Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 195 October 8, 2015

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) Rule; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information Requested Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Public Comments Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone We intend that any final action 50 CFR Part 17 502–695–0468, x108; facsimile 502– resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2015–0132; 695–1024. Persons who use a 4500030113] telecommunications device for the deaf commercial data available and be as (TDD) may call the Federal Information accurate and as effective as possible. RIN 1018–AZ09 Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned Endangered and Threatened Wildlife SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: governmental agencies, Native and Plants; Threatened Species Status Executive Summary American tribes, the scientific for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) community, industry, or any other Rule Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), if we interested parties concerning this AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, find that a species may be an proposed rule. We particularly seek Interior. endangered or threatened species comments concerning: ACTION: Proposed rule. throughout all or a significant portion of (1) The Kentucky arrow darter’s its range, we are required to promptly biology, range, and population trends, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and publish a proposed rule to list the including: Wildlife Service (Service), propose to species in the Federal Register and (a) Biological or ecological list the Kentucky arrow darter make a final determination on our requirements of the species, including (Etheostoma spilotum), a fish species proposal within 1 year. Listing a species habitat requirements for feeding, from the upper Kentucky River basin in as an endangered or threatened species breeding, and sheltering; Kentucky, as a threatened species under (b) Genetics and taxonomy; can only be completed by issuing a rule. the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we (c) Historical and current range, This rule proposes the listing of the finalize this rule as proposed, it would including distribution patterns; Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma extend the Act’s protections to this (d) Historical and current population spilotum) as a threatened species. The species. levels, and current and projected trends; Kentucky arrow darter is a candidate and DATES: We will accept comments species for which we have on file (e) Past and ongoing conservation received or postmarked on or before sufficient information on biological measures for the species, its habitat, or December 7, 2015. Comments submitted vulnerability and threats to support both. electronically using the Federal preparation of a listing proposal, but for (2) Factors that may affect the eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, which development of a listing rule has continued existence of the species, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. until now been precluded by other which may include habitat modification Eastern Time on the closing date. We higher priority listing activities. This or destruction, overutilization, disease, must receive requests for public rule assesses all available information predation, the inadequacy of existing hearings, in writing, at the address regarding the status of and threats to the regulatory mechanisms, or other natural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION shown in Kentucky arrow darter. Elsewhere in or manmade factors. CONTACT by November 23, 2015. today’s Federal Register, we propose to (3) Biological, commercial trade, or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments designate critical habitat for the other relevant data concerning any by one of the following methods: Kentucky arrow darter under the Act. threats (or lack thereof) to this species (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal The basis for our action. Under the and existing regulations that may be eRulemaking Portal: http:// Act, we may determine that a species is addressing those threats. www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, an endangered or threatened species (4) Additional information concerning enter FWS–R4–ES–2015–0132, which is based on any of five factors: (A) The the historical and current status, range, the docket number for this rulemaking. present or threatened destruction, distribution, and population size of this Then, in the Search panel on the left modification, or curtailment of its species, including the locations of any side of the screen, under the Document habitat or range; (B) overutilization for additional populations of this species. Type heading, click on the Proposed commercial, recreational, scientific, or (4) Whether measures outlined in the Rules link to locate this document. You educational purposes; (C) disease or proposed species-specific rule under may submit a comment by clicking on predation; (D) the inadequacy of section 4(d) of the Act are necessary and ‘‘Comment Now!’’ existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) advisable for the conservation and (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail other natural or manmade factors management of the Kentucky arrow or hand-delivery to: Public Comments affecting its continued existence. We darter. Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2015– have determined that the Kentucky (5) Additional provisions that may be 0132; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arrow darter warrants listing based on appropriate to except incidental take as MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls three of the five factors (A, D, and E). a result of other categories of activities Church, VA 22041–3803. We will seek peer review. We will seek beyond those covered by this proposed We request that you send comments comments from independent specialists species-specific rule and, if so, under only by the methods described above. to ensure that our listing determination what conditions and with what We will post all comments on http:// is based on scientifically sound data, conservation measures, in order to www.regulations.gov. This generally assumptions, and analyses. We will conserve, recover, and manage the means that we will post any personal invite these peer reviewers to comment Kentucky arrow darter. information you provide us (see Public on our listing proposal. Because we will (6) Comments and suggestions, Comments, below, for more consider all comments and information particularly from Federal agencies and information). we receive during the comment period, other interested stakeholders that may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: our final determination may differ from be affected by the 4(d), regarding Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field this proposal. additional guidance and methods that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60963

the Service could provide or utilize, Peer Review a slender body, elongated snout, respectively, to streamline the In accordance with our joint policy on relatively large mouth, and virtually implementation of this 4(d) rule. peer review published in the Federal scaleless head (Kuehne and Barbour Please include sufficient information Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 1983, p. 71; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. with your submission (such as scientific we will seek the expert opinions of five 523). The Kentucky arrow darter’s journal articles or other publications) to appropriate and independent specialists background color is straw yellow to pale allow us to verify any scientific or regarding this proposed rule. The greenish, and the body is also covered commercial information you include. purpose of peer review is to ensure that by a variety of stripes and blotches. The Please note that submissions merely our listing determination is based on back is crossed by 5 to 7 weak dorsal stating support for or opposition to the scientifically sound data, assumptions, saddles, some of which may fuse with action under consideration without and analyses. The peer reviewers have the 8 to 11 vertical lateral blotches providing supporting information, expertise in the Kentucky arrow darter’s (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71; Etnier although noted, will not be considered biology, habitat, threats, etc., which will and Starnes 1993, p. 523). The blotches in making a determination, as section inform our determination. We will are generally oval with pale centers at 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et invite comment from the peer reviewers the front of the body but extend seq.) directs that determinations as to during this public comment period. downward and may resemble the letters whether any species is an endangered or N, W, U, or V toward the back of the Previous Federal Action threatened species must be made body. A dark vertical bar occurs at the ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific The Kentucky arrow darter was first base of the caudal fin, sometimes and commercial data available.’’ identified as a candidate for protection separated by two distinct spots. The under the Act in the November 10, belly is pale (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, You may submit your comments and p. 71). During the spawning season, materials concerning this proposed rule 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 69222). Candidate species are those fish, breeding males exhibit vibrant by one of the methods listed in the coloration. Most of the body is blue- ADDRESSES section. We request that you wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient information on green in color, with scattered scarlet send comments only by the methods spots and scarlet to orange vertical bars described in the ADDRESSES section. biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing laterally; the vertical bars can be If you submit information via http:// proposal, but for which development of connected ventrally by an orange belly www.regulations.gov, your entire a listing regulation is precluded by other stripe (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523). submission—including any personal higher priority listing activities. The spinous dorsal fin exhibits a blue- identifying information—will be posted Candidates are assigned listing priority green central band and a scarlet on the Web site. If your submission is numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy marginal band. The soft dorsal and made via a hardcopy that includes and the magnitude of threats, as well as caudal fins are speckled with scarlet personal identifying information, you the species’ taxonomic status. A lower blotches or bands, and the anal and may request at the top of your document LPN corresponds to a higher pelvic fins are blue-green to black. that we withhold this information from conservation priority, and we consider Females remain pale straw yellow with public review. However, we cannot the LPN when prioritizing and funding grayish markings (Etnier and Starnes guarantee that we will be able to do so. conservation actions. In our 2010 1993, p. 523). Morphological differences We will post all hardcopy submissions candidate notice of review (CNOR) (75 between the Kentucky arrow darter and on http://www.regulations.gov. FR 69222), we identified the species as other darters make misidentifications Comments and materials we receive, having an LPN of 3, in accordance with unlikely. The species can be easily as well as supporting documentation we our priority guidance published on differentiated by its elongated snout, its used in preparing this proposed rule, September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An oval or diamond-shaped lateral will be available for public inspection LPN of 3 reflects a subspecies with blotches, and its large size (for on http://www.regulations.gov, or by imminent, high magnitude threats. The individuals greater than 100 mm (3.9 in) appointment, during normal business Kentucky arrow darter was included in total length (TL)). hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife all of our subsequent annual CNORs (76 The Kentucky arrow darter belongs to Service, Kentucky Ecological Services FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR the Class Actinopterygii (ray-finned Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR fishes), Order Perciformes, and Family INFORMATION CONTACT). 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR Percidae (perches) (Etnier and Starnes Public Hearing 72450, December 5, 2014). On 1993, pp. 18–25; Page and Burr 2011, p. November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), we 569). The species was described from Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for changed the LPN for the Kentucky the Kentucky River basin (Sturgeon one or more public hearings on this arrow darter from 3 to 2 based on a Creek, Owsley County) as Etheostoma proposal, if requested. Requests for a change in the species’ taxonomic status nianguae spilotum (Gilbert 1887, pp. public hearing must be received within (change from subspecies to species 53–54), but was later recognized and 45 days after the date of publication of rank). In our 2014 CNOR (79 FR 72450), accepted as one of two subspecies of the this proposed rule in the Federal we retained an LPN of 2 for this species. arrow darter, E. sagitta (Jordan and Register. Such requests must be sent to Swain) (Bailey 1948, pp. 80–84; Kuehne the address shown in the FOR FURTHER Background and Bailey 1961, pp. 1–5; Kuehne and INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will Species Information Barbour 1983, p. 71; Burr and Warren schedule public hearings on this 1986, p. 316). Thomas and Johansen proposal, if any are requested, and Species Description and Taxonomy (2008, p. 46) questioned the subspecies announce the dates, times, and places of The Kentucky arrow darter, status of E. sagitta by arguing that (1) the those hearings, as well as how to obtain Etheostoma spilotum Gilbert, is a small two subspecies, E. sagitta sagitta and E. reasonable accommodations, in the and compressed fish, which reaches a sagitta spilotum, were distinguishable Federal Register and local newspapers maximum length of about 120 based on scale size and development of at least 15 days before the hearing. millimeters (mm) (4.7 inches (in)). It has the lateral line (see note below); (2) the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

two subspecies existed in allopatry involves rapid dashes, fin-flaring, pers. comm.). PIT-tags have been placed (separate ranges with no overlap); (3) nudging, and quivering motions by the in a total of 126 individuals, and the two subspecies lacked intergrades male followed by similar quivering Kentucky arrow darter movements have (intermediate forms); and (4) responses of the female, who then been tracked since December 2013. unpublished genetic data precedes the male to the nest. The Recorded movements have ranged from (mitochondrial DNA) suggested female partially buries herself in the 134 m (439 ft) (upstream movement) to evolutionary independence of Kentucky substrate, is mounted by the male, and 4,078 m (13,379 ft or 2.5 mi) and Cumberland basin populations spawning occurs (Etnier and Starnes (downstream movement by a female in (with no recent genetic exchange). 1993, p. 523). It is assumed that the Elisha Creek). Intermediate recorded Based on these analyses, the two arrow male continues to defend the nest until movements have included 328 m (1,076 darter subspecies have been elevated to the eggs have hatched. The spawning ft) (downstream), 351 m (1,151 ft) species rank (Page and Burr 2011, p. period extends from April to June, but (upstream), 900 m (2,952 ft) (upstream/ 569; Eschmeyer 2014, p. 1). The peak activity occurs when water downstream), 950 m (3,116 ft) Cumberland arrow darter, E. sagitta temperatures reach 13 degrees Celsius (downstream), 1,282 m (4,028 ft) (Jordan and Swain), is restricted to the (°C) (55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), (downstream), and 1,708 m (5,603 ft) upper Cumberland River basin in typically in mid-April (Bailey 1948, pp. (downstream). Kentucky and Tennessee, and the 82–84; Lowe 1979, p. 44). Females Since 2012, the Kentucky Department Kentucky arrow darter, E. spilotum produce between 200 and 600 eggs per of Fish and Wildlife Resources Gilbert, is restricted to the upper season, with tremendous variation (KDFWR) has been releasing captive- Kentucky River basin in Kentucky. resulting from size, age, condition of bred Kentucky arrow darters into Long females, and stream temperature (Rakes Habitat and Life History Fork, a DBNF stream and first-order 2014, pers. comm.). tributary to Hector Branch in eastern Kentucky arrow darters typically Young Kentucky arrow darters can Clay County, Kentucky, where the inhabit pools or transitional areas exceed 25 mm (1 in) TL by mid-June species had been extirpated. A total of between riffles and pools (glides and and can reach 50 mm (2 in) in length by 1,447 captive-spawned KADs (about 50– runs) in moderate- to high-gradient, the end of the first year (Lotrich 1973, 55 mm TL) have been tagged and first- to third-order streams with rocky pp. 384–385; Lowe 1979, pp. 44–48; reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi) substrates (Thomas 2008, p. 6). The Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). One- reach of Long Fork. Monitoring has been species is most often observed near year olds are generally sexually mature some type of cover—boulders, rock and participate in spawning with older conducted on multiple occasions since ledges, large cobble, or woody debris age classes (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. the initial release using visual searches piles. During spawning (April to June), 523). Lotrich (1973, p. 384) reported a and seining methods. Tagged darters the species will utilize riffle habitats mean length at age 2 of about 65 mm have been observed during each with moderate flow (Kuehne and (2.6 in) but was unable to differentiate monitoring event, with numbers Barbour 1983, p. 71). Thomas (2008, p. between older age classes (age 3+). Lowe increasing since the reintroduction 6) observed Kentucky arrow darters at (1979, p. 38) reported four age classes began in 2012. Untagged individuals depths ranging from 10 to 45 for the closely related Cumberland began to appear in Long Fork in 2013, centimeters (cm) (4 to 18 in) and in arrow darter, but growth was variable indicating natural reproduction in Long streams ranging from 1.5 to 20 meters after age 1. Juvenile Kentucky arrow Fork. In 2015, KDFWR observed five (m) (4.9 to 65.6 feet (ft)) wide. Kentucky darters can be found throughout the untagged individuals (47–58 mm TL) arrow darters typically occupy streams channel but are often observed in and one tagged individual (90 mm TL) with watersheds of 25.9 square shallow water along stream margins in Hector Branch, approximately 0.6 km kilometers (km2) (10 square miles (mi2)) near root mats, rock ledges, or some (0.4 mi) upstream of its confluence with or less, and many of these habitats, other cover. As stream flow lessens and Long Fork, and they also observed four especially those in first-order reaches, riffles begin to shrink, most Kentucky untagged individuals (44–52 mm TL) in can be intermittent in nature (Thomas arrow darters move into pools and tend Deerlick Branch, a first-order tributary 2008, pp. 6–9). During drier periods to remain there even when summer and of Hector Branch, approximately 1.0 km (late summer or fall), some Kentucky autumn rains restore stream flow (0.6 mi) downstream of the confluence arrow darter streams may cease flowing, (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). of Long Fork and Hector Branch but the species appears to survive these Limited information exists with (Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.). Based on conditions by retreating into shaded, regard to upstream or downstream these results, it is evident that at least isolated pools or by dispersing into movements of Kentucky arrow darters; some Kentucky arrow darters have larger tributaries (Lotrich 1973, p. 394; however, preliminary findings from a moved out of Long Fork into other parts Lowe 1979, p. 26; Etnier and Starnes movement study at Eastern Kentucky of the Hector Creek drainage. It is 1993, p. 523; Service unpublished data). University (EKU) and a reintroduction impossible to determine if the untagged Lotrich (1973, p. 394) observed riffle project on the Daniel Boone National fish were spawned in Long Fork or habitats in Clemons Fork (Breathitt Forest (DBNF) suggest that Kentucky Hector Branch; however, the former County) that were completely dry by arrow darters can move considerable scenario is most likely given the poor late summer, but shaded isolated pools distances (Baxter 2014, pers. comm.; water quality and habitat conditions in in these habitats continued to support Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.). Hector Branch and the lack of collection Kentucky arrow darters. The EKU study is using PIT-tags records in Hector Branch prior to Male Kentucky arrow darters establish (electronic tags placed under the skin) reintroduction efforts. Considering the territories over riffles from March to and placed antenna systems (installed water quality and habitat conditions in May, when they are quite conspicuous in the stream bottom) to monitor intra- Hector Branch, it is also plausible that in water 5 to 15 cm (2 to 6 in) deep and inter-tributary movement of the individuals captured in Hector (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). Kentucky arrow darters in Gilberts Big Branch were in transit seeking higher Males fan out a depression in the Creek and Elisha Creek, two second- quality habitat (e.g., small tributaries). substrate and defend these sites order tributaries of Red Bird River in Based on these results, it is clear that vigorously. Initial courtship behavior Clay and Leslie Counties (Baxter 2014, young Kentucky arrow darters can

