Zachary Loughman, Ph.D.

Crayfish Biologist/Astacologist Wheeling, WV

I am in support of both the Big Sandy ( callainus) and the Guyandotte River Crayfish (Cambarus veteranus) receiving federal protection from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. My students and I completed surveys over the summer and fall of 2015 for both species that resulted in both reports affiliated with this federal register comment period. Below are my thoughts on why each species is worthy of federal protection.

Big Sandy Crayfish/Cambarus callainus

In 2015 Cambarus callainus was documented at the majority of historic locations, as well as several (n = 7) new stream reaches (Loughman 2015A). Based on previous work by both Taylor and Schuster (2004) and Thoma (2010) in Kentucky, Thoma (2009) in Virginia, and Loughman and Welsh (2013) in West Virginia, as well as the 2015 range-wide survey completed by my laboratory (Loughman 2015A) the summation of this data indicates C. callainus populations in Virginia reaches of the Russel Fork watershed are the most robust for the species. Recent survey efforts (Loughman 2015A) in the Tug Fork, specifically in West Virginia, were notable for the discovery of new populations in the Pigeon and Panther Creek watersheds, as well as the Lower Tug Fork mainstem. Also notable was the absence of C. callainus in the Lower Levisa Fork watershed in Kentucky, where the species had previously been found by Taylor and Schuster (2004) and Thoma (2010). As with C. veteranus (below), it is important to maintain perspective when interpreting 2015 survey results.

Cambarus callainus was discovered in lower portions of the Tug Fork watershed, much further downstream than the species was found during previous efforts (Loughman 2015A). Although these new records for the species in the Tug Fork may seem encouraging, all of the new locations C. callainus CPUE values were consistently low (Loughman 2015A). This raises the questions: do these represent a recruiting population or waifs from upstream? If they are waifs, what is the likelihood of these individuals reaching the carrying capacity needed to maintain a viable, reproducing population, and undergo recruitment? Population levels at these Lower Tug Fork sites were among the lowest in the Tug Fork watershed at sites maintaining the species, and the most isolated in the watershed. It is my belief they should not be viewed as robust, stable populations, and instead represent waifs from upstream, and are likely undergoing decline. Further investigation is needed to support this hypothesis.

Both Taylor and Schuster (2004) and Thoma (2010) documented C. callainus in the Lower Levisa Fork watershed in Kentucky. Concerted effort was undertaken during the summer and fall of 2015 to document C. callainus in the Lower Levisa Fork. All historic sites sampled by Taylor and Schuster (2004) and Thoma (2010) were sampled, as well as 32 additional sites; zero animals were observed. I am confident that our survey results are reflective of the reality of C. callainus distribution in the Lower Levisa Fork watershed. All historic sites sampled in the Lower Levisa Fork maintained high rates of sedimentation, and subsequent lack of instream habitat conducive for C. callainus presence, possibly explaining the lack of C. callainus populations in the Lower Levisa Fork.

It is true that Russel Fork populations, especially those in Virginia, are both the most robust and stable across the species range. The overall utility of these populations from a management perspective is limited however, due to the lack of connectivity with other watersheds’ populations. As pointed out in the federal register document, the largest C. callainus populations lack the possibility of genetic interpopulation communication due to impoundments. In effect, C. callainus, as it is currently understood, represents a meta-population dynamic lacking any possibility of connectivity; this aspect of C. callainus conservation is arguably one of the most pressing issues facing the species. Source populations in the Upper Russell Fork lack the ability to invade the Upper Levisa Fork due to Fishtrap Reservoir. Populations present in Cranes Nest River, as well as the upper and mid reaches of the Pound River lack the ability to genetically communicate with populations in the Russell Fork due to the John W. Flanagan reservoir. Furthermore, both of these populations cannot immigrate to the Lower Levisa Fork, per the presence of both dams.

Habitat quality across the Upper Big Sandy River watersheds is another pressing concern important to keep in perspective when considering the conservation status of C. callainus. Logistic regression modeling results indicated that physical habitat quality was important for the maintenance of C. callainus population in the Upper Big Sandy River watersheds (Loughman 2015B). Quality habitat was present en-masse throughout the Russell Fork watershed where C. callainus is present, but isolated at best in the Upper Levisa Fork, Tug Fork, and Lower Levisa Fork watersheds, further contributing to the overall disjunct nature of C. callainus current distribution (Loughman 2015A). The lack of animals in the Lower Levisa Fork watersheds, as well as the absence of contiguous populations throughout the Tug Fork and Upper Levisa Fork demonstrates that C. callainus has experienced a significant decline in overall population, given at one time the majority of these populations were likely contiguous. The lack of connectivity between populations coupled with decline justifies C. callainus receiving federal protection from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Guyandotte River Crayfish / Cambarus veteranus

