48722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2 OF § 165.T01–0688—Continued • This Safety Zone includes all waters within a 100-yard radius of each partici- pating swimmer.

Dated: July 25, 2011. July 5, 2011, of the DMM is approved Explorer® Web site at: http:// G.P. Hitchen, by the Director of the Federal Register pe.usps.com. as of August 9, 2011. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Port New York (Acting). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 2011–20093 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] Lizbeth Dobbins (202) 268–3789. Administrative practice and BILLING CODE 9110–04–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The most procedure, Incorporation by reference. recent Issue 300 of the Domestic Mail In view of the considerations Manual (DMM) was issued on July 5, discussed above, the Postal Service 2011. This Issue of the DMM contains hereby amends 39 CFR Part 111 as POSTAL SERVICE all Postal Service domestic mailing follows: 39 CFR PART 111 standards. This issue continues to: (1) Increase the user’s ability to find PART 111—GENERAL INFORMATION Domestic Mail Manual; Incorporation information; (2) increase confidence that ON POSTAL SERVICE users have found all the information by Reference ■ they need; and (3) reduce the need to 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. consult multiple chapters of the Manual Part 111 continues to read as follows: ACTION: Final rule. to locate necessary information. Issue Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 300, dated July 5, 2011, set forth specific 307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, SUMMARY: The Postal Service announces changes, such as new standards 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– the issuance of DMM 300, dated July 5, throughout the DMM to support the 3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001. 2011, of the Mailing Standards of the standards and mail preparation changes Postal Service, Domestic ■ 2. Amend § 111.3(f) by adding the ® implemented since the May 11, 2009 Mail Manual (DMM ), and its version. following new entry at the end of the incorporation by reference in the Code Changes to mailing standards will table: § 111.3 Amendments to the of Federal Regulations. continue to be published through Mailing Standards of the United States DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is Federal Register notices and the Postal Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual. effective on August 9, 2011. The Bulletin, and will appear in the next * * * * * incorporation by reference of Issue 300, online version available via the Postal (f) * * *

Transmittal letter for issue Dated Federal Register publication

******* Issue 300 ...... May 7, 2008 ...... 73 FR 25508 Issue 300 ...... May 11, 2009 ...... 75 FR 31702 DMM 300 ...... July 5, 2011 ...... [Insert FR citation for this Final Rule].

■ 3. Amend § 111.4 by removing ‘‘June DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Noturus crypticus), and laurel 4, 2010’’ and adding ‘‘August 9, 2011.’’ dace ( saylori) under the Fish and Wildlife Service Act of 1973, as Stanley F. Mires, amended (Act). This final rule Chief Counsel, Legislative. 50 CFR Part 17 implements the Federal protections [FR Doc. 2011–20078 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0027; MO provided by the Act for these species BILLING CODE 7710–P 92210–0–0008 B2] throughout their ranges, including in and RIN 1018–AV85 , rush darter in , Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Arkansas, and and Plants; Endangered Status for the chucky madtom and laurel dace in Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Tennessee. We intend to propose Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, critical habitat in an upcoming and Laurel Dace rulemaking, which is expected within the next few months. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, DATES: This rule becomes effective Interior. September 8, 2011. ACTION: Final rule. ADDRESSES: This final rule is available SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and on the Internet at http:// Wildlife Service (Service), determine www.regulations.gov at Docket No. endangered status for the Cumberland FWS–R4–ES–2010–0027. Comments darter ( susanae), rush darter and materials received, as well as (Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek supporting documentation used in the darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky preparation of this rule, will be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48723

available for public inspection, by telephone 501–513–4470; facsimile threatened species is any species which appointment, during normal business 501–513–4480. is likely to become an endangered hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, For information regarding the chucky species within the foreseeable future Tennessee Ecological Services Field madtom and laurel dace, contact Mary throughout all or a significant portion of Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish its range. 38501; telephone 931–528–6481; and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Through the Federal rulemaking facsimile 931–528–7075. Ecological Services Field Office, 446 process, we add species that meet these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; definitions to the List of Endangered information regarding the Cumberland telephone 931–528–6481; facsimile and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR darter, contact Lee Andrews, Field 931–528–7075. 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife If you use a telecommunications Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As Service, Kentucky Ecological Services device for the deaf (TDD), call the part of this program, we maintain a list Field Office, J.C. Watts Federal Federal Information Relay Service of species that we regard as candidates Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. for listing. We call this list the Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone 502– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). A 695–0468; facsimile 502–695–1024. candidate species is one for which we For information regarding the rush Background have on file sufficient information on darter, contact Stephen Ricks, Field This document consists of a final rule biological vulnerability and threats to Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife to list the Cumberland darter support a proposal to list as endangered Service, Ecological Services (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter or threatened, but for which preparation Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View (Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek and publication of a proposal is Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213; darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky precluded by higher priority listing telephone 601–965–4900; facsimile madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel actions. We may identify a species as a 601–965–4340 or Bill Pearson, Field dace (Chrosomus saylori) as endangered candidate for listing based on an Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of evaluation of its status that we Service, Alabama Ecological Services 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et conducted on our own initiative, or as Field Office, 1208–B Main Street, seq.) (Act). The Act requires that we a result of making a finding on a Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251–441– identify species of wildlife and plants petition to list a species that listing is 5181; fax 251–441–6222. that are endangered or threatened, based warranted but precluded by other higher For information regarding the on the best available scientific and priority listing action. Table 1 includes yellowcheek darter, contact Jim Boggs, commercial information. As defined in the citation information for the CNORs Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife section 3 of the Act, an endangered mentioned in the following paragraphs, Service, Arkansas Ecological Services species is any species which is in which discuss the previous candidate Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, danger of extinction throughout all or a status of each of the five species being Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; significant portion of its range, and a listed as endangered in this rule.

TABLE 1—FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION INFORMATION FOR CERTAIN CANDIDATE NOTICES OF REVIEW ISSUED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SINCE 1985

Federal Register Date of publication Year volume and page in the number Federal Register

1985 ...... 50 FR 37958 ...... September 18, 1985. 1989 ...... 54 FR 554 ...... January 6, 1989. 1991 ...... 56 FR 58804 ...... November 21, 1991. 1994 ...... 59 FR 58982 ...... November 15, 1994. 1996 ...... 61 FR 7596 ...... February 28, 1996. 1999 ...... 64 FR 57533 ...... October 25, 1999. 2001 ...... 66 FR 54807 ...... October 30, 2001. 2002 ...... 67 FR 40657 ...... June 13, 2002. 2004 ...... 69 FR 24875 ...... May 4, 2004. 2005 ...... 70 FR 24869 ...... May 11, 2005. 2006 ...... 71 FR 53755 ...... September 12, 2006. 2007 ...... 72 FR 69034 ...... December 6, 2007. 2008 ...... 73 FR 75176 ...... December 10, 2008. 2009 ...... 74 FR 57804 ...... November 9, 2009. 2010 ...... 75 FR 69222 ...... November 10, 2010.

Previous Federal Action threatened was possibly appropriate, sufficient information on biological but for which conclusive data on vulnerability and threats to support Cumberland Darter biological vulnerability and threat was issuance of a proposed rule were The Cumberland darter was first not currently available to support regarded as candidate species. identified as a candidate for listing in proposed rules. The Cumberland darter Candidate species were also assigned the 1985 CNOR. It was assigned a retained the Category 2 status in the listing priority numbers based on Category 2 status, which was given to 1989, 1991, and 1994 CNORs. immediacy and the magnitude of threat, those species for which the Service Assigning categories to candidate as well as their taxonomic status. In the possessed information indicating that species was discontinued in 1996, and 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2004 CNORs, the proposing to list as endangered or only species for which the Service had Cumberland darter was identified as a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

listing priority 6 candidate species. We Chucky Madtom obscure or appear as a series of blotches published a petition finding for (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 510). We first identified the chucky Cumberland darter in the 2005 CNOR in The Cumberland darter was first madtom as a candidate for listing in the response to a petition received on May described as Boleosoma susanae by 1994 CNOR with a Category 2 status. In 11, 2004, stating the darter would retain Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249–250) the 2002 and 2004 CNORs, the chucky a listing priority of 6. from tributaries of the Clear Fork of the madtom was identified as a listing Cumberland River, Kentucky. In the 2006 CNOR, we changed the priority 2 candidate species. We listing priority number for Cumberland Subsequent studies by Kuhne (1939, p. published a petition finding for chucky 92) and Cole (1967, p. 29) formerly darter from 6 to 5, because it was madtom in the 2005 CNOR in response formally described as a distinct species. recognized the taxon as a subspecies to a petition received on May 11, 2004, (Etheostoma nigrum susanae) of E. n. Based on new molecular evidence, the stating the madtom would retain a nigrum (Johnny darter). Starnes and subspecies Etheostoma nigrum susanae listing priority of 2. In the 2006, 2007, Starnes (1979, p. 427) clarified the was elevated to specific status, 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the subspecific status of the Cumberland Etheostoma susanae. In the 2007, 2008, chucky madtom retained a listing darter, differentiating it from the Johnny 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the Cumberland priority of 2. darter by several diagnostic darter retained a listing priority of 5. On In 1994, the chucky madtom was first characteristics. Strange (1998, p. 101) June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035) we added to the candidate list as Noturus elevated E. n. susanae to full species published a proposed rule to list the sp. Subsequently, and based on status based on analyses of Cumberland darter as endangered. morphological and molecular evidence, mitochondrial DNA for E. n. susanae Rush Darter the chucky madtom was formally and E. n. nigrum. described as a distinct species, Noturus The Cumberland darter inhabits pools We first identified the rush darter as crypticus (Burr et al. 2005). We or shallow runs of low- to moderate- a candidate for listing in the 2002 included this new information in the gradient sections of streams with stable CNOR. The rush darter was assigned a 2006 CNOR. We proposed to list the sand, silt, or sand-covered bedrock listing priority number of 5. In the 2004 chucky madtom as endangered on June substrates (O’Bara 1988, pp. 10–11; CNOR, the rush darter retained a listing 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035). O’Bara 1991, p. 10; Thomas 2007, p. 4). priority number of 5. We published a Thomas (2007, p. 4) did not encounter Laurel Dace petition finding for rush darter in the the species in high-gradient sections of 2005 CNOR in response to a petition We first identified the laurel dace as streams or areas dominated by cobble or received on May 11, 2004, stating the a new candidate for listing in the 2007 boulder substrates. Thomas (2007, p. 4) darter would retain a listing priority of CNOR. New candidates are those taxa reported that streams inhabited by 5. for which we have sufficient Cumberland darters were second to In 2006, we changed the listing information on biological vulnerability fourth order, with widths ranging from priority number of the rush darter from and threats to support preparation of a 4 to 9 meters (m) (11 to 30 feet (ft)) and 5 to 2 based on the imminent threat of listing proposal, but for which depths ranging from 20 to 76 cm (8 to water quality deterioration (i.e., development of a listing regulation is 30 in). increased sedimentation due to precluded by other higher priority Little is known regarding the urbanization, road maintenance, and listing activities. reproductive habits of the Cumberland silviculture practices). In the 2007, In the 2007 CNOR, we assigned the darter. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported the 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the rush laurel dace a listing priority of 5. The collection of males in breeding darter retained a listing priority of 2. We laurel dace retained a listing priority of condition in April and May, with water proposed to list the rush darter as 5 in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs. temperatures ranging from 15 to 18 degrees Celsius (°C) (59 to 64 degrees endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR We proposed to list the laurel dace as ° 36035). endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR Fahrenheit ( F)). Extensive searches by 36035). Thomas (2007, p. 4) produced no Yellowcheek Darter evidence of nests or eggs at these sites. Species Information Species commonly associated with the We first identified the yellowcheek Cumberland Darter Cumberland darter during surveys by darter as a candidate for listing in the Thomas (2007, pp. 4–5) were creek chub 2001 CNOR with a listing priority of 2. The Cumberland darter (Etheostoma (), northern The yellowcheek darter retained a (Boleosoma) susanae (Jordan and hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), listing priority number of 2 in the 2002 Swain)) is a medium-sized member of (E. kennicotti), and and 2004 CNORs. We published a the fish tribe Etheostomatini (family Cumberland (E. sagitta petition finding for yellowcheek darter ) that reaches over 5.5 sagitta). Feeding habits are unknown in the 2005 CNOR in response to a centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in)) standard but are likely similar to that of the petition received on May 11, 2004, length (SL) (length from tip of snout to closely related species, the Johnny stating the darter would retain a listing start of the caudal peduncle (slender darter (E. nigrum). Johnny darters are priority of 2. region extending from behind the anal sight feeders, with prey items consisting In the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and fin to the base of the caudal fin)) (Etnier of midge larvae, nymphs, 2010 CNORs, the yellowcheek darter and Starnes 1993, p. 512). The species caddisfly larvae, and microcrustaceans retained a listing priority of 2. The has a straw-yellow background body (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511). yellowcheek darter is covered by a 2007 color with brown markings that form six Thomas (2007, p. 5) collected programmatic Candidate Conservation evenly spaced dorsal (back) saddles and individuals of the Federally threatened Agreement with Assurances (71 FR a series of X-, C-, or W-shaped markings (Chrosomus 53129) that covers the entire range of on its sides (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. cumberlandensis), from three streams the species. We proposed to list the 510). During spawning season, the that also supported Cumberland darters. yellowcheek darter as endangered on overall body color of breeding males The Cumberland darter is endemic to June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035). darkens, and the side markings become the upper Cumberland River system