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60965

disperse both upstream and downstream Maccaffertium and Stenonema) and (Etheostoma baileyi), rainbow darter (E. from their place of origin and can move Baetidae were the dominant mayflies in caeruleum), fantail darter (E. flabellare), considerable distances. examined stomachs of Cumberland and Johnny darter (E. nigrum) (Kuehne Additional insight into possibility of arrow darters in Tennessee (Lowe 1979, 1962, p. 609; Lotrich 1973, p. 380; interstream dispersal can be gained from pp. 35–36). Kentucky arrow darters Thomas 2008, p. 7). Within first-order the closely related Cumberland arrow greater than 70 mm (2.8 in) TL often streams or headwater reaches, the darter. Lowe (1979, pp. 26–27) observed feed on small crayfish, as 7 of 8 species is most commonly associated potential movement behavior for the stomachs examined by Lotrich (1973, p. with creek chub, central stoneroller, and Cumberland arrow darter in Tennessee. 381) from Clemons Fork contained fantail darter. During field observations in January and crayfishes ranging in size from 11 to 24 February 1975, no Cumberland arrow mm (0.4 to 0.9 in). Lotrich (1973, p. 381) Historical Range and Distribution darters were observed near the mouth of considered this to be noteworthy The Kentucky arrow darter occurred No Business Creek, a tributary of because stomachs of small Kentucky historically in at least 74 streams in the Hickory Creek in Campbell County, arrow darters (less than 70 mm (2.8 in) upper Kentucky River basin of eastern Tennessee, and downstream of a TL) and stomachs of other darter species perched culvert. During a subsequent did not contain crayfishes. He suggested Kentucky (Gilbert 1887, pp. 53–54; survey at this location, Lowe observed that larger individuals were utilizing a Woolman 1892, pp. 275–281; Kuehne a total of 34 Cumberland arrow darters, different energy source, thus removing and Bailey 1961, pp. 3–4; Kuehne 1962, a dramatic increase compared to themselves from direct competition for pp. 608–609; Branson and Batch 1972, previous surveys. Lowe (1979, pp. 26– food with other fishes in first- and pp. 507–514; Lotrich 1973, p. 380; 27) considered it unlikely that the second-order streams. Lotrich (1973, p. Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81–83; Cumberland arrow darters originated 381) speculated that this would allow Harker et al. 1979, pp. 523–761; from upstream reaches of No Business these larger individuals to exploit an Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37; Creek because no individuals were abundant food source and survive in Branson and Batch 1983, pp. 2–13; observed upstream of the culvert during extreme headwater habitats. Other food Branson and Batch 1984, pp. 4–8; the length of the study and no items reported by Lotrich (1973, p. 381) Kornman 1985, p. 28; Burr and Warren individuals had been observed at the and Etnier and Starnes (1993, p. 523) 1986, p. 316; Measel 1997, pp. 1–105; site during the previous week. The only included larval blackflies (family Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; Stephens plausible explanation for the sudden Simuliidae) and midges 1999, pp. 159–174; Ray and Ceas 2003, increase was that the Cumberland arrow (Chironomidae), with lesser amounts of p. 8; Kentucky State Nature Preserves darters had migrated from Hickory caddisfly larvae, stonefly nymphs, and Commission (KSNPC) unpublished Creek or a nearby tributary of Hickory beetle larvae. Etnier and Starnes (1993, data). Its distribution spanned portions Creek (e.g., Laurel Fork). p. 523) reported that juvenile arrow of 6 smaller sub-basins or watersheds Kentucky arrow darters feed primarily darters feed on microcrustaceans and (North Fork Kentucky River, Middle on mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera), dipteran larvae. Fork Kentucky River, South Fork which comprised 77 percent of Common associates of the Kentucky Kentucky River, Silver Creek, Sturgeon identifiable food items (420 of 542 arrow darter include creek chub Creek, and Red River) in 10 Kentucky items) in 57 Kentucky arrow darter (Semotilus atromaculatus), central counties (Breathitt, Clay, Harlan, stomachs from Clemons Fork, Breathitt stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), Jackson, Knott, Lee, Leslie, Owsley, County (Lotrich 1973, p. 381). The white sucker (Catastomus Perry, and Wolfe) (Thomas 2008, p. 3) families Heptageniidae (genera commersonii), emerald darter (Figure 1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60966 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

The Kentucky arrow darter was first 1974, pp. 81–83; Harker et al. 1979, pp. of these streams have been discovered reported from the upper Kentucky River 523–761; Branson and Batch 1983, pp. or established since 2006. Current basin by Gilbert (1887, pp. 53–54), who 2–13; Branson and Batch 1984, pp. 4– populations occur in the following collected 12 specimens from Sturgeon 8; Burr and Warren 1986, p. 316). The Kentucky River sub-basins (and smaller Creek near Travelers Rest, Owsley number of known occurrences for the watersheds): County. Woolman (1892, pp. 275–281) Kentucky arrow darter increased • North Fork Kentucky River conducted more extensive surveys considerably during the 1990s (1990– (Troublesome, Quicksand, Frozen, throughout the basin in the summer of 1999), when EKU, KDFWR, the Holly, Lower Devil, Walker, and Hell 1890, reporting the species from seven Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW), Creek watersheds); • additional streams: Big Creek, Cutshin and KSNPC completed surveys Middle Fork Kentucky River (Big Creek, Hector Branch, Lotts Creek, throughout the basin, documenting the Laurel, Rockhouse, Hell For Certain species’ presence in a total of 46 streams Creek, and Squabble Creek watersheds); Middle Fork Kentucky River, Red Bird • River, and Troublesome Creek. Kuehne (Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; Stephens South Fork Kentucky River (Red and Bailey (1961, pp. 3–4) and Kuehne 1999, pp. 159–174; Ray and Ceas 2003, Bird River, Hector Branch, and Goose, (1962, pp. 608–614) surveyed additional p. 8; KSNPC unpublished data). Bullskin, Buffalo, and Lower Buffalo Creek watersheds); portions of the basin from 1954–1959, Current Range and Distribution • Silver Creek; observing the species in Sexton Creek, Based on surveys completed since • Sturgeon Creek (Travis, Wild Dog, Troublesome Creek (mainstem), and 2006, extant populations of the and Granny Dismal Creek watersheds); nine smaller streams in the Kentucky arrow darter are known from and Troublesome Creek watershed: Bear 47 streams in the upper Kentucky River • Red River (Rock Bridge Fork of Branch, Buckhorn Creek, Clemons Fork, basin in eastern Kentucky. These Swift Camp Creek). Coles Fork, Laurel Fork, Lewis Fork, populations are scattered across 6 sub- Long Fork, Millseat Branch, and Snag basins (North Fork Kentucky River, Population Estimates and Status Ridge Fork. From 1969–1978, biologists Middle Fork Kentucky River, South The species’ status in all streams of from EKU and KSNPC documented the Fork Kentucky River, Silver Creek, historical or recent occurrence is species from an additional eight Sturgeon Creek, and Red River) in 10 summarized in Table 1, below, which is streams: Buck Creek, Buffalo Creek, Kentucky counties: Breathitt, Clay, organized by sub-basin, beginning at the Greasy Creek, Horse Creek, Jacks Creek, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Lee, Leslie, southeastern border (upstream end) of Laurel Creek, Leatherwood Creek, and Owsley, Perry, and Wolfe Counties the basin (North Fork Kentucky River) Raccoon Creek (Branson and Batch (Thomas 2008, pp. 3–6; Service and moving downstream. In this 1972, pp. 507–514; Branson and Batch unpublished data). Populations in nine proposed rule, the term ‘‘population’’ is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP08OC15.001 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60967

used in a geographical context and not the relative status of populations of 83 abundance since the historical in a genetic context, and is defined as streams (74 historical and 9 non- collection, or (3) no evidence of all individuals of the species living in historical discovered or established relatively recent recruitment (since one stream. Using the term in this way since 2006) included in Table 1. The 2006) has been documented. The status allows the status, trends, and threats to status of a population is considered of a population is considered be discussed comparatively across ‘‘stable’’ if: (1) There is little evidence of ‘‘extirpated’’ if: (1) All known suitable streams where the species occurs. In significant habitat loss or degradation, habitat has been destroyed or severely using this term, we do not imply that (2) darter abundance has remained degraded; (2) no live individuals have the populations are currently relatively constant or increased during been observed since 2006; or (3) live reproducing and recruiting or that they recent surveys, or (3) evidence of individuals have been observed since relatively recent recruitment has been are distinct genetic units. We 2006, but habitat conditions do not documented since 2006. The status of a considered populations of the Kentucky appear to be suitable for reproduction to arrow darter as extant if live specimens population is considered ‘‘vulnerable’’ occur (e.g., elevated conductivity, have been observed or collected since if: (1) There is ample evidence of siltation) and there is supporting 2006, and suitable habitat is present. significant habitat loss or degradation We are using the following since the species’ original capture, (2) evidence that the observed individuals generalized sets of criteria to categorize there is an obvious decreasing trend in are transients from another stream.

TABLE 1—KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL (74) OR RECENT OCCURRENCE 1 (9; NOTED IN BOLD) IN THE UPPER KENTUCKY RIVER BASIN

1 Current Date of last Sub-basin Sub-basin tributaries Stream County status observation

North Fork ...... Lotts Creek ...... Lotts Creek ...... Perry ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Left Fork ...... Knott ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Troublesome Creek ...... Perry ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Mill Creek ...... Knott ...... Extirpated ...... 1995 Laurel Fork (of Balls Fork) ...... Knott ...... Extirpated ...... 1995 Buckhorn Creek (Prince Fork) ...... Knott ...... Vulnerable ...... 2011 Eli Fork 1 ...... Knott ...... Vulnerable ...... 2011 Boughcamp Branch ...... Knott ...... Extirpated ...... 2011 Coles Fork ...... Breathitt, Knott ...... Stable ...... 2011 Snag Ridge Fork ...... Knott ...... Stable ...... 2008 Clemons Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Stable ...... 2013 Millseat Branch ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1976 Lewis Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1959 Long Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1959 Bear Branch ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 2015 Laurel Fork (of Buckhorn) ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1976 Lost Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1997 Quicksand Creek ..... Laurel Fork ...... Knott ...... Stable ...... 2014 Baker Branch ...... Knott ...... Extirpated ...... 1994 Middle Fork ...... Knott ...... Stable ...... 2013 Spring Fork 1 ...... Breathitt ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Wolf Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1995 Hunting Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Leatherwood Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1982 Bear Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1969 Smith Branch ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1995 Frozen Creek ...... Frozen Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Stable ...... 2013 Clear Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Vulnerable ...... 2008 Negro Branch ...... Breathitt ...... Vulnerable ...... 2008 Davis Creek ...... Breathitt ...... Vulnerable ...... 2008 Cope Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1995 Boone Fork ...... Breathitt ...... Extirpated ...... 1998 Holly Creek ...... Holly Creek ...... Wolfe ...... Vulnerable ...... 2007 Lower Devil Creek ... Lower Devil Creek ...... Lee, Wolfe ...... Extirpated ...... 1998 Little Fork 1 ...... Lee, Wolfe ...... Vulnerable ...... 2011 Walker Creek ...... Walker Creek ...... Lee, Wolfe ...... Stable ...... 2013 Hell Creek ...... Hell Creek ...... Lee ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Middle Fork ...... Greasy Creek ...... Big Laurel Creek ...... Harlan ...... Vulnerable ...... 2009 Greasy Creek ...... Leslie ...... Extirpated ...... 1970 Cutshin Creek ...... Cutshin Creek ...... Leslie ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Middle Fork ...... Middle Fork ...... Leslie ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Rockhouse Creek .... Laurel Creek 1 ...... Leslie ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Hell For Certain Hell For Certain Creek ...... Leslie ...... Stable ...... 2013 Creek. Squabble Creek ...... Squabble Creek ...... Perry ...... Vulnerable ...... 2015 South Fork ...... Red Bird River ...... Blue Hole Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2008 Upper Bear Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2013 Katies Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2007 Spring Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2007 Bowen Creek ...... Leslie ...... Stable ...... 2009

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60968 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL (74) OR RECENT OCCURRENCE 1 (9; NOTED IN BOLD) IN THE UPPER KENTUCKY RIVER BASIN—Continued

1 Current Date of last Sub-basin Sub-basin tributaries Stream County status observation

Elisha Creek ...... Leslie ...... Stable ...... 2014 Gilberts Big Creek ...... Clay, Leslie ...... Stable ...... 2013 Sugar Creek 1 ...... Clay, Leslie ...... Stable ...... 2008 Big Double Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2014 Little Double Creek ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2008 Big Creek ...... Clay ...... Extirpated ...... 1890 Jacks Creek ...... Clay ...... Vulnerable ...... 2009 Hector Branch ...... Clay ...... Extirpated ...... 2015 Long Fork (of Hector Br.) 1 ...... Clay ...... Stable ...... 2014 Goose Creek ...... Horse Creek ...... Clay ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Laurel Creek ...... Clay ...... Extirpated ...... 1970 Bullskin Creek ...... Bullskin Creek ...... Clay, Leslie ...... Vulnerable ...... 2014 Buffalo Creek ...... Laurel Fork ...... Owsley ...... Stable ...... 2014 Cortland Fork 1 ...... Owsley ...... Vulnerable ...... 2014 Lucky Fork ...... Owsley ...... Stable ...... 2014 Left Fork ...... Owsley ...... Stable ...... 2014 Right Fork ...... Owsley ...... Vulnerable ...... 2009 Buffalo Creek ...... Owsley ...... Vulnerable ...... 1969 Sexton Creek ...... Bray Creek ...... Clay ...... Extirpated ...... 1997 Robinsons Creek ...... Clay ...... Extirpated ...... 1997 Sexton Creek ...... Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1978 Lower Island Creek .. Lower Island Creek ...... Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1997 Cow Creek ...... Right Fork Cow Creek ...... Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1997 Buck Creek ...... Buck Creek ...... Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1978 Lower Buffalo Creek Lower Buffalo Creek ...... Lee, Owsley ...... Vulnerable ...... 2007 Silver Creek ...... Lee ...... Vulnerable ...... 2008 Sturgeon Creek ...... Travis Creek 1 ...... Jackson ...... Vulnerable ...... 2008 Brushy Creek ...... Jackson, Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1996 Little Sturgeon Creek ...... Owsley ...... Extirpated ...... 1996 Wild Dog Creek ...... Jackson, Owsley ...... Stable ...... 2007 Granny Dismal Creek 1 ...... Lee, Owsley ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 Cooperas Cave Branch ...... Lee ...... Extirpated ...... 1996 Sturgeon Creek ...... Lee ...... Extirpated ...... 1998 Red River ...... Swift Camp Creek .... Rockbridge Fork ...... Wolfe ...... Vulnerable ...... 2013 1 Non-historical occurrence discovered or established since 2006.

From 2007–2012, the Service, KSNPC, randomly chosen sites within the few individuals observed in Bear and KDFWR conducted a status review species’ historical range (Service Branch were transients originating from for the Kentucky arrow darter (Thomas unpublished data). Kentucky arrow Clemons Fork. 2008, pp. 1–33; Service 2012, pp. 1–4). darters were observed at only seven Based on historical records and Surveys were conducted qualitatively sites, including two new localities survey data collected at over 200 sites using single-pass electrofishing (Granny Dismal Creek in Owsley County since 2006, the Kentucky arrow darter techniques (Smith-Root backpack and Spring Fork Quicksand Creek in has declined significantly rangewide electrofishing unit) within an Breathitt County) and one historical and has been eliminated from large approximate 100-m (328-ft) reach. stream (Hunting Creek, Breathitt portions of its former range, including During these efforts, fish surveys were County) where the species was not conducted at 69 of 74 historical streams, observed during status surveys by 36 of 74 historical streams (Figure 2) 103 of 119 historical sites, and 40 new Thomas (2008, pp. 1–33) and Service and large portions of the basin that (non-historical) sites (sites correspond (2012, pp. 1–4). would have been occupied historically to individual sampling reaches and During 2014–2015, additional by the species (Figure 3). Forty-four more than one may be present on a qualitative surveys (single-pass percent of the species’ extirpations (16 given stream). Kentucky arrow darters electrofishing) were completed at over streams) have occurred since the mid- were observed at 36 of 69 historical 20 sites within the basin. Kentucky 1990s, and the species has disappeared streams (52 percent), 53 of 103 historical arrow darters were observed in Bear completely from several watersheds sites (52 percent), and 4 of 40 new sites Branch, Big Double Creek, Big Laurel (e.g., Sexton Creek, South Fork (10 percent). New sites were specifically Creek, Bullskin Creek, Clemons Fork, Quicksand Creek, Troublesome Creek selected based on habitat suitability and Coles Fork, Cortland Fork, Laurel Fork headwaters). Of the species’ 47 extant the availability of previous collection Buffalo Creek, and Squabble Creek. streams, we consider half of these records (sites lacking previous Based on the poor habitat conditions populations (23) to be ‘‘vulnerable’’ collections were chosen). observed in Bear Branch (e.g., elevated (Table 1), and most remaining From June to September 2013, KSNPC conductivity, siltation, and embedded populations are isolated and restricted and the Service initiated a study that substrates) and its close proximity to to short stream reaches. included quantitative surveys at 80 Robinson Forest, we suspect that the BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60969

Map Location

Middle Fork Kentucky

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers j

Figure 2. A summary of Kentucky arrow darter survey results at all historical sites visited between 2007 and 2015. Circles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was observed. Triangles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was not observed. Black lines indicate sub-basin boundaries; grey lines indicate 4th to 6th order streams.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP08OC15.002 60970 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Map Location

Sturgeon Creek

Fork Kentucky South Fork Kentucky Middle Fork Kentucky

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers j

Figure 3. A summary ofKentucky arrow darter survey results at all sites visited between 2007 and 2014. Circles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was observed. Triangles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was not observed. Black lines indicate sub-basin boundaries; grey lines indicate 4th to 6th order streams.