Surveys in 2015 disclosed the presence of a previously undocumented C. veteranus population in the Clear/Laurel Fork watershed, and determined C. veteranus is still extant in upstream portions of Pinnacle Creek, the last known area of occurrence of the species prior to 2015 (Loughman et al. 2015; Loughman 2015A). These results are promising for the species, given the extent of occurrence for C. veteranus in the Clear/Laurel Fork watershed, but should not be over interpreted as all that is needed to warrant lack of federal protection. What needs to be kept in perspective is where C. veteranus was not found. Simply put, 2015 C. veteranus surveys represented the most intensive attempt to document the distribution of C. veteranus in the species’ history. Cambarus veteranus was not found in the Barker Creek, Briar Creek, Huff Creek, Indian Creek, Still Run, or Turkey Creek watersheds, where historic populations previously occurred (Jezerinac et al. 1995; Loughman 2014; Loughman et al. 2015; Loughman 2015B). The Guyandotte River was also intensively sampled at both mid and upstream reaches between the confluences of streams historically maintaining the species; all efforts in the mainstem failed to document C. veteranus.

The preferred habitat of Cambarus veteranus consists of riffles and runs coursing over a boulder/slab boulder substrate in large wadeable streams, with open interstitial spaces and reduced sediment loading in the Upper Guyandotte watershed of West Virginia (Jezerinac et al 1995; Loughman 2014; Loughman and Welsh 2013; Loughman et al. 2015; Loughman 2015B). To that effect, using the USGS National Stream Layer and GIS, one can calculate a total of 963.7 km (598.8 mi) of large, wadeable streams in the Upper Guyandotte River watershed that could possibly maintain the species. Currently occupied habitat within the Upper Guyandotte consists of at least 26.5 km (16.5 mi), which corresponds to 2.7% of this potential habitat. For a refined perspective, using current and historic streams as a metric of total known stream distance occupied by C. veteranus, the total linear stream distance of all known C. veteranus streams is 305.6 km (189.9 mi), or 31.7% of this potential habitat, historically. Given all of these streams were intensively sampled, and C. veteranus was not discovered at any sites except those at Pinnacle Creek or Clear and Laurel Forks, C. veteranus currently occupies 8.7% of these historic streams, and is absent from 91.3% of these streams linear distance based on the most recent available data (Loughman (2015B).

Given this new information, C. veteranus has one of, and possibly the most limited distribution of any large, stream dwelling, tertiary burrowing crayfish in North America. Given this extremely limited distribution, a single catastrophic event in either Pinnacle Creek or the Clear/Laurel Fork watersheds could eliminate significant portions of C. veteranus global populations, further increasing the probability of the species extinction.

The likely cause of this decline is the persistent degradation of the watersheds riparian corridors, streams, and forest lands, resulting in elevated chemical and sediment inputs into the Upper Guyandotte watershed. Modeling results indicated instream habitat quality was higher and conductivity rates lower at sites harboring C. veteranus compared to sites lacking the species; sites without C. veteranus had consistently lower instream habitat/QHEI scores, as well as higher conductivity rates (Loughman 2015B). Sedimentation was present at the majority of sites lacking C. veteranus, often to the point of concreting large boulders and slab rock into the streambed, eliminating the possibility of C. veteranus utilizing these slabs as habitat. Both elimination of preferred habitat as well as persistent water pollution have led to the current situation C. veteranus populations face in West Virginia’s Upper Guyandotte watershed. Fish and Wildlife listing protocol relies on the best available information for a given taxon to determine whether the species is worthy of federal protection. The best available information demonstrates consistent, precipitous decline, due to man’s activities in the Upper Guyandotte River watershed, it is my firm belief that the Guyandotte River Crayfish/Cambarus veteranus is fully justified in receiving federal protection, and being listed as Endangered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Work Cited

Jezerinac, R.F., G.W. Stocker, and D.C. Tarter. 1995. The (: ) of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, New Series 10:1–193.

Loughman, Z. J. 2014. Biological Status Review of Cambarus veteranus for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Review prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 pp.

Loughman, Z. J. 2015A. Cambarus callainus Range Wide Conservation Status Survey. Final report of findings prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 46 pp.

Loughman, Z. J. 2015B. Cambarus veteranus Range Wide Conservation Status Survey. Final report of findings prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 38 pp.

Loughman, Z. J. and S. A. Welsh. 2013. Conservation Assessment and Atlas of the Crayfishes of West Virginia. Final report of findings prepared for the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Heritage Division. 71 pp.

Loughman, Z. J., S. A. Welsh, J. W. Fetzner, and R. F. Thoma. 2015. Conservation of Imperiled Crayfish, Cambarus veteranus (Decapoda: Reptantia: Cambaridae). Journal of Biology. DOI: 10.1163/1937240X-00002383. 1-11.

Taylor, C. A. and G. A. Schuster. 2004. Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 28; 219 pp.

Thoma, R. F. 2009. The conservation status of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) veteranus, ; Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci; Spiny Scale Crayfish; and Cambarus (Cambarus) sp. A; BlueRidge Crayfish. Final project report submitted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Pp. iv + 20.

Thoma, R. F. 2010. The conservation status of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) veteranus; Big Sandy Crayfish and Cambarus (Jugicambarus) parvoculus; Mountain Midget Crayfish in Kentucky. Final project report submitted to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Pp. iii + 9.