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48725

above Cumberland Falls in Kentucky Fork, a tributary to Indian Creek in globally and critically imperiled in and Tennessee (O’Bara 1988, p. 1; McCreary County, Kentucky, was Kentucky and Tennessee. The KDFWR O’Bara 1991, p. 9; Etnier and Starnes chosen by KDFWR as a suitable State Wildlife Action Plan identified the 1993, p. 511). The earliest known reintroduction site. Cumberland darters Cumberland darter as a species of collections of the species were made by were released into Cogur Fork in August Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) and Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249–250), 2009 and September 2010. Surveys in identified several top conservation who recorded it as abundant in November 2010 resulted in recaptures of actions for it and other species in its tributaries of Clear Fork of the individuals released in 2009 and 2010, Aquatic Guild (Upland Headwater Cumberland River, Kentucky. The as well as captures of four individuals Streams in Pools), including: species was later reported from Gum without tags (possibly native Acquisition or conservation easements Fork, Scott County, Tennessee, by individuals) (Thomas pers. comm. for critical habitat, development of Shoup and Peyton (1940, p. 11), and 2010). Based on these results, it appears financial incentives to protect riparian seven additional tributaries of the that reintroduction efforts have been (land adjacent to stream channel) Cumberland River by Burr and Warren effective, with Cumberland darters corridors, development and (1986, p. 310). More exhaustive surveys persisting within Cogur Fork since 2009. implementation of best management by O’Bara (1988, p. 6; 1991, pp. 9–10) Furthermore, captures of untagged practices, and restoration of degraded and Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998; pp. individuals in 2009 and 2010 suggest habitats through various State and 83–233, 303–408) determined that the that Cogur Fork also supports a small, Federal programs (KDFWR 2005, p. Cumberland darter was restricted to native population of the species. 2.2.2). The Cumberland darter is short reaches of 20 small streams (23 Currently, the Cumberland darter is designated as a Tier 1 GCN species in sites) in the upper Cumberland River known from 15 localities in a total of 13 the Tennessee Comprehensive Wildlife system in Whitley and McCreary streams in Kentucky (McCreary and Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (TWRA Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and Whitley Counties) and Tennessee 2005, pp. 44, 49). Scott Counties, Tennessee. These (Campbell and Scott Counties). All 15 Rush Darter studies suggested the extirpation of the extant occurrences of the Cumberland species from Little Wolf Creek in darter are restricted to short stream The rush darter (Etheostoma Whitley County, Kentucky, and Gum reaches, with the majority believed to be phytophilum) is a medium-sized darter Fork in Scott County, Tennessee. restricted to less than 1.6 kilometers in the family Percidae, tribe Preliminary reports of disjunct (km) (1 mile (mi)) of stream (O’Bara Etheostomatini, and subgenus populations in the Poor Fork 1991, pp. 9–10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). Fuscatelum. The species reaches an Cumberland River and Martins Fork in These occurrences are thought to form average size of 5 cm (2 in) SL (Bart and Letcher and Harlan Counties, Kentucky six population clusters (Bunches Creek, Taylor 1999, p. 28; Johnston and Kleiner (Starnes and Starnes 1979, p. 427; Indian Creek, Marsh Creek, Jellico 2001, p. 3). The rush darter was O’Bara 1988, p. 6; O’Bara 1991, pp. 9– Creek, Clear Fork, and Youngs Creek), described by Bart and Taylor in 1999 10), were evaluated genetically and which are geographically separated from (pp. 27–33), and is closely related to the determined to be the Johnny darter one another by an average distance of (E. parvipinne), a drab- (Strange 1998, p. 101). 30.5 stream km (19 stream mi) (O’Bara colored species with a thin golden stripe Thomas (2007, p. 3) provided the 1988, p. 12; O’Bara 1991, p. 10; Thomas along the lateral line (canal along the most recent information on status and 2007, p. 3). Based on collection efforts side of a fish with sensory capabilities) distribution of the species through by O’Bara (1991, pp. 9–10), Laudermilk that is surrounded by heavily mottled or completion of a range-wide status and Cicerello (1998; pp. 83–233, 303– stippled sides (Shaw 1996, p. 85). assessment in the upper Cumberland 408), and Thomas (2007, p. 3), the However, the distinct golden stripe River drainage in Kentucky. Between species appears to be extirpated from 11 characteristic of goldstripe darters is not June 2005 and April 2007, a total of 47 historical collection sites and a total of well developed in rush darters (Bart and sites were sampled qualitatively in the 9 streams: Cumberland River mainstem, Taylor 1999, p. 29). Also, the brown upper Cumberland River drainage. All near the mouth of Bunches Creek and pigment on the sides of the rush darter Kentucky sites with historic records Cumberland Falls (Whitley County); is usually not as intense as in the were surveyed (20 sites), as well as 27 Sanders Creek (Whitley County); Brier goldstripe darter. Other characteristics others having potentially suitable Creek (Whitley County); Kilburn Fork of of the rush darter are described in Bart habitat. Surveys by Thomas (2007, p. 3) Indian Creek (McCreary County); Bridge and Taylor (1999, p. 28). produced a total of 51 specimens from Fork (McCreary County); Marsh Creek, Rush darters have been collected from 13 localities (12 streams). Only one of near mouth of Big Branch and Caddell various habitats (Stiles and Mills 2008, the localities represented a new Branch (McCreary County); Cal Creek pp. 1–4; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and occurrence record for the species. (McCreary County); Little Wolf Creek Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; Stiles and In 2008, the Kentucky Department of (Whitley County); and Gum Fork (Scott Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart and Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) County). No population estimates or Taylor 1999, p. 32), including root initiated a propagation and status trends are available for the masses of emergent vegetation along the reintroduction project for the Cumberland darter; however, survey margins of spring-fed streams in very Cumberland darter in the upper results by Thomas (2007, p. 3) suggest shallow, clear, cool, and flowing water; Cumberland River drainage (Thomas et that the species is uncommon or occurs and from both small clumps and dense al. 2010, p. 107). Utilizing State Wildlife in low densities across its range stands of bur reed (Sparganium sp.), Grant funds from the Service, KDFWR (Thomas 2007, p. 3). coontail (Ceratophyllum sp.), watercress worked cooperatively with Conservation The Cumberland darter is ranked by (Nasturtium officinale), and rush Fisheries, Inc. (CFI) of Knoxville, the Kentucky State Nature Preserves (Juncus sp.) in streams with substrates Tennessee, to develop captive Commission (KSNPC) (2009, p. 38) and of silt, sand, sand and silt, muck and propagation protocols for the species the Tennessee Department of sand or some gravel with sand, and and to produce juvenile Cumberland Environment and Conservation (TDEC) bedrock. Rush darters appear to prefer darters that could be reintroduced (2009, p. 53) as a G1G2S1 species: springs and spring-fed reaches of within the species’ historic range. Cogur critically imperiled or imperiled relatively low-gradient small streams,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

which are generally influenced by are now considered to be rush darters Creek, which represents about 13 km (9 springs (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; (Kuhajda pers. comm. 2008). mi) of stream or about 89 percent of the Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1; Bart 2002, p. 1; Historically, rush darters have been species’ total cumulative range. Recent Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; found in three distinct watersheds in surveys (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart Alabama: Doe Branch, Wildcat Branch, Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 3) have and Taylor 1999, p. 32). Rush darters and Mill Creek of the Clear Creek failed to document the absence of the have also been collected in wetland drainage in Winston County; an rush darter in Doe Creek, indicating a pools (Stiles and Mills 2008; pp. 2–3). unnamed spring run of Beaver Creek potential reduction of the species’ Water depth at collection sites ranged and Penny Springs of the Turkey Creek known range within the Clear Creek from 3.0 cm to 0.5 m (0.1 ft to 1.6 ft), drainage in Jefferson County; and Cove drainage by about 3 km (2 mi) of stream with moderate water velocity in riffles Spring (Little Cove Creek system) and or 22 percent. However, rush darters and no flow or low flow in pools. Rush Bristow Creek of the Locust Fork were collected in 2005, 2008, and 2009 darters have not been found in higher drainage in Etowah County. Fluker et al. in the Little Cove Creek drainage (Cove (2007, p. 10) suggests that the unique gradient streams with bedrock Spring run), after a 30 year period of not topographic and geologic influences in substrates and sparse vegetation (Stiles finding the species. This rediscovery of the three distinct population groups and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; Bart 2002, p. the species confirms the continued 1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; likely produced different selective pressures, genetic isolation, genetic existence of the species in Etowah Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart County and Cove Spring. However, the and Taylor 1999, p. 32). drift, and divergence during the species’ evolution. Little Cove Creek drainage constitutes Stiles and Mills (2008, p. 2) found an increase of only 0.05 km (0.02 mi) of gravid rush darter females in February Currently, the three rush darter populations occur in the same occupied stream habitat or a 0.22 and fry (newly hatched larval fish) in watersheds but in a more limited percent addition to the total range of the late April from a wetland pool in the distribution. One population is located species. No collections of the species Mill Creek watershed (Winston County, in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the have occurred at Bristow Creek since Alabama). These pools act as nursery Clear Creek drainage in Winston County 1997. Bristow Creek has since been areas for the fry (Stiles and Mills 2008, (Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 4; Stiles channelized (straightened and deepened p. 5). While little is known specifically and Mills 2008, pp. 1–3); the second is to increase water velocity). In the about the life history of the rush darter, located in an unnamed spring run to Turkey Creek drainage, rush darters this information is available for the Beaver Creek, portions of Beaver Creek, have been collected sporadically within goldstripe darter, a related species in the and an unnamed tributary to Turkey Penny Springs and at the locality Etheostoma . Spawning of the Creek in the Turkey Creek drainage in for the species (an unnamed spring run goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs Jefferson County (Stiles and Blanchard in Jefferson County, Alabama) (Bart and from mid-March through June (Mettee et 2001, p. 2; Drennen pers. obsv. 2006– Taylor 1999, pp. 28, 33). However, the al. 1996, p. 655). Preferred food items 2010; Kuhajda pers. comm. 2009); and rush darter is likely extirpated from for the goldstripe darter include midge the third is in the Little Cove Creek Penny and Tapawingo Springs due to larvae, mayfly nymphs, blackfly larvae, drainage (Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 28; introductions of the watercress darter beetles, and microcrustaceans (Mettee et Bart 2002, p. 7; Kuhajda pers. comm. (E. nuchale) (George et al. 2009, p. 532). al. 1996, p. 655). The lifespan of the 2008–2009; Spadgenski pers. comm. The species can still be found in goldstripe darter is estimated to be 2 to 2008–2009). portions of an unnamed tributary of 3 years. Rush darter populations are separated Beaver Creek and an unnamed spring to The rush darter currently has a from each other geographically, and Beaver Creek (Kuhajda pers. comm. restricted distribution (Johnston and individual rush darters are only 2009). This area contains about 1.6 km Kleiner 2001, p. 1). All rush darter sporadically collected at a particular site (1 mi) of occupied stream habitat or populations are located above the Fall within their range. Where it occurs, the approximately 11 percent of the rush Line (the inland boundary of the Coastal rush darter is apparently an uncommon darter’s total range. Plain physiographic region) and in other species that is usually collected in low ‘‘highland regions’’ where topography numbers (compiled from Bart and The rush darter is ranked by the and elevation changes are observed Taylor 1999, pp. 31–32; Johnston and Alabama Department of Conservation presenting a barrier for fish movement Kleiner 2001, pp. 2–4; Stiles and and Natural Resources (ADCNR) (Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 18) in Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Johnston 2003, (Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries the Black Warrior River drainage in pp. 1–3; Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1– Division, ADCNR 2005) as a P1G1S1 portions of the Appalachian Plateau and 3; Rakes pers. comm. 2010; Drennen species signifying its rarity in Alabama Valley and Ridge physiographic pers. obsv. 2006–2010; Kuhajda pers. and its status as critically imperiled provinces of Alabama (Boshung and comm. 2009); however, there are no globally. It is also considered a species Mayden 2004, pp. 16–17; Warren et al. population estimates at this time. of GCN by the State (Bart 2004, p. 193). 2000, pp. 9, 10, 24). The closely related Cumulatively, the rush darter is only The rush darter has a High Priority goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs known from localized collection sites Conservation Actions Needed and Key essentially below the Fall Line in all within approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) of Partnership Opportunities ranking of major systems except the Coosa system streams in the Clear Creek; Little Cove ‘‘CA 6,’’ the highest of any fish species (Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 550). and Bristow Creek; and Turkey Creek listed. The State Wildlife Action Plan Reports of goldstripe darters from the drainages in Winston, Etowah, and states that the species consists of 1960s and 1970s in Winston and Jefferson Counties, respectively. disjoint populations and information is Jefferson Counties, Alabama (Caldwell Currently, about 3 km (2 mi) of stream, needed to determine genetic structuring 1965, pp. 13–14; Barclay 1971, p. 38; or about 22 percent of the rush darter’s within the populations (Wildlife and Dycus and Howell 1974, pp. 21–24; known range, is not occupied. Freshwater Fisheries Division, ADCNR Mettee et al. 1989, pp. 13, 61, 64), which Within the Clear Creek drainage, the 2005). Conservation Actions for the are above the Fall Line, were made prior rush darter has been collected in species may require population to the description of the rush darter, but Wildcat Branch, Mill Creek, and Doe augmentation or reintroduction of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48727