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C smaller watersheds and streams are near Pine Mountain and flows generally A synopsis of the Kentucky arrow addressed in a hierarchical fashion northwest for approximately 270 km darter’s current range and status is (follows the order used in Table 1). (168 mi) to its confluence with the provided below and is arranged by sub- South Fork Kentucky River. Its North Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin basin, starting at the southeastern border watershed encompasses approximately (upstream end) of the basin and moving The North Fork Kentucky River arises 4,877 km2 (1,883 mi2) in portions of downstream. Within each sub-basin, in eastern Letcher County, Kentucky, Breathitt, Knott, Lee, Letcher, Perry, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP08OC15.003 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60971

Wolfe counties. The Kentucky arrow occupied reaches. A small population unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 5) darter was known historically from 33 continues to persist (and reproduce) revisited these sites in 2007 and 2008, streams in this sub-basin; we now within the Buckhorn Creek headwaters and determined that the species was consider the species to be extant in 17 (Prince Fork and Eli Fork), but these extant in four streams: Frozen Creek, streams (Thomas 2008, pp. 5–6; KSNPC watersheds are isolated from Clear Fork, Negro Branch, and Davis unpublished data; Service unpublished downstream populations due to severely Creek. The most individuals were data). degraded habitat and water quality observed in Frozen Creek, which also Lotts Creek—Lotts Creek is a tributary conditions in the Buckhorn Creek contained the most favorable habitat of the North Fork Kentucky River that mainstem and adjacent tributaries conditions for the species. The species flows westerly through east-central (Appalachian Technical Services (ATS) was less abundant in Clear Fork, Negro Perry County and southwestern Knott 2011, pp. 1–17). Surface coal mining has Branch, and Davis Creek, and habitat County. The Kentucky arrow darter was been practiced extensively within the conditions were marginal (e.g., first reported from Lotts Creek by Troublesome Creek watershed, and extensive bedrock areas, substrates Woolman (1892, pp. 275–281), who these activities continue to occur. A covered by thick layer of algae). Thomas described it as uncommon in the stream. 10.9-km (6.8-mi) reach of Buckhorn (2008, pp. 5, 31–32) did not observe the No additional records are available from Creek has been placed on Kentucky’s species in Cope Fork or Boone Fork, the Lotts Creek watershed, and our most 303(d) list of impaired waters due to both of which exhibited poor habitat recent survey (2009) was also siltation and elevated levels of total and water quality conditions (e.g., unsuccessful (Service 2012, pp. 1–4). dissolved solids (KDOW 2013a, p. 341) siltation, elevated conductivity). Based on the stream’s poor habitat and reported to the Environmental Sedimentation continues to be a conditions (e.g., conductivity greater Protection Agency pursuant to section problem in the Frozen Creek watershed than 1,000 micro Siemens (mS)/cm, 303 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (33 (KDOW 2013a, p. 329), and a 3.1-km embedded substrates) and the lack of U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (1.9-mi) reach of Cope Fork has been species records over the last 125 years Quicksand Creek—Quicksand Creek placed on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of (Service 2012, pp. 1–4), we do not is a tributary of the North Fork impaired waters due to elevated levels consider the species to be extant within Kentucky River that drains portions of of total dissolved solids (e.g., elevated the Lotts Creek watershed. Breathitt and Knott Counties. The conductivity) (KDOW 2013a, p. 345). Troublesome Creek—Troublesome Kentucky arrow darter was known from Holly Creek—Holly Creek is a Creek is a tributary of the North Fork nine historical streams in the watershed tributary of the North Fork Kentucky Kentucky River draining portions of (Table 1) (Harker et al. 1979, pp. 576– River in southern Wolfe County. Breathitt, Knott, and Perry Counties. 590; KSNPC unpublished data). The Kentucky arrow darters were first Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter species has been extirpated from five of observed in Holly Creek (one was known from 16 streams in the these streams (e.g., Leatherwood Creek), individual) in 1998 (Kornman 1999, pp. Troublesome Creek watershed (Table 1) but extant populations remain in Laurel 118–133). Thomas (2008, p. 5) revisited (Woolman 1892, pp. 275–281; Kuehne Fork, Middle Fork, Spring Fork, and the historical site in 2007, and observed and Bailey 1961, pp. 3–4; Kuehne 1962, Hunting Creek. Laurel Fork and Middle two individuals. Despite the species’ pp. 608–614; Harker et al. 1979, pp. Fork support the best remaining presence, habitat conditions in portions 523–761; Measel 1997, pp. 8–11, 59; populations. Both of these watersheds of the watershed continue to be poor, KSNPC unpublished data). The species are sparsely populated and forested, and a 10-km (6.2-mi) reach (RM 0–6.2) has been eliminated from the upper with favorable water quality and habitat of Holly Creek has been placed on reaches of Troublesome Creek, portions conditions for the species. The small Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired of the Buckhorn Creek watershed, and Spring Fork population was discovered streams due to sedimentation from Lost Creek, but populations continue to in 2013, and appears to be limited to an agriculture, stream bank modification, occur in the upper Buckhorn Creek approximate 1.6-km (1-mi) headwater and riparian habitat loss (KDOW 2013a, watershed, specifically Clemons Fork, reach. Habitat conditions in Spring Fork p. 351). Based on these factors and the Coles Fork, Snag Ridge Fork, Buckhorn are marginal for the species (e.g., heavy population’s apparent small size, we Creek (headwaters, including Prince siltation, bank erosion), and instream consider the Holly Creek population to Fork), and Eli Fork (of Boughcamp conductivity is elevated (334 mS/cm). be vulnerable to extirpation. Branch). The best remaining The species was first observed in Lower Devil Creek—Lower Devil populations occur in Clemons Fork and Hunting Creek in July 1995 (six Creek is a direct tributary of the North Coles Fork, both tributaries of Buckhorn individuals observed), but the species Fork Kentucky River in southern Wolfe Creek that are located on Robinson was not observed during surveys by County. The Kentucky arrow darter was Forest, a 59.9-km2 (14,800-acre (ac)) KDFWR in May 2007 (Thomas 2008, p. first reported from Lower Devil Creek by experimental forest owned and managed 5). Surveys by the Service in September Kornman (1999, pp. 118–133), who by the University of Kentucky (UK). 2013 produced four individuals, but collected one individual in 1998. The These watersheds are intact and densely habitat conditions continue to be species was not observed during forested, with only minor interruption marginal for the species. Based on these subsequent surveys in 2007 and 2011 by logging roads. Both streams are factors, we consider the Hunting Creek (Thomas 2008, pp. 5; Service moderate- to high-gradient, cool, and population to be vulnerable to unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 5) dominated by cobble, boulder, and extirpation. reported a new record for the watershed bedrock substrates. The species has Frozen Creek—Frozen Creek is a based on the collection of one specimen been extirpated from most downstream tributary of the North Fork Kentucky from Little Fork, a tributary to Lower tributaries of Buckhorn Creek (e.g., Long River in northern Breathitt County. The Devil Creek. We observed an additional Fork) and most of the Buckhorn Creek Kentucky arrow darter was known specimen during surveys in 2011. We mainstem; however, individuals are historically from six streams in the consider the Little Fork population to be sometimes observed in these tributaries Frozen Creek watershed: Frozen Creek vulnerable to extirpation due to its (e.g., Bear Branch, Boughcamp Branch) (headwaters), Clear Fork, Negro Branch, apparent small population size and the or the Buckhorn Creek mainstem where Davis Creek, Cope Fork, and Boone Fork stream’s elevated conductivity these habitats are located close to (Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; KSNPC (approximately 400 mS/cm).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60972 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Walker Creek—Walker Creek is a mainstem, but a small population in northwestern Perry County. Squabble direct tributary of the North Fork remains in Big Laurel Creek based on Creek enters the Middle Fork just Kentucky River in eastern Lee County. collections completed in 2009 (Service downstream of Buckhorn Lake Dam in First discovered in 1996 (KSNPC 2012, pp. 1–4). We consider the Big the community of Buckhorn. Kentucky unpublished data), this population Laurel Creek population to be arrow darters were first reported from continues to be relatively robust. The vulnerable to extirpation due to Squabble Creek in 1996, when KSNPC species was observed at all historical sedimentation, channel instability, and biologists observed one individual from sites and one new site during surveys elevated conductivity. a small bedrock pool in the headwaters completed in 2008 and 2013 (KSNPC Cutshin Creek—Cutshin Creek is a (KSNPC unpublished data). Thomas and Service unpublished data). tributary of the Middle Fork Kentucky (2008, p. 25) resurveyed the historical Conductivity values continue to be high River draining southeastern Leslie collection site in 2008 but did not in downstream reaches (approximately County. The species was first reported observe the species. Thomas (2008, p. 400 mS/cm), but these conditions do not from Cutshin Creek by Woolman (1892, 25) noted that sedimentation was appear to have reduced Kentucky arrow pp. 275–281), who observed the species ‘‘heavy’’ in the stream. We observed darter numbers. Historical land use 4.8 km (3 mi) upstream of the Cutshin similar habitat conditions during recent within the Walker Creek watershed was Creek and Middle Fork confluence. surveys of Squabble Creek in February dominated by oil and gas development/ Branson and Batch (1984, pp. 4–8) made 2015, but two juvenile Kentucky arrow drilling, which may explain the elevated the only other observation of the species darters were observed near the historical conductivity values observed during in Cutshin Creek. They collected one collection site. Conductivity levels recent surveys. specimen at the KY 80 crossing in June continue to be relatively low in the Hell Creek—Hell Creek is a direct 1973. The species has not been observed headwaters (130 mS/cm), but siltation/ tributary of the North Fork Kentucky in Cutshin Creek since that time. sedimentation remains a concern and River in eastern Lee County. The species Middle Fork—Woolman (1892, pp. residential land use continues to be was first observed in Hell Creek (two 275–281) observed the species in the extensive in the downstream half of the individuals) in August 1995 (KSNPC Middle Fork mainstem during surveys watershed. About 10 percent of the unpublished data), followed by completed 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Hyden watershed is in Federal ownership observations by Kornman (1999, pp. in August 1890. The species has not (DBNF). Sedimentation and total 118–133) in 1998 (two individuals) and been observed in the Middle Fork since dissolved solids have been identified as Thomas (2008, p. 5) in 2007 (seven that time. Based on the size of the problems within Squabble Creek, as individuals). Surveys by KDFWR in July Middle Fork at this location (fourth- or evidenced by the stream’s placement on 2014 suggest a possible decline of the fifth-order), it is likely that the Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired population in Hell Creek (Thomas 2014, specimen(s) observed by Woolman waters (KDOW 2013a, p. 368). pers. comm.). Kentucky arrow darters originated from a nearby tributary such appeared to be less abundant (only two as Hell For Certain Creek. South Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin individuals observed despite exhaustive Rockhouse Creek—Rockhouse Creek The South Fork Kentucky River is searches), and habitat conditions within is a tributary of Middle Fork Kentucky formed by the confluence of Goose Hell Creek had deteriorated (siltation River in central Leslie County. In March Creek and the Red Bird River in was prominent) compared to previous 2013, biologists with KDFWR and DBNF northern Clay County, Kentucky, and surveys (Thomas 2014, pers. comm.). discovered an unknown population of flows north for approximately 72 km (45 Kentucky arrow darter in Laurel Creek, mi) to its confluence with the North Middle Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin a second-order tributary of Rockhouse Fork Kentucky River. Its watershed The Middle Fork Kentucky River Creek (Thomas 2013, pers. comm.). One encompasses approximately 1,937 km2 arises in southern Leslie County, individual was found in Laurel Creek (748 mi2) in portions of Bell, Clay, Kentucky, near Pine Mountain and after surveys in three separate reaches Jackson, Knox, Lee, Leslie, and Owsley flows generally north for approximately (over 4,000 shocking seconds). Laurel counties. Historically, the Kentucky 169 km (105 mi) to its confluence with Fork is situated at the western edge of arrow darter was known from 28 the North Fork Kentucky River. Its the Middle Fork sub-basin, and about 90 streams in this sub-basin. The species watershed encompasses approximately percent of its watershed is located has been extirpated from several 1,448 km2 (559 mi2) in portions of within the DBNF (Redbird Ranger watersheds (total of 9 streams) and is Breathitt, Harlan, Lee, Leslie, and Perry District). now considered to be extant in 20 counties. The Kentucky arrow darter Hell For Certain Creek—Hell For streams (Thomas 2008, p. 4; KSNPC and was formerly known from seven widely Certain Creek is a direct, second-order Service unpublished data). scattered stream segments in the sub- tributary to the Middle Fork Kentucky Red Bird River—The Red Bird River is basin. We now consider the species to River in northern Leslie County a tributary of the South Fork Kentucky be extant in four of these streams (upstream of Buckhorn Lake). Kentucky River that flows northerly through (Thomas 2008, pp. 4–5; Service arrow darters were first recorded from portions of Bell, Clay, and Leslie unpublished data). Hell For Certain Creek in 1994 (KSNPC Counties. Historically, Kentucky arrow Greasy Creek—Greasy Creek is a unpublished data), and subsequent darters were known from 12 streams tributary of the Middle Fork Kentucky surveys in 2011 and 2013 produced within the watershed (Woolman 1892, River that drains southern Leslie county additional specimens (Service pp. 275–281; Branson and Batch 1983, and a small portion of northern Harlan unpublished data). The Hell For Certain pp. 2–13; KSNPC and Service County. The Kentucky arrow darter is Creek population appears to be at least unpublished data). The species has been known from two historical streams moderately robust, and water quality extirpated from two streams, Big Creek within the watershed—Greasy Creek and habitat conditions are favorable for and Hector Branch, but the Red Bird and Big Laurel Creek, a direct tributary the species. About 50 percent of the Hell River watershed continues to support of Greasy Creek (Branson and Batch For Certain Creek watershed is in public the largest concentration of occupied 1984, pp. 4–8; KSNPC unpublished ownership (DBNF). streams and some of the species’ best data). The species is presumed Squabble Creek—Squabble Creek is a remaining populations. We have recent extirpated from the Greasy Creek tributary to Middle Fork Kentucky River records from Blue Hole Creek, Upper

