The recovery of consultation as described in the future. Activities we are considering for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 20480 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

potential exemption under a 4(d) rule in killing or injuring a Big Sandy readily acknowledge our responsibility include, but are not necessarily limited crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. to communicate meaningfully with to, exceptions for (1) specific habitat (2) Unlawful destruction or alteration recognized Federal Tribes on a restoration activities that will benefit of the habitat of the Big Sandy crayfish government-to-government basis. In the Big Sandy crayfish, and (2) or Guyandotte River crayfish (e.g., accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 sustainable forestry practices that unpermitted instream dredging, of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal primarily occur directly adjacent to, or impoundment, water diversion or Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust upslope from, streams occupied or withdrawal, channelization, discharge Responsibilities, and the Endangered likely to be occupied by the Big Sandy of fill material) that impairs essential Species Act), we readily acknowledge crayfish and that are implemented behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or our responsibilities to work directly according to well-defined and sheltering, or that results in killing or with tribes in developing programs for enforceable best management practices injuring a Big Sandy crayfish or healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that (e.g., Sustainable Forestry Initiative or Guyandotte River crayfish. tribal lands are not subject to the same Forest Stewardship Council) or other (3) Unauthorized discharges or controls as Federal public lands, to such approved guidelines. dumping of toxic chemicals or other remain sensitive to Indian culture, and We may issue permits to carry out pollutants into waters supporting the to make information available to tribes. otherwise prohibited activities Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River We are not aware of any Big Sandy involving endangered or threatened crayfish that kills or injures individuals, crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish wildlife under certain circumstances. or otherwise impairs essential life- populations on tribal lands. Regulations governing permits for sustaining behaviors such as breeding, endangered species are codified at 50 feeding, or finding shelter. References Cited Questions regarding whether specific CFR 17.22 and for threatened species at A complete list of references cited in 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed this rulemaking is available on the endangered wildlife, a permit may be Internet at http://www.regulations.gov issued for the following purposes: For to the appropriate office: • and upon request from the Northeast scientific purposes, to enhance the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER propagation or survival of the species, Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, INFORMATION CONTACT). and for incidental take in connection Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695–0468; facsimile (502) 695–1024. Authors with otherwise lawful activities. There • are also certain statutory exemptions Ecological The primary authors of this rule are from the prohibitions, which are found Services Field Office, 330 Cummings the staff members of the Northeast in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Street, Abingdon, VA 24210; telephone It is our policy, as published in the (276) 623–1233; facsimile (276) 623– Regional Office. 1185. Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR • List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 34272), to identify to the maximum West Virginia Field Office, 694 extent practicable at the time a species Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; Endangered and threatened species, is listed, those activities that would or telephone (304) 636–6586; facsimile Exports, Imports, Reporting and would not constitute a violation of (304) 636–7824. recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. section 9 of the Act. The intent of this Required Determinations policy is to increase public awareness of Regulation Promulgation the effect of a listing on proposed and National Environmental Policy Act (42 ongoing activities within the ranges of U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Accordingly, we amend part 17, species we are listing. Based on the best We have determined that subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the available information, the following environmental assessments and Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth actions are unlikely to result in a environmental impact statements, as below: defined under the authority of the violation of section 9, if these activities PART 17—ENDANGERED AND National Environmental Policy Act, are carried out in accordance with THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS existing regulations and permit need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered requirements; this list is not ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 or threatened species under the comprehensive: continues to read as follows: • Normal agricultural practices, such Endangered Species Act. We published as herbicide and pesticide use, that are a notice outlining our reasons for this Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– carried out in accordance with any determination in the Federal Register 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise existing regulations, permit and label on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). noted. requirements, and best management ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries Government-to-Government practices. for ‘‘Crayfish, Big Sandy’’ and ‘‘Crayfish, Relationship With Tribes Based on the best available Guyandotte River’’ to the List of information, the following activities In accordance with the President’s Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in may potentially result in a violation of memorandum of April 29, 1994 alphabetical order under section 9 the Act; this list is not (Government-to-Government Relations CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth comprehensive: with Native American Tribal below: (1) Unauthorized operation of Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive motorized equipment in stream habitats Order 13175 (Consultation and § 17.11 Endangered and threatened such that the operation compacts the Coordination With Indian Tribal wildlife. stream bottom habitat (e.g., driving or Governments), and the Department of * * * * * riding an ORV in the stream), resulting the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we (h) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20481

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered listed habitat rules or threatened

******* CRUSTACEANS.

******* Crayfish, Big Sandy ...... Cambarus callainus ...... U.S.A. (KY, VA, WV) ...... Entire ...... T ...... 864 ...... NA ...... NA

******* Crayfish, Guyandotte River Cambarus veteranus ...... U.S.A. (WV) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 865 ...... NA ...... NA

*******

* * * * * Dated: March 28, 2016. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2016–07744 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Apr 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07APR2.SGM 07APR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2