species to suitable habitats to maintain observed that the yellowcheek darter individuals, and the species was viability. moved very little during a 1-year considered the most abundant riffle fish migration study. It was noted that the present (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 14). Yellowcheek Darter yellowcheek darter appears to be a Extensive sampling of the first two The yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma relatively nonmobile species, with 19 of tributaries of the Little Red River below moorei) is a small and laterally- 22 recaptured darters found within 9 m Greers Ferry Dam (both named Big compressed fish that attains a maximum (29.5 ft) of their original capture Creek) failed to find any yellowcheek SL of about 6.4 cm (2.5 in), and has a position after periods of several months. darters, and no darters were found in moderately sharp snout, deep body, and A number of life-history characteristics immediately adjacent watersheds deep caudal peduncle (Raney and including courtship patterns, specific (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 5). Suttkus 1964, p. 130). The back and spawning behaviors, egg deposition Two subsequent studies have failed to sides are grayish brown, often with sites, number of eggs per nest, degree of observe yellowcheek darters in the darker brown saddles and lateral bars. nest protection by males, and degree of Turkey Fork reach of the Devils Fork Breeding males are brightly colored territoriality are unknown at this time; Little Red River (Wine et al. 2000, p. 9; with a bright blue or brilliant turquoise however, researchers have suggested Wine and Blumenshine 2002, p. 11), throat and breast and a light-green belly, that the yellowcheek darter deposits since four individuals were last while breeding females possess orange eggs on the undersides of large rubble in collected by Arkansas State University and red-orange spots but are not brightly swift water (McDaniel 1984, p. 82). (ASU) researchers in 1999 (Mitchell et colored (Robison and Buchanan 1988, Wine and Blumenshine (2002, p. 10) al. 2002, p. 129). They have been pp. 427–429). noted that, during laboratory spawning, observed downstream within that First collected in 1959 from the Devils female yellowcheek darters bury system in the Beech Fork reach, where Fork Little Red River, Cleburne County, themselves in fine gravel or sand flows are more permanent. The reach Arkansas, this species was eventually substrates (often behind large cobble or downstream of Raccoon Creek is described by Raney and Suttkus in boulders) with only their heads and influenced by inundation from Greers 1964, using 228 specimens from the caudal fin exposed. A male yellowcheek Ferry Reservoir and no longer supports Middle, South, and Devils Forks of the darter will then position upstream of the yellowcheek darter. The U.S. Army Little Red River (Devils Fork, Turkey buried female and fertilize her eggs as Corps of Engineers channelized Fork, and Beech Fork represent one she releases them in a vibrating motion. approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) of the stream with three different names and Clutch size and nest defense behavior lower Archey and South Forks Little are subsequently referred to in this rule were not observed. Red River within the city limits of as ‘‘Devils Fork’’). Wood (1996, p. 305) The yellowcheek darter is endemic to Clinton, Arkansas, in 1985 for flood verified the taxonomic status of the the Devils, Middle, South, and Archey control purposes. Yellowcheek darter yellowcheek darter within the subgenus Forks of the Little Red River and has not been collected within this reach . Complete for the mainstem Little Red River in Cleburne, since channelization. The yellowcheek species is family Percidae, subfamily Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, darter inhabits most of its historical Percinae, tribe Etheostomatini, genus Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988, range not currently affected by Greers Etheostoma, subgenus Nothonotus and p. 429). In 1962, the construction of a Ferry Lake, although in greatly reduced E. tippecanoe species group (Wood dam on the Little Red River to create numbers in the Middle, South, Archey, 1996, p. 307). The yellowcheek darter is Greers Ferry Reservoir impounded and Devils Forks of the Little Red River. one of only two members of the much of the range of this species, While collecting specimens for the subgenus Nothonotus known to occur including the lower reaches of Devils 1999 genetic study, ASU researchers west of the Mississippi River. Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, and discovered that the yellowcheek darter The yellowcheek darter inhabits high- portions of the mainstem Little Red was no longer the most abundant riffle gradient headwater tributaries with River, thus extirpating the species from fish and was more difficult to find clear water; permanent flow; moderate these reaches. Yellowcheek darter was throughout its historical range (Wine et to strong riffles; and gravel, rubble, and also extirpated from the Little Red River al. 2000, p. 2). Because optimal habitat boulder substrates (Robison and downstream of Greers Ferry Reservoir had been destroyed by the creation of Buchanan 1988, p. 429). Yellowcheek due to cold tailwater releases. The lake Greers Ferry Lake, yellowcheek darters darter prey items include aquatic flooded optimal habitat for the species, were confined to upper stream reaches larvae, stonefly larvae, mayfly nymphs, and caused the genetic isolation of with lower summer flow, smaller and caddisfly larvae (McDaniel 1984, p. populations (McDaniel 1984, p. 1). The substrate particle size, and reduced 56). yellowcheek darter was known to gradient. A thorough status survey Male and female yellowcheek darters historically occur in portions of these conducted in 2000 found the reach sexual maturity at 1 year of age, streams that maintained permanent yellowcheek darter in three of four and maximum lifespan is around 5 year-round flows. historically occupied forks in greatly years (McDaniel 1984, pp. 25, 76). In the 1978–1981 study by Robison reduced numbers (Wine et al. 2000, p. Spawning occurs from late May through and Harp (1981, pp. 15–16), 9). Populations in the Middle Fork were June in the swift to moderately swift yellowcheek darter occurred in greatest estimated at approximately 6,000 portions of riffles, often around or under numbers in the Middle and South Forks individuals, the South Fork at 2,300, the largest substrate particles (McDaniel of the Little Red River, with populations and the Archey Fork at 2,000. 1984, p. 82), although brooding females estimated at 36,000 and 13,500 Yellowcheek darter was not collected have been found at the head of riffles in individuals, respectively, while from the Devils Fork. Fish community smaller gravel substrate (Wine et al. populations in both Devils Fork and composition was similar from 1978– 2000, p. 3). During nonspawning Archey Fork were estimated at 1981 and 2000 studies, but the months, there is a general movement to approximately 10,000 individuals proportion of yellowcheek darter portions of the riffle with smaller (Robison and Harp 1981, pp. 5–11). declined from approximately 28 percent substrate, such as gravel or cobble, and During this study, the four forks of the to 6 percent of the overall composition. less turbulence (Robison and Harp 1981, Little Red River supported an estimated Fish known to coexist with yellowcheek p. 3). Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 24) yellowcheek darter population of 60,000 darter include the (E.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

caeruleum) and greenside darter (E. pectoral fin origins, greater than 23 current over pea gravel, cobble, or slab- blennioides), which can use pool percent of the SL. The back contains rock substrates (Burr and Eisenhour habitats during periods of low flow, as three dark, nearly black blotches ending 1994, p. 2). Habitat of these types is evidenced by the collection of these two abruptly above the lateral midline of the sparse in Little Chucky Creek, and the species from pools during body, with a moderately contrasting, stream affords little loose, rocky cover electroshocking activities. oval, pale saddle in front of each blotch suitable for (Shute et al. 1997, Electroshocking has not revealed (Burr et al. 2005, p. 795). p. 8). It is notable that intact riparian yellowcheek darter in pools, suggesting The chucky madtom is a rare buffers are present in the locations perhaps that they are unable to tolerate known from only 15 specimens where chucky madtoms have been pool conditions (deep, slow-moving collected from two Tennessee streams. found (Shute et al. 1997, p. 9). water usually devoid of cobble A lone individual was collected in 1940 No studies to determine the life substrate). An inability to use pools from Dunn Creek (a Little Pigeon River history and behavior of this species during low flows would make them tributary) in Sevier County, and 14 have been conducted. While nothing is much more vulnerable to seasonal specimens have been encountered since known specifically about chucky fluctuations in flows that reduce riffle 1991 in Little Chucky Creek (a madtom reproductive biology, habitat. As a result, researchers have Nolichucky River tributary) in Greene recruitment, growth and longevity, food suggested that yellowcheek darter County, Tennessee. Only 3 chucky habits, or mobility, this information is declines are more likely a species rather madtom individuals have been available for other similar members of than community phenomenon (Wine et encountered since 2000; 1 in 2000 (Lang the Noturus group. The least madtom al. 2000, p. 11). et al. 2001, p. 2) and 2 in 2004 (CFI (N. hildebrandi) may reach sexual Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 22) 2008, unpublished data), despite maturity at 1 or more years of age (i.e., estimated yellowcheek darter surveys that have been conducted in during their second summer) (Mayden populations within the Middle Fork to both historical localities at least twice a and Walsh 1984, p. 351). Only the be between 15,000 and 40,000 year since 2000 (Rakes and Shute 2004, largest females of Ozark madtom (N. individuals, and between 13,000 and pp. 2–3; Weber and Layzer 2007, p. 4; albater) were found to be sexually 17,000 individuals in the South Fork. CFI 2008, unpublished data). In mature, and males were found to be Such increases since the 2000 status addition, several streams in the sexually mature primarily within the survey would indicate remarkable Nolichucky, Holston, and French Broad second age class (Mayden et al. 1980, p. adaptability to changing environmental River watersheds of the upper 339), though, a single large male of the conditions. However, it should be noted basin, which are first age class showed evidence of that estimates were based upon mark/ similar in size and character to Little sexual maturity (Mayden et al. 1980, p. recapture estimates using the Jolly-Seber Chucky Creek, have been surveyed with 339). The breeding season of the least method, which requires high numbers no success (Burr and Eisenhour 1994, and smoky madtoms (N. baileyi) is of recaptured specimens for accurate pp. 1–2; Shute et al. 1997, p. 5; Lang et primarily during June through July, estimations. Recaptures were extremely al. 2001, pp. 2–3; Rakes and Shute 2004, though development of breeding low during that study; therefore, p. 1). Conservation Fisheries, Inc. did condition is initiated as early as April population estimates were highly not find chucky madtoms in 2007 after in least madtom and May in smoky variable and confidence in the resulting attempting new sampling techniques madtom (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. estimates is low. (e.g., PVC ‘‘jug’’ traps) (CFI 2008, 353; Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56). The yellowcheek darter is ranked by unpublished data). Fecundity varied among the species for the Arkansas Natural Heritage Originally, museum specimens which data were available; however, it Commission (ANHC) (2007, pp. 2–118) collected from the Roaring River in should be noted that fecundity in as an S1G1 species: extremely rare in Tennessee (Cumberland River drainage) madtoms is generally lower in Arkansas, and critically imperiled and from Piney Creek, West Fork Flint comparison to other North American globally. The Arkansas Game and Fish River, and the Paint Rock River system freshwater fishes (Breder and Rosen Commission’s (AGFC) Wildlife Action in Alabama (Tennessee River drainage) 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 58). Plan describes the yellowcheek darter as were first identified and catalogued as Dinkins and Shute (1996, p. 58) a critically imperiled species with Noturus elegans species complex and commented that for the declining populations (AGFC 2005, pp. thought to be chucky madtoms. The combination of relatively large egg size 452–454). Roaring River, Piney Creek, and West and high level of parental care given to Fork Flint River specimens are now the fertilized eggs and larvae reduce Chucky Madtom considered to be a member of the N. early mortality and, therefore, the need The chucky madtom (Noturus elegans group, but have not been to produce a large number of young. crypticus) is a small catfish (family assigned to a species. While the Both smoky and elegant madtoms (N. ), with the largest specimen specimens from the Paint Rock River elegans) were found to nest under flat measuring 6.5 cm (2.6 in) SL (Burr et al. system share typical anal ray counts rocks at or near the head of riffles 2005, p. 795). Burr et al. (2005) with the chucky madtom, they lack the (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr described the chucky madtom, distinctive cheek characteristics, differ and Dimmick 1981, p. 116). Shallow confirming previous analyses (Burr and in pelvic ray counts, and are pools were also used by the smoky Eisenhour 1994), which indicated that intermediately shaped between the madtom, which was observed to select the chucky madtom is a unique species, chucky and saddled madtoms (N. rocks of larger dimension for nesting a member of the Rabida subgenus (i.e., fasciatus) with respect to body width as than were used for shelter during other the ‘‘mottled’’ or ‘‘saddled’’ madtoms), a proportion of SL (Burr et al. 2005, p. times of year (Dinkins and Shute 1996, and a member of the Noturus elegans 796). Thus, the Little Chucky and Dunn p. 56). Single madtoms were found to species complex (i.e., N. elegans, N. Creek forms are the only forms that are guard nests in smoky and elegant albater, N. fasciatus, and N. trautmani) recognized as chucky madtoms. madtoms, a behavior also exhibited by outlined by Taylor (1969 in Grady and All of the specimens collected in Ozark and least madtoms (Dinkins and LeGrande 1992). A robust madtom, the Little Chucky Creek have been found in Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr and Dimmick chucky madtom body is wide at the stream runs with slow to moderate 1981, p. 116; Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48729

Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 357). Males also collected from Dunn Creek, a boulders, typically in first or second of these species were the nest guardians stream that is in a different watershed order, clear, cool (maximum and many were found to have empty and physiographic province than Little temperature 26 °C or 78.8 °F) streams. stomachs suggesting that they do not Chucky Creek, it is likely that the Substrates in streams where laurel dace feed during nest guarding, which can historic range of the chucky madtom are found typically consist of a mixture last as long as 3 weeks. encompassed a wider area in the Ridge of cobble, rubble, and boulders, and the Conservation Fisheries, Inc. had one and Valley and the Blue Ridge streams tend to have a dense riparian male chucky madtom in captivity from physiographic provinces in Tennessee zone consisting largely of mountain 2004 through 2008. However, based on than is demonstrated by its current laurel (Skelton 2001, pp. 125–126). information from other members of this distribution. A survey for the chucky Skelton (2001, p. 126) reported having genus for which longevity data are madtom in Dunn Creek in 1996 was not collected nuptial individuals from late available, least and smoky madtoms, it successful at locating the species (Shute March until mid-June, though Call (pers. is unlikely that chucky madtoms can et al. 1997, p. 8). The Dunn Creek obs. 2004) observed males in waning survive this long in the wild. The population may be extirpated (Shute et nuptial color during surveys on July 22, shorter lived of these, least madtom, al. 1997, p. 6; Burr et al. 2005, p. 797), 2004. Laurel dace may be a spawning reached a maximum age of 18 months, because adequate habitat and a diverse nest associate where syntopic (sharing though most individuals lived little fish community were present at the time the same habitat) with nest-building more than 12 months, dying soon after of the surveys, but no chucky madtoms minnow species, as has been reproducing (Mayden and Walsh 1984, were found. There are no population documented in blackside dace (Starnes p. 351). Based on length-frequency size estimates or status trends for the and Starnes 1981, p. 366). Soddy Creek distributions, smoky madtoms exhibited chucky madtom due to low numbers is the only location in which Skelton a lifespan of 2 years, with two cohorts and only sporadic collections of (2001, p. 126) has collected a nest- present in a given year (Dinkins and specimens. building minnow with laurel dace. Shute 1996, p. 53). Collection of two age The chucky madtom is ranked by the Skelton (2001, p. 126) reports finding as classes together provided evidence that TDEC (2009, p. 58) as an S1G1 species: many as three year classes in some life expectancy exceeds 1 year in the extremely rare in Tennessee, and collections of laurel dace, though pygmy madtom (N. stanauli) (Etnier and critically imperiled globally. The young-of-year fish are uncommon in Jenkins 1980, p. 20). The Ozark madtom chucky madtom is designated as a Tier collections. Observations of three year lives as long as 3 years (Mayden et al. 1 GCN species in the Tennessee CWCS classes indicate that laurel dace live as 1980, p. 337). (TWRA 2005, pp. 44, 49). long as 3 years. Chucky madtom prey items are Laurel dace preferred prey items unknown; however, least madtom prey Laurel Dace include fly larvae, stonefly larvae, and items include midge larvae, caddisfly The laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori), caddisfly larvae (Skelton 2001, p. 126). larvae, stonefly larvae, and mayfly family Cyprinidae and subfamily Skelton observed that the morphological nymphs (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. Leuciscinae, has two continuous black feeding traits of laurel dace, including 339). In smoky madtoms, mayfly lateral stripes and black pigment large mouth, short digestive tract, nymphs comprised 70.7 percent of covering the breast and underside of the reduced number of pharyngeal (located stomach contents analyzed; fly, head of nuptial (breeding) males within the throat) teeth, and primitively mosquitoe, midge, and gnat larvae 2.4 (Skelton 2001, p. 120). The maximum shaped basioccipital bone (bone that percent; caddisfly larvae 4.4 percent; SL observed is 5.1 cm (2 in) (Skelton articulates the vertebra), all of which are and stonefly larvae 1.0 percent (Dinkins 2001, p. 124). While the belly, breast, consistent with a diet consisting largely and Shute 1996, p. 61). Significant and lower half of the head are typically of material. daytime feeding was observed in smoky a whitish-silvery color, at any time of Laurel dace are known historically madtoms. the year laurel dace may develop red from seven streams on the Walden Dinkins and Shute (1996, p. 50) found coloration below the lateral stripe that Ridge portion of the Cumberland smoky madtoms underneath slabrocks extends from the base of the pectoral Plateau, where drainages generally in swift to moderate current during May fins to the base of the caudal fin meander eastward before dropping to early November. Habitat use shifted (Skelton 2001, p. 121). abruptly down the plateau escarpment to shallow pools over the course of a 1- Nuptial males often acquire brilliant and draining into the Tennessee River. week period, coinciding with a drop in coloration during the breeding season, Specifically, these seven streams occur water temperature to 7 or 8 °C (45 to 46 as the two lateral stripes, breast, and in three independent systems: Soddy °F), and persisted from early November underside of head turn intensely black Creek; three streams that are part of the to May. Eisenhour et al. (1996, p. 43) and the entire ventral (lower/ Sale Creek system (the Horn and Laurel collected saddled madtoms in gravel, abdominal) portion of the body, branch tributaries to Rock Creek, and cobble, and slab-rock substrates in riffle contiguous with the lower black stripe the Cupp Creek tributary to Roaring habitats with depths ranging from 0.1 to and black breast, becomes an intense Creek); and three streams that are part 0.3 m (0.3 to 1.0 ft). Based on their scarlet color. All of the fins acquire a of the Piney River system (Young’s, limited number of observations, yellow color, which is most intense in Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks). Strange Eisenhour et al. (1996, p. 43) the paired fins and less intense in the and Skelton (2005, p. 8) assessed the hypothesized that saddled madtoms dorsal, anal, and caudal fins. Females genetic structure within populations of occupy riffles and runs in the daylight also develop most of these colors, laurel dace and, based on distribution of hours and then move to pools at night though of lesser intensity (Skelton 2001, genetic diversity among populations, and during crepuscular hours (dawn p. 121). Broadly rounded pectoral fins of they recognized two genetically distinct and dusk) to feed. males are easily discerned from the management units; (1) The southern The current range of the chucky broadly pointed fins of females at any populations in Sale and Soddy Creeks, madtom is believed to be restricted to an time during the year. and (2) the northern population in the approximately 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of Laurel dace have been most often Piney River system. Little Chucky Creek in Greene County, collected from pools or slow runs from Skelton (2001, p. 126) considered Tennessee. Because this species was undercut banks or beneath slab collections by the Tennessee Valley

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Authority (TVA) during a rotenone available, and, therefore, survey has either been incorporated directly survey of Laurel Branch in 1976 to permission could not be obtained into this final determination or is represent laurel dace that were (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 7). addressed below. misidentified as southern redbelly dace Nuptial males are easily identified from Peer Review (Chrosomus erythrogaster), as was found other species present in Bumbee Creek to be true for specimens collected by due to their brilliant coloration during In accordance with our peer review TVA from Horn Branch in 1976, but no the breeding season, as the two lateral policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR specimens are available for stripes, breast, and underside of head 34270), we solicited expert opinion confirmation. In 1991, and in four other turn intensely black and the entire from 12 knowledgeable individuals with surveys (two in 1995, one in 1996, and ventral (lower/abdominal) portion of the scientific expertise that included one in 2004), laurel dace were not body, contiguous with the lower black familiarity with the 5 species and their collected in Laurel Branch, leading stripe and black breast, becomes an habitats, biological needs, and threats. Skelton to the conclusion that laurel intense scarlet color. This brilliant We received responses from four of the dace have been extirpated from this coloration is easily seen through peer reviewers. stream (Skelton 1997, p. 13; Skelton binoculars at short distances by trained We reviewed all comments received 2001, p. 126; Skelton pers. comm. 2009). individuals. from the peer reviewers for substantive Skelton (pers. comm. 2009) also noted No population estimates are available issues and new information regarding that the site was impacted by silt. for laurel dace. However, based on the listing of the five fishes. The peer The current distribution of laurel dace trends observed in surveys and reviewers generally concurred with our comprises six of the seven streams that collections since 1991, Strange and conclusions and provided additional were historically occupied; the species Skelton (2005, p. 8) concluded that this information on taxonomic classification, is considered extirpated from Laurel species is persisting in Young’s, life-history, and distribution; technical Branch (see above). In these six streams, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks in the clarifications; and suggestions to they are known to occupy reaches of Piney River watershed, but is at risk of improve the final rule. Peer reviewer approximately 0.3 to 8 km (0.2 to 5 mi) extirpation from the southern part of comments are addressed in the in length. The laurel dace is known Walden Ridge in Soddy Creek, and in ‘‘Summary of Changes from Proposed from a single reach in Soddy Creek, and the Horn Branch and Cupp Creek areas Rule’’ and incorporated into the final surveys in 2004 produced only a single, that are tributaries to Sale Creek. As rule as appropriate. juvenile laurel dace (Strange and noted above, the species is considered Public Comments Skelton 2005, pp. 5–6 and Appendices to be extirpated from Laurel Branch, 1 and 2). In Horn Branch, laurel dace are which is part of the Sale Creek system. (1) Comment: Two commenters stated known from approximately 900 m The laurel dace is ranked by the TDEC that the laurel dace is threatened, (2,953 ft), but have become increasingly (2009, p. 60) as an S1G1 species: particularly in Horn Branch, a tributary difficult to collect (Skelton 1997, pp. extremely rare in Tennessee, and to the Rock Creek watershed, by timber 13–14). Skelton (1997, p. 14) reports critically imperiled globally. The laurel harvest, rock harvest (collection of that minnow traps have been the most dace is designated as a Tier 1 GCN surface fieldstones), and coal mining of successful method for collecting live species in the Tennessee CWCS (TWRA the Sewanee Coal Seam in Bledsoe and laurel dace from Horn Branch, as it is 2005, pp. 44, 49). Rhea counties, Tennessee. These difficult to electroshock the fish due to commenters recommended critical Summary of Comments and habitat designation in the Upper Rock in-stream rock formations and fallen Recommendations trees. Only a single juvenile was caught Creek watershed of Bledsoe County, in 2004 (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6). In the proposed rule published on Tennessee, due to the threats that are A total of 19 laurel dace were collected June 24, 2010, we requested that all imminent and of high magnitude in from Cupp Creek during 1995 and 1996 interested parties submit written Horn Branch. The commenters are using an electroshocker (Skelton 1996, comments on the proposed rule to list particularly concerned that mining of p. 14). However, Skelton found no the Cumberland darter, rush darter, the Sewanee Coal Seem would result in laurel dace in this stream in 2004, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, acid mine drainage. despite attempts to collect throughout and laurel dace by August 23, 2010. We Our Response: We concur with these an approximately 700-m (2,297-ft) reach also contacted appropriate Federal and commenters that the laurel dace in Rock (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6). State agencies, scientific experts and Creek watershed is threatened by timber Laurel dace were initially found in organizations, and other interested harvest, rock harvest, and coal mining. Young’s, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks parties and invited them to comment on We have incorporated further analyses in the Piney River system in 1996 the proposal. Newspaper notices regarding the threats of rock harvest and (Skelton 1997, pp. 14–15). Sampling in inviting general public comment were coal mining under ‘‘Summary of Factors 2004 led to the discovery of additional published in newspapers covering all Affecting the Species’’ for laurel dace. laurel dace localities in Young’s and affected counties in Kentucky, Further analysis with regard to critical Moccasin creeks, but the locality where Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas. We habitat designation will be addressed in laurel dace were found in Young’s Creek did not receive any requests for a public the upcoming critical habitat rule. in 1996 was inaccessible due to the hearing. (2) Comment: One commenter stated presence of a locked gate (Strange and During the comment period for the that the Cumberland darter is Skelton 2005, p. 6–7). The new proposed rule, we received ten threatened, particularly in Dan Branch, localities were in the headwaters of comment letters in response to the a tributary to the Lick Fork watershed, these two streams. Persistence of laurel proposed rule: four from peer reviewers, by degradation of water quality from dace at the Bumbee Creek locality was one from a State agency, and five from mountaintop mining projects in confirmed in 2004 by surveying from a organizations or individuals. All of the Campbell and Claiborne counties, nearby road using binoculars. Direct ten commenters supported the proposed Tennessee. In addition to this general surveys were not possible because the rule to list these five fishes as concern, the commenter was aware of land had been leased to a hunt club for endangered. All substantive information selenium contamination within these which contact information was not provided during the comment period same watersheds and feared that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48731

issuance of new permits would cause manmade factors affecting its continued and storm water runoff. Pollutants may further degradation to fish and wildlife existence. Listing actions may be include sediments, fertilizers, habitats in Campbell County. warranted based on any of the above herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, Our Response: We concur with the threat factors, singly or in combination. septic tank and gray water leakage, commenter that mountaintop mining, Each of these factors is discussed below. pharmaceuticals, and petroleum and specifically selenium products. These pollutants tend to A. The Present or Threatened contamination, has the potential to increase concentrations of nutrients and Destruction, Modification, or degrade the water quality of toxins in the water and alter the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Cumberland darter streams in Campbell chemistry of affected streams such that and Claiborne counties, Tennessee. The primary threat to the Cumberland the habitat and food sources for species Streams associated with mountaintop darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, like the Cumberland darter, rush darter, mining and valley fills are characterized chucky madtom, and laurel dace is yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, by increased conductivity, total physical habitat destruction or and laurel dace are negatively impacted. dissolved solids, and concentrations of modification resulting from a variety of Construction and road maintenance sulfate, bicarbonate ions, and metals human-induced impacts such as activities associated with urban such as manganese, iron, aluminum, siltation, disturbance of riparian development typically involve earth- and selenium. Increased levels of corridors, and changes in channel moving activities that increase sediment selenium have been shown to morphology (Waters 1995, pp. 2–3; loads into nearby streams. Other bioaccumulate in organisms, leading to Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19; Thomas 2007, siltation sources, including timber deformities in larval fish and potentially p. 5). The most significant of these harvesting, natural gas development harming birds that prey on fishes. The impacts is siltation (excess sediments activities, clearing of riparian proposed rule provided a more detailed suspended or deposited in a stream) vegetation, mining, and agricultural analysis of these and other water quality caused by excessive releases of practices, allow exposed earth to enter threats to the Cumberland darter under sediment from activities such as streams during or after precipitation ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the resource extraction (e.g., coal mining, events. These activities result in canopy Species.’’ silviculture, natural gas development), removal, elevated stream temperatures, agriculture, road construction, and and increased siltation, thereby Summary of Changes From Proposed urban development (Waters 1995, pp. 2– degrading habitats used by fishes for Rule 3; Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) both feeding and reproduction As a result of the comments received 2006, pp. 178–185; Skelton 1997, pp. (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). during the public comment period (see 17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5). Undisturbed riparian corridors are above) we made the following changes Land use practices that affect important because they prevent elevated to the final listing rule: sediment and water discharges into a stream temperatures due to solar (1) We added taxonomic classification stream can also increase the erosion or heating, serve as buffers against non- information to the species’ background sedimentation pattern of the stream, point source pollutants, provide sections. which can lead to the destruction or submerged root materials for cover and (2) We added life-history information modification of in-stream habitat and feeding, and help to stabilize stream to the Cumberland darter and chucky riparian vegetation, stream bank banks (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). madtom background sections. collapse, and increased water turbidity (3) We updated the distributional and temperature. Sediment has been Cumberland Darter information for the rush darter in shown to abrade and suffocate bottom- The Cumberland darter’s preferred Alabama. dwelling fish and other organisms by habitat characteristics (i.e., low- to (4) We changed the genus of laurel clogging gills; reduce aquatic insect moderate-gradient, low current velocity, dace from Phoxinus to Chrosomus to diversity and abundance; impair fish backwater nature) make it extremely reflect recent taxonomic changes feeding behavior by altering prey base susceptible to the effects of siltation (Strange and Mayden 2009). and reducing visibility of prey; impair (O’Bara 1991, p. 11). Sediment (5) We updated population estimate reproduction due to burial of nests; and, (siltation) has been listed repeatedly by and threats information for the ultimately, negatively impact fish KDOW as the most common stressor of yellowcheek darter in Arkansas. growth, survival, and reproduction aquatic communities in the upper (Waters 1995, pp. 5–7, 55–62; Knight Cumberland River basin (KDOW 1996, Summary of Factors Affecting the and Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). Wood pp. 50–53, 71–75; KDOW 2002, pp. 39– Species and Armitage (1997, pp. 211–212) 40; KDOW 2006, pp. 178–185). The Section 4 of the Act and its identified at least five impacts of primary source of sediment was implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) sedimentation on fish, including (1) identified as resource extraction (e.g., set forth the procedures for adding reduction of growth rate, disease coal mining, logging). The streams species to the Federal Lists of tolerance, and gill function; (2) within the Cumberland darter’s current Endangered and Threatened Wildlife reduction of spawning habitat and egg, range that are identified as impaired and Plants. A species may be larvae, and juvenile development; (3) (due to siltation from mining, logging, determined to be an endangered or modification of migration patterns; (4) and agricultural activities) and have threatened species due to one or more reduction of food availability through been included on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of the five factors described in section the blockage of primary production; and of impaired waters (KDOW 2007, pp. 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or (5) reduction of foraging efficiency. The 155–166) include Jenneys Branch threatened destruction, modification, or effects of these types of threats will (Indian Creek basin), an unnamed curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) likely increase as development increases tributary of Jenneys Branch (Indian overutilization for commercial, in these watersheds. Creek basin), Ryans Creek (Jellico Creek recreational, scientific, or educational Non-point source pollution from land basin), Marsh Creek, and Wolf Creek purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) surface runoff can originate from (Clear Fork basin). the inadequacy of existing regulatory virtually any land use activity and may Siltation can also occur in the mechanisms; and (E) other natural or be correlated with impervious surfaces Cumberland darter’s known habitat as a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