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60973

Bear Creek, Katies Creek, Spring Creek, Sexton Creek—Sexton Creek is a Buffalo Creek population to be Bowen Creek, Elisha Creek, Gilberts Big tributary to the South Fork Kentucky vulnerable to extirpation. Creek, Sugar Creek, Big Double Creek, River that drains portions of Clay, Silver Creek Sub-Basin Little Double Creek, Jacks Creek, and Jackson, and Owsley Counties. Long Fork (of Hector Branch). Public Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter Silver Creek is a tributary to the ownership in these watersheds is was reported from Bray Creek, Kentucky River that drains extensive (Redbird Ranger District of Robinsons Creek, and the Sexton Creek approximately 8.5 km2 (3.3 mi2) in DBNF), and the streams generally have mainstem (Branson and Batch 1983, pp. central Lee County, Kentucky. The intact riparian zones with little or no 1–15; KSNPC unpublished data). The Kentucky arrow darter was first anthropogenic disturbance, cool species has not been observed in the recorded from Silver Creek in 1996, temperatures, low conductivity (near Sexton Creek watershed since 1997, and when KSNPC observed 10 individuals baseline conditions of less than 100 mS/ now appears to be extirpated. (2 age classes) near the city limits of cm), and stable channels with clean Lower Island Creek—Lower Island Beattyville (KSNPC unpublished data). cobble/boulder substrates. The presence Creek is a tributary to the South Fork Thomas (2008, p. 31) surveyed the of the species in Long Fork (of Hector Kentucky River that drains historical site again in May 2008, and Branch) is the result of a reintroduction southwestern Owsley County. The observed one specimen. A small effort by KDFWR and Conservation Kentucky arrow darter was first reported population appears to be extant in Fisheries, Inc. (CFI), of Knoxville, from Lower Island Creek in 1997 Silver Creek, but we consider this Tennessee (Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). (KSNPC unpublished data), but repeated population to be vulnerable to Goose Creek—Goose Creek is a surveys in the watershed have failed to extirpation. tributary of the South Fork Kentucky produce additional specimens (Thomas Sturgeon Creek Sub-Basin 2008, p. 27; Service unpublished data). River that drains portions of southern Sturgeon Creek is a tributary to the and western Clay County and The species is now considered to be extirpated from the Lower Island Creek Kentucky River that flows northerly northeastern Knox County. Goose Creek through Jackson, Lee, and Owsley flows northerly through these counties, watershed. Cow Creek—Cow Creek is a tributary Counties, draining approximately 287 joining with the Red Bird River at to the South Fork Kentucky River that km2 (111 mi2). The Kentucky arrow Oneida to create the South Fork drains eastern Owsley County. The darter was known historically from five Kentucky River. The Kentucky arrow Kentucky arrow darter was first reported streams within this sub-basin: Brushy darter was known historically from two from the watershed in June 1993, when Creek, Cooperas Cave Branch, Little Goose Creek tributaries: Horse Creek Burr and Cook (1993, pp. 55–56) Sturgeon Creek, Sturgeon Creek and Laurel Creek (Branson and Batch observed two specimens in the (mainstem), and Wild Dog Creek (Harker 1983, pp. 1–15). A small population headwaters of Right Fork Cow Creek et al. 1979, pp. 607–623; Ray and Ceas continues to exist in Horse Creek, but near the community of Arnett. KSNPC 2003, pp. 12–13; KSNPC unpublished the species has not been observed in surveyed the historical site again in data). We now consider the species to be Laurel Creek since 1970 (Service 1997, and observed one individual extant in one historical stream, Wild unpublished data). Habitat conditions in (KSNPC unpublished data). Surveys by Dog Creek, and two recently both streams are marginal to poor the Service in 2009 and 2011 did not documented streams, Granny Dismal (Thomas 2008, p. 4), and both streams produce additional specimens (Service Creek and Travis Creek (KSNPC and have been placed on Kentucky’s 303(d) 2012, pp. 1–4). The species is now Service unpublished data). Wild Dog list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a, considered to be extirpated from the Creek appears to support the most pp. 352–353). Cow Creek watershed. robust population within this sub-basin. Bullskin Creek—Bullskin Creek is a Buck Creek—Buck Creek is a tributary tributary to the South Fork Kentucky to the South Fork Kentucky River in Red River Sub-Basin River that drains eastern Clay County. northern Owsley County. The species The Red River is a tributary of the The Kentucky arrow darter was first was first reported from the Buck Creek Kentucky River that arises in eastern reported from Bullskin Creek in August watershed by Harker et al. (1979, pp. Wolfe County, Kentucky, and flows 1998, when Stephens (1999, pp. 159– 656–671), who observed one individual generally west for approximately 156 174) collected one individual. in October 1978. Additional surveys km (97 mi) through portions of Clark, Additional specimens were observed by were completed in May 2008 and June Estill, Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe KDFWR and the Service in 2007 and 2011, but the species was not observed Counties. The Red River watershed 2014, respectively (Thomas 2008, p. 27; (Service 2012, pp. 1–4). Based on our encompasses approximately 1,261 km2 Service unpublished data). recent surveys, habitat conditions (487 mi2). The Kentucky arrow darter Buffalo Creek—Buffalo Creek is a appear to be unfavorable for the species was not observed within the sub-basin tributary to the South Fork Kentucky (e.g., conductivity greater than 400 mS/ until 1980, when one individual was River that drains southeastern Owsley cm). collected from the Swift Camp Creek County. Since 1969, the Kentucky arrow Lower Buffalo Creek—Lower Buffalo watershed in Wolfe County (Greenberg darter has been reported from multiple Creek is a tributary to the South Fork and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37). stream reaches in both the Left and Kentucky River in Lee and Owsley Swift Camp Creek—Swift Camp Creek Right Forks (Branson and Batch 1983, Counties. The Kentucky arrow darter is a tributary to the Red River that flows pp. 1–15; KSNPC and Service was first reported from Lower Buffalo northerly through northwestern Wolfe unpublished data). The species Creek by Stephens (1999, pp. 159–174), County. The Kentucky arrow darter was continues to be extant in both forks, and who observed one individual in August known historically from only one Swift the upstream reaches of the Left Fork 1998. Thomas (2008, p. 4) observed Camp Creek tributary: Rockbridge Fork (Laurel Fork, Cortland Fork, and Lucky three individuals in May 2007, but (Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37). Fork) appear to be the species’ described the habitat conditions as poor, Additional surveys by KDFWR and the stronghold within the watershed. Public with heavy siltation and eutrophication. Service in 1998, 2007, 2011, and 2013 ownership (DBNF) is extensive within Based on observations made by Thomas demonstrate that the species continues the drainage. (2008, p. 4), we consider the Lower to occur in Rockbridge Fork (Kornman

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1985, p. 28; Thomas 2008, p. 4; Service arrow darter appear to be located in the affecting its continued existence. Listing unpublished data). Despite its location following streams: actions may be warranted based on any in the DBNF, bank erosion and siltation • Hell For Certain Creek, Leslie of the above threat factors, singly or in continue to be problematic in the County; combination. watershed (Thomas 2008, p. 4). • Laurel and Middle Forks of Quicksand Creek, Knott County; Factor A: The Present or Threatened Our recent survey data (Thomas 2008, • Frozen and Walker Creeks, Breathitt Destruction, Modification, or pp. 25–27; Service 2012, pp. 1–4) and Lee Counties; Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range indicate that Kentucky arrow darters • Clemons Fork and Coles Fork, occur in low densities. Sampling The Kentucky arrow darter’s habitat Breathitt and Knott Counties; and range have been destroyed, reaches where arrow darters were • Several direct tributaries (e.g., observed had an average of only 3 modified, and curtailed due to a variety Bowen Creek, Elisha Creek, and Big of anthropogenic activities in the upper individuals per 100-m (328-ft) reach and Double Creek) of the Red Bird River, a median of 2 individuals per reach Kentucky River drainage. Resource Clay and Leslie Counties; and extraction (e.g., coal mining, logging, (range of 1 to 10 individuals). Surveys • Wild Dog Creek, Jackson and oil/gas well development), land in 2011 by the DBNF from Laurel Fork Owsley Counties. and Cortland Branch of Left Fork The Kentucky arrow darter is development, agricultural activities, and Buffalo Creek (South Fork Kentucky considered ‘‘threatened’’ by the State of inadequate sewage treatment have all River sub-basin) produced slightly Kentucky and has been ranked by contributed to the degradation of higher capture rates (an average of 5 KSNPC as a G2G3/S2S3 species streams within the range of the species darters per 100-m (328-ft) sampling (imperiled or vulnerable globally and (Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 513–516; reach) (Mulhall 2014, pers. comm.). The imperiled or vulnerable within the Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 82–83; low abundance values (compared to State) (KSNPC 2014, p. 40). Kentucky’s Thomas 2008, pp. 6–7; KDOW 2010, pp. other darters) are not surprising since Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 70–84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337– Kentucky arrow darters generally occur Strategy (KDFWR 2013, pp. 9–11) 376; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). These in low densities, even in those streams identified the Kentucky arrow darter as land use activities have led to chemical where disturbance has been minimal a Species of Greatest Conservation Need and physical changes to stream habitats (Thomas 2015b, pers. comm.). (rare or declining species that requires that have adversely affected the species. Specific stressors have included inputs Detailed information on population conservation actions to improve its status). of dissolved solids and elevation of size is generally lacking for the species, instream conductivity, sedimentation/ but estimates have been completed for Summary of Factors Affecting the siltation of stream substrates (excess three streams: Clemons Fork (Breathitt Species sediments deposited in a stream), County), Elisha Creek (Clay and Leslie Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), turbidity, inputs of nutrients and Counties), and Gilberts Big Creek (Clay and its implementing regulations at 50 organic enrichment, and elevation of and Leslie Counties) (Service CFR part 424, set forth the procedures stream temperatures (KDOW 2010, p. unpublished data). Based on field for adding species to the Federal Lists 84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337– surveys completed in 2013 by EKU, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 376). KDOW (2013a, pp. 337–376) KSNPC, and the Service, population and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the provided a summary of specific threats estimates included 986–2,113 Act, we may list a species based on (A) within the upper Kentucky River individuals (Clemons Fork), 592–1,429 The present or threatened destruction, drainage, identifying impaired reaches individuals (Elisha Creek), and 175–358 modification, or curtailment of its in 21 streams within the Kentucky individuals (Gilberts Big Creek) (ranges habitat or range; (B) overutilization for arrow darter’s historical range (Table 2). reflect 95 percent confidence intervals). commercial, recreational, scientific, or Six of these streams continue to support Based on observed catch rates and educational purposes; (C) disease or populations of the species, but only one habitat conditions throughout the upper predation; (D) the inadequacy of of these populations (Frozen Creek) is Kentucky River basin, the most stable existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) considered to be stable (see Table 1, and largest populations of the Kentucky other natural or manmade factors above).

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 303(D) LISTED STREAM SEGMENTS WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER [KDOW 2013a, pp. 337–376]

Impacted stream Stream County segment Pollutant source Pollutant (km (mi))

Buckhorn Creek ...... Breathitt ...... 0–6.8 Abandoned Mine Lands, Unknown Fecal Coliform (FC), Sediment/Sil- Sources. tation, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Cope Fork (of Frozen Creek) Breathitt ...... 0–1.9 Channelization, Riparian Habitat Sediment/Siltation, TDS. Loss, Logging, Agriculture, Stream Bank Modification, Sur- face Coal Mining. Cutshin Creek...... Leslie ...... 9.7–10.7 Riparian Habitat Loss, Stream Sediment/Siltation. Bank Modification, Surface Coal Mining. Frozen Creek * ...... Breathitt ...... 0–13.9 Riparian Habitat Loss, Post-Devel- Sediment/Siltation. opment Erosion and Sedimenta- tion. Goose Creek ...... Clay ...... 0–8.3 Septic Systems ...... FC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60975

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 303(D) LISTED STREAM SEGMENTS WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER—Continued [KDOW 2013a, pp. 337–376]

Impacted stream Stream County segment Pollutant source Pollutant (km (mi))

Hector Branch ...... Clay ...... 0–5.5 Unknown ...... Unknown. Holly Creek* ...... Wolfe ...... 0–6.2 Agriculture, Riparian Habitat Loss, Sediment/Siltation, Unknown. Stream Bank Modification, Sur- face Coal Mining. Horse Creek* ...... Clay ...... 0–8.3 Riparian Habitat Loss, Managed Sediment/Siltation. Pasture Grazing, Surface Coal Mining. Laurel Creek ...... Clay ...... 3.8–4.8 Managed Pasture Grazing, Crop Nutrients/Eutrophication. Production. Left Fork Island Creek ...... Owsley ...... 0–5.0 Crop Production ...... Sediment/Siltation. Long Fork ...... Breathitt ...... 0–4.6 Surface Coal Mining ...... Sediment/Siltation, TDS. Lost Creek...... Breathitt ...... 0–8.9 Coal Mining, Riparian Habitat Fecal Coliform, Sedimentation, Loss, Logging, Stream Bank Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity. Modification. Lotts Creek ...... Perry ...... 0.4–1.0, 1.2–6 Riparian Habitat Loss, Land De- Sediment/Siltation, TDS, Turbidity. velopment, Surface Coal Mining, Logging, Stream Bank Modifica- tion. Quicksand Creek...... Breathitt ...... 0–17.0, 21.7–30.8 Surface Coal Mining, Riparian FC, Turbidity, Sediment/Siltation, Habitat Loss, Logging, Stream TDS. Bank Modification. Sexton Creek ...... Clay, Owsley .... 0–17.2 Crop Production, Highway/Road/ Sediment/Siltation, TDS. Bridge Runoff. South Fork Quicksand Creek Breathitt ...... 0–16.9 Riparian Habitat Loss, Petroleum/ Sediment/Siltation, TDS. Natural Gas Production Activi- ties, Surface Coal Mining. Spring Fork (Quicksand Breathitt ...... 3.1–6.9 Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive), Sediment/Siltation, TDS, Turbidity. Creek) *. Riparian Habitat Loss, Logging, Stream Bank Modification. Squabble Creek* ...... Perry ...... 0–4.7 Land Development, Surface Coal Sediment/Siltation, TDS. Mining. Sturgeon Creek ...... Lee ...... 8.0–12.2 Riparian Habitat Loss, Crop Pro- Sediment/Siltation. duction, Surface Coal Mining. Swift Camp Creek ...... Wolfe ...... 0–13.9 Unknown ...... Unknown. Troublesome Creek...... Breathitt ...... 0–45.1 Surface Coal Mining, Municipal Sediment/Siltation, Specific Con- Point Source Discharges, Petro- ductance, TDS, Turbidity. leum/Natural Gas Activities. * Stream segment still occupied by Kentucky arrow darters.

Water Quality Degradation primary types: access road, loadout (Clay County), and Left Fork Buffalo (areas of coal storage, often located away Creek (Owsley County). A threat to the Kentucky arrow darter from the mine site), prep plant (facility Annual coal production in eastern is water quality degradation caused by that washes coal prior to transport by Kentucky (including counties in the a variety of nonpoint-source pollutants rail or truck), refuse facility (stores non- upper Kentucky River drainage) has (contaminants from many diffuse and coal rock, water, and slurry originating declined over the past 2 decades, but unquantifiable sources). Within the from an underground mine), surface, annual production in eastern Kentucky upper Kentucky River drainage, coal and underground. With respect to continues to be relatively high (over 37 mining has been the most significant permit type, the greatest number of million tons produced in 2014) (KEEC historical source of these pollutants, and permits was associated with surface 2014, pp. 1–5), recoverable reserves for it continues to be practiced throughout mines (64 permits), followed by the eastern Kentucky portion of the the drainage. As of January 2015, 318 Appalachian Basin are estimated at 5.8 underground (32), prep plant (20), mining permits were associated with billion tons (Milici and Dennen 2009, access road (13), refuse facility (5), and coal removal and production activities pp. 8–11), and the species’ distribution loadout (2). With respect to county within the upper Kentucky River continues to be fragmented and reduced drainage (Laird 2015, pers. comm.). Of distribution, Perry County had the most as a result of previous (legacy) mining these, 136 permits were associated with permits (59), followed by Leslie (28), activities within the drainage. active coal removal, encompassing a Breathitt (16), Knott (16), Clay (12), Consequently, the potential remains for combined area of 777 km2 (191,968 ac). Harlan (2), Owsley (2), and Jackson (1). Kentucky arrow darters to continue to The remaining 196 permits were No activity was reported for Lee or be adversely affected by water quality classified as temporarily inactive or Wolfe Counties. Six permits were degradation associated with surface coal were associated with some type of located in Kentucky arrow darter mining activities. reclamation activity. Permits associated watersheds: Buckhorn Creek (Breathitt With regard to specific pollutants, with active coal removal consisted of six and Knott Counties), Bullskin Creek activities associated with coal mining

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

have the potential to contribute high and determined that fish assemblages watersheds, Breathitt County. Six first- concentrations of dissolved salts, downstream of valley fills supported order watersheds, three in the metals, and other solids that (1) elevate about half the number of species found Leatherwood Creek watershed and three stream conductivity (a measure of at reference sites. Fulk et al. (2003, pp. in the Bear Branch watershed, were electrical conductance in the water 55–64) used the Stauffer and Ferreri investigated during the study, beginning column that increases as the (2002, pp. 11–21) data set to calculate in late summer 1967, prior to the onset concentration of dissolved solids bioassessment scores and reported of mining, and continuing until 1975. increases), (2) increase sulfates (a decreased richness of cyprinids One of the six small watersheds, Jenny common dissolved ion with empirical (minnows), decreased richness of Fork, was not mined and served as a ¥2 formula of SO4 ), and (3) cause wide invertivores (species that feed on control watershed. Water quality data fluctuations in stream pH (a measure of invertebrates), and increased from mined watersheds showed the acidity or alkalinity of water) (Curtis proportions of tolerant individuals in increases in conductivity, sulfate, 1973, pp. 153–155; Dyer and Curtis small watersheds (2–10 km2 (0.77–3.86 magnesium, bicarbonate, and silt 1977, pp. 10–13; Dyer 1982, pp. 1–16; mi2)) below valley fills. Hitt and deposition (Dyer and Curtis 1977, pp. 3– Hren et al. 1984, pp. 5–34; USEPA 2003, Chambers (2014, pp. 919–924) observed 7, 13). Water quality data from the pp. 77–84; Hartman et al. 2005, p. 95; lower fish taxonomic and functional reference site, Jenny Branch, showed Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721–723; Palmer diversity in streams downstream of little variation and remained at baseline et al. 2010, pp. 148–149; USEPA 2011, valley fills in West Virginia. Exposure levels. Fish community data from the pp. 27–44). As rock strata and excess assemblages (those downstream of Bear Branch and Leatherwood Creek rock material (overburden) are exposed valley fills) had fewer species, lower watersheds showed that fishes were to the atmosphere during the mining abundances, and less biomass than pushed downstream or eliminated from process, precipitation leaches metals reference assemblages across years and the fauna altogether in mined and other solids (e.g., calcium, seasons. Taxonomic differences between watersheds (Branson and Batch 1972, magnesium, sulfates, iron, manganese) reference and exposure (mined) pp. 514–515; Branson and Batch 1974, from these materials and carries them in assemblages were associated with pp. 82–83). The only exception to this solution to receiving streams (Pond conductivity and aqueous selenium was the creek chub, which appeared to 2004, p. 7; KDOW 2010, p. 85). concentrations (Hitt and Chambers be tolerant of mining impacts. Several Dissolved ions can enter streams 2014, pp. 919–924). Daniel et al. (2015, species—silver shiner (Notropis through surface runoff or as pp. 50–61) examined the effects of photogenis), Kentucky arrow darter, groundwater flowing through fractured mining (coal and mineral) at larger Johnny darter, variegate darter geologic layers. If valley fills (hollow- spatial scales and determined that (Etheostoma variatum), greenside darter fills) are used as part of the mining mining can be a regional source of (E. blenniodes), and emerald darter— activity, precipitation and groundwater disturbance that negatively impacts fish were eliminated from Leatherwood seep through the fill and dissolve communities far downstream. Even in Creek. Two species, northern hogsucker minerals until they discharge at the toe watersheds with low mine densities (Hypentelium nigricans) and blackside of the fill as surface water (Pond et al. (less than 0.01 mines/km2 (0.004 mines/ darter (Percina maculata), were 2008, p. 718). All of these scenarios can mi2)), Daniel et al. (2015, pp. 56–57) eliminated from both streams. During result in elevated conductivity, sulfates, detected significant negative responses the last fish sampling event in and hardness in the receiving stream. in multiple fish metrics (e.g., diversity, September 1972, Kentucky arrow Stream conductivity in mined evenness, percent invertivores). darters were observed at the mouth of watersheds can be significantly higher Compared to other anthropogenic Bear Branch (Branson and Batch 1974, compared to unmined watersheds, and impacts assessed over large areas p. 82), but instream conductivity levels conductivity values can remain high for (agriculture, urban land use), mining had not peaked. Branson and Batch decades (Merricks et al. 2007, pp. 365– had a more pronounced and consistent (1972, p. 514) also did not observe 373; Johnson et al. 2010, pp. 1–2). impact on fish assemblages (Daniel et al. young darters and minnows during later Elevated levels of metals and other 2015, p. 58). visits (early 1970s), suggesting that dissolved solids (i.e., elevated Studies in the upper Kentucky River reproduction had been curtailed by the conductivity) in Appalachian streams basin by Branson and Batch (1974, pp. mining activity. Thomas (2008, p. 5) and have been shown to negatively impact 81–83), Dyer and Curtis (1977, pp. 1– Service (2012, pp. 1–4) resurveyed these biological communities, including 13), Kuehne (1962, pp. 608–609), streams in 2008–2009, and found that losses of mayfly and caddisfly taxa Thomas (2008, pp. 3–6), Pond (2010, pp. conductivity levels had increased since (Chambers and Messinger 2001, pp. 34– 189–198), and the Service (2012, pp. 1– the 1970s, reaching 845 mS/cm in Bear 51; Pond 2004, p. 7; Hartman et al. 2005, 4) have clearly demonstrated that Branch and 1008 mS/cm in Leatherwood p. 95; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721–723; surface coal mining activities have Creek. Kentucky arrow darters were not Pond 2010, pp. 189–198) and decreases contributed to water quality degradation observed at these sites. in fish diversity (Kuehne 1962, pp. 608– (e.g., elevated conductivity) and the There is a pattern of increasing 614; Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 507– extirpation of Kentucky arrow darter conductivity and loss of arrow darter 512; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81– populations from numerous tributaries populations that is evident in the fish 83; Stauffer and Ferreri 2002, pp. 11–21; in the Quicksand Creek and Buckhorn and water quality data from the Fulk et al. 2003, pp. 55–64; Mattingly et Creek drainages of Breathitt and Knott Buckhorn Creek basin (1962 to present) al. 2005, pp. 59–62; Thomas 2008, pp. Counties. From late 1967 to 1975, in Breathitt and Knott Counties. 1–9; Service 2012, pp. 1–4; Black et al. Branson and Batch (1972, pp. 507–518; Kentucky arrow darters and other fish 2013, pp. 34–45; Hitt 2014, pp. 5–7, 11– 1974, pp. 81–83), and Dyer and Curtis species were first reported from the 13; Hitt and Chambers 2014, pp. 919– (1977, pp. 1–13) studied the effects of basin in 1962 by Kuehne (1962, pp. 924; Daniel et al. 2015, pp. 50–61). strip mining activities on water quality 608–609), who surveyed sites on the Stauffer and Ferreri (2002, pp. 11–21) and stream fishes in the Quicksand Buckhorn Creek mainstem and investigated fish assemblages in eastern Creek (Leatherwood Creek) and numerous tributaries: Bear Branch, Kentucky and West Virginia streams Buckhorn Creek (Bear Branch) Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Laurel Fork,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60977

Lewis Fork, and Long Fork. Kuehne mS/cm). A similar phenomenon was 7–8). Streams affected by AMD tend to (1962, pp. 608–609) documented reported by Black et al. (2013, pp. 34– have low pH, high conductivity, and Kentucky arrow darters at 16 of 22 sites 35), who developed and validated a high metal and sulfate concentrations within the drainage. Since that time, the habitat model for the federally (Herlihy et al. 1990, pp. 101–105; Pond majority of these watersheds have been threatened blackside dace (Chrosomus 2004, pp. 7–8). mined extensively and conductivity cumberlandensis) in the upper Oil and gas exploration and drilling levels have increased. The only Cumberland River drainage. Hitt (2014, activities represent another significant exceptions are two unmined watersheds pp. 5–7, 11–13) used a large presence- source of harmful pollutants in the on UK’s Robinson Forest (Clemons Fork absence data set (511 sites) from the upper Kentucky River basin (KDOW and Coles Fork) and two first-order Service, KDFWR, KSNPC, and KDOW to 2013a, 189–214). Since January 2010, tributaries in the Buckhorn Creek evaluate the relationship between over 500 oil and gas wells have been headwaters (Eli Branch and Prince Kentucky arrow darter abundance and permitted in counties where the species Fork). Thomas (2008, p. 5) and the stream conductivity. Hitt (2014, pp. 5– was known historically (KGS 2015, pp. Service (2012, pp. 1–4) resurveyed sites 7, 11–13) reported that conductivity was 1–2), and demand for natural gas on all historical streams (and most a strong predictor of Kentucky arrow production in Kentucky is expected to historical sites) in the Buckhorn Creek darter abundance, and sharp declines in increase in future years (KGS 2002, p. 4; watershed from 2007 to 2010, observing abundance were observed at 258 mS/cm KGS 2015, pp. 1–2; Weisenfluh 2014, Kentucky arrow darters in only Clemons (95 percent confidence intervals of 155– pp. 1–2). Alternative methods (i.e., Fork, Coles Fork, and Buckhorn Creek, 590 mS/cm). Conductivity was the most hydraulic fracturing (‘‘fracking’’) and upstream of Emory Branch. important variable for the species and horizontal drilling) have allowed for the Conductivity levels of Clemons Fork, was more than twice as important as the expansion of oil and gas drilling into Coles Fork, and Buckhorn Creek two next-most important variables deposits that were previously (upstream of Emory Branch) remained at (upstream percent of forest and percent inaccessible (KGS 2015, pp. 1–2; or near background levels (50 to 110 mS/ of agricultural land uses). Based on all Papoulias and Velasco 2013, p. 92). This cm), but conductivity levels at other the research discussed above, we has led to increased activity within streams were elevated, with some of believe it is clear that the overall eastern Kentucky, including portions of these being exceptionally high (greater conductivity level is important in the upper Kentucky River basin. Recent than 2000 mS/cm). determining the Kentucky arrow darter’s observations by the Service indicate that ATS (2011, pp. 1–17) surveyed 27 presence and vulnerability, but the new well sites have been developed sites in the Buckhorn Creek headwaters species’ presence is more likely tied to near several Kentucky arrow darter in 2008, observing similar patterns with what individual metals or dissolved streams in Breathitt, Clay, Knott, Lee, respect to conductivity and Kentucky solids (e.g., sulfate) are present. and Wolfe Counties (e.g., Hell Creek, arrow darter distributions. ATS (2011, Determination of discrete conductivity Laurel Fork Quicksand Creek, Little pp. 1–17) observed a few Kentucky thresholds or the mechanisms through Fork Lower Devil Creek, Spring Creek, arrow darters in high conductivity which fishes are influenced will require and Walker Creek). A variety of chemicals (e.g., reaches (e.g., Buckhorn Creek additional study (KSNPC 2010, p. 3). mainstem); however, all of these fishes hydrochloric acid, surfactants, were adults and were observed near low Mine drainage can also cause potassium chloride) are used during the conductivity reaches (e.g., Prince Fork). chemical (and some physical) impacts drilling and fracking process (Colborn et Due to increased levels of dissolved to streams as a result of the precipitation al. 2011, pp. 1040–1042). Once used, solids (and elevated conductivity), of entrained metals and sulfate, which fluid wastes containing these chemicals portions of two streams in the Buckhorn become unstable in solution (USEPA are stored in open pits (retention basins) Creek watershed, Buckhorn Creek (mile 2003, pp. 24–65; Pond 2004, p. 7). or trucked away to treatment plants or 0–6.8) and Long Fork (mile 0–8.95), Hydroxide precipitants are formed from some other storage facility. If spills have been placed on Kentucky’s 303(d) iron and aluminum, creating orange or occur during transport or releases occur list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a, white sludge (‘‘yellow boy’’) that forms due to retention basin failure or pp. 337–376). a thick coating on stream substrates overflow, there is a risk for surface and As demonstrated above, Kentucky (Pond 2004, p. 7). Most affected streams groundwater contamination. Any such arrow darters tend to be less abundant have elevated levels of calcium in release can cause significant adverse in streams with elevated conductivity solution, and if pH is elevated, calcium effects to water quality and aquatic levels (Service 2012, pp. 1–4; Service sulfate (CaSO4) or calcium carbonate organisms that inhabit these watersheds 2013, p. 9), and are typically excluded (CaCO3) will precipitate (Pond 2004, p. (Wiseman 2009, pp. 127–142; Kargbo et from these streams as conductivity 7; USEPA 2005, pp. 24–65). These al. 2010, pp. 5680–5681; Osborn et al. increases (Branson and Batch 1972, pp. precipitants accumulate on substrates, 2011, pp. 8172–8176; Papoulias and 507–512; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. encrusting and cementing stream Velasco 2013, pp. 92–111). In 2007, this 81–83; Thomas 2008, p. 3–6). Recent sediments, making them unsuitable for type of event occurred during the range-wide surveys of historical sites by colonization by invertebrates and development of four wells along Acorn Thomas (2008, pp. 3–6) and the Service rendering them unsuitable as foraging or Fork in Knox County, Kentucky (2012, pp. 1–4) demonstrated that spawning habitat for the Kentucky (Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 92– Kentucky arrow darters are excluded arrow darter. Acid mine drainage (AMD) 111). Fracking effluent overflowed the from watersheds when conductivity tends to be more of a legacy problem, as retention pits directly into Acorn Fork, levels exceed about 250 mS/cm. The enforcement, newer technology, and a known habitat for the federally species was observed at only two mining methods have mostly eliminated threatened blackside dace. The release historical sites where conductivity it in the coal fields of Kentucky and affected the entire length of Acorn Fork values exceeded 250 mS/cm, and average Tennessee (Pond 2004, p. 6). In the few downstream of the release points (an conductivity values were much lower at streams where the problem persists, approximate 3.2-km (2-mi) reach), sites where Kentucky arrow darters AMD can be highly detrimental to fish decimating the fish and were observed (115 mS/cm) than at sites and aquatic insect populations (Henry et macroinvertebrate communities and where the species was not observed (689 al. 1999, pp. 919–920; Pond 2004, pp. resulting in instream conductivity

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

readings above 30,000 mS/cm (Papoulias KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214; KDOW control practices, can contribute large and Velasco 2013, pp. 92–111). Fishes 2013b, pp. 88–94). Sedimentation comes amounts of sediment during storm exposed to the affected portions of from a variety of sources, but KDOW events. Mining companies are required Acorn fork showed general signs of identified the primary sources of to implement erosion control measures stress and had a higher incidence of gill sediment as loss of riparian habitat, during mining activities, but lesions than unexposed reference fishes. surface coal mining, legacy coal sedimentation continues to be a Gill lesions were consistent with extraction, logging, and land significant stressor in some mined exposure to low pH and toxic development (KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84; watersheds (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189– concentrations of heavy metals KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). All of these 214). Land use practices such as the (Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 104– activities can result in canopy removal, placement of valley fills can affect 105). It is unclear how many blackside channel disturbance, and increased sediment and water discharges into dace were killed during the event siltation, thereby degrading habitats downstream stream reaches, leading to because peak mortality was likely used by Kentucky arrow darters for both increased erosion or sedimentation missed before researchers arrived to feeding and reproduction. The patterns, destruction or modification of document the incident. However, one reduction or loss of riparian vegetation in-stream habitat and riparian dead, one moribund, and several living results in the elevation of stream vegetation, stream bank collapse, and but distressed blackside dace were temperatures, destabilization of stream increased water turbidity and observed. Because oil and gas banks and siltation, and removal of temperature (Wiley et al. 2001, pp. 1– exploration activities are increasing submerged root systems that provide 16; Messinger 2003, pp. 17–20). within eastern Kentucky, events similar habitat for fishes and Similarly, logging activities can to the Acorn Fork spill have the macroinvertebrates (the food source for adversely affect Kentucky arrow darters potential to occur within the upper Kentucky arrow darters) (Minshall and and other fishes through removal of Kentucky River drainage. It is also likely Rugenski 2006, pp. 721–723). riparian vegetation, direct channel that these types of incidents would go Channelization of streams associated disturbance, and sedimentation of unreported given the lack of Federal with residential development and instream habitats (Allan and Castillo oversight and the number and agriculture has been widespread within 2007, pp. 332–333). During logging distribution of oil and gas wells that are the upper Kentucky River drainage. activities, sedimentation occurs as soils being developed within the range of the Generally, streams are relocated to one are disturbed, the overlying leaf or litter species. side of the stream valley to provide layer is removed, and sediment is Other nonpoint-source pollutants that space for home sites, livestock, hay carried overland from logging roads, are common within the upper Kentucky production, or row crops. stream crossings, skid trails, and River drainage and have the potential to Channelization dramatically alters riparian zones during storm events. affect the Kentucky arrow darter include channel dimensions, gradient, stream Logging impacts on sediment domestic sewage (through septic tank flow, and instream habitats, and these production can be considerable, but leakage or straight pipe discharges) and modified channels are often managed access and haul roads often produce agricultural pollutants such as animal through vegetation removal and more sediment than the land harvested waste, fertilizers, pesticides, and dredging to improve flood conveyance for timber (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, herbicides (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214). (Allan and Castillo 2007, p. 327) and p. 102). Excess sediment can bury in- stream habitats used by the species for Nonpoint-source pollutants can cause through placement of quarried stone or increased levels of nitrogen and foraging, reproduction, and sheltering, gabion baskets to protect against bank phosphorus, excessive algal growths, and it can disrupt the dynamic erosion. All of these activities create oxygen deficiencies, and other changes equilibrium of channel width, depth, unstable stream segments with shifting in water chemistry that can seriously flow velocity, discharge, channel slope, substrates, heavy sedimentation, impact aquatic species (KDOW 2010, roughness, sediment load, and sediment eroding banks, and poor to marginal pp. 70–84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214; size that maintains stable channel habitat conditions for the species. KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). Nonpoint- morphology (Allan 2004, p. 262). The Twenty-one streams within the species’ source pollution from land surface lack of stream-side vegetation also historical and current range have been runoff can originate from virtually any promotes bank erosion that alters stream identified as impaired (primarily due to land use activity and may be correlated courses and introduces large quantities with impervious surfaces and storm siltation from mining, logging, of sediment into the channel. This can water runoff (Allan 2004, pp. 266–267). agricultural activities, and land lead to channel instability and further Pollutants may include sediments, development) and have been included degradation of in-stream habitats. fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired Reductions in riparian vegetation can wastes, septic tank and gray water waters (Table 2). The species has been adversely affect the species through leakage, pharmaceuticals, and extirpated from most of these streams increased solar radiation, elevated petroleum products. These pollutants (or watersheds) and is considered to be stream temperatures, loss of tend to increase concentrations of stable in only one (Frozen Creek). allochthonous (organic material nutrients and toxins in the water and Resource extraction activities (e.g., originating from outside the channel) alter the chemistry of affected streams surface coal mining, legacy coal food material, and bank instability/ such that the habitat and food sources extraction, logging, oil and gas erosion (Allan 2004, p. 262; Hauer and for species like the Kentucky arrow exploration and drilling) are major Lamberti 2006, pp. 721–723). Direct darter are negatively impacted. sources of sedimentation in streams channel disturbance occurs primarily at (Paybins et al. 2000, p. 1; Wiley et al. stream crossings during culvert, log, or Physical Habitat Disturbance 2001, pp. 1–16; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189– rock placement. Severe impacts can Sedimentation (siltation) has been 214). Activities associated with surface occur when loggers use stream channels listed repeatedly by KDOW as the most coal mining (e.g., land clearing, road illegally as skid trails (M. Floyd pers. common stressor of aquatic construction, excavation) produce large obs. 2009). communities in the upper Kentucky areas of bare soil that, if not protected Stormwater runoff from unpaved River basin (KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84; or controlled through various erosion roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60979