result of construction activities for discharges); agricultural pollutants such the Clear Creek drainage, Johnston and human development. For example, as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and Kleiner (2001, p. 4) reported that, during during the fall of 2007, an 8.4-km (5.2- animal waste; and other chemicals August 2001, the dominant land use mi) reach of Barren Fork in McCreary associated with oil and gas adjacent to Doe Branch and Mill Creek County, Kentucky, was subjected to a development. Non-point source appeared to be forests, and that there severe sedimentation event (Floyd pers. pollutants can cause excess nutrification were no obvious threats to water obs. 2008). This event occurred despite (increased levels of nitrogen and quality. However, Johnston and Kleiner the fact that approximately 95 percent of phosphorus), excessive algal growth, (2001, p. 4) reported that clearcutting in the Barren Fork watershed is under instream oxygen deficiencies, increased the Wildcat Branch watershed may have Federal ownership within the Daniel acidity and conductivity, and other increased sedimentation into the stream. Boone National Forest (DBNF). changes in water chemistry that can Approximately 84 percent (i.e., 5 km or Construction activities associated with seriously impact aquatic species (KDOW 3 mi) of Wildcat Branch is privately the development of a 40.5-hectare (100- 1996, pp. 48–50; KDOW 2006, pp. 70– owned, and recent land exchanges acre) park site caused excessive 73). within the Bankhead National Forest sedimentation of two unnamed In summary, habitat loss and have taken about 0.9 km (0.6 mi) of headwater tributaries of Barren Fork. modification represent significant stream west of Clear Creek out of U.S. Successive, large rainfall events in threats to the Cumberland darter. Severe Forest Service (USFS) management and September and October carried degradation from sedimentation, protection. In 2001, Service and USFS sediment offsite and impacted physical habitat disturbance, and personnel noted heavy siltation at the downstream areas of Barren Fork known contaminants threatens the habitat and County Road 329 Bridge over Doe to support Cumberland darters and the water quality on which the Cumberland Branch and at several other road Federally threatened blackside dace. darter depends. Sedimentation from crossings in other tributary streams in Our initial site visit on September 7, coal mining, logging, agriculture, and the immediate area during a modest 2007, confirmed that sediment had been development sites within the upper spring rain event. Sediment in area carried offsite, resulting in significant Cumberland basin negatively affect the streams is also the result of increased habitat degradation in the Barren Fork Cumberland darter by reducing growth erosion from the scouring of roadside mainstem and ‘‘adverse effects’’ on the rates, disease tolerance, and gill ditches, and erosion of the gravel blackside dace. Several smaller function; reducing spawning habitat, County Road 329 itself adjacent to Doe sediment events have occurred despite reproductive success, and egg, larvae, and Wildcat branches (Drennen pers. Federal and State attempts to resolve the and juvenile development; modifying obs. 2005). issue, and on July 31, 2008, another migration patterns; reducing food Blanco (2001, p. 68) identified large rainfall event resulted in excessive availability through reductions in prey; siltation from development projects as sedimentation in two Barren Fork and reducing foraging efficiency. the greatest threat to the fauna of Turkey watershed streams. Contaminants associated with coal Creek. New subdivisions have been Another significant threat to the mining (metals, other dissolved solids), developed throughout the watershed, Cumberland darter is water quality domestic sewage (bacteria, nutrients), increasing the amount of impervious degradation caused by a variety of non- and agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, surfaces in the recharge areas of springs. point source pollutants. Coal mining herbicides, and animal waste) cause The increase in impervious surfaces is represents a major source of these degradation of water quality and leading to increased stormwater runoff pollutants (O’Bara 1991, p. 11; Thomas habitats through increased acidity and and is reducing the amount of recharge 2007, p. 5), because it has the potential conductivity, instream oxygen (water storage) available to the aquifers to contribute high concentrations of deficiencies, excess nutrification, and that feed springs in the watershed. dissolved metals and other solids that excessive algal growths. Furthermore, These flow alterations reduce the lower stream pH or lead to elevated these threats faced by the Cumberland amount and complexity of rush darter levels of stream conductivity (Pond darter from sources of sedimentation habitat by eroding stream banks, 2004, pp. 6–7, 38–41; Mattingly et al. and contaminants are imminent, the destabilizing substrates and aquatic 2005, p. 59). These impacts have been result of ongoing projects that are vegetation, and decreasing overall water shown to negatively affect fish species, expected to continue indefinitely. As a quality. including listed species, in the Clear result of the imminence of these threats There are four major soil types that Fork system of the Cumberland basin combined with the vulnerability of the occur within the Turkey Creek (Weaver 1997, pp. 29; Hartowicz pers. remaining small populations to watershed, and all are considered highly comm. 2008). The direct effect of extirpation from natural and manmade erodible due to the steep topography elevated stream conductivity on fishes, threats, we have determined that the (Spivey 1982, pp. 5, 7, 8, 14). Therefore, including the Cumberland darter, is present or threatened destruction, any activity that removes native poorly understood, but some species, modification, or curtailment of the vegetation on these soils can be such as blackside dace, have shown Cumberland darter habitat and range expected to lead to increased sediment declines in abundance over time as represents a significant threat of high loads in Turkey Creek watershed conductivity increased in streams magnitude. We have no information (USFWS 2001, p. 59370), including the affected by mining (Hartowicz pers. indicating that the magnitude or areas near Penny and Tapawingo comm. 2008). Studies indicate that imminence of this threat is likely to be Springs. Industrialization is extensive blackside dace are generally absent appreciably reduced in the foreseeable and expanding throughout the when conductivity values exceed 240 future. watershed, particularly near the type microSiemens (μS) (Mattingly et al. locality for the rush darter (Bart and 2005, p. 59; Black and Mattingly 2007, Rush Darter Taylor 1999, p. 33; Drennen pers. obs. p. 12). Sediment is the most abundant 2007–2010). Other non-point source pollutants pollutant in the Mobile River Basin Point source siltation has impacted that affect the Cumberland darter (Alabama Department of Environmental the Turkey Creek watershed, including include domestic sewage (through Management 1996, pp. 14–15) and a an abundance of sites affecting Beaver septic tank leakage or straight pipe major threat to the rush darter. Within Creek, a major tributary to Turkey

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48733

Creek. These sites are impaired by species. The creation of Greers Ferry upper Little Red River watershed in bridge, road, and sewer line Lake, in 1962, converted optimal 2006 require large quantities of water construction; industrialized areas; road yellowcheek darter habitat (clear, cool, (both surface water and groundwater) maintenance; and storm water perennial flow with large substrate and pose an imminent threat to the mismanagement (Drennen pers. obs. particle size (Robison and Buchanan continued existence of yellowcheek 1999, 2004–2010). Rapid urbanization 1988, p. 429)), to a deep, standing water darter as these activities rapidly expand in this area renders this population environment. This dramatic change in and increase in the watersheds of all extremely vulnerable during the habitat flooded spawning sites and four forks (Davidson pers. comm. 2008). breeding season when rush darters changed chemical and physical Because the yellowcheek darter requires concentrate in wetland pools and characteristics in the streams that permanent flows with moderate to shallow pools with aquatic vegetation in provide habitat for the species. strong current (Robison and Buchanan headwater streams (Stiles and Mills Impoundments profoundly alter 1988, p. 429), and because downstream 2008, p. 5; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 10). channel characteristics, habitat refugia have been lost to impoundments Springs throughout the rush darter’s availability, and flow regime with and channelization, water withdraws range, especially in Pinson Valley, flush serious consequences for biota (Allan that exacerbate seasonal stream and dilute sediments and excessive and Flecker 1993, p. 36, Ward and reductions and reduce moving water nutrients from streams by providing a Stanford 1995, pp. 105–119). Some of (lotic) habitat are a serious threat. constant flow of cool, clean water. these include converting flowing to still Additional threats to the yellowcheek However, the ongoing destruction of waters, increasing depths and darter include habitat degradation from spring heads and wetlands throughout sedimentation, decreasing dissolved land use activities in the watershed, the species’ range has significantly oxygen, drastically altering resident fish including agriculture and forestry. reduced the species’ movement and populations (Neves et al. 1997, p. 63), Traditional farming practices, feedlot colonization. Little Cove Creek and disrupting fish migration, and operations, and associated poor land use Bristow Creek spring heads have been destroying spawning habitat (Ligon et practices contribute many pollutants to channelized, and the head of Cove al. 1995, pp. 185–86). Channelization of rivers. Neves et al. (1997, p. 65) suggest Spring has a pumping facility built on the lower 5.6 km (3.5 miles) of Archey that agriculture affects 72 percent of it (Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1). and South Forks in 1985 and impaired river reaches in the United Channelization and groundwater subsequent, and ongoing, channel States. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, withdrawals from spring heads might do maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of and other organic compounds generally more to impact water quality in these Engineers (USACE) and City of Clinton, are found in higher concentrations in systems than overall spring drainage Arkansas, degraded habitat in this reach agricultural areas than forested areas. disturbances such as beaver dam as well as segments upstream of the Nutrient concentrations in streams may construction, and road maintenance project area. Based upon current result in increased algal growth in (Drennen per. obs. 2005). Alteration of knowledge and a 2004–2005 threats streams, and a related alteration in fish spring head habitats has reduced water assessment (Davidson and Wine 2004, community composition (Petersen et al. quality and increased sediment loads pp. 6–13; Davidson 2005, pp. 1–4), 1999, p. 16). Major agricultural activities into spring-fed tributary streams gravel mining, unrestricted cattle access within the Little Red River watershed throughout the range of the rush darter. into streams, water withdrawal for include poultry, dairy, swine, and beef In summary, threats to rush darter cattle operations. agricultural and recreational purposes include stormwater runoff and siltation, The Arkansas Natural Resources (i.e., golf courses), lack of adequate caused by an increase in urbanization Conservation Service (NRCS) has riparian buffers, construction and and impervious surfaces in the identified animal wastes, nutrients, watershed. Other threats include spring maintenance of county roads, and non- excessive erosion, loss of plant head alteration, roadside maintenance, point source pollution arising from a diversity, and loss of species as water and logging. These threats are ongoing broad array of activities also appear to quality concerns associated with and thus considered imminent. The be degrading suitable habitat for the agricultural land use activities in the magnitude of the threats is high due to species. The threats assessment upper Little Red River watershed (NRCS the small population sizes and high documented occurrences of the 1999). Large poultry and dairy levels of alterations and destruction of aforementioned activities and found 52 operations increase nutrient inputs to the springs and streams. We have no sites on the Middle Fork, 28 sites on the streams when producers apply animal information indicating that the South Fork, 8 sites on Archey Fork waste to pastures to stimulate vegetation magnitude or imminence of these (Davidson 2005, pp. 1–4), and 1 site in growth for grazing and hay production. threats is likely to be appreciably the Turkey/Beech/Devils Fork system Continuous grazing methods in the reduced in the foreseeable future. that are adversely affected by these watershed allow unrestricted animal activities and are likely contributors to access to grazing areas, and on steeper Yellowcheek Darter the decline of the species. slopes this results in increased runoff Robison and Harp (1981, p. 17), Ozark headwater streams typically and erosion (NRCS 1999). Since McDaniel (1984, p. 92), and Robison exhibit seasonal fluctuations in flows, pastures often extend directly to the and Buchanan (1988, p. 429) have with flow rates highest in spring and edge of the stream, and lack a riparian attributed the decline in populations of lowest in late summer and fall. The zone with native vegetation, runoff from yellowcheek darters in the four forks of upper reaches of these small streams are pastures carries pollutants directly into the Little Red River and the mainstem most affected by seasonally fluctuating streams. Eroding stream banks also Little Red River to habitat alteration and water levels (Robison and Harp 1981, p. result in alterations to stream hydrology degradation. The suspected primary 17). As a result, they often lack and geomorphology, degrading habitat. cause of the species’ decline is the consistent and adequate flows, and by Livestock spend a disproportionate impoundment of the Little Red River late summer or fall are reduced to a amount of time in riparian areas during and lower reaches of the Devils, Middle, series of isolated pools (Wine pers. hot summer months. Trampling and and South Forks, areas that in the past comm. 2008). Expanding natural gas grazing can change and reduce provided optimal habitat for this development activities that began in the vegetation and eliminate riparian areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