and driveways represents a significant populations, and these threats continue streams: Big Double Creek (Clay but difficult to quantify source of to impact water quality and habitat County), Sturgeon Creek (Lee County), sediment that impacts streams in the conditions across the species’ range. and Swift Camp Creek (Wolfe County). upper Kentucky River basin. Contaminants associated with surface Annual totals of 800 and 1,000 rainbow Observations made by Service personnel coal mining (metals, other dissolved trout are introduced into Sturgeon Creek during field collections suggest that this solids), domestic sewage (bacteria, and Swift Camp Creek, respectively, but is a common and widespread problem nutrients), and agriculture (fertilizers, in these watersheds Kentucky arrow during storm events across the species’ pesticides, herbicides, and animal darter populations occupy portions of range. Sediment has been shown to waste) cause degradation of water small tributaries located outside of damage and suffocate fish gills and eggs, quality and habitats through increased actual stocking locations. Therefore, it is larval fishes, bottom-dwelling algae, and conductivity and sulfates, instream unlikely that rainbow trout and other organisms; reduce aquatic insect oxygen deficiencies, excess Kentucky arrow darters interact in these diversity and abundance; and, nutrification, and excessive algal watersheds. ultimately, negatively impact fish growths. Sedimentation from surface Up to 1,000 rainbow trout are stocked growth, survival, and reproduction coal mining, logging, agriculture, and annually by KDFWR within Big Double (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, pp. 285– land development negatively affect the Creek, with releases occurring in March, 294; Waters 1995, pp. 5–7; Wood and Kentucky arrow darter by burying or April, May, and October in habitats Armitage 1997, pp. 211–212; Meyer and covering instream habitats used by the occupied by Kentucky arrow darters. Sutherland 2005, pp. 2–3). species for foraging, reproduction, and KDFWR has no specific information on sheltering. These impacts can cause the feeding habits of rainbow trout in Invasion of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid reductions in growth rates, disease Big Double Creek, but KDFWR The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) tolerance, and gill function; reductions supported a research project (Brandt (Adelges tsugae), an aphid-like insect in spawning habitat, reproductive 2006, pp. 1–59) investigating the impact native to Asia, represents a potential success, and egg, larval, and juvenile of stocked rainbow trout on native threat to the Kentucky arrow darter development; modifications of fishes in Rock Creek, McCreary County, because it has the potential to severely migration patterns; decreased food Kentucky. Brandt (2006, pp 1–59) damage stands of eastern hemlocks availability through reductions in prey; examined the guts of 11 introduced (Tsuga canadensis) that occur within and reduction of foraging efficiency. rainbow trout obtained from 32 the species’ range. The HWA was Furthermore, these threats faced by the sampling sites within the Rock Creek introduced in the Pacific Northwest Kentucky arrow are the result of watershed. The majority of stomachs during the 1920s, and has since spread ongoing land uses that are expected to were empty or contained remains of throughout the eastern United States, continue indefinitely. macroinvertebrates; however, gut reaching eastern Tennessee by 2002, contents from two individuals included and Kentucky by 2006. The species Factor B: Overutilization for remains of two native fishes, telescope creates an extreme amount of damage to Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or shiner (Notropis telescopus) (n=2) and natural stands of hemlock, specifically Educational Purposes emerald darter (n=1). Brandt (2006, pp. eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock The Kentucky arrow darter is not 1–59) demonstrated that stocked (Tsuga caroliniana). Loss of hemlocks believed to be utilized for commercial, rainbow trout can be piscivorous in along Kentucky arrow darter streams recreational, scientific, or educational Kentucky streams, but the magnitude of has the potential to result in increased purposes. Individuals may be collected this threat was unclear. solar exposure and subsequent elevated occasionally in minnow traps by Within Big Double Creek, stockings of stream temperatures, bank erosion, and recreational anglers and used as live rainbow trout have occurred for over 30 excessive inputs of woody debris that bait, but we believe these activities are years (Williams 2014, pers. comm.), but will clog streams and cause channel practiced infrequently and do not the Kentucky arrow darter population in instability and erosion (Townsend and represent a threat to the species. Our this stream continues to persist and Rieske-Kinney 2009, pp. 1–3). We review of the available information does appears to be stable (Table 1, above) expect these impacts to occur in some not indicate that overutilization is a based on recent surveys (Thomas 2008, Kentucky arrow darter watersheds; threat to the Kentucky arrow darter now p. 4; Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). KDFWR however, we do not believe these or likely to become so in the future. also has no evidence suggesting that impacts will be widespread or severe. stocked rainbow trout can survive Factor C: Disease or Predation Eastern hemlocks are not abundant in typical summer temperatures (greater all portions of the Kentucky arrow No information is available suggesting than 19 °C (66 °F)) within Big Double darter’s range, and we expect hemlocks that disease is a threat to the Kentucky Creek (Williams 2014, pers. comm.); to be replaced by other tree species in arrow darter; therefore, we do not stocked individuals are caught by areas where hemlocks are more consider disease to be a factor in the anglers or perish once stream common. Our review of the available decline of the species. As to predation, temperatures rise in warmer months. To information indicates that the invasion although the Kentucky arrow darter is assess the potential predation of of HWA and the subsequent loss of undoubtedly consumed by native rainbow trout on Kentucky arrow eastern hemlock in eastern Kentucky predators (e.g., fishes, amphibians, and darters or other fishes, the Service and does not pose a threat to the Kentucky birds), the available information DBNF surveyed a 2.1-km (1.3-mile) arrow darter, nor is it likely to become suggests that this predation is naturally reach of Big Double Creek on April 21, a threat in the future. occurring and a normal aspect of the 2014, 17 days after KDFWR’s April In summary, habitat loss and species’ population dynamics. stocking event (250 trout). A total of modification represent threats to the Nonnative rainbow trout seven rainbow trout were captured, and Kentucky arrow darter. Severe (Oncorhynchus mykiss) represent a the gut contents of these individuals degradation from contaminants, potential predation threat (Etnier and were examined. Food items were sedimentation, and physical habitat Starnes 1993, p. 346) as they are dominated by Ephemeroptera disturbance have contributed to introduced annually by KDFWR into (mayflies), with lesser amounts of extirpations of Kentucky arrow darter portions of three Kentucky arrow darter Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(caddisflies), Diptera (flies), Decapoda and natural systems; (3) affect and management under the LRMP (crayfish), and terrestrial Coleoptera renewable resource lands in which such contributes substantially to the (beetles). No fish remains were operations could results in a substantial conservation of the Kentucky arrow observed. Based on all these factors and loss or reduction of long-range darter. A significant portion (about 38 the absence of rainbow trout from the productivity of water supply or food or percent) of the species’ remaining majority (98 percent) of Kentucky arrow fiber products, and such lands to populations occurs within the DBNF, darter streams, we do not believe that include aquifers and aquifer recharge and these populations have benefited predation by nonnative rainbow trout areas; or (4) affect natural hazard lands from management goals, objectives, and poses a threat to the species. Our review in which such operations could protective standards included in the of available information indicates that substantially endanger life and property, LRMP. Collectively, these streams neither disease nor predation is such lands to include areas subject to contain some of the best remaining currently a threat to the species or likely frequent flooding and areas of unstable habitats for the species and support to become a threat to the Kentucky geology. The designation was made by some of the species’ most robust arrow darter in the future. the Secretary of the KEEC in response to populations. a petition from the Sierra Club, The Kentucky arrow darter and its Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing habitats are afforded some protection Regulatory Mechanisms Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., and Kentucky Conservation Foundation. The from water quality and habitat The Kentucky arrow darter has been Secretary concluded that surface coal degradation under the Federal Water identified as a threatened species within mining and reclamation operations were Pollution Control Act of 1977, Kentucky (KSNPC 2014, p. 40), but this incompatible with UK’s existing land commonly referred to as the Clean State designation conveys no legal use management plan and that these Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); the protection for the species or its habitat. activities would significantly damage Federal Surface Mining Control and Kentucky law prohibits the collection of important scientific resources within Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. the Kentucky arrow darter (or other the petition area. 1201 et seq.) of 1977; Kentucky’s Forest fishes) for scientific purposes without a Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS secs. Portions of 22 of the 47 streams with valid State-issued collecting permit 149.330–355); Kentucky’s Agriculture extant Kentucky arrow darter (Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) sec. Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS secs. populations are located on the DBNF 150.183). Enforcement of this permit 224.71–140); and additional Kentucky requirement is difficult, but as and receive management and protection laws and regulations regarding natural discussed above under Factor B, we do through DBNF’s land and resource resources and environmental protection not believe that these activities management plan (LRMP) (USFS 2004, (KRS secs. 146.200–360; KRS sec. 224; represent a threat to the species. pp. 7–16). Public ownership in these 401 KAR secs. 5:026, 5:031). While Kentucky regulations (301 KAR 1:130, watersheds ranges from about 50 to 100 these laws have undoubtedly resulted in sec. 1(3)) also allow persons who hold percent. The LRMP is implemented some improvements in water quality a valid Kentucky fishing license through a series of project-level and stream habitat for aquatic life, (obtained from KDFWR) to collect up to decisions based on appropriate site- including the Kentucky arrow darter, we 500 minnows per day (a minnow is specific analysis and disclosure. It does must conclude that they alone have defined as any non-game fish less than not contain a commitment to select any been inadequate in fully protecting this 6 inches in length, with the exception specific project; rather, it sets up a species; sedimentation and other of federally listed species). This framework of desired future conditions nonpoint-source pollutants continue to regulation allows for the capture, with goals, objectives, and standards to be a pose a threat to the species. holding, and potential use of the guide project proposals. Projects are Although water quality has generally Kentucky arrow darter as a bait species; proposed to solve resource management improved since the Clean Water Act and however, again as discussed under problems, move the forest environment SMCRA were enacted or amended in Factor B, we believe these activities are toward desired future conditions, and 1977, there is continuing, ongoing practiced infrequently and do not supply goods and services to the public degradation of water quality within the represent a threat to the species. (USFS 2004, pp. 7–16). The LRMP range of the Kentucky arrow darter. The Because activities associated with these contains a number of protective species has been extirpated from 36 of laws and regulations do not represent standards that in general are designed to its 74 historical streams (49 percent), threats to the Kentucky arrow darter, we avoid and minimize potential adverse and 16 of these extirpations (16 streams) find that these existing regulatory effects to the Kentucky arrow darter and have occurred since the mid-1990s. A mechanisms have been adequate in other sensitive species; however, the total of 21 streams (335.8 stream km protecting the species. DBNF will continue to consult with the (208.7 stream mi)) within the species’ Streams within UK’s Robinson Forest Service when their activities may historical range have been identified as (Coles Fork, Snag Ridge Fork, and adversely affect streams supporting impaired by the KDOW and placed on Clemons Fork) are currently protected Kentucky arrow darters. In addition to the State’s 303(d) list of impaired from the effects of surface coal mining conservation benefits provided by the waters. Of these 21 streams, only 5 due to a 1990 ‘‘lands unsuitable for LRMP, the Service and DBNF signed a continue to be occupied by Kentucky mining’’ designation (405 KAR 24:040). candidate conservation agreement arrow darter (see Table 2), 4 of which The Secretary of the Kentucky Energy (CCA) for the Kentucky arrow darter in are considered ‘‘vulnerable’’ (see Table and Environment Cabinet (KEEC) has August 2015. The CCA is intended to 1). Resource extraction (e.g., coal the authority to designate certain lands conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on mining, logging, oil/gas well as unsuitable for mining if these the DBNF by (a) protecting known development), land development, activities will: (1) Be incompatible with populations and habitat, (b) reducing agricultural activities, stream bank existing State and local land use plans; threats to its survival, (c) conserving the modification, channelization, riparian (2) affect fragile or historic lands in watersheds and ecosystems on which it habitat loss, and inadequate sewage which such operations could result in depends, and (d) enhancing and/or treatment have been identified as significant damage to important historic, restoring degraded habitat (USFWS and sources of the impairment (Branson and cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values, USFS 2015). The DBNF’s ownership Batch 1972, pp. 513–516; Branson and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60981

Batch 1974, pp. 82–83; Thomas 2008, occurs as soils are disturbed, the despite existing regulatory mechanisms. pp. 6–7; KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84; KDOW overlying leaf or litter layer is removed, These regulatory mechanisms have been 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–376; KDOW and sediment is carried overland from inadequate to reduce or remove the 2013b, pp. 88–94). Identified stressors logging roads, stream crossings, skid threats to the Kentucky arrow darter. (pollutants) include dissolved solids trails, and riparian zones during storm and elevation of instream conductivity, events. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade sediment/siltation, fecal coliform Compliance monitoring from May Factors Affecting Its Continued bacteria, nutrients/eutrophication, and 2014 to May 2015 within counties Existence turbidity (KDOW 2010, p. 84; KDOW located in the upper Kentucky River Restricted Range and Population Size 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–376). For water basin indicated that approximately 19 bodies on the 303(d) list, States are percent of inspected sites (47 sites out The disjunct nature of some Kentucky required under the Clean Water Act to of a total of 246 inspected sites) had arrow darter populations (Figures 2 and establish a total maximum daily load some kind of compliance issue (e.g., 3, above) restricts the natural exchange (TMDL) for the pollutant of concern that poor BMP use), resulting in a written of genetic material between populations will improve water quality to meet the warning by the Kentucky Division of and makes natural repopulation applicable standards. At present, the Forestry and at least a follow-up visit following localized extirpations of the KDOW has not established TMDLs for (Metzger 2015, pers. comm.). Because species arduous without human identified pollutants within portions of sediment BMPs are not always strictly intervention. The localized nature and the upper Kentucky River basin applied and logging activities often small size of many populations also historically occupied by the Kentucky result in water quality impairment, the makes them vulnerable to extirpation arrow darter. At present, TMDLs are not Kentucky Forest Conservation Act is an from intentional or accidental toxic inadequate regulatory mechanism for an adequate mechanism to address chemical spills, habitat modification, the protection of aquatic habitats chemical pollutants or sedimentation of progressive degradation from runoff supporting the Kentucky arrow darter. aquatic habitats. The Service is also not (nonpoint-source pollutants), natural aware of any other current or future Kentucky State laws and regulations regarding oil and gas drilling are catastrophic changes to their habitat changes to State or Federal water quality (e.g., flood scour, drought), and other or mining laws that will substantially generally designed to protect fresh water resources like the Kentucky arrow stochastic disturbances, such as loss of affect the currently observed genetic variation and inbreeding (Soule´ degradation of water quality. darter’s habitat, but these regulatory mechanisms do not contain specific 1980, pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp. Nonpoint-source pollution, provisions requiring an analysis of 97–101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. originating from mine sites, unpaved project impacts to fish and wildlife 117–146). Inbreeding and loss of neutral roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, resources (Kentucky Division of Oil and genetic variation associated with small driveways, logging skid trails, and other Gas et al. 2012, entire). Current population size can further reduce the disturbed habitats is considered to be a regulations also do not contain or fitness of the population (Reed and continuing threat to Kentucky arrow provide any formal mechanism Frankham 2003, pp. 230–237), darter habitats. Nonpoint-source requiring coordination with, or input subsequently accelerating population pollution is caused by rainfall or from, the Service or the KDOW decline (Fagan and Holmes 2006, pp. snowmelt moving over and through the regarding the presence of federally 51–60). ground as runoff and transporting endangered, threatened, or candidate Species that are restricted in range natural (sediment) and human-made species, or other rare and sensitive pollutants to lakes, rivers, wetlands, and population size are more likely to species. suffer loss of genetic diversity due to coastal waters, and ground waters. In July of 2015, the Office of Surface genetic drift, potentially increasing their Current laws do not adequately protect Mining Reclamation and Enforcement the Kentucky arrow darter and its (OSM) published in the Federal susceptibility to inbreeding depression, habitats from nonpoint-source pollution Register a Notice of Availability for a decreasing their ability to adapt to because there is limited compliance draft environmental impact statement environmental changes, and reducing with existing laws to prevent sediment regarding a proposed Stream Protection the fitness of individuals (Soule´ 1980, and other pollutants from entering Rule (80 FR 42535; July 17, 2015) and pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp. 97–101; waterways. For example, forestry the proposed Stream Protection Rule (80 Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117– operations do not have permitting FR 44436, July 27, 2015). The proposed 146). It is likely that some of the requirements under the Clean Water Act rule states: ‘‘This proposed rule would Kentucky arrow darter populations are because there is a silvicultural better protect streams, fish, wildlife, and below the effective population size exemption as long as best management related environmental values from the required to maintain long-term genetic practices (BMPs) are used to help adverse impacts of surface coal mining and population viability (Soule´ 1980, control nonpoint-source pollution operations and provide mine operators pp. 162–164; Hunter 2002, pp. 105– (Ryder and Edwards 2006, entire). The with a regulatory framework to avoid 107). The long-term viability of a Kentucky Forest Conservation Act of water pollution and the long-term costs species is founded on the conservation 1998 (KRS 149.330–149.355) was associated with water treatment’’ (80 FR of numerous local populations developed to regulate timber harvesting 44436, see SUMMARY). While this throughout its geographic range (Harris operations in Kentucky. It requires that proposed rule may provide benefits for 1984, pp. 93–104). These separate a Master Logger be on-site and in charge the Kentucky arrow darter in the future, populations are essential for the species of commercial logging operations, and it until the rule is finalized and to recover and adapt to environmental also requires that all timber harvesting implemented, we are unable to evaluate change (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. operators use appropriate best its potential effectiveness with regard to 264–297; Harris 1984, pp. 93–104). The management practices (BMPs) for the Kentucky arrow darter and its level of isolation seen in this species protection of water quality (Stringer and habitat. makes natural repopulation following Thompson 2000, pp. 2–3). Without In summary, degradation of habitat for localized extirpations virtually properly installed BMPs, sedimentation the Kentucky arrow darter is ongoing impossible without human intervention.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Climate Change River drainage (Alder and Hostetler and isolated, and the species continues The Intergovernmental Panel on 2013, entire) provide some insight for to be at risk throughout all of its range Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that evaluating the potential threat of climate due to the immediacy, severity, and warming of the climate system is change to the Kentucky arrow darter. scope of threats from three of the five unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). These models provide estimates of threat factors: habitat degradation and Numerous long-term climate changes average annual increases in maximum range curtailment (Factor A), have been observed including changes and minimum temperature, inadequacy of existing regulatory in arctic temperatures and ice, precipitation, snowfall, and other mechanisms (Factor D), and other widespread changes in precipitation variables. Depending on the chosen natural or manmade factors affecting its amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns model, average annual temperatures for continued existence (Factor E). Anthropogenic activities such as and aspects of extreme weather Kentucky and the upper Kentucky River surface coal mining, logging, oil/gas including droughts, heavy precipitation, drainage are expected to increase by 2.5 to 5 °C (4.5 to 9 °F) by the 2080s (Girvetz development, land development, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical et al. 2009, pp. 1–19; Alder and agriculture, and inadequate sewage cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4). Species that Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–9), while treatment have all contributed to the are dependent on specialized habitat precipitation models predict that degradation of stream habitats within types, limited in distribution, or at the Kentucky will experience a slight the species’ range (Factor A). These land extreme periphery of their range may be increase in average annual precipitation use activities have led to chemical and most susceptible to the impacts of (2 cm/day (0.8 in/day) (x 100)) through physical changes to stream habitats that climate change (see 75 FR 48911, 2074 (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1–19; continue to affect the species. Specific August 12, 2010); however, while Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–9). stressors include inputs of dissolved continued change is certain, the There is uncertainty about the specific solids and elevation of instream magnitude and rate of change is effects of climate change (and their conductivity, sedimentation/siltation of unknown in many cases. magnitude) on the Kentucky arrow stream substrates, turbidity, and inputs Climate change has the potential to darter; however, climate change is of nutrients and organic enrichment. increase the vulnerability of the almost certain to affect aquatic habitats These high magnitude stressors, Kentucky arrow darter to random in the upper Kentucky River drainage of especially the inputs of dissolved solids catastrophic events (McLaughlin et al. Kentucky through increased water and sedimentation, have had profound 2002, pp. 6060–6074; Thomas et al. temperatures and more frequent negative effects on Kentucky arrow 2004, pp. 145–148). An increase in both droughts (Alder and Hostetler 2013, darter populations and have been the severity and variation in climate entire), and species with limited ranges, primary factor in the species’ decline. patterns is expected, with extreme fragmented distributions, and small Existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., floods, strong storms, and droughts population size are thought to be the Clean Water Act) have provided for becoming more common (Cook et al. especially vulnerable to the effects of some improvements in water quality 2004, pp. 1015–1018; Ford et al. 2011, climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, and habitat conditions across the p. 2065; IPCC 2014, pp. 58–83). Thomas p. 18). Thus, we consider climate species’ range, but these laws and et al. (2004, pp. 145–148) report that change to be a threat to the Kentucky regulations have been inadequate in frequency, duration, and intensity of arrow darter. protecting the species’ habitat (Factor droughts are likely to increase in the In summary, we have determined that D), as evidenced by recent extirpations Southeast as a result of global climate other natural and manmade factors, (16 streams since the 1990s) and the 21 change. Predicted impacts of climate such as geographical isolation, small 303(d) listed streams within the species’ change on fishes include disruption to population size, and climate change, are historical range. The Kentucky arrow their physiology (such as temperature threats to remaining populations of the darter’s vulnerability to these threats is tolerance, dissolved oxygen needs, and Kentucky arrow darter across its range. even greater due to its reduced range, metabolic rates), life history (such as The severity of these threats is high fragmented populations, and small or timing of reproduction, growth rate), because of the species’ reduced range declining population sizes (Factor E) and distribution (range shifts, migration and population size, which result in a (Primack 2012, pp. 146–150). The of new predators) (Jackson and Mandrak reduced ability to adapt to effects of certain threats, particularly 2002, pp. 89–98; Heino et al. 2009, pp. environmental change. Further, our habitat degradation and loss, increase in 41–51; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp. review of the best available scientific magnitude when population size is 350–351; Comte et al. 2013, pp. 627– and commercial information indicates small (Primack 2012, pp. 150–152). 636). According to Kaushal et al. (2010, that these threats are likely to continue The Act defines an endangered p. 465), stream temperatures in the or increase in the future. species as any species that is ‘‘in danger Southeast have increased roughly 0.2– of extinction throughout all or a 0.4 °C per decade over the past 30 years, Proposed Determination significant portion of its range’’ and a and as air temperature is a strong We have carefully assessed the best threatened species as any species ‘‘that predictor of water temperature, stream scientific and commercial information is likely to become endangered temperatures are expected to continue available regarding the past, present, throughout all or a significant portion of to rise. and future threats to the Kentucky arrow its range within the foreseeable future.’’ Estimates of the effects of climate darter. As described in detail above, the We find that the Kentucky arrow darter change using available climate models Kentucky arrow darter has been meets the definition of a threatened typically lack the geographic precision extirpated from about 49 percent of its species based on the immediacy, needed to predict the magnitude of historical range (36 of 74 historical severity, and scope of the threats effects at a scale small enough to streams), 16 of these extirpations have identified above. The species’ overall discretely apply to the range of a given occurred since the mid-1990s, range has been reduced substantially, species. However, data on recent trends populations in nearly half of the most of the species’ historical habitat and predicted changes for Kentucky species’ occupied streams are ranked as has been degraded, and much of the (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1–19), and, vulnerable (see Table 1, above), remaining habitat exists primarily in more specifically, the upper Kentucky remaining populations are fragmented fragmented patches. Current Kentucky

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60983

arrow darter habitats continue to be lost Available Conservation Measures our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ or degraded due to surface coal mining, Conservation measures provided to endangered), or from our Kentucky logging, oil/gas development, land species listed as endangered or Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR development, agriculture, and threatened under the Act include FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). inadequate sewage treatment, and it recognition, recovery actions, Implementation of recovery actions appears this trend will continue in the requirements for Federal protection, and generally requires the participation of a future. Regulatory mechanisms such as prohibitions against certain practices. broad range of partners, including other the Clean Water Act have been Recognition through listing results in Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, inadequate to reduce or remove these public awareness and conservation by businesses, and private landowners. types of threats to the species. Extant Federal, State, Tribal, and local Examples of recovery actions include populations are known from 47 streams, agencies; private organizations; and habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of but these populations continue to be individuals. The Act encourages native vegetation), research, captive cooperation with the States and other threatened by small population size, propagation and reintroduction, and countries and calls for recovery actions isolation, fragmentation, climate change, outreach and education. The recovery of to be carried out for listed species. The and the habitat degradation summarized many listed species cannot be protection required by Federal agencies above. All of these factors make the accomplished solely on Federal lands and the prohibitions against certain species particularly susceptible to because their range may occur primarily extinction in the future. activities are discussed, in part, below. or solely on non-Federal lands. To The primary purpose of the Act is the achieve recovery of these species We find that endangered status is not conservation of endangered and requires cooperative conservation efforts appropriate for the Kentucky arrow threatened species and the ecosystems on private, State, and Tribal lands. If darter because we do not consider the upon which they depend. The ultimate this species is listed, funding for species’ threats to be so severe that goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery actions will be available from extinction is imminent. Although recovery of these listed species, so that threats to the species are ongoing, often a variety of sources, including Federal they no longer need the protective budgets, State programs, and cost share severe, and occurring across the range, measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of populations continue to occupy 47 grants for non-Federal landowners, the the Act calls for the Service to develop academic community, and scattered streams, 23 of which appear to and implement recovery plans for the support stable populations (see Table 1, nongovernmental organizations. In conservation of endangered and addition, pursuant to section 6 of the above). Additionally, a significant threatened species. The recovery Act, the State of Kentucky would be number of extant Kentucky arrow darter planning process involves the eligible for Federal funds to implement populations (49 percent) occur identification of actions that are management actions that promote the primarily on public lands (i.e., DBNF necessary to halt or reverse the species’ protection or recovery of the Kentucky and Robinson Forest) that are at least decline by addressing the threats to its arrow darter. Information on our grant partially managed to protect habitats survival and recovery. The goal of this programs that are available to aid used by the species. For example, the process is to restore listed species to a species recovery can be found at: http:// CCA with the U.S. Forest Service point where they are secure, self- www.fws.gov/grants. (USFS) for DBNF should provide an sustaining, and functioning components Although the Kentucky arrow darter elevated level of focused management of their ecosystems. is only proposed for listing under the and conservation for portions of 20 Recovery planning includes the Act at this time, please let us know if streams that support populations of the development of a recovery outline you are interested in participating in Kentucky arrow darter. Based on all shortly after a species is listed and conservation efforts for this species. these factors, the Kentucky arrow darter preparation of a draft and final recovery Additionally, we invite you to submit does not meet the definition of an plan. The recovery outline guides the any new information on this species endangered species. Therefore, on the immediate implementation of urgent whenever it becomes available and any basis of the best available scientific and recovery actions and describes the information you may have for commercial information, we propose process to be used to develop a recovery conservation planning purposes (see listing the Kentucky arrow darter as a plan. The plan may be revised to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). threatened species in accordance with address continuing or new threats to the Section 7(a) of the Act requires sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. species, as new substantive information Federal agencies to evaluate their becomes available. The recovery plan actions with respect to any species that Under the Act and our implementing also identifies recovery criteria for is proposed or listed as an endangered regulations, a species may warrant review of when a species may be ready or threatened species and with respect listing if it is an endangered or for reclassification from endangered to to its critical habitat, if any is threatened species throughout all or a threatened or for delisting and methods designated. Regulations implementing significant portion of its range. Because for monitoring recovery progress. this interagency cooperation provision we have determined that the Kentucky Recovery plans also establish a of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part arrow darter is a threatened species framework for agencies to coordinate 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires throughout all of its range, no portion of their recovery efforts and provide Federal agencies to confer with the its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for estimates of the cost of implementing Service on any action that is likely to purposes of the definitions of recovery tasks. Recovery teams jeopardize the continued existence of a ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened (composed of species experts, Federal species proposed for listing or result in species.’’ See the Final Policy on and State agencies, nongovernmental destruction or adverse modification of Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant organizations, and stakeholders) are proposed critical habitat. If a species is Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered often established to develop recovery listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of Species Act’s Definitions of plans. If the species is listed, a recovery the Act requires Federal agencies to ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened outline, draft recovery plan, and the ensure that activities they authorize, Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). final recovery plan will be available on fund, or carry out are not likely to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

jeopardize the continued existence of by KDFWR and CFI, field investigations 2009, October 2009, March 2010, the species or destroy or adversely to determine the predatory risk posed by January 2012, and February 2012, were modify its critical habitat. If a Federal nonnative trout, and continued informal unsuccessful, so KDFWR and CFI made action may affect a listed species or its discussions with our Federal, State, and the decision to abandon efforts at Sugar critical habitat, the responsible Federal private partners. If implemented, Creek and begin another reintroduction agency must enter into consultation specific actions identified in the effort at Long Fork, another DBNF with the Service. conservation strategy will help to stream and tributary of Hector Branch in Federal agency actions within the reduce current threats to the Kentucky Clay County. species’ habitat that may require arrow darter. Since August 2012, a total of 1,447 conference or consultation or both as As stated above, the Service and captive-spawned KADs (about 50–55 described in the preceding paragraph USFS recently signed a CCA for the mm TL) have been tagged and include management and any other Kentucky arrow darter on the DBNF. reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi) landscape-altering activities on Federal About half of the species’ extant streams reach of Long Fork. Monitoring has been lands administered by the USFS; occur on lands owned and managed by conducted on 14 occasions since the issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act the DBNF, so conservation of these initial release using visual searches and permits by the U.S. Army Corps of populations is essential to the species’ seining methods. Tagged darters have Engineers; construction and recovery, and a DBNF-specific been observed during each monitoring maintenance of gas pipeline and power conservation plan is needed to guide event, with numbers increasing from 18 line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy those efforts. The CCA is intended to (October 2012) to 86 (August 2013) Regulatory Commission; Environmental conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on (Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). Tagged Protection Agency pesticide registration; the DBNF by (a) protecting known darters have been observed throughout construction and maintenance of roads populations and habitat, (b) reducing the Long Fork mainstem, both upstream or highways by the Federal Highway threats to its survival, (c) conserving the and downstream of the release points, Administration; and projects funded watersheds and ecosystems on which it and two tagged individuals have been through Federal loan programs which depends, and (d) enhancing and/or observed outside of Long Fork—one in may include, but are not limited to, restoring degraded habitat. Hector Branch, just downstream of its roads and bridges, utilities, recreation In 2005, KDFWR identified the confluence with Long Fork, and one at sites, and other forms of development. Kentucky arrow darter as 1 of 251 the mouth of Deerlick Branch, a first- Several conservation efforts are Species of Greatest Conservation Need order tributary of Hector Branch located already being undertaken for the (SGCN) in its State Wildlife Action Plan approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) Kentucky arrow darter. The Service, in (KDFWR 2005, entire). The species downstream of the confluence of Long cooperation with KDFWR, KSNPC, U.S. remains a SGCN in the most recent Fork and Hector Branch. The majority of Geological Survey (USGS), KDOW, version of the plan (KDFWR 2013, pp. individuals have been found in pools DBNF, CFI, and The Appalachian 61–62), which identifies conservation (depth of 20–61 cm (8–24 in)) with rock Wildlife Foundation, Inc., completed a issues (threats), conservation actions, substrates, exposed bedrock, and some conservation strategy for the Kentucky and monitoring strategies for 301 animal marginal cover (e.g., tree roots). Surveys arrow darter in 2014 (Service 2014, species belonging to 1 of 20 terrestrial in July, August, and October 2013, entire). The strategy was developed as a and aquatic habitat guilds (collection of produced a total of 20, untagged young- guidance document that would assist species that occur in the same habitat). of-year arrow darters, while surveys in the Service and its partners in their In the original plan, KDFWR developed March, July, August, and October 2013, conservation efforts for the species. The a priority list of research and survey produced 25 untagged young-of-year. strategy is divided into four major needs for Kentucky’s SGCN. In 2008, These results indicate natural sections: (1) Biology and status, (2) KDFWR attempted to address two of reproduction in Long Fork. In 2015, listing factors/current threats, (3) these needs by initiating a propagation KDFWR observed five untagged current conservation efforts, and (4) and reintroduction study for the individuals in Hector Branch, conservation objectives/actions. The Kentucky arrow darter through the approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream strategy’s first conservation objective Service’s State Wildlife Program (Ruble of its confluence with Long Fork, and addresses current informational needs et al. 2010, entire). The study was four untagged individuals in Deerlick on the species’ biology, ecology, designed to document details on the Branch, approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) viability, and survey methods, while the species’ reproductive biology and to downstream of the confluence of Long remaining three conservation objectives begin conservation actions (e.g., Fork and Hector Branch. Additional address specific threats facing the propagation followed by reintroduction monitoring and releases are planned for species (Factors A, D, and E, or augmentation) that would benefit the 2015. respectively). species. The KDFWR partnered with CFI The Service and KDFWR are working With respect to the conservation to develop successful spawning with EKU on a study that is strategy’s first objective, several research protocols and produce the offspring investigating Kentucky arrow darter projects have been initiated that will needed to augment populations within movements, habitat characteristics, and provide new information on the species’ the species’ current range. population size in two DBNF streams, biology and threats (see descriptions in From 2009 to 2011, a total of 145 Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha Creek, in the following paragraphs). These captive-spawned, juvenile Kentucky Clay and Leslie Counties (Harrel and projects include studies on the species’ arrow darters (originating from brood Baxter 2013, entire). EKU is using PIT- distribution, status, and population size; stock taken from Big Double Creek) were tags and placed antenna systems to movement and microhabitat produced by CFI, tagged (Northwest monitor intra- and inter-tributary characteristics; genetics; and response to Marine Technologies elastomer tag), and movement patterns in both streams, and changes in water quality (e.g., introduced into Sugar Creek, Leslie they have collected seasonal (Spring, conductivity). Initial efforts to address County, a tributary of the Red Bird River Summer, and Fall of 2013) biotic and objectives 2–4 have included the in the DBNF, Redbird District (Thomas abiotic data from 20 100-m (328-ft) development of a CCA with the USFS, and Brandt 2012, pp. 57–64). Attempts reaches to determine habitat use and a propagation and reintroduction study to relocate tagged darters in August population density/size for both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60985