by channel widening, channel Natural gas exploration and imminence of these threats is likely to aggradation, or lowering of the water development is a newly emerging threat be appreciably reduced in the table (Armour et al. 1991, pp. 7–11). to yellowcheek darter populations. foreseeable future, and in the case of Additionally, earthen dams were Erosion and sedimentation issues pipeline disturbance, we expect this constructed across a riffle in the lower associated with natural gas development threat to become more problematic over South Fork to create a pool for annual activities, particularly pipelines (herein the next several years as natural gas chuckwagon races for many years defined as all flow lines, gathering lines, development continues to intensify. leading up to 2003. The Service and and non-interstate pipelines), were first Chucky Madtom U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with documented by Service biologists the responsible landowner in 2004 and during 2007 in the South Fork Little Red The current range of the chucky suggested an alternative to dam River watershed. In June 2008, the madtom is believed to be restricted to an construction that would minimize Service began documenting significant approximately 1.8-mi (3-km) reach of impacts to the yellowcheek darter. erosion and sedimentation issues Little Chucky Creek in Greene County, These recommendations were followed associated with natural gas pipeline Tennessee. Land use data from the for several years; however, another construction and maintenance as Southeast GAP Analysis Program (SE– earthen dam was constructed in 2008 natural gas development activities GAP) show that land use within the using material from the South Fork to expanded into the watershed. Service Little Chucky Creek watershed is facilitate events associated with the biologists documented erosion and predominantly agricultural, with the annual chuckwagon races. This dam, sedimentation at almost every new vast majority of agricultural land being like its predecessors, was unpermitted pipeline stream crossing in the South devoted to production of livestock and and resulted in habitat degradation and Fork and Middle Fork Little Red River their forage base (Jones et al. 2000). alteration for several miles upstream watersheds, regardless of the diameter Traditional farming practices, feedlot and downstream of the site. of the pipe. Channel incision was operations, and associated land use The chuckwagon race event draws documented at numerous stream practices contribute many pollutants to approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people crossings that are tributaries to the rivers. Neves et al. (1997, p. 65) suggest per year to the South Fork Little Red South Fork Little Red River. The that agriculture affects 72 percent of River for a 1-week period around Labor incision increased erosion and impaired river reaches in the United Day. Horses and wagons traverse the sedimentation, as well as altering the States. These practices erode stream river and its tributaries for miles leading hydrology and geomorphology banks and result in alterations to stream to increased habitat disturbance, characteristics of the streams. Pipeline hydrology and geomorphology, sedimentation, and trampling. The rights-of-way were found to have one of degrading habitat. Nutrients, bacteria, chuckwagon races continue to grow the following conditions: (1) No BMPs pesticides, and other organic annually and pose a threat to the (i.e., silt fences, grade breaks, non- continued existence of yellowcheek compounds generally are found in erodible stream crossing materials) darters in the South Fork Little Red higher concentrations in agricultural installed to prevent erosion and River. areas than forested areas. Nutrient Timber harvesting activities involving sedimentation; (2) ineffective erosion concentrations in streams may result in clear-cutting entire steep hillsides were minimization practices in place; (3) increased algal growth in streams, and observed during 1999–2000 in the effective erosion minimization practices a related alteration in fish community Devils Fork watershed (Wine pers. that had not been maintained and, thus, composition (Petersen et al. 1999, p. comm. 2008). The failure to implement had become ineffective; or (4) final 16). voluntary State best management reclamation of the pipeline right-of-way The TVA Index of Biological Integrity practices (BMPs) for intermittent and had not occurred for months and in results indicate that Little Chucky Creek perennial streams during timber some cases greater than a year after is biologically impaired (Middle harvests has resulted in water quality construction activities ceased, leading to Nolichucky Watershed Alliance 2006, p. degradation and habitat alteration in prolonged periods of erosion and 13). Given the predominantly stream reaches adjacent to harvesting sedimentation. The magnitude of the agricultural land use within the Little operations. When timber harvests impacts to the South Fork and Middle Chucky Creek watershed, non-point involve clear cutting to the water’s edge, Fork Little Red River from 2007–2008 source sediment and agrochemical without leaving a riparian buffer, silt also was exacerbated due to above- discharges may pose a threat to the and sediment enter streams lying at the average rainfall, which led to more chucky madtom by altering the physical bottom of steep slopes. The lack of frequent and larger pipeline erosion characteristics of its habitat, thus streamside vegetation also promotes events. potentially impeding its ability to feed, bank erosion that alters stream courses In summary, threats to the seek shelter from predators, and and introduces large quantities of yellowcheek darter from the present successfully reproduce. The Little sediment into the channel (Allan 1995, destruction, modification, or Chucky Creek watershed also contains a p. 321). Timber harvest operations that curtailment of its habitat or range portion of the City of Greeneville, use roads on steep slopes to transport negatively impact the species. Threats providing an additional source for input timber can carry silt and sediment from include such activities as of sediments and contaminants into the the road into the stream at the bottom impoundment, sedimentation, poor creek and threatening the chucky of the slope. Logging impacts on livestock grazing practices, improper madtom. Wood and Armitage (1997, pp. sediment production are considerable, timber harvest practices, nutrient 211–212) identify at least five impacts of but often erosion of access and haul enrichment, gravel mining, sedimentation on fish, including (1) roads produces more sediment than the channelization/channel instability, and reduction of growth rate, disease land harvested for timber (Brim Box and natural gas development. These threats tolerance, and gill function; (2) Mossa 1999, p. 102). These activities are considered imminent and of high reduction of spawning habitat and egg, have occurred historically and continue magnitude throughout the species’ larvae, and juvenile development; (3) to occur in the upper Little Red River entire range. We have no information modification of migration patterns; (4) watershed. indicating that the magnitude or reduction of food availability through

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48735

the blockage of primary production; and and Skelton (2005, p. 7 and Appendix Strange and Skelton (2005, p. 7 and (5) reduction of foraging efficiency. 2) observed levels of siltation they Appendix 2) identified siltation as a The chucky madtom is a bottom- considered problematic during later threat in all of the occupied Piney River dwelling species. Bottom-dwelling fish surveys for the laurel dace and tributaries (Young’s, Moccasin, and species are especially susceptible to concluded this posed a threat in several Bumbee Creeks). The Bumbee Creek sedimentation and other pollutants that localities throughout the range of the type locality for the laurel dace is degrade or eliminate habitat and food species. Sediment has been shown to located within industrial forest that has sources (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, pp. abrade and or suffocate bottom-dwelling been subjected to extensive clear-cutting 290–292; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1091; fish and other organisms by clogging and road construction in close Waters 1995, p. 72). Etnier and Jenkins gills; reducing aquatic insect diversity proximity to the stream. Strange and (1980, p. 20) suggested that madtoms, and abundance; impairing fish feeding Skelton (2005, p. 7) noted a heavy which are heavily dependent on behavior by altering prey base and sediment load at this locality and chemoreception (detection of chemicals) reducing visibility of prey; impairing commented that conditions in Bumbee for survival, are susceptible to human- reproduction due to burial of nests; and, Creek in 2005 had deteriorated since the induced disturbances, such as chemical ultimately, negatively impacting fish site was visited by Skelton in 2002. and sediment inputs, because the growth, survival, and reproduction Strange and Skelton (2005, pp. 7 and 8 olfactory (sense of smell) ‘‘noise’’ they (Waters 1995, pp. 5–7, 55–62; Knight and Appendix 2) also commented on produce could interfere with a and Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). excessive siltation in localities they madtom’s ability to obtain food and However, we do not currently know sampled on Young’s and Moccasin otherwise monitor its environment. what levels of siltation laurel dace are Creeks, and observed localized removal In summary, threats to the chucky able to withstand before populations of riparian vegetation around residences madtom from the present destruction, begin to decline due to these siltation- in the headwaters of each of these modification, or curtailment of its related stressors. The apparent stability streams. They considered the removal of habitat or range negatively impact the of the northern population of laurel riparian vegetation problematic not only species. Degradation from dace in the Piney River system suggests for the potential for increased siltation, sedimentation, physical habitat that this species is at least moderately but also for the potential thermal disturbance, and contaminants threaten tolerant of siltation-related stressors. We alteration of these small headwater the habitat and water quality on which do not know the extent to which other streams. Skelton (2001, p. 125) reported the chucky madtom depends. factors might have driven the decline of that laurel dace occupy cool streams Sedimentation from agricultural lands the southern populations in Sale and with a maximum recorded temperature could negatively affect the chucky Soddy Creeks. of 26 °C (78.8 °F). The removal of madtom by reducing growth rates, Of the streams inhabited by the riparian vegetation could potentially disease tolerance, and gill function; southern populations recognized by increase temperatures above the laurel reducing spawning habitat, reproductive Strange and Skelton (2005, p. Appendix dace’s maximum tolerable limit. success, and egg, larvae, and juvenile 2), the reaches from which laurel dace Water temperature may be a limiting development; reducing food availability have been collected in Soddy Creek and factor in the distribution of this species through reductions in prey; and Horn Branch approach 1 km (0.6 mi) in (Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19). Canopy cover reducing foraging efficiency. length. In Cupp Creek, collections of of laurel dace streams often consists of Contaminants associated with this species are restricted to less than eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), agriculture (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, 300 m (984 ft) of stream, in spite of mixed hardwoods, pines (Pinus spp.), herbicides, and animal waste) can cause surveys well beyond the reach known to and mountain laurel ( latifolia). degradation of water quality and be inhabited. In each of the streams The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges habitats through instream oxygen occupied by the southern populations, tsugae) is a nonnative insect that infests deficiencies, excess nutrification, and Strange and Skelton (2005, Appendix 2) hemlocks, causing damage or death to excessive algal growths. Furthermore, identified siltation as a factor that could trees. The woolly adelgid was recently these threats faced by the chucky alter the habitat and render it unsuitable found in Hamilton County, Tennessee, madtom from sources of sedimentation for laurel dace. The restricted and could impact eastern hemlock in and contaminants are imminent; the distribution of laurel dace in streams floodplains and riparian buffers along result of ongoing agricultural practices inhabited by the southern populations laurel dace streams in the future that are expected to continue leaves them highly vulnerable to (Simmons pers. comm. 2008). Riparian indefinitely. As a result of the potential deleterious effects of excessive buffers filter sediment and nutrients imminence of these threats combined siltation or other localized disturbances. from overland runoff, allow water to with the vulnerability of the remaining A newly emerging threat to laurel soak into the ground, protect stream small population to extirpation from dace in Soddy Creek is the conversion banks, and provide shade for streams natural and manmade threats, we have of silvicultural lands to row crop (Waters 1995, p. 149–152). Because determined that the present or agriculture. Two large pine plantations eastern hemlock is primarily found in threatened destruction, modification, or within the Soddy Creek Watershed were riparian areas, the loss of this species curtailment of the chucky madtom harvested and then converted to tomato adjacent to laurel dace streams would be habitat and range represents a farms. An irrigation impoundment was detrimental to fish habitat. significant threat of high magnitude. We built on one Soddy Creek tributary and Habitat destruction and modification have no information indicating that the another is under construction. As a also stem from existing or proposed magnitude or imminence of these result of these activities, a large silt infrastructure development in threats is likely to be appreciably source was introduced into the Soddy association with silvicultural activities. reduced in the foreseeable future. Creek headwaters. In addition to The presence of culverts at one or more contributing sediment, crop fields often road crossings in most of the streams Laurel Dace allow runoff from irrigation water to inhabited by laurel dace may disrupt Skelton (2001, p. 127) concluded that flow directly into the creek. This water upstream dispersal within those systems the laurel dace is ‘‘presumably tolerant contains fungicides, herbicides, and (Chance pers. obs. 2008). Such dispersal of some siltation.’’ However, Strange fertilizers (Thurman pers. comm. 2010). barriers could prevent re-establishment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