streams. Preliminary findings include development and implementation of the general importance of this water the following: conservation efforts. Field surveys were quality attribute for stream fish ecology • 126 individuals pit-tagged; completed in August 2013. Data in central Appalachia. • Population estimates for Elisha analyses are incomplete, but initial Proposed Special Rule Creek: 592–1,429 individuals (summer) results include a mean density of 9.69 and 661–1,359 (fall) (range here and Kentucky arrow darters per sampling Under section 4(d) of the Act, the below reflects 95 percent confidence reach and a population estimate of 986 Service has discretion to issue intervals); to 2,113 darters in Clemons Fork (95 regulations that we find necessary and • Population estimate for Gilberts Big percent confidence intervals). advisable to provide for the Creek: 175–358 (summer); Preliminary findings of this study were conservation of threatened wildlife. We • Maximum observed movement: presented at the 2013 Southeastern may also prohibit by regulation, with 4,078 m (2.5 mi) (female, downstream in Fishes Council Meeting, Lake respect to threatened wildlife, any act Gilberts Big Creek); and that is prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of • Guntersville, Alabama (November 14– Other observed movements (7 15, 2013). the Act for endangered wildlife. individuals): 134 m (439 ft) (upstream), Austin Peay State University is Exercising this discretion, the Service 328 m (1,076 ft) (downstream), 351 currently working with KDFWR and the has developed general prohibitions that (1,151 ft) (upstream), 900 m (2,952 ft) Service on the first comprehensive are appropriate for most threatened (upstream/downstream), 950 m (3,116 assessment of genetic variation and gene species at 50 CFR 17.31 and exceptions ft) (downstream), 1,282 m (4,028 ft) flow patterns across the range of the to those prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.32. (downstream) and 1,708 m (5,603 ft) Kentucky arrow darter (Johansen et al. While most of the prohibitions of 17.31 (downstream). 2013, pp. 1–3). Approximately 25 and 17.32 are appropriate for the In 2013, KSNPC and the Service individuals per population from up to Kentucky arrow darter, we find that initiated a study to investigate the 12 populations across the range of the some activities that would normally be distribution, status, population size, and species will be genotyped using prohibited under 17.31 and 17.32 are habitat use of the Kentucky arrow darter microsatellite markers. Resulting data necessary for the conservation of this within the upper Kentucky River basin. will be used to generate robust estimates species because the species could One important aspect of the study was of effective population sizes and overall benefit from habitat improvements in to account for imperfect detection when population and species’ variability. This first- to third-order streams that are surveying for the species. Studies that information is essential to the physically degraded (e.g., unstable do not account for imperfect detection development of effective conservation stream channels, eroding banks, no can often lead to an underestimation of and recovery measures to ensure the canopy cover). Therefore, for the the true proportion of sites occupied by long-term persistence of the species. Kentucky arrow darter, the Service has a species and can bias assessments and Funding for this project is being determined that a species-specific sampling efforts (MacKenzie et al. 2002, provided through the Service’s section 6 section 4(d) rule may be appropriate to entire; MacKenzie et al. 2005, entire). program. promote the conservation of this From June to September 2013, KSNPC Through Service-USGS Quick species. As discussed in the Summary and the Service visited 80 randomly Response funding, the USGS Leetown of Factors Affecting the Species section chosen sites (ranging from first- to third- Science Center evaluated the of this rule, the primary threat to the order) across the upper Kentucky River relationship between Kentucky arrow species is the continuing loss and basin in order to address these concerns darter abundance and stream degradation of habitat. Physical habitat and meet project objectives. As conductivity in the upper Kentucky degradation is widespread within the expected, Kentucky arrow darters were River basin (Hitt 2014, entire). species’ range, and sediment has been rare during the study and were observed Nonlinear regression techniques were identified as the most common stressor at only 7 of the 80 sites, including two used to evaluate significant thresholds (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214; KDOW new localities (Granny Dismal Creek in and associated confidence intervals for 2013b, pp. 88–94). Sedimentation may Owsley County and Spring Fork Kentucky arrow darter abundance originate from areas outside of the Quicksand Creek in Breathitt County) related to conductivity levels. As a stream channel as a result of land use and one historical stream (Hunting contrast to Kentucky arrow darter, Dr. activities associated with surface coal Creek, Breathitt County) where the Hitt also evaluated blackside dace mining, legacy coal extraction, logging, species was not observed during status occurrence in this regard. Data for the land development, channel relocations, surveys by Thomas (2008, pp. 1–33) and study were supplied by the Service’s and riparian clearing. All of these Service (2012, pp. 1–4). Presently, Kentucky and Tennessee Field Offices, activities can cause sedimentation, but KSNPC and the Service are in the data KDFWR, and KSNPC. Nonlinear they may also lead to canopy removal analysis stage of this project. regressions indicated a distinct decline clearing of riparian vegetation, and In July 2013, EKU, the Service, and in Kentucky arrow darter abundance at elevation of stream temperatures, KSNPC initiated a population estimate 258 mS/cm (95 percent confidence thereby degrading habitats used by and microhabitat characterization study intervals 155–590 mS/cm), above which Kentucky arrow darters for feeding, on Clemons Fork, Breathitt County. The abundances were negligible. Nonlinear sheltering, and reproduction. study was designed to estimate the threshold declines for blackside dace Sedimentation may also originate from Kentucky arrow darter’s current were observed at 343 mS/cm, and 95 areas within the stream channel as a population size and average density percent confidence intervals bounded result of channel instability and bank or within Clemons Fork and to compare this relationship between 123–632 mS/ stream bed erosion. Numerous streams current densities with historical cm. Boosted regression results indicated within the species’ current range have densities reported by Lotrich (1973). that stream conductivity was the been identified as impaired (primarily Additionally, population densities and strongest predictor in separate analyses due to siltation) and have been included habitat parameters will be compared to of Kentucky arrow darter and blackside on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired data from Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha dace abundance. Hitt (2014, pp. 7–8) waters (see Table 2, above). Activities Creek (both DBNF) to aid in delineation concluded that the similar responses of such as stream reconfiguration/riparian of essential habitat characteristics and these ecologically distinct taxa suggest restoration, bridge and culvert

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

replacement or removal, bank rock, and wood instead of large affect the species’ conservation and stabilization, and stream crossing repair imported materials; low compaction of recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they and maintenance, that follow the soils within adjacent riparian areas; and would have a net beneficial effect on the provisions of the species specific 4(d) inclusion of riparian wetlands. First- to species. Across the species’ range, rule below will improve or restore third-order, headwater streams instream habitats have been degraded physical habitat quality for the reconstructed in this way would offer physically by sedimentation and by Kentucky arrow darter and will provide suitable habitats for the Kentucky arrow direct channel disturbance. The an overall conservation benefit to the darter and contain stable channel activities proposed in this rule will species. features, such as pools, glides, runs, and correct some of these problems, creating The 4(d) rule, if approved, will not riffles, which could be used by the more favorable habitat conditions for remove or alter in any way the species for spawning, rearing, growth, the species. Like the proposed listing consultation requirement under section feeding, migration, and other normal rule, this proposed 4(d) rule will not be 7 of the Act. However, we expect the behaviors. finalized until we have reviewed 4(d) rule to provide greater certainty to (2) Bank stabilization projects that comments from the public and peer Federal agencies and any third parties utilize bioengineering methods outlined reviewers. (e.g., permit applicants) in the in Kentucky Environmental and Public Based on the rationale above, the consultation process for activities Protection Cabinet and Kentucky provisions included in this proposed conducted in accordance with the Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116– 4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to provisions of the 4(d) rule. The 128) to replace pre-existing, bare, provide for the conservation of the consultation process may be further eroding stream banks with vegetated, Kentucky arrow darter. Nothing in this streamlined through programmatic stable stream banks, thereby reducing proposed 4(d) rule would change in any consultations between Federal agencies bank erosion and instream way the recovery planning provisions of and the Service for these activities. We sedimentation and improving habitat section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation ask the public, particularly Federal conditions for the species. Following requirements under section 7 of the Act, agencies and other interested these methods, stream banks may be or the ability of the Service to enter into stakeholders that may be affected by the stabilized using live stakes (live, partnerships for the management and 4(d) rule, to provide comments and vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped protection of the Kentucky arrow darter. suggestions regarding additional into the ground in a manner that allows We may issue permits to carry out guidance and methods that the Service the stake to take root and grow), live otherwise prohibited activities could provide or utilize, respectively, to fascines (live branch cuttings, usually involving threatened wildlife under streamline the implementation of this willows, bound together into long, cigar certain circumstances. Regulations 4(d) rule (see Information Requested). shaped bundles), or brush layering governing permits are codified at 50 (cuttings or branches of easily rooted CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule tree species layered between successive wildlife, a permit may be issued for This proposed 4(d) rule would except lifts of soil fill). These methods would scientific purposes, to enhance the from the general prohibitions in 50 CFR not include the sole use of quarried rock propagation or survival of the species, 17.32 take incidental to the following (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or economic hardship, zoological activities when conducted within gabion structures. exhibition, educational purposes, and habitats currently occupied by the (3) Bridge and culvert replacement/ for incidental take in connection with Kentucky arrow darter. All of the removal projects that remove migration otherwise lawful activities. There are activities listed below must be barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or also certain statutory exemptions from conducted in a manner that (1) perched culverts) or generally allow for the prohibited activities, which are maintains connectivity of suitable improved upstream and downstream found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Kentucky arrow darter habitats, movements of Kentucky arrow darters It is our policy, as published in the allowing for dispersal between streams; while maintaining normal stream flows, Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR (2) minimizes instream disturbance by preventing bed and bank erosion, and 34272), to identify to the maximum conducting activities during low-flow improving habitat conditions for the extent practicable at the time a species periods when possible; and (3) species. is listed, those activities that would or maximizes the amount of instream cover (4) Repair and maintenance of USFS would not constitute a violation of that is available for the species: concrete plank stream crossings on the section 9 of the Act (for this species, (1) Channel reconfiguration or DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage those section 9 prohibitions adopted restoration projects that create natural, while maintaining instream habitats, through the proposed 4(d) rule). The physically stable, ecologically reducing bank and stream bed erosion intent of this policy is to increase public functioning streams (or stream and and instream sedimentation, and awareness of the effect of a proposed wetland systems) that are reconnected improving habitat conditions for the listing on proposed and ongoing with their groundwater aquifers (Parola species. These concrete plank crossings activities within the range of species and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8–13; Parola have been an effective stream crossing proposed for listing. Based on the best and Hansen 2011, pp. 2–7; Floyd et al. structure on the DBNF and have been available information, the following 2013, pp. 129–135). These projects can used for decades. Over time, the planks actions are unlikely to result in a be accomplished using a variety of can be buried by sediment, undercut violation of section 9, if these activities methods, but the desired outcome is a during storm events, or simply break are carried out in accordance with natural, sinuous channel with low shear down and decay. If these situations existing regulations and permit stress (force of water moving against the occur, the DBNF must make repairs or requirements, although this list is not channel); low bank heights and replace the affected plank. comprehensive: reconnection to the floodplain; a We believe these actions and (1) Normal agricultural and reconnection of surface and activities, while they may have some silvicultural practices, including groundwater systems, resulting in minimal level of mortality, harm, or herbicide and pesticide use, which are perennial flows in the channel; riffles disturbance to the Kentucky arrow carried out in accordance with any and pools comprised of existing soil, darter, are not expected to adversely existing regulations, permit and label

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60987

requirements, and best management 1998, to write all rules in plain Internet at http://www.regulations.gov practices; and language. This means that each rule we and upon request from the Kentucky (2) Surface coal mining and publish must: Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR reclamation activities conducted in (1) Be logically organized; FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). accordance with the 1996 Biological (2) Use the active voice to address Opinion between the Service and OSM. readers directly; Authors (3) Use clear language rather than However, we believe the following The primary authors of this proposed jargon; activities may potentially result in a rule are the staff members of the violation of section 9 of the Act, (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and Kentucky Ecological Services Field although this list is not comprehensive: Office. (1) Unauthorized collecting or (5) Use lists and tables wherever handling of the species. possible. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 (2) Destruction or alteration of the If you feel that we have not met these habitat of the Kentucky arrow darter requirements, send us comments by one Endangered and threatened species, (e.g., unpermitted instream dredging, of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES Exports, Imports, Reporting and impoundment, water diversion or section. To better help us revise the recordkeeping requirements, withdrawal, channelization, discharge rule, your comments should be as Transportation. specific as possible. For example, you of fill material) that impairs essential Proposed Regulation Promulgation behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or should tell us the numbers of the sheltering, or results in killing or sections or paragraphs that are unclearly Accordingly, we propose to amend injuring a Kentucky arrow darter. written, which sections or sentences are part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title (3) Discharges or dumping of toxic too long, the sections where you feel 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chemicals, contaminants, or other lists or tables would be useful, etc. as set forth below: pollutants into waters supporting the National Environmental Policy Act (42 PART 17—[AMENDED] Kentucky arrow darter that kills or U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) injures individuals, or otherwise We have determined that impairs essential life-sustaining ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 environmental assessments and behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or continues to read as follows: environmental impact statements, as sheltering. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Questions regarding whether specific defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise activities would constitute a violation of noted. need not be prepared in connection section 9 of the Act should be directed with listing a species as an endangered ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an to the Kentucky Ecological Services or threatened species under the entry for ‘‘Darter, Kentucky arrow’’ to Field Office (see FOR FURTHER Endangered Species Act. We published the List of Endangered and Threatened INFORMATION CONTACT). a notice outlining our reasons for this Wildlife in alphabetical order under Required Determinations determination in the Federal Register FISHES to read as follows: on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Clarity of the Rule § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. We are required by Executive Orders References Cited 12866 and 12988 and by the A complete list of references cited in * * * * * Presidential Memorandum of June 1, this rulemaking is available on the (h) * * *

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

******* FISHES

******* Darter, Kentucky Etheostoma U.S.A. (KY) ...... Entire ...... T ...... NA 17.44(p) arrow. spilotum.

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.44 by adding paragraph (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. (i) (ii) Incidental take of the Kentucky (p) to read as follows: All of the activities listed in paragraph arrow darter will not be considered a (p)(2)(ii) must be conducted in a manner violation of section 9 of the Act if the § 17.44 Special rules—fishes. that maintains connectivity of suitable take results from any of the following * * * * * Kentucky arrow darter habitats, when conducted within habitats (p) Kentucky arrow darter allowing for dispersal between streams; currently occupied by the Kentucky (Etheostoma spilotum). that minimizes instream disturbance by arrow darter: (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in conducting activities during low-flow paragraph (p)(2) of this section, all (A) Channel reconfiguration or periods when possible; and that prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR restoration projects that create natural, 17.31 and 17.32 apply to the Kentucky maximizes the amount of instream cover physically stable, ecologically arrow darter. that is available for the species. functioning streams (or stream and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 60988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

wetland systems) that are reconnected in Kentucky Environmental and Public preventing bed and bank erosion, and with their groundwater aquifers (Parola Protection Cabinet and Kentucky improving habitat conditions for the and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8–13; Parola Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116– species. and Hansen 2011, pp. 2–7; Floyd et al. 128) to replace pre-existing, bare, (D) Repair and maintenance of USFS 2013, pp. 129–135). These projects can eroding stream banks with vegetated, concrete plank stream crossings on the be accomplished using a variety of stable stream banks, thereby reducing DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage methods, but the desired outcome is a bank erosion and instream natural, sinuous channel with low shear sedimentation and improving habitat while maintaining instream habitats, stress (force of water moving against the conditions for the species. Following reducing bank and stream bed erosion channel); low bank heights and these methods, stream banks may be and instream sedimentation, and reconnection to the floodplain; a stabilized using live stakes (live, improving habitat conditions for the reconnection of surface and vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped species. These concrete plank crossings groundwater systems, resulting in into the ground in a manner that allows have been an effective stream crossing perennial flows in the channel; riffles the stake to take root and grow), live structure on the DBNF and have been and pools comprised of existing soil, fascines (live branch cuttings, usually used for decades. Over time, the planks rock, and wood instead of large willows, bound together into long, cigar can be buried by sediment, undercut imported materials; low compaction of shaped bundles), or brush layering during storm events, or simply break soils within adjacent riparian areas; and (cuttings or branches of easily rooted down and decay. If these situations inclusion of riparian wetlands. First- to tree species layered between successive occur, the DBNF must make repairs or third-order, headwater streams lifts of soil fill). These methods would replace the affected plank. reconstructed in this way would offer not include the sole use of quarried rock * * * * * suitable habitats for the Kentucky arrow (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or darter and contain stable channel gabion structures. Dated: September 22, 2015. features, such as pools, glides, runs, and (C) Bridge and culvert replacement/ Cynthia T. Martinez, riffles, which could be used by the removal projects that remove migration Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife species for spawning, rearing, growth, barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or Service. feeding, migration, and other normal perched culverts) or generally allow for [FR Doc. 2015–25278 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am] behaviors. improved upstream and downstream (B) Bank stabilization projects that movements of Kentucky arrow darters BILLING CODE 4333–15–P utilize bioengineering methods outlined while maintaining normal stream flows,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM 08OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2