of laurel dace populations in reaches occurring, or a normal aspect of the Tennessee (TWRA 2005, p. 240) and where they suffer localized extinctions population dynamics. As a result, we do Kentucky (KSNPC 2005, p. 11), but the due to natural or human-caused events. not believe that predation is considered designation in Kentucky conveys no In summary, the primary threat to to currently pose a threat to these legal protection. Under the Tennessee laurel dace throughout its range is species. Furthermore, the information Nongame and Endangered or excessive siltation resulting from we do have does not indicate that Threatened Wildlife Species agriculture and extensive silviculture disease or predation is likely to become Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee involving both inadequate riparian a threat to any of these five fishes in the Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t buffers in harvest areas and the failure foreseeable future. is unlawful for any person to take, to use BMPs during road construction. attempt to take, possess, transport, D. The Inadequacy of Existing Severe degradation from sedimentation, export, process, sell or offer for sale or Regulatory Mechanisms physical habitat disturbance, and ship nongame wildlife, or for any contaminants threatens the habitat and Cumberland Darter common or contract carrier knowingly water quality on which the laurel dace The Cumberland darter and its to transport or receive for shipment depends. Sedimentation negatively habitats are afforded some protection nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations affects species (such as the laurel dace) from water quality and habitat included in the Tennessee Wildlife by reducing growth rates, disease Resources Commission Proclamation tolerance, and gill function; reducing degradation under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 00–15 Endangered Or Threatened spawning habitat, reproductive success, Species state the following: ‘‘Except as and egg, larvae, and juvenile Kentucky’s Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS 149.330–355), Kentucky’s provided for in Tennessee Code development; reducing food availability Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and through reductions in prey; and Agriculture Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS 224.71–140), additional Kentucky (e), it shall be unlawful for any person reducing foraging efficiency (Waters to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed 1995, pp. 5–7; 55–62; Wood and laws and regulations regarding natural resources and environmental protection as threatened or endangered or Armitage 1997, pp. 211–212; Knight and otherwise to violate terms of Section Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). These threats (KRS 146.200–360; KRS 224; 401 KAR 5:026, 5:031), and Tennessee’s Water 70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly faced by the laurel dace from sources of the habitat of such species without due sedimentation and contaminants are Quality Control Act of 1977 (TWQCA; T.C.A. 69–3–101). However, as consideration of alternatives for the imminent, the result of ongoing welfare of the species listed in (1) of this agricultural and silvicultural practices demonstrated under Factor A, population declines and degradation of proclamation, or (2) the United States that are expected to continue. Since the list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these identified threats substantially affect habitat for this species are ongoing despite the protection afforded by these regulations, potential collectors of this survival, growth, reproduction, and species are required to have a State feeding, we have determined that the laws and corresponding regulations. While these laws have resulted in some collection permit, therefore protecting present or threatened destruction, against potential threats under Factor B. modification, or curtailment of the improvements in water quality and stream habitat for aquatic life, including However, in terms of project laurel dace habitat and range represents management, and potential habitat a significant threat of high magnitude. the Cumberland darter, they alone have not been adequate to fully protect this disturbance, this regulation only We have no information indicating that provides for the consideration of the magnitude or imminence of these species; sedimentation and non-point source pollutants continue to be a alternatives, and does not require the threats is likely to be appreciably level of project review afforded by the reduced in the foreseeable future. significant problem. States maintain water-use Act. B. Overutilization for Commercial, classifications through issuance of In 7 of 12 streams where the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational National Pollutant Discharge Cumberland darter still occurs, the Purposes Elimination System (NPDES) permits to species receives incidental protection The Cumberland darter, rush darter, industries, municipalities, and others. under the Act due to the coexistence of yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, NPDES permits set maximum limits on the Federally threatened blackside dace. and laurel dace are not commercially certain pollutants or pollutant These streams are in watersheds that are utilized. Individuals have been taken for parameters. For water bodies on the at least partially owned by the Federal scientific and private collections in the 303(d) list, States are required under the Government (i.e., DBNF). The five past, but collecting is not considered a Clean Water Act to establish a total remaining streams supporting factor in the decline of these species and maximum daily load (TMDL) for the populations of the Cumberland darter is not expected to be so in the future. pollutants of concern that will bring are not afforded this protection. The available information does not water quality into the applicable In summary, population declines and indicate that overutilization is likely to standard. Three Cumberland darter degradation of habitat for the become a threat to any of these five streams, Jenneys Branch, Marsh Creek, Cumberland darter are ongoing despite fishes in the foreseeable future. and Wolf Creek, have been identified as the protection afforded by State and impaired by the KDOW and placed on Federal laws and corresponding C. Disease or Predation the State’s 303(d) list (KDOW 2008). regulations. Because of the vulnerability Disease is not considered to be a Causes of impairment were listed as of the small remaining populations of factor in the decline of the Cumberland siltation/sedimentation from the Cumberland darter and the darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, agriculture, coal mining, land imminence of these threats, we find the chucky madtom, or laurel dace. development, and silviculture and inadequacy of existing regulatory Although the Cumberland darter, rush organic enrichment/eutrophication from mechanisms to be a significant threat of darter, yellowcheek darter, and laurel residential areas. TMDLs have not yet high magnitude. Further, the dace are undoubtedly consumed by been developed for these pollutants. information available to us at this time predators, the available information The Cumberland darter has been does not indicate that the magnitude or suggests that this predation is naturally designated as an endangered species by imminence of this threat is likely to be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48737

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable County, Alabama (2005, pp. 2, 39) has tributaries) forks are designated as ERW. future. noted that the expansion of impervious The South Fork has not been designated surfaces in the Turkey Creek Drainage as an ERW. The applicable water quality Rush Darter Basin caused an increase in flood standards have not protected The rush darter and its habitats are heights and water velocity during yellowcheek darter habitat from afforded some protection from water stormwater events. Due to these alterations and water quality quality and habitat degradation under observations, the Storm Water degradation from traditional land use the Clean Water Act and the Alabama Management Authority and Jefferson and expanding natural gas development Water Pollution Control Act, as County Department of Health (2010, pp. activities. amended, 1975 (Code of Alabama, 4–9) are tracking and monitoring The Arkansas Forestry Commission is §§ 22–22–1 to 22–22–14). However, as construction and maintenance sites that the State agency responsible for demonstrated under Factor A, impact stormwater management within establishing BMPs for timber harvests in population declines and degradation of the Turkey Creek and City of Pinson Arkansas. BMPs for timber harvests in habitat for this species are ongoing area. As demonstrated under Factor A, Arkansas are only recommendations; despite the protection afforded by these flow alterations associated with there is no requirement that timber laws. While these laws have resulted in stormwater runoff reduce the amount harvesters include BMPs in timber some improvement in water quality and and complexity of rush darter habitat by operations. The BMPs are currently stream habitat for aquatic life, including eroding stream banks, destabilizing under revision, but the Service does not the rush darter, they alone have not substrates and aquatic vegetation, and know what effect these revisions will been adequate to fully protect this decreasing overall water quality. have on aquatic habitats within the species; stormwater mismanagement, In summary, population declines and range of the species. sedimentation, and non-point source degradation of habitat for the rush darter Natural gas production in the upper pollutants continue to be a significant are ongoing despite the protection Little Red River watershed presents a problem. In addition, these laws have afforded by State and Federal laws and unique problem for yellowcheek darter not adequately addressed water quantity corresponding regulations. Despite these conservation. In Arkansas, mineral issues that are a problem throughout the laws, sedimentation, flow alterations, rights for properties supersede the range of the species. Sediment is the and non-point source pollution surface rights. Even where private most abundant pollutant in the Mobile continue to adversely affect the species. landowners agree to implement certain River Basin and is among the greatest Because of the vulnerability of the small BMPs or conservation measures on their threats to the rush darter. remaining populations of the rush darter lands for yellowcheek darter The State of Alabama maintains and the imminence of these threats, we conservation, there is no guarantee that water-use classifications through find the inadequacy of existing these BMPs or conservation measures issuance of NPDES permits to regulatory mechanisms to be a will be implemented by natural gas industries, municipalities, and others significant threat of high magnitude. companies, their subsidiaries, or that set maximum limits on certain Further, the information available to us contractors that lease and develop the pollutants or pollutant parameters. For at this time does not indicate that the mineral rights for landowners. For this water bodies on the 303(d) list, States magnitude or imminence of this threat reason, the intended benefits of are required under the Clean Water Act is likely to be appreciably reduced in conservation measures agreed to by to establish a TMDL for the pollutants the foreseeable future. landowners in agreements such as of concern that will bring water quality Candidate Conservation Agreements into the applicable standard. The State Yellowcheek Darter with Assurances may never be realized. of Alabama has not identified any The Arkansas Department of Additionally, natural gas projects often impaired water bodies in Jefferson, Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has do not contain a Federal nexus that Winston, and Etowah counties in the established water quality standards for would allow the Service to comment on immediate or upstream portion of the surface waters in Arkansas, including proposed or ongoing projects. rush darter range or in any watersheds specific standards for those streams The Arkansas Natural Resources in Winston or Etowah counties. designated as ‘‘extraordinary resource Commission regulates water withdrawal However, sedimentation events are waters’’ (ERW) based on ‘‘a combination in Arkansas streams. To date, they have usually related to stormwater runoff of the chemical, physical, and biological not precluded water withdrawal for episodes, and are usually not captured characteristics of a waterbody and its natural gas development activities in the by routine water quality sampling. watershed, which is characterized by upper Little Red River watershed. The Although stormwater events are scenic beauty, aesthetics, scientific USACE regulates instream activities temporary in nature, they are still values, broad scope recreation potential, under the Clean Water Act. Their policy harmful to aquatic species. The size and and intangible social values’’ (ADEQ to date has been to issue permits for frequency of floods and stormwater Regulation 2, November 25, 2007). As instream activities associated with events increases with urbanization described in ADEQ’s Regulation 2, pipeline construction and maintenance (Konrad 2003, pp. 1–4). Stormwater Section 2.203, ERW ‘‘shall be protected under Nationwide Permits rather than events in urban areas decrease the by (1) water quality controls, (2) Individual Permits that require more storage capacity for water in urban maintenance of natural flow regime, (3) public involvement. The ADEQ lacks basins compared to rural basins; and protection of in stream habitat, and (4) the resources necessary to enforce urbanization promotes more rapid pursuit of land management protective existing regulations under the Clean runoff, higher peak discharge rates, and of the watershed.’’ This regulatory Water Act and the Arkansas Water and total volume of water (Konrad 2003, pp. mechanism has precluded most large- Air Pollution Act for activities 1–4). Not only does urbanization and scale commercial gravel mining in the associated with natural gas associated runoff change the physical Little Red River watershed; however, development. aspects of water resources, but also the illegal gravel mining is still considered The yellowcheek darter receives chemical and biological conditions of a cause of habitat degradation and a incidental protection under the Act due waterways (AMEC Earth and threat in this watershed. The Middle, to the coexistence of the Federally Environmental 2001, p. 1). Jefferson Archey, and Devils (and its major endangered speckled pocketbook

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mussel (Lampsilis streckeri), which The chucky madtom receives Laurel Dace occurs throughout the upper Little Red incidental protection under the Act due The laurel dace and its habitats are River drainage. However, this protection to the coexistence of the Federally afforded some protection from water has been insufficient to mitigate the endangered Cumberland bean (Villosa quality and habitat degradation under threats to either species. trabalis), which is still thought to occur the Clean Water Act and by TDEC’s In summary, the threats of inadequacy in Little Chucky Creek, Greene County, Division of Water Pollution Control of existing regulatory mechanisms are Tennessee (Ahlstedt pers. comm. 2008). under the TWQCA. However, as imminent and considered high in However, this protection has been demonstrated under Factor A, magnitude. This is of particular concern insufficient to mitigate the threats to population declines and degradation of in regard to the vulnerability of the either species. habitat for this species are ongoing species to threats from natural gas The chucky madtom was listed as despite the protection afforded by these development, which is already Endangered by the State of Tennessee in laws. While these laws have resulted in impacting populations in the South and September of 2000. Under the improved water quality and stream Middle forks of the Little Red River and Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or habitat for aquatic life, including the is expected to intensify in the next Threatened Wildlife Species laurel dace, they alone have not been several years throughout the range of the Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee adequate to fully protect this species; species. Further, the information Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t sedimentation and non-point source available to us at this time does not is unlawful for any person to take, pollutants continue to be a significant indicate that the magnitude or attempt to take, possess, transport, problem. Sediment is the most abundant imminence of this threat is likely to be export, process, sell or offer for sale or pollutant in the watershed and one of appreciably reduced in the foreseeable ship nongame wildlife, or for any the greatest threats to the laurel dace. future. common or contract carrier knowingly The State of Tennessee maintains Chucky Madtom to transport or receive for shipment water-use classifications through nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations issuance of NPDES permits to The chucky madtom and its habitats included in the Tennessee Wildlife industries, municipalities, and others are afforded some protection from water Resources Commission Proclamation that set maximum limits on certain quality and habitat degradation under 00–15 Endangered Or Threatened pollutants or pollutant parameters. For the Clean Water Act and TDEC’s Species state the following: ‘‘Except as water bodies on the 303(d) list, States Division of Water Pollution Control provided for in Tennessee Code are required under the Clean Water Act under the TWQCA. However, as Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and to establish a TMDL for the pollutants demonstrated under Factor A, (e), it shall be unlawful for any person of concern that will bring water quality population declines and degradation of to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed into the applicable standard. The TDEC habitat for this species are ongoing as threatened or endangered or has not identified any impaired water despite the protection afforded by these otherwise to violate terms of Section bodies in the Soddy Creek, the Sale laws. While these laws have resulted in 70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly Creek system, or the Piney River system improved water quality and stream the habitat of such species without due (TDEC 2008). habitat for aquatic life, including the The TWRA lists the laurel dace as consideration of alternatives for the chucky madtom, they alone have not endangered. Under the Tennessee welfare of the species listed in (1) of this been adequate to fully protect this Nongame and Endangered or proclamation, or (2) the United States species; sedimentation and non-point Threatened Wildlife Species list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these source pollutants continue to be a Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee regulations, potential collectors of this significant problem. Sediment is the Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t species are required to have a State most abundant pollutant in the Little is unlawful for any person to take, collection permit. However, in terms of Chucky Creek watershed and is the attempt to take, possess, transport, project management, this regulation greatest threat to the chucky madtom. export, process, sell or offer for sale or only provides for the consideration of Portions of the Nolichucky River and ship nongame wildlife, or for any alternatives, and does not require the its tributaries in Greene County, common or contract carrier knowingly Tennessee, are listed as impaired (303d) level of project review afforded by the to transport or receive for shipment by the State of Tennessee due to pasture Act. nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations grazing, irrigated crop production, In summary, population declines and included in the Tennessee Wildlife unrestricted cattle access, land degradation of habitat for the chucky Resources Commission Proclamation development, municipal point source madtom are ongoing despite the 00–15 Endangered Or Threatened discharges, septic tank failures, gravel protection afforded by State and Federal Species state the following: ‘‘Except as mining, agriculture, and channelization laws and corresponding regulations. provided for in Tennessee Code (TDEC 2010, pp. 64–73). However, Little Despite these laws, sedimentation and Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and Chucky Creek is not listed as ‘‘an non-point source pollution continue to (e), it shall be unlawful for any person impaired water’’ by the State of adversely affect the species. Because of to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed Tennessee (TDEC 2010, pp. 64–73). For the vulnerability of the small remaining as threatened or endangered or water bodies on the 303(d) (impaired) populations of the chucky madtom and otherwise to violate terms of Section list, States are required under the Clean the imminence of these threats, we find 70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly Water Act to establish a TMDL for the the inadequacy of existing regulatory the habitat of such species without due pollutants of concern that will bring mechanisms to be a significant threat of consideration of alternatives for the water quality into the applicable high magnitude. Further, the welfare of the species listed in (1) of this standard. The TDEC has developed information available to us at this time proclamation, or (2) the United States TMDLs for the Nolichucky River does not indicate that the magnitude or list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these watershed to address the problems of imminence of this threat is likely to be regulations, potential collectors of this fecal coliform loads, siltation, and appreciably reduced in the foreseeable species are required to have a State habitat alteration by agriculture. future. collection permit. However, in terms of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48739

project management, this regulation Cumberland darter, rush darter, completely dried up during the summer only provides for the consideration of yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, of 2007 (Stiles pers. comm. 2008). alternatives, and does not require the and laurel dace populations are below The Little Red River watershed in level of project review afforded by the the effective population size required to Arkansas experienced moderate drought Act. maintain long-term genetic and conditions during 1997–2000 (Southern In summary, population declines and population viability (Soule 1980, pp. Regional Climate Center 2000), which degradation of habitat for the laurel dace 162–164; Hunter 2002, pp. 105–107). reduced flows in its tributaries and are ongoing despite the protection The long-term viability of a species is affected yellowcheek darter afforded by State and Federal water founded on the conservation of populations. During a status survey for quality laws. While these laws have numerous local populations throughout the species conducted in 2000, the stage resulted in improved water quality and its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. height of the Little Red River was 0.3 m stream habitat for aquatic life, including 93–104). These separate populations are (1 ft) lower than what was reported the laurel dace, they alone have not essential for the species to recover and during a 1979–1980 status survey of the been adequate to fully protect this adapt to environmental change (Noss darter (Wine et al. 2000, p. 7). Stream species; sedimentation and non-point and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264–297; flow is strongly correlated with source pollutants continue to be a Harris 1984, pp. 93–104). The level of important physical and chemical significant problem. Non-point source isolation seen in these five species parameters that limit the distribution pollution is not regulated by the Clean makes natural repopulation following and abundance of riverine species Water Act. Due to the vulnerability of localized extirpations virtually (Power et al. 1995, p. 159; Resh et al. the laurel dace to water quality and impossible without human intervention. 1988, p. 437) and it regulates the ecological integrity of flowing water habitat degradation, we find the Climate Change inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms systems (Poff et al. 1997, p. 769). During that address water quality to be an Climate change has the potential to the 2000 status survey, the yellowcheek imminent threat of high magnitude. increase the vulnerability of the darter was not found in the upper Further, the information available to us Cumberland darter, rush darter, reaches of any study streams or in the at this time does not indicate that the yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, Turkey/Beech Fork reach of Devils Fork, magnitude or imminence of this threat and laurel dace to random catastrophic a likely result of drought conditions. is likely to be appreciably reduced in events (e.g., McLaughlin et al. 2002; This indicates a contraction of the foreseeable future. Thomas et al. 2004). Climate change is yellowcheek darter range to stream expected to result in increased reaches lower in the watershed where E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors frequency and duration of droughts and flows are maintained for a greater Affecting Its Continued Existence the strength of storms (e.g., Cook et al. portion of the year (Wine et al. 2000, p. Restricted Range and Population Size 2004). During 2007, a severe drought 11). It is possible that the perceived affected the upper Cumberland River contraction in range occurs only during The Cumberland darter, rush darter, basin in Kentucky and Tennessee. low precipitation years in north-central yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, Streamflow values for the Cumberland Arkansas. The threat of drought is and laurel dace have limited geographic River at Williamsburg, Kentucky (USGS imminent and moderate to high, ranges and small population sizes. Their Station Number 03404000), in respectively, in all four watersheds for existing populations are extremely September and October of 2007 were the yellowcheek darter. Exacerbation of localized, and geographically isolated among the lowest recorded monthly natural drought cycles as a result of from one another, leaving them values (99th percentile for low-flow global climate change could have vulnerable to localized extinctions from periods) during the last 67 years detrimental effects on the species, intentional or accidental toxic chemical (Cinotto pers. comm. 2008). Climate which could continue for the spills, habitat modification, progressive change could intensify or increase the foreseeable future. degradation from runoff (non-point frequency of drought events, such as the source pollutants), natural catastrophic one that occurred in 2007. Thomas et al. Competition From Introduced Species changes to their habitat (e.g., flood (2004, p. 112) report that the frequency, The Federally endangered watercress scour, drought), other stochastic duration, and intensity of droughts are darter (Etheostoma nuchale) was disturbances, and to decreased fitness likely to increase in the Southeast as a translocated outside of its native range from reduced genetic diversity. result of global climate change. by the Service into Tapawingo Springs Potential sources of unintentional spills Fluker et al. (2007, p. 10) reported in 1988 in order to assist in the species’ include accidents involving vehicles that drought conditions, coupled with recovery by expanding its range (Moss transporting chemicals over road rapid urbanization in watersheds that 1995, p. 5). The watercress darter is now crossings of streams inhabited by one of contain rush darters, render the reproducing and is competing with the these five fish, or the accidental or populations vulnerable, especially rush darter in Tapawingo Springs intentional release of chemicals used in during the breeding season when they (USFWS 1993, p. 1; Drennen pers. obs. agricultural or residential applications concentrate in wetland pools and 2004; George et al. 2009, p. 532). In into streams. shallow pools of headwater streams. 2001, a population of watercress darters Species that are restricted in range Drought conditions from 2006 to 2007 was found in the Penny Springs site and population size are more likely to greatly reduced spawning habitat for (Stiles and Blanchard 2001, p. 3). The suffer loss of genetic diversity due to rush darter in Jefferson County introduced watercress darter appears to genetic drift, potentially increasing their (Drennen pers. obs. 2007). Survey be out-competing the rush darter at this susceptibility to inbreeding depression, numbers for the rush darter within the site (Fluker et al. 2008, p. 1; George et decreasing their ability to adapt to spring-fed headwaters for the unnamed al. 2009, p. 532), even though the rush environmental changes, and reducing tributary to Turkey Creek during 2007 darter has always been considered rare the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980, were reduced due to a lack of water in the Tapawingo Spring area (Stiles pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp. 97–101; (Kuhajda pers. comm. 2008). In Winston pers. comm. 2008). Further investigation Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117– County, Stiles and Mills (2008, pp. 5– may be required to determine whether 146). It is likely that some of the 6) noted that Doe Branch almost interspecific competition is occurring

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES 48740 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

between the watercress darter and the Determination Available Conservation Measures rush darter at this site (Stiles pers. We have carefully assessed the best Conservation measures provided to comm. 2008). However, Fluker et al. scientific and commercial information species listed as endangered or (2008, p. 1) and George et al. (2009, p. available regarding the past, present, threatened under the Act include 532) consider the rush darter to be and future threats to the Cumberland recognition, recovery actions, extirpated after completing 2 years of darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, requirements for Federal protection, and surveys (2008–2009) in Tapawingo chucky madtom, and laurel dace. prohibitions against certain practices. Spring. Section 3(6) of the Act defines an Recognition through listing results in Reduced Fecundity endangered species as ‘‘any species public awareness and conservation The low fecundity rates exhibited by which is in danger of extinction actions by Federal, State, and private many madtom (Breder and throughout all or a significant portion of organizations; and individuals. The Act Rosen 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, its range.’’ We find that each of these encourages cooperation with the States p. 58) could limit the potential for five species is presently in danger of and requires that recovery actions be populations to rebound from extinction throughout its entire range, carried out for all listed species. The disturbance events. The short lifespan based on the immediacy and magnitude protection measures required of Federal exhibited by members of the N. of the threats described above. Based on agencies and the prohibitions against hildebrandi clade (a taxonomic group of our analysis, we have no reason to certain activities are discussed, in part, organisms classified together on the believe that the negative population below. basis of homologous features traced to a trends for any of the five species Section 7(a) of the Act requires common ancestor) of madtoms, if also addressed in this final rule will Federal agencies to evaluate their true of chucky madtoms, would further improve, nor will the effects of current actions with respect to any species that limit the species’ viability by rendering threats acting on the species be is proposed or listed as endangered or it vulnerable to severe demographic ameliorated in the foreseeable future. threatened and with respect to its shifts from disturbances that prevent Therefore, on the basis of the best critical habitat, if any is designated. reproduction in even a single year, and available scientific and commercial Regulations implementing this could be devastating to the population information, we are listing the interagency cooperation provision of the if the disturbance persists for successive Cumberland darter, rush darter, Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. years. yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, Section 7(a)(4) of the act requires and laurel dace as endangered under the Federal agencies to confer with the Summary Act. Service on any action that is likely to Because the Cumberland darter, rush Without the protection of the Act, jeopardize the continued existence of a darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky these five species are in danger of species proposed for listing or result in madtom, and laurel dace all have extinction throughout all of their highly destruction or adverse modification of limited geographic ranges and small localized ranges. Extinction could occur proposed critical habitat. If a species is population sizes, they are subject to within a few years, given the reduction listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) several ongoing natural and manmade of habitats and ranges, small population requires Federal agencies to ensure that threats. Since these threats are ongoing, sizes, current habitat threats, and activities they authorize, fund, or carry they are considered to be imminent. The natural or human-induced catastrophic out are not likely to jeopardize the magnitude of these threats is high for events. Furthermore, because of the continued existence of the species or to each of these species because they result immediate and ongoing significant destroy or adversely modify its critical in a reduced ability to adapt to threats to each species throughout their habitat. If a Federal action may affect a environmental change. Further, the entire respective ranges, as described listed species or its critical habitat, the information available to us at this time above in the five-factor analysis, we find responsible Federal agency must enter does not indicate that the magnitude or that it is unnecessary to analyze into formal consultation with the imminence of this threat is likely to be whether there are any significant Service. appreciably reduced in the foreseeable portions of ranges for each species that Federal agency actions within the future. may warrant a different determination species’ habitat that may require Exacerbation of natural drought cycles of status. conference or consultation or both as as a result of global climate change described in the preceding paragraph could have detrimental effects on these Critical Habitat include, but are not limited to, the five species, which are expected to In the June 24, 2010 proposed listing carrying out or the issuance of permits continue or increase in the future. The rule (75 FR 36035) we determined that for reservoir construction, stream specific threat of global climate change designation of critical habitat was alterations, discharges, wastewater is considered to be nonimminent. The prudent for all five species. However, facility development, water withdrawal Federally endangered watercress darter we found that critical habitat was not projects, pesticide registration, mining, (Etheostoma nuchale) introduced into determinable at the time, and set forth and road and bridge construction. the range of the rush darter is now the steps we would undertake to obtain The Act and its implementing potentially competing with the rush the information necessary to develop a regulations set forth a series of general darter. The low fecundity rates proposed designation of critical habitat. prohibitions and exceptions that apply exhibited by many madtom catfishes We have completed these steps and to all endangered wildlife. The could specifically affect the chucky intend to publish a proposed prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 madtom and exacerbate the problem of designation in the next few months for for endangered wildlife, in part, make it its recovering from disturbance events. all five species. We were unable to illegal for any person subject to the These threats are considered moderate/ include the critical habitat with the final jurisdiction of the United States to take low in magnitude because of the listing rule due to an internal publishing (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, uncertainty of their effects, but are issue requiring separate publication of shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or considered imminent as they are proposed and final rules in the Federal collect, or to attempt any of these), ongoing. Register. import or export, ship in interstate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48741

commerce in the course of commercial governments, individuals, businesses, or Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR activity, or sell or offer for sale in organizations. An agency may not FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). interstate or foreign commerce any conduct or sponsor, and a person is not List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 listed species. It also is illegal to required to respond to, a collection of possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or information unless it displays a Endangered and threatened species, ship any wildlife that has been taken currently valid OMB control number. Exports, Imports, Reporting and illegally. Certain exceptions apply to National Environmental Policy Act recordkeeping requirements, agents of the Service and State Transportation. conservation agencies. (NEPA) We may issue permits to carry out We have determined that Regulation Promulgation otherwise prohibited activities environmental assessments and Accordingly, we amend part 17, involving endangered wildlife species environmental impact statements, as under certain circumstances. subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the defined under the authority of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: Regulations governing permits are National Environmental Policy Act of codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not PART 17—[AMENDED] species, and at 17.32 for threatened be prepared in connection with species. With regard to endangered regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of ■ wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 1. The authority citation for part 17 the Act. We published a notice outlining continues to read as follows: following purposes: for scientific our reasons for this determination in the purposes, to enhance the propagation or Federal Register on October 25, 1983 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. survival of the species, and for (48 FR 49244). 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– incidental take in connection with 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. References Cited otherwise lawful activities. ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries Required Determinations A complete list of all references cited for ‘‘Dace, laurel,’’ ‘‘Darter, in this rulemaking is available on the Cumberland,’’ ‘‘Darter, rush,’’ ‘‘Darter, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Internet at http://www.regulations.gov yellowcheek,’’ and ‘‘Madtom, chucky’’ U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) or upon request from the Field to the List of Endangered and This rule does not contain any new Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological Threatened Wildlife, in alphabetical collections of information that require Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER order, under FISHES, to read as follows: approval by the Office of Management INFORMATION CONTACT). and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Authors wildlife. Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting The primary authors of this document * * * * * requirements on State or local are the staff members of the Tennessee (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical habi- Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened tat rules

******* FISHES

******* Dace, laurel ...... Chrosomus saylori .. U.S.A (TN) ...... Entire ...... E 791 NA NA

******* Darter, Cumberland Etheostoma U.S.A. (KY, TN) ...... Entire ...... E 791 NA NA susanae.

******* Darter, rush ...... Etheostoma U.S.A. (AL) ...... Entire ...... E 791 NA NA phytophilum.

******* Darter, yellowcheek Etheostoma moorei U.S.A. (AR) ...... Entire ...... E 791 NA NA

******* Madtom, chucky ...... Noturus crypticus .... U.S.A. (TN) ...... Entire ...... E 791 NA NA

*******

* * * * * Dated: July 27, 2011. James J. Slack, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2011–20018] Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM 09AUR1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES