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 participating swimmer. 

Dated: July 25, 2011. 

G.P. Hitchen, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port New York (Acting). 

[FR Doc. 2011–20093 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR PART 111 

Domestic Mail Manual; Incorporation 

by Reference 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service announces 

the issuance of DMM 300, dated July 5, 

2011, of the Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM®), and its 

incorporation by reference in the Code 

of Federal Regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on August 9, 2011. The 

incorporation by reference of Issue 300, 

July 5, 2011, of the DMM is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register 

as of August 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lizbeth Dobbins (202) 268–3789. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The most 

recent Issue 300 of the Domestic Mail 

Manual (DMM) was issued on July 5, 

2011. This Issue of the DMM contains 

all Postal Service domestic mailing 

standards. This issue continues to: (1) 

Increase the user’s ability to find 

information; (2) increase confidence that 

users have found all the information 

they need; and (3) reduce the need to 

consult multiple chapters of the Manual 

to locate necessary information. Issue 

300, dated July 5, 2011, set forth specific 

changes, such as new standards 

throughout the DMM to support the 

standards and mail preparation changes 

implemented since the May 11, 2009 

version. 

Changes to mailing standards will 

continue to be published through 

Federal Register notices and the Postal 

Bulletin, and will appear in the next 

online version available via the Postal 

Explorer® Web site at: http:// 

pe.usps.com. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Incorporation by reference. 

In view of the considerations 

discussed above, the Postal Service 

hereby amends 39 CFR Part 111 as 

follows: 

PART 111—GENERAL INFORMATION 

ON POSTAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

Part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Amend § 111.3(f) by adding the 

following new entry at the end of the 

table: § 111.3 Amendments to the 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual. 

* * * * * 

(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 

4, 2010’’ and adding ‘‘August 9, 2011.’’ 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20078 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0027; MO 

92210–0–0008 B2] 

RIN 1018–AV85 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, 

Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, 

and Laurel Dace 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered status for the Cumberland 

darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter 

(Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek 

darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky 

madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel 

dace (Chrosomus saylori) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This final rule 

implements the Federal protections 

provided by the Act for these species 

throughout their ranges, including 

Cumberland darter in Kentucky and 

Tennessee, rush darter in Alabama, 

yellowcheek darter in Arkansas, and 

chucky madtom and laurel dace in 

Tennessee. We intend to propose 

critical habitat in an upcoming 

rulemaking, which is expected within 

the next few months. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

September 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2010–0027. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in the 

preparation of this rule, will be 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48723 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Tennessee Ecological Services Field 

Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 

38501; telephone 931–528–6481; 

facsimile 931–528–7075. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Cumberland 

darter, contact Lee Andrews, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Kentucky Ecological Services 

Field Office, J.C. Watts Federal 

Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, 

Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone 502– 

695–0468; facsimile 502–695–1024. 

For information regarding the rush 

darter, contact Stephen Ricks, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Ecological Services 

Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 

Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213; 

telephone 601–965–4900; facsimile 

601–965–4340 or Bill Pearson, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Alabama Ecological Services 

Field Office, 1208–B Main Street, 

Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251–441– 

5181; fax 251–441–6222. 

For information regarding the 

yellowcheek darter, contact Jim Boggs, 

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arkansas Ecological Services 

Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, 

Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; 

telephone 501–513–4470; facsimile 

501–513–4480. 

For information regarding the chucky 

madtom and laurel dace, contact Mary 

Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office, 446 

Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; 

telephone 931–528–6481; facsimile 

931–528–7075. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document consists of a final rule 

to list the Cumberland darter 

(Etheostoma susanae), rush darter 

(Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek 

darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky 

madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel 

dace (Chrosomus saylori) as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) (Act). The Act requires that we 

identify species of wildlife and plants 

that are endangered or threatened, based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information. As defined in 

section 3 of the Act, an endangered 

species is any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

threatened species is any species which 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Through the Federal rulemaking 

process, we add species that meet these 

definitions to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 

17.11 or the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As 

part of this program, we maintain a list 

of species that we regard as candidates 

for listing. We call this list the 

Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). A 

candidate species is one for which we 

have on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threats to 

support a proposal to list as endangered 

or threatened, but for which preparation 

and publication of a proposal is 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions. We may identify a species as a 

candidate for listing based on an 

evaluation of its status that we 

conducted on our own initiative, or as 

a result of making a finding on a 

petition to list a species that listing is 

warranted but precluded by other higher 

priority listing action. Table 1 includes 

the citation information for the CNORs 

mentioned in the following paragraphs, 

which discuss the previous candidate 

status of each of the five species being 

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 

Year 

Federal Register 

volume and page 

number 

Date of publication 

in the 

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 

Cumberland Darter 

The Cumberland darter was first 

identified as a candidate for listing in 

the 1985 CNOR. It was assigned a 

Category 2 status, which was given to 

those species for which the Service 

possessed information indicating that 

proposing to list as endangered or 

threatened was possibly appropriate, 

but for which conclusive data on 

biological vulnerability and threat was 

not currently available to support 

proposed rules. The Cumberland darter 

retained the Category 2 status in the 

1989, 1991, and 1994 CNORs. 

Assigning categories to candidate 

species was discontinued in 1996, and 

only species for which the Service had 

sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

issuance of a proposed rule were 

regarded as candidate species. 

Candidate species were also assigned 

listing priority numbers based on 

immediacy and the magnitude of threat, 

as well as their taxonomic status. In the 

1999, 2001, 2002, and 2004 CNORs, the 

Cumberland darter was identified as a 


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 

published a petition finding for 

Cumberland darter in the 2005 CNOR in 

response to a petition received on May 

11, 2004, stating the darter would retain 

a listing priority of 6. 

In the 2006 CNOR, we changed the 

listing priority number for Cumberland 

darter from 6 to 5, because it was 

formally described as a distinct species. 

Based on new molecular evidence, the 

subspecies Etheostoma nigrum susanae 

was elevated to specific status, 

Etheostoma susanae. In the 2007, 2008, 

2009, and 2010 CNORs, the Cumberland 

darter retained a listing priority of 5. On 

June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035) we 

published a proposed rule to list the 

Cumberland darter as endangered. 

Rush Darter 

We first identified the rush darter as 

a candidate for listing in the 2002 

CNOR. The rush darter was assigned a 

listing priority number of 5. In the 2004 

CNOR, the rush darter retained a listing 

priority number of 5. We published a 

petition finding for rush darter in the 

2005 CNOR in response to a petition 

received on May 11, 2004, stating the 

darter would retain a listing priority of 

5. 

In 2006, we changed the listing 

priority number of the rush darter from 

5 to 2 based on the imminent threat of 

water quality deterioration (i.e., 

increased sedimentation due to 

urbanization, road maintenance, and 

silviculture practices). In the 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the rush 

darter retained a listing priority of 2. We 

proposed to list the rush darter as 

endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR 

36035). 

Yellowcheek Darter 

We first identified the yellowcheek 

darter as a candidate for listing in the 

2001 CNOR with a listing priority of 2. 

The yellowcheek darter retained a 

listing priority number of 2 in the 2002 

and 2004 CNORs. We published a 

petition finding for yellowcheek darter 

in the 2005 CNOR in response to a 

petition received on May 11, 2004, 

stating the darter would retain a listing 

priority of 2. 

In the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 

2010 CNORs, the yellowcheek darter 

retained a listing priority of 2. The 

yellowcheek darter is covered by a 2007 

programmatic Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (71 FR 

53129) that covers the entire range of 

the species. We proposed to list the 

yellowcheek darter as endangered on 

June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035). 

Chucky Madtom 

We first identified the chucky 

madtom as a candidate for listing in the 

1994 CNOR with a Category 2 status. In 

the 2002 and 2004 CNORs, the chucky 

madtom was identified as a listing 

priority 2 candidate species. We 

published a petition finding for chucky 

madtom in the 2005 CNOR in response 

to a petition received on May 11, 2004, 

stating the madtom would retain a 

listing priority of 2. In the 2006, 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the 

chucky madtom retained a listing 

priority of 2. 

In 1994, the chucky madtom was first 

added to the candidate list as Noturus 

sp. Subsequently, and based on 

morphological and molecular evidence, 

the chucky madtom was formally 

described as a distinct species, Noturus 

crypticus (Burr et al. 2005). We 

included this new information in the 

2006 CNOR. We proposed to list the 

chucky madtom as endangered on June 

24, 2010 (75 FR 36035). 

Laurel Dace 

We first identified the laurel dace as 

a new candidate for listing in the 2007 

CNOR. New candidates are those taxa 

for which we have sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to support preparation of a 

listing proposal, but for which 

development of a listing regulation is 

precluded by other higher priority 

listing activities. 

In the 2007 CNOR, we assigned the 

laurel dace a listing priority of 5. The 

laurel dace retained a listing priority of 

5 in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs. 

We proposed to list the laurel dace as 

endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR 

36035). 

Species Information 

Cumberland Darter 

The Cumberland darter (Etheostoma 

(Boleosoma) susanae (Jordan and 

Swain)) is a medium-sized member of 

the fish tribe Etheostomatini (family 

Percidae) that reaches over 5.5 

centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in)) standard 

length (SL) (length from tip of snout to 

start of the caudal peduncle (slender 

region extending from behind the anal 

fin to the base of the caudal fin)) (Etnier 

and Starnes 1993, p. 512). The species 

has a straw-yellow background body 

color with brown markings that form six 

evenly spaced dorsal (back) saddles and 

a series of X-, C-, or W-shaped markings 

on its sides (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 

510). During spawning season, the 

overall body color of breeding males 

darkens, and the side markings become 

obscure or appear as a series of blotches 

(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 510). 

The Cumberland darter was first 

described as Boleosoma susanae by 

Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249–250) 

from tributaries of the Clear Fork of the 

Cumberland River, Kentucky. 

Subsequent studies by Kuhne (1939, p. 

92) and Cole (1967, p. 29) formerly 

recognized the taxon as a subspecies 

(Etheostoma nigrum susanae) of E. n. 

nigrum (Johnny darter). Starnes and 

Starnes (1979, p. 427) clarified the 

subspecific status of the Cumberland 

darter, differentiating it from the Johnny 

darter by several diagnostic 

characteristics. Strange (1998, p. 101) 

elevated E. n. susanae to full species 

status based on analyses of 

mitochondrial DNA for E. n. susanae 

and E. n. nigrum. 

The Cumberland darter inhabits pools 

or shallow runs of low- to moderategradient sections of streams with stable 

sand, silt, or sand-covered bedrock 

substrates (O’Bara 1988, pp. 10–11; 

O’Bara 1991, p. 10; Thomas 2007, p. 4). 

Thomas (2007, p. 4) did not encounter 

the species in high-gradient sections of 

streams or areas dominated by cobble or 

boulder substrates. Thomas (2007, p. 4) 

reported that streams inhabited by 

Cumberland darters were second to 

fourth order, with widths ranging from 

4 to 9 meters (m) (11 to 30 feet (ft)) and 

depths ranging from 20 to 76 cm (8 to 

30 in). 

Little is known regarding the 

reproductive habits of the Cumberland 

darter. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported the 

collection of males in breeding 

condition in April and May, with water 

temperatures ranging from 15 to 18 

degrees Celsius (°C) (59 to 64 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)). Extensive searches by 

Thomas (2007, p. 4) produced no 

evidence of nests or eggs at these sites. 

Species commonly associated with the 

Cumberland darter during surveys by 

Thomas (2007, pp. 4–5) were creek chub 

(Semotilus atromaculatus), northern 

hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), 

stripetail darter (E. kennicotti), and 

Cumberland arrow darter (E. sagitta 

sagitta). Feeding habits are unknown 

but are likely similar to that of the 

closely related species, the Johnny 

darter (E. nigrum). Johnny darters are 

sight feeders, with prey items consisting 

of midge larvae, mayfly nymphs, 

caddisfly larvae, and microcrustaceans 

(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511). 

Thomas (2007, p. 5) collected 

individuals of the Federally threatened 

blackside dace (Chrosomus 

cumberlandensis), from three streams 

that also supported Cumberland darters. 

The Cumberland darter is endemic to 

the upper Cumberland River system 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48725 

above Cumberland Falls in Kentucky 

and Tennessee (O’Bara 1988, p. 1; 

O’Bara 1991, p. 9; Etnier and Starnes 

1993, p. 511). The earliest known 

collections of the species were made by 

Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249–250), 

who recorded it as abundant in 

tributaries of Clear Fork of the 

Cumberland River, Kentucky. The 

species was later reported from Gum 

Fork, Scott County, Tennessee, by 

Shoup and Peyton (1940, p. 11), and 

seven additional tributaries of the 

Cumberland River by Burr and Warren 

(1986, p. 310). More exhaustive surveys 

by O’Bara (1988, p. 6; 1991, pp. 9–10) 

and Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998; pp. 

83–233, 303–408) determined that the 

Cumberland darter was restricted to 

short reaches of 20 small streams (23 

sites) in the upper Cumberland River 

system in Whitley and McCreary 

Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and 

Scott Counties, Tennessee. These 

studies suggested the extirpation of the 

species from Little Wolf Creek in 

Whitley County, Kentucky, and Gum 

Fork in Scott County, Tennessee. 

Preliminary reports of disjunct 

populations in the Poor Fork 

Cumberland River and Martins Fork in 

Letcher and Harlan Counties, Kentucky 

(Starnes and Starnes 1979, p. 427; 

O’Bara 1988, p. 6; O’Bara 1991, pp. 9– 

10), were evaluated genetically and 

determined to be the Johnny darter 

(Strange 1998, p. 101). 

Thomas (2007, p. 3) provided the 

most recent information on status and 

distribution of the species through 

completion of a range-wide status 

assessment in the upper Cumberland 

River drainage in Kentucky. Between 

June 2005 and April 2007, a total of 47 

sites were sampled qualitatively in the 

upper Cumberland River drainage. All 

Kentucky sites with historic records 

were surveyed (20 sites), as well as 27 

others having potentially suitable 

habitat. Surveys by Thomas (2007, p. 3) 

produced a total of 51 specimens from 

13 localities (12 streams). Only one of 

the localities represented a new 

occurrence record for the species. 

In 2008, the Kentucky Department of 

Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) 

initiated a propagation and 

reintroduction project for the 

Cumberland darter in the upper 

Cumberland River drainage (Thomas et 

al. 2010, p. 107). Utilizing State Wildlife 

Grant funds from the Service, KDFWR 

worked cooperatively with Conservation 

Fisheries, Inc. (CFI) of Knoxville, 

Tennessee, to develop captive 

propagation protocols for the species 

and to produce juvenile Cumberland 

darters that could be reintroduced 

within the species’ historic range. Cogur 

Fork, a tributary to Indian Creek in 

McCreary County, Kentucky, was 

chosen by KDFWR as a suitable 

reintroduction site. Cumberland darters 

were released into Cogur Fork in August 

2009 and September 2010. Surveys in 

November 2010 resulted in recaptures of 

individuals released in 2009 and 2010, 

as well as captures of four individuals 

without tags (possibly native 

individuals) (Thomas pers. comm. 

2010). Based on these results, it appears 

that reintroduction efforts have been 

effective, with Cumberland darters 

persisting within Cogur Fork since 2009. 

Furthermore, captures of untagged 

individuals in 2009 and 2010 suggest 

that Cogur Fork also supports a small, 

native population of the species. 

Currently, the Cumberland darter is 

known from 15 localities in a total of 13 

streams in Kentucky (McCreary and 

Whitley Counties) and Tennessee 

(Campbell and Scott Counties). All 15 

extant occurrences of the Cumberland 

darter are restricted to short stream 

reaches, with the majority believed to be 

restricted to less than 1.6 kilometers 

(km) (1 mile (mi)) of stream (O’Bara 

1991, pp. 9–10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). 

These occurrences are thought to form 

six population clusters (Bunches Creek, 

Indian Creek, Marsh Creek, Jellico 

Creek, Clear Fork, and Youngs Creek), 

which are geographically separated from 

one another by an average distance of 

30.5 stream km (19 stream mi) (O’Bara 

1988, p. 12; O’Bara 1991, p. 10; Thomas 

2007, p. 3). Based on collection efforts 

by O’Bara (1991, pp. 9–10), Laudermilk 

and Cicerello (1998; pp. 83–233, 303– 

408), and Thomas (2007, p. 3), the 

species appears to be extirpated from 11 

historical collection sites and a total of 

9 streams: Cumberland River mainstem, 

near the mouth of Bunches Creek and 

Cumberland Falls (Whitley County); 

Sanders Creek (Whitley County); Brier 

Creek (Whitley County); Kilburn Fork of 

Indian Creek (McCreary County); Bridge 

Fork (McCreary County); Marsh Creek, 

near mouth of Big Branch and Caddell 

Branch (McCreary County); Cal Creek 

(McCreary County); Little Wolf Creek 

(Whitley County); and Gum Fork (Scott 

County). No population estimates or 

status trends are available for the 

Cumberland darter; however, survey 

results by Thomas (2007, p. 3) suggest 

that the species is uncommon or occurs 

in low densities across its range 

(Thomas 2007, p. 3). 

The Cumberland darter is ranked by 

the Kentucky State Nature Preserves 

Commission (KSNPC) (2009, p. 38) and 

the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

(2009, p. 53) as a G1G2S1 species: 

critically imperiled or imperiled 

globally and critically imperiled in 

Kentucky and Tennessee. The KDFWR 

State Wildlife Action Plan identified the 

Cumberland darter as a species of 

Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) and 

identified several top conservation 

actions for it and other species in its 

Aquatic Guild (Upland Headwater 

Streams in Pools), including: 

Acquisition or conservation easements 

for critical habitat, development of 

financial incentives to protect riparian 

(land adjacent to stream channel) 

corridors, development and 

implementation of best management 

practices, and restoration of degraded 

habitats through various State and 

Federal programs (KDFWR 2005, p. 

2.2.2). The Cumberland darter is 

designated as a Tier 1 GCN species in 

the Tennessee Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (TWRA 

2005, pp. 44, 49). 

Rush Darter 

The rush darter (Etheostoma 

phytophilum) is a medium-sized darter 

in the family Percidae, tribe 

Etheostomatini, and subgenus 

Fuscatelum. The species reaches an 

average size of 5 cm (2 in) SL (Bart and 

Taylor 1999, p. 28; Johnston and Kleiner 

2001, p. 3). The rush darter was 

described by Bart and Taylor in 1999 

(pp. 27–33), and is closely related to the 

goldstripe darter (E. parvipinne), a drabcolored species with a thin golden stripe 

along the lateral line (canal along the 

side of a fish with sensory capabilities) 

that is surrounded by heavily mottled or 

stippled sides (Shaw 1996, p. 85). 

However, the distinct golden stripe 

characteristic of goldstripe darters is not 

well developed in rush darters (Bart and 

Taylor 1999, p. 29). Also, the brown 

pigment on the sides of the rush darter 

is usually not as intense as in the 

goldstripe darter. Other characteristics 

of the rush darter are described in Bart 

and Taylor (1999, p. 28). 

Rush darters have been collected from 

various habitats (Stiles and Mills 2008, 

pp. 1–4; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and 

Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; Stiles and 

Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart and 

Taylor 1999, p. 32), including root 

masses of emergent vegetation along the 

margins of spring-fed streams in very 

shallow, clear, cool, and flowing water; 

and from both small clumps and dense 

stands of bur reed (Sparganium sp.), 

coontail (Ceratophyllum sp.), watercress 

(Nasturtium officinale), and rush 

(Juncus sp.) in streams with substrates 

of silt, sand, sand and silt, muck and 

sand or some gravel with sand, and 

bedrock. Rush darters appear to prefer 

springs and spring-fed reaches of 

relatively low-gradient small streams, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

which are generally influenced by 

springs (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; 

Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1; Bart 2002, p. 1; 

Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; 

Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart 

and Taylor 1999, p. 32). Rush darters 

have also been collected in wetland 

pools (Stiles and Mills 2008; pp. 2–3). 

Water depth at collection sites ranged 

from 3.0 cm to 0.5 m (0.1 ft to 1.6 ft), 

with moderate water velocity in riffles 

and no flow or low flow in pools. Rush 

darters have not been found in higher 

gradient streams with bedrock 

substrates and sparse vegetation (Stiles 

and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; Bart 2002, p. 

1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3–4; 

Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Bart 

and Taylor 1999, p. 32). 

Stiles and Mills (2008, p. 2) found 

gravid rush darter females in February 

and fry (newly hatched larval fish) in 

late April from a wetland pool in the 

Mill Creek watershed (Winston County, 

Alabama). These pools act as nursery 

areas for the fry (Stiles and Mills 2008, 

p. 5). While little is known specifically 

about the life history of the rush darter, 

this information is available for the 

goldstripe darter, a related species in the 

Etheostoma genus. Spawning of the 

goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs 

from mid-March through June (Mettee et 

al. 1996, p. 655). Preferred food items 

for the goldstripe darter include midge 

larvae, mayfly nymphs, blackfly larvae, 

beetles, and microcrustaceans (Mettee et 

al. 1996, p. 655). The lifespan of the 

goldstripe darter is estimated to be 2 to 

3 years. 

The rush darter currently has a 

restricted distribution (Johnston and 

Kleiner 2001, p. 1). All rush darter 

populations are located above the Fall 

Line (the inland boundary of the Coastal 

Plain physiographic region) and in other 

‘‘highland regions’’ where topography 

and elevation changes are observed 

presenting a barrier for fish movement 

(Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 18) in 

the Black Warrior River drainage in 

portions of the Appalachian Plateau and 

Valley and Ridge physiographic 

provinces of Alabama (Boshung and 

Mayden 2004, pp. 16–17; Warren et al. 

2000, pp. 9, 10, 24). The closely related 

goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs 

essentially below the Fall Line in all 

major systems except the Coosa system 

(Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 550). 

Reports of goldstripe darters from the 

1960s and 1970s in Winston and 

Jefferson Counties, Alabama (Caldwell 

1965, pp. 13–14; Barclay 1971, p. 38; 

Dycus and Howell 1974, pp. 21–24; 

Mettee et al. 1989, pp. 13, 61, 64), which 

are above the Fall Line, were made prior 

to the description of the rush darter, but 

are now considered to be rush darters 

(Kuhajda pers. comm. 2008). 

Historically, rush darters have been 

found in three distinct watersheds in 

Alabama: Doe Branch, Wildcat Branch, 

and Mill Creek of the Clear Creek 

drainage in Winston County; an 

unnamed spring run of Beaver Creek 

and Penny Springs of the Turkey Creek 

drainage in Jefferson County; and Cove 

Spring (Little Cove Creek system) and 

Bristow Creek of the Locust Fork 

drainage in Etowah County. Fluker et al. 

(2007, p. 10) suggests that the unique 

topographic and geologic influences in 

the three distinct population groups 

likely produced different selective 

pressures, genetic isolation, genetic 

drift, and divergence during the species’ 

evolution. 

Currently, the three rush darter 

populations occur in the same 

watersheds but in a more limited 

distribution. One population is located 

in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the 

Clear Creek drainage in Winston County 

(Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 4; Stiles 

and Mills 2008, pp. 1–3); the second is 

located in an unnamed spring run to 

Beaver Creek, portions of Beaver Creek, 

and an unnamed tributary to Turkey 

Creek in the Turkey Creek drainage in 

Jefferson County (Stiles and Blanchard 

2001, p. 2; Drennen pers. obsv. 2006– 

2010; Kuhajda pers. comm. 2009); and 

the third is in the Little Cove Creek 

drainage (Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 28; 

Bart 2002, p. 7; Kuhajda pers. comm. 

2008–2009; Spadgenski pers. comm. 

2008–2009). 

Rush darter populations are separated 

from each other geographically, and 

individual rush darters are only 

sporadically collected at a particular site 

within their range. Where it occurs, the 

rush darter is apparently an uncommon 

species that is usually collected in low 

numbers (compiled from Bart and 

Taylor 1999, pp. 31–32; Johnston and 

Kleiner 2001, pp. 2–4; Stiles and 

Blanchard 2001, pp. 1–4; Johnston 2003, 

pp. 1–3; Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1– 

3; Rakes pers. comm. 2010; Drennen 

pers. obsv. 2006–2010; Kuhajda pers. 

comm. 2009); however, there are no 

population estimates at this time. 

Cumulatively, the rush darter is only 

known from localized collection sites 

within approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) of 

streams in the Clear Creek; Little Cove 

and Bristow Creek; and Turkey Creek 

drainages in Winston, Etowah, and 

Jefferson Counties, respectively. 

Currently, about 3 km (2 mi) of stream, 

or about 22 percent of the rush darter’s 

known range, is not occupied. 

Within the Clear Creek drainage, the 

rush darter has been collected in 

Wildcat Branch, Mill Creek, and Doe 

Creek, which represents about 13 km (9 

mi) of stream or about 89 percent of the 

species’ total cumulative range. Recent 

surveys (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1–4; 

Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 3) have 

failed to document the absence of the 

rush darter in Doe Creek, indicating a 

potential reduction of the species’ 

known range within the Clear Creek 

drainage by about 3 km (2 mi) of stream 

or 22 percent. However, rush darters 

were collected in 2005, 2008, and 2009 

in the Little Cove Creek drainage (Cove 

Spring run), after a 30 year period of not 

finding the species. This rediscovery of 

the species confirms the continued 

existence of the species in Etowah 

County and Cove Spring. However, the 

Little Cove Creek drainage constitutes 

an increase of only 0.05 km (0.02 mi) of 

occupied stream habitat or a 0.22 

percent addition to the total range of the 

species. No collections of the species 

have occurred at Bristow Creek since 

1997. Bristow Creek has since been 

channelized (straightened and deepened 

to increase water velocity). In the 

Turkey Creek drainage, rush darters 

have been collected sporadically within 

Penny Springs and at the type locality 

for the species (an unnamed spring run 

in Jefferson County, Alabama) (Bart and 

Taylor 1999, pp. 28, 33). However, the 

rush darter is likely extirpated from 

Penny and Tapawingo Springs due to 

introductions of the watercress darter 

(E. nuchale) (George et al. 2009, p. 532). 

The species can still be found in 

portions of an unnamed tributary of 

Beaver Creek and an unnamed spring to 

Beaver Creek (Kuhajda pers. comm. 

2009). This area contains about 1.6 km 

(1 mi) of occupied stream habitat or 

approximately 11 percent of the rush 

darter’s total range. 

The rush darter is ranked by the 

Alabama Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources (ADCNR) 

(Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

Division, ADCNR 2005) as a P1G1S1 

species signifying its rarity in Alabama 

and its status as critically imperiled 

globally. It is also considered a species 

of GCN by the State (Bart 2004, p. 193). 

The rush darter has a High Priority 

Conservation Actions Needed and Key 

Partnership Opportunities ranking of 

‘‘CA 6,’’ the highest of any fish species 

listed. The State Wildlife Action Plan 

states that the species consists of 

disjoint populations and information is 

needed to determine genetic structuring 

within the populations (Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries Division, ADCNR 

2005). Conservation Actions for the 

species may require population 

augmentation or reintroduction of the 


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 

viability. 

Yellowcheek Darter 

The yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma 

moorei) is a small and laterallycompressed fish that attains a maximum 

SL of about 6.4 cm (2.5 in), and has a 

moderately sharp snout, deep body, and 

deep caudal peduncle (Raney and 

Suttkus 1964, p. 130). The back and 

sides are grayish brown, often with 

darker brown saddles and lateral bars. 

Breeding males are brightly colored 

with a bright blue or brilliant turquoise 

throat and breast and a light-green belly, 

while breeding females possess orange 

and red-orange spots but are not brightly 

colored (Robison and Buchanan 1988, 

pp. 427–429). 

First collected in 1959 from the Devils 

Fork Little Red River, Cleburne County, 

Arkansas, this species was eventually 

described by Raney and Suttkus in 

1964, using 228 specimens from the 

Middle, South, and Devils Forks of the 

Little Red River (Devils Fork, Turkey 

Fork, and Beech Fork represent one 

stream with three different names and 

are subsequently referred to in this rule 

as ‘‘Devils Fork’’). Wood (1996, p. 305) 

verified the taxonomic status of the 

yellowcheek darter within the subgenus 

Nothonotus. Complete taxonomy for the 

species is family Percidae, subfamily 

Percinae, tribe Etheostomatini, genus 

Etheostoma, subgenus Nothonotus and 

E. tippecanoe species group (Wood 

1996, p. 307). The yellowcheek darter is 

one of only two members of the 

subgenus Nothonotus known to occur 

west of the Mississippi River. 

The yellowcheek darter inhabits highgradient headwater tributaries with 

clear water; permanent flow; moderate 

to strong riffles; and gravel, rubble, and 

boulder substrates (Robison and 

Buchanan 1988, p. 429). Yellowcheek 

darter prey items include aquatic fly 

larvae, stonefly larvae, mayfly nymphs, 

and caddisfly larvae (McDaniel 1984, p. 

56). 

Male and female yellowcheek darters 

reach sexual maturity at 1 year of age, 

and maximum lifespan is around 5 

years (McDaniel 1984, pp. 25, 76). 

Spawning occurs from late May through 

June in the swift to moderately swift 

portions of riffles, often around or under 

the largest substrate particles (McDaniel 

1984, p. 82), although brooding females 

have been found at the head of riffles in 

smaller gravel substrate (Wine et al. 

2000, p. 3). During nonspawning 

months, there is a general movement to 

portions of the riffle with smaller 

substrate, such as gravel or cobble, and 

less turbulence (Robison and Harp 1981, 

p. 3). Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 24) 

observed that the yellowcheek darter 

moved very little during a 1-year 

migration study. It was noted that the 

yellowcheek darter appears to be a 

relatively nonmobile species, with 19 of 

22 recaptured darters found within 9 m 

(29.5 ft) of their original capture 

position after periods of several months. 

A number of life-history characteristics 

including courtship patterns, specific 

spawning behaviors, egg deposition 

sites, number of eggs per nest, degree of 

nest protection by males, and degree of 

territoriality are unknown at this time; 

however, researchers have suggested 

that the yellowcheek darter deposits 

eggs on the undersides of large rubble in 

swift water (McDaniel 1984, p. 82). 

Wine and Blumenshine (2002, p. 10) 

noted that, during laboratory spawning, 

female yellowcheek darters bury 

themselves in fine gravel or sand 

substrates (often behind large cobble or 

boulders) with only their heads and 

caudal fin exposed. A male yellowcheek 

darter will then position upstream of the 

buried female and fertilize her eggs as 

she releases them in a vibrating motion. 

Clutch size and nest defense behavior 

were not observed. 

The yellowcheek darter is endemic to 

the Devils, Middle, South, and Archey 

Forks of the Little Red River and 

mainstem Little Red River in Cleburne, 

Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, 

Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988, 

p. 429). In 1962, the construction of a 

dam on the Little Red River to create 

Greers Ferry Reservoir impounded 

much of the range of this species, 

including the lower reaches of Devils 

Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork, and 

portions of the mainstem Little Red 

River, thus extirpating the species from 

these reaches. Yellowcheek darter was 

also extirpated from the Little Red River 

downstream of Greers Ferry Reservoir 

due to cold tailwater releases. The lake 

flooded optimal habitat for the species, 

and caused the genetic isolation of 

populations (McDaniel 1984, p. 1). The 

yellowcheek darter was known to 

historically occur in portions of these 

streams that maintained permanent 

year-round flows. 

In the 1978–1981 study by Robison 

and Harp (1981, pp. 15–16), 

yellowcheek darter occurred in greatest 

numbers in the Middle and South Forks 

of the Little Red River, with populations 

estimated at 36,000 and 13,500 

individuals, respectively, while 

populations in both Devils Fork and 

Archey Fork were estimated at 

approximately 10,000 individuals 

(Robison and Harp 1981, pp. 5–11). 

During this study, the four forks of the 

Little Red River supported an estimated 

yellowcheek darter population of 60,000 

individuals, and the species was 

considered the most abundant riffle fish 

present (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 14). 

Extensive sampling of the first two 

tributaries of the Little Red River below 

Greers Ferry Dam (both named Big 

Creek) failed to find any yellowcheek 

darters, and no darters were found in 

immediately adjacent watersheds 

(Robison and Harp 1981, p. 5). 

Two subsequent studies have failed to 

observe yellowcheek darters in the 

Turkey Fork reach of the Devils Fork 

Little Red River (Wine et al. 2000, p. 9; 

Wine and Blumenshine 2002, p. 11), 

since four individuals were last 

collected by Arkansas State University 

(ASU) researchers in 1999 (Mitchell et 

al. 2002, p. 129). They have been 

observed downstream within that 

system in the Beech Fork reach, where 

flows are more permanent. The reach 

downstream of Raccoon Creek is 

influenced by inundation from Greers 

Ferry Reservoir and no longer supports 

yellowcheek darter. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers channelized 

approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) of the 

lower Archey and South Forks Little 

Red River within the city limits of 

Clinton, Arkansas, in 1985 for flood 

control purposes. Yellowcheek darter 

has not been collected within this reach 

since channelization. The yellowcheek 

darter inhabits most of its historical 

range not currently affected by Greers 

Ferry Lake, although in greatly reduced 

numbers in the Middle, South, Archey, 

and Devils Forks of the Little Red River. 

While collecting specimens for the 

1999 genetic study, ASU researchers 

discovered that the yellowcheek darter 

was no longer the most abundant riffle 

fish and was more difficult to find 

throughout its historical range (Wine et 

al. 2000, p. 2). Because optimal habitat 

had been destroyed by the creation of 

Greers Ferry Lake, yellowcheek darters 

were confined to upper stream reaches 

with lower summer flow, smaller 

substrate particle size, and reduced 

gradient. A thorough status survey 

conducted in 2000 found the 

yellowcheek darter in three of four 

historically occupied forks in greatly 

reduced numbers (Wine et al. 2000, p. 

9). Populations in the Middle Fork were 

estimated at approximately 6,000 

individuals, the South Fork at 2,300, 

and the Archey Fork at 2,000. 

Yellowcheek darter was not collected 

from the Devils Fork. Fish community 

composition was similar from 1978– 

1981 and 2000 studies, but the 

proportion of yellowcheek darter 

declined from approximately 28 percent 

to 6 percent of the overall composition. 

Fish known to coexist with yellowcheek 

darter include the rainbow darter (E. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

caeruleum) and greenside darter (E. 

blennioides), which can use pool 

habitats during periods of low flow, as 

evidenced by the collection of these two 

species from pools during 

electroshocking activities. 

Electroshocking has not revealed 

yellowcheek darter in pools, suggesting 

perhaps that they are unable to tolerate 

pool conditions (deep, slow-moving 

water usually devoid of cobble 

substrate). An inability to use pools 

during low flows would make them 

much more vulnerable to seasonal 

fluctuations in flows that reduce riffle 

habitat. As a result, researchers have 

suggested that yellowcheek darter 

declines are more likely a species rather 

than community phenomenon (Wine et 

al. 2000, p. 11). 

Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 22) 

estimated yellowcheek darter 

populations within the Middle Fork to 

be between 15,000 and 40,000 

individuals, and between 13,000 and 

17,000 individuals in the South Fork. 

Such increases since the 2000 status 

survey would indicate remarkable 

adaptability to changing environmental 

conditions. However, it should be noted 

that estimates were based upon mark/ 

recapture estimates using the Jolly-Seber 

method, which requires high numbers 

of recaptured specimens for accurate 

estimations. Recaptures were extremely 

low during that study; therefore, 

population estimates were highly 

variable and confidence in the resulting 

estimates is low. 

The yellowcheek darter is ranked by 

the Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission (ANHC) (2007, pp. 2–118) 

as an S1G1 species: extremely rare in 

Arkansas, and critically imperiled 

globally. The Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission’s (AGFC) Wildlife Action 

Plan describes the yellowcheek darter as 

a critically imperiled species with 

declining populations (AGFC 2005, pp. 

452–454). 

Chucky Madtom 

The chucky madtom (Noturus 

crypticus) is a small catfish (family 

Ictaluridae), with the largest specimen 

measuring 6.5 cm (2.6 in) SL (Burr et al. 

2005, p. 795). Burr et al. (2005) 

described the chucky madtom, 

confirming previous analyses (Burr and 

Eisenhour 1994), which indicated that 

the chucky madtom is a unique species, 

a member of the Rabida subgenus (i.e., 

the ‘‘mottled’’ or ‘‘saddled’’ madtoms), 

and a member of the Noturus elegans 

species complex (i.e., N. elegans, N. 

albater, N. fasciatus, and N. trautmani) 

outlined by Taylor (1969 in Grady and 

LeGrande 1992). A robust madtom, the 

chucky madtom body is wide at the 

pectoral fin origins, greater than 23 

percent of the SL. The back contains 

three dark, nearly black blotches ending 

abruptly above the lateral midline of the 

body, with a moderately contrasting, 

oval, pale saddle in front of each blotch 

(Burr et al. 2005, p. 795). 

The chucky madtom is a rare catfish 

known from only 15 specimens 

collected from two Tennessee streams. 

A lone individual was collected in 1940 

from Dunn Creek (a Little Pigeon River 

tributary) in Sevier County, and 14 

specimens have been encountered since 

1991 in Little Chucky Creek (a 

Nolichucky River tributary) in Greene 

County, Tennessee. Only 3 chucky 

madtom individuals have been 

encountered since 2000; 1 in 2000 (Lang 

et al. 2001, p. 2) and 2 in 2004 (CFI 

2008, unpublished data), despite 

surveys that have been conducted in 

both historical localities at least twice a 

year since 2000 (Rakes and Shute 2004, 

pp. 2–3; Weber and Layzer 2007, p. 4; 

CFI 2008, unpublished data). In 

addition, several streams in the 

Nolichucky, Holston, and French Broad 

River watersheds of the upper 

Tennessee River basin, which are 

similar in size and character to Little 

Chucky Creek, have been surveyed with 

no success (Burr and Eisenhour 1994, 

pp. 1–2; Shute et al. 1997, p. 5; Lang et 

al. 2001, pp. 2–3; Rakes and Shute 2004, 

p. 1). Conservation Fisheries, Inc. did 

not find chucky madtoms in 2007 after 

attempting new sampling techniques 

(e.g., PVC ‘‘jug’’ traps) (CFI 2008, 

unpublished data). 

Originally, museum specimens 

collected from the Roaring River in 

Tennessee (Cumberland River drainage) 

and from Piney Creek, West Fork Flint 

River, and the Paint Rock River system 

in Alabama (Tennessee River drainage) 

were first identified and catalogued as 

Noturus elegans species complex and 

thought to be chucky madtoms. The 

Roaring River, Piney Creek, and West 

Fork Flint River specimens are now 

considered to be a member of the N. 

elegans group, but have not been 

assigned to a species. While the 

specimens from the Paint Rock River 

system share typical anal ray counts 

with the chucky madtom, they lack the 

distinctive cheek characteristics, differ 

in pelvic ray counts, and are 

intermediately shaped between the 

chucky and saddled madtoms (N. 

fasciatus) with respect to body width as 

a proportion of SL (Burr et al. 2005, p. 

796). Thus, the Little Chucky and Dunn 

Creek forms are the only forms that are 

recognized as chucky madtoms. 

All of the specimens collected in 

Little Chucky Creek have been found in 

stream runs with slow to moderate 

current over pea gravel, cobble, or slabrock substrates (Burr and Eisenhour 

1994, p. 2). Habitat of these types is 

sparse in Little Chucky Creek, and the 

stream affords little loose, rocky cover 

suitable for madtoms (Shute et al. 1997, 

p. 8). It is notable that intact riparian 

buffers are present in the locations 

where chucky madtoms have been 

found (Shute et al. 1997, p. 9). 

No studies to determine the life 

history and behavior of this species 

have been conducted. While nothing is 

known specifically about chucky 

madtom reproductive biology, 

recruitment, growth and longevity, food 

habits, or mobility, this information is 

available for other similar members of 

the Noturus group. The least madtom 

(N. hildebrandi) may reach sexual 

maturity at 1 or more years of age (i.e., 

during their second summer) (Mayden 

and Walsh 1984, p. 351). Only the 

largest females of Ozark madtom (N. 

albater) were found to be sexually 

mature, and males were found to be 

sexually mature primarily within the 

second age class (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 

339), though, a single large male of the 

first age class showed evidence of 

sexual maturity (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 

339). The breeding season of the least 

and smoky madtoms (N. baileyi) is 

primarily during June through July, 

though development of breeding 

condition is initiated as early as April 

in least madtom and May in smoky 

madtom (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 

353; Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56). 

Fecundity varied among the species for 

which data were available; however, it 

should be noted that fecundity in 

madtoms is generally lower in 

comparison to other North American 

freshwater fishes (Breder and Rosen 

1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 58). 

Dinkins and Shute (1996, p. 58) 

commented that for smoky madtom the 

combination of relatively large egg size 

and high level of parental care given to 

the fertilized eggs and larvae reduce 

early mortality and, therefore, the need 

to produce a large number of young. 

Both smoky and elegant madtoms (N. 

elegans) were found to nest under flat 

rocks at or near the head of riffles 

(Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr 

and Dimmick 1981, p. 116). Shallow 

pools were also used by the smoky 

madtom, which was observed to select 

rocks of larger dimension for nesting 

than were used for shelter during other 

times of year (Dinkins and Shute 1996, 

p. 56). Single madtoms were found to 

guard nests in smoky and elegant 

madtoms, a behavior also exhibited by 

Ozark and least madtoms (Dinkins and 

Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr and Dimmick 

1981, p. 116; Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337; 


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 

of these species were the nest guardians 

and many were found to have empty 

stomachs suggesting that they do not 

feed during nest guarding, which can 

last as long as 3 weeks. 

Conservation Fisheries, Inc. had one 

male chucky madtom in captivity from 

2004 through 2008. However, based on 

information from other members of this 

genus for which longevity data are 

available, least and smoky madtoms, it 

is unlikely that chucky madtoms can 

survive this long in the wild. The 

shorter lived of these, least madtom, 

reached a maximum age of 18 months, 

though most individuals lived little 

more than 12 months, dying soon after 

reproducing (Mayden and Walsh 1984, 

p. 351). Based on length-frequency 

distributions, smoky madtoms exhibited 

a lifespan of 2 years, with two cohorts 

present in a given year (Dinkins and 

Shute 1996, p. 53). Collection of two age 

classes together provided evidence that 

life expectancy exceeds 1 year in the 

pygmy madtom (N. stanauli) (Etnier and 

Jenkins 1980, p. 20). The Ozark madtom 

lives as long as 3 years (Mayden et al. 

1980, p. 337). 

Chucky madtom prey items are 

unknown; however, least madtom prey 

items include midge larvae, caddisfly 

larvae, stonefly larvae, and mayfly 

nymphs (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 

339). In smoky madtoms, mayfly 

nymphs comprised 70.7 percent of 

stomach contents analyzed; fly, 

mosquitoe, midge, and gnat larvae 2.4 

percent; caddisfly larvae 4.4 percent; 

and stonefly larvae 1.0 percent (Dinkins 

and Shute 1996, p. 61). Significant 

daytime feeding was observed in smoky 

madtoms. 

Dinkins and Shute (1996, p. 50) found 

smoky madtoms underneath slabrocks 

in swift to moderate current during May 

to early November. Habitat use shifted 

to shallow pools over the course of a 1- 

week period, coinciding with a drop in 

water temperature to 7 or 8 °C (45 to 46 

°F), and persisted from early November 

to May. Eisenhour et al. (1996, p. 43) 

collected saddled madtoms in gravel, 

cobble, and slab-rock substrates in riffle 

habitats with depths ranging from 0.1 to 

0.3 m (0.3 to 1.0 ft). Based on their 

limited number of observations, 

Eisenhour et al. (1996, p. 43) 

hypothesized that saddled madtoms 

occupy riffles and runs in the daylight 

hours and then move to pools at night 

and during crepuscular hours (dawn 

and dusk) to feed. 

The current range of the chucky 

madtom is believed to be restricted to an 

approximately 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of 

Little Chucky Creek in Greene County, 

Tennessee. Because this species was 

also collected from Dunn Creek, a 

stream that is in a different watershed 

and physiographic province than Little 

Chucky Creek, it is likely that the 

historic range of the chucky madtom 

encompassed a wider area in the Ridge 

and Valley and the Blue Ridge 

physiographic provinces in Tennessee 

than is demonstrated by its current 

distribution. A survey for the chucky 

madtom in Dunn Creek in 1996 was not 

successful at locating the species (Shute 

et al. 1997, p. 8). The Dunn Creek 

population may be extirpated (Shute et 

al. 1997, p. 6; Burr et al. 2005, p. 797), 

because adequate habitat and a diverse 

fish community were present at the time 

of the surveys, but no chucky madtoms 

were found. There are no population 

size estimates or status trends for the 

chucky madtom due to low numbers 

and only sporadic collections of 

specimens. 

The chucky madtom is ranked by the 

TDEC (2009, p. 58) as an S1G1 species: 

extremely rare in Tennessee, and 

critically imperiled globally. The 

chucky madtom is designated as a Tier 

1 GCN species in the Tennessee CWCS 

(TWRA 2005, pp. 44, 49). 

Laurel Dace 

The laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori), 

family Cyprinidae and subfamily 

Leuciscinae, has two continuous black 

lateral stripes and black pigment 

covering the breast and underside of the 

head of nuptial (breeding) males 

(Skelton 2001, p. 120). The maximum 

SL observed is 5.1 cm (2 in) (Skelton 

2001, p. 124). While the belly, breast, 

and lower half of the head are typically 

a whitish-silvery color, at any time of 

the year laurel dace may develop red 

coloration below the lateral stripe that 

extends from the base of the pectoral 

fins to the base of the caudal fin 

(Skelton 2001, p. 121). 

Nuptial males often acquire brilliant 

coloration during the breeding season, 

as the two lateral stripes, breast, and 

underside of head turn intensely black 

and the entire ventral (lower/ 

abdominal) portion of the body, 

contiguous with the lower black stripe 

and black breast, becomes an intense 

scarlet color. All of the fins acquire a 

yellow color, which is most intense in 

the paired fins and less intense in the 

dorsal, anal, and caudal fins. Females 

also develop most of these colors, 

though of lesser intensity (Skelton 2001, 

p. 121). Broadly rounded pectoral fins of 

males are easily discerned from the 

broadly pointed fins of females at any 

time during the year. 

Laurel dace have been most often 

collected from pools or slow runs from 

undercut banks or beneath slab 

boulders, typically in first or second 

order, clear, cool (maximum 

temperature 26 °C or 78.8 °F) streams. 

Substrates in streams where laurel dace 

are found typically consist of a mixture 

of cobble, rubble, and boulders, and the 

streams tend to have a dense riparian 

zone consisting largely of mountain 

laurel (Skelton 2001, pp. 125–126). 

Skelton (2001, p. 126) reported having 

collected nuptial individuals from late 

March until mid-June, though Call (pers. 

obs. 2004) observed males in waning 

nuptial color during surveys on July 22, 

2004. Laurel dace may be a spawning 

nest associate where syntopic (sharing 

the same habitat) with nest-building 

minnow species, as has been 

documented in blackside dace (Starnes 

and Starnes 1981, p. 366). Soddy Creek 

is the only location in which Skelton 

(2001, p. 126) has collected a nestbuilding minnow with laurel dace. 

Skelton (2001, p. 126) reports finding as 

many as three year classes in some 

collections of laurel dace, though 

young-of-year fish are uncommon in 

collections. Observations of three year 

classes indicate that laurel dace live as 

long as 3 years. 

Laurel dace preferred prey items 

include fly larvae, stonefly larvae, and 

caddisfly larvae (Skelton 2001, p. 126). 

Skelton observed that the morphological 

feeding traits of laurel dace, including 

large mouth, short digestive tract, 

reduced number of pharyngeal (located 

within the throat) teeth, and primitively 

shaped basioccipital bone (bone that 

articulates the vertebra), all of which are 

consistent with a diet consisting largely 

of animal material. 

Laurel dace are known historically 

from seven streams on the Walden 

Ridge portion of the Cumberland 

Plateau, where drainages generally 

meander eastward before dropping 

abruptly down the plateau escarpment 

and draining into the Tennessee River. 

Specifically, these seven streams occur 

in three independent systems: Soddy 

Creek; three streams that are part of the 

Sale Creek system (the Horn and Laurel 

branch tributaries to Rock Creek, and 

the Cupp Creek tributary to Roaring 

Creek); and three streams that are part 

of the Piney River system (Young’s, 

Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks). Strange 

and Skelton (2005, p. 8) assessed the 

genetic structure within populations of 

laurel dace and, based on distribution of 

genetic diversity among populations, 

they recognized two genetically distinct 

management units; (1) The southern 

populations in Sale and Soddy Creeks, 

and (2) the northern population in the 

Piney River system. 

Skelton (2001, p. 126) considered 

collections by the Tennessee Valley 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority (TVA) during a rotenone 

survey of Laurel Branch in 1976 to 

represent laurel dace that were 

misidentified as southern redbelly dace 

(Chrosomus erythrogaster), as was found 

to be true for specimens collected by 

TVA from Horn Branch in 1976, but no 

specimens are available for 

confirmation. In 1991, and in four other 

surveys (two in 1995, one in 1996, and 

one in 2004), laurel dace were not 

collected in Laurel Branch, leading 

Skelton to the conclusion that laurel 

dace have been extirpated from this 

stream (Skelton 1997, p. 13; Skelton 

2001, p. 126; Skelton pers. comm. 2009). 

Skelton (pers. comm. 2009) also noted 

that the site was impacted by silt. 

The current distribution of laurel dace 

comprises six of the seven streams that 

were historically occupied; the species 

is considered extirpated from Laurel 

Branch (see above). In these six streams, 

they are known to occupy reaches of 

approximately 0.3 to 8 km (0.2 to 5 mi) 

in length. The laurel dace is known 

from a single reach in Soddy Creek, and 

surveys in 2004 produced only a single, 

juvenile laurel dace (Strange and 

Skelton 2005, pp. 5–6 and Appendices 

1 and 2). In Horn Branch, laurel dace are 

known from approximately 900 m 

(2,953 ft), but have become increasingly 

difficult to collect (Skelton 1997, pp. 

13–14). Skelton (1997, p. 14) reports 

that minnow traps have been the most 

successful method for collecting live 

laurel dace from Horn Branch, as it is 

difficult to electroshock the fish due to 

in-stream rock formations and fallen 

trees. Only a single juvenile was caught 

in 2004 (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6). 

A total of 19 laurel dace were collected 

from Cupp Creek during 1995 and 1996 

using an electroshocker (Skelton 1996, 

p. 14). However, Skelton found no 

laurel dace in this stream in 2004, 

despite attempts to collect throughout 

an approximately 700-m (2,297-ft) reach 

(Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6). 

Laurel dace were initially found in 

Young’s, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks 

in the Piney River system in 1996 

(Skelton 1997, pp. 14–15). Sampling in 

2004 led to the discovery of additional 

laurel dace localities in Young’s and 

Moccasin creeks, but the locality where 

laurel dace were found in Young’s Creek 

in 1996 was inaccessible due to the 

presence of a locked gate (Strange and 

Skelton 2005, p. 6–7). The new 

localities were in the headwaters of 

these two streams. Persistence of laurel 

dace at the Bumbee Creek locality was 

confirmed in 2004 by surveying from a 

nearby road using binoculars. Direct 

surveys were not possible because the 

land had been leased to a hunt club for 

which contact information was not 

available, and, therefore, survey 

permission could not be obtained 

(Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 7). 

Nuptial males are easily identified from 

other species present in Bumbee Creek 

due to their brilliant coloration during 

the breeding season, as the two lateral 

stripes, breast, and underside of head 

turn intensely black and the entire 

ventral (lower/abdominal) portion of the 

body, contiguous with the lower black 

stripe and black breast, becomes an 

intense scarlet color. This brilliant 

coloration is easily seen through 

binoculars at short distances by trained 

individuals. 

No population estimates are available 

for laurel dace. However, based on 

trends observed in surveys and 

collections since 1991, Strange and 

Skelton (2005, p. 8) concluded that this 

species is persisting in Young’s, 

Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks in the 

Piney River watershed, but is at risk of 

extirpation from the southern part of 

Walden Ridge in Soddy Creek, and in 

the Horn Branch and Cupp Creek areas 

that are tributaries to Sale Creek. As 

noted above, the species is considered 

to be extirpated from Laurel Branch, 

which is part of the Sale Creek system. 

The laurel dace is ranked by the TDEC 

(2009, p. 60) as an S1G1 species: 

extremely rare in Tennessee, and 

critically imperiled globally. The laurel 

dace is designated as a Tier 1 GCN 

species in the Tennessee CWCS (TWRA 

2005, pp. 44, 49). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

June 24, 2010, we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposed rule to list 

the Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace by August 23, 2010. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal and 

State agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in newspapers covering all 

affected counties in Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

During the comment period for the 

proposed rule, we received ten 

comment letters in response to the 

proposed rule: four from peer reviewers, 

one from a State agency, and five from 

organizations or individuals. All of the 

ten commenters supported the proposed 

rule to list these five fishes as 

endangered. All substantive information 

provided during the comment period 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or is 

addressed below. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from 12 knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the 5 species and their 

habitats, biological needs, and threats. 

We received responses from four of the 

peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the listing of the five fishes. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

conclusions and provided additional 

information on taxonomic classification, 

life-history, and distribution; technical 

clarifications; and suggestions to 

improve the final rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

‘‘Summary of Changes from Proposed 

Rule’’ and incorporated into the final 

rule as appropriate. 

Public Comments 

(1) Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the laurel dace is threatened, 

particularly in Horn Branch, a tributary 

to the Rock Creek watershed, by timber 

harvest, rock harvest (collection of 

surface fieldstones), and coal mining of 

the Sewanee Coal Seam in Bledsoe and 

Rhea counties, Tennessee. These 

commenters recommended critical 

habitat designation in the Upper Rock 

Creek watershed of Bledsoe County, 

Tennessee, due to the threats that are 

imminent and of high magnitude in 

Horn Branch. The commenters are 

particularly concerned that mining of 

the Sewanee Coal Seem would result in 

acid mine drainage. 

Our Response: We concur with these 

commenters that the laurel dace in Rock 

Creek watershed is threatened by timber 

harvest, rock harvest, and coal mining. 

We have incorporated further analyses 

regarding the threats of rock harvest and 

coal mining under ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species’’ for laurel dace. 

Further analysis with regard to critical 

habitat designation will be addressed in 

the upcoming critical habitat rule. 

(2) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Cumberland darter is 

threatened, particularly in Dan Branch, 

a tributary to the Lick Fork watershed, 

by degradation of water quality from 

mountaintop mining projects in 

Campbell and Claiborne counties, 

Tennessee. In addition to this general 

concern, the commenter was aware of 

selenium contamination within these 

same watersheds and feared that the 


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 

further degradation to fish and wildlife 

habitats in Campbell County. 

Our Response: We concur with the 

commenter that mountaintop mining, 

and specifically selenium 

contamination, has the potential to 

degrade the water quality of 

Cumberland darter streams in Campbell 

and Claiborne counties, Tennessee. 

Streams associated with mountaintop 

mining and valley fills are characterized 

by increased conductivity, total 

dissolved solids, and concentrations of 

sulfate, bicarbonate ions, and metals 

such as manganese, iron, aluminum, 

and selenium. Increased levels of 

selenium have been shown to 

bioaccumulate in organisms, leading to 

deformities in larval fish and potentially 

harming birds that prey on fishes. The 

proposed rule provided a more detailed 

analysis of these and other water quality 

threats to the Cumberland darter under 

‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species.’’ 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

As a result of the comments received 

during the public comment period (see 

above) we made the following changes 

to the final listing rule: 

(1) We added taxonomic classification 

information to the species’ background 

sections. 

(2) We added life-history information 

to the Cumberland darter and chucky 

madtom background sections. 

(3) We updated the distributional 

information for the rush darter in 

Alabama. 

(4) We changed the genus of laurel 

dace from Phoxinus to Chrosomus to 

reflect recent taxonomic changes 

(Strange and Mayden 2009). 

(5) We updated population estimate 

and threats information for the 

yellowcheek darter in Arkansas. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

Each of these factors is discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The primary threat to the Cumberland 

darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, 

chucky madtom, and laurel dace is 

physical habitat destruction or 

modification resulting from a variety of 

human-induced impacts such as 

siltation, disturbance of riparian 

corridors, and changes in channel 

morphology (Waters 1995, pp. 2–3; 

Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19; Thomas 2007, 

p. 5). The most significant of these 

impacts is siltation (excess sediments 

suspended or deposited in a stream) 

caused by excessive releases of 

sediment from activities such as 

resource extraction (e.g., coal mining, 

silviculture, natural gas development), 

agriculture, road construction, and 

urban development (Waters 1995, pp. 2– 

3; Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) 

2006, pp. 178–185; Skelton 1997, pp. 

17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5). 

Land use practices that affect 

sediment and water discharges into a 

stream can also increase the erosion or 

sedimentation pattern of the stream, 

which can lead to the destruction or 

modification of in-stream habitat and 

riparian vegetation, stream bank 

collapse, and increased water turbidity 

and temperature. Sediment has been 

shown to abrade and suffocate bottomdwelling fish and other organisms by 

clogging gills; reduce aquatic insect 

diversity and abundance; impair fish 

feeding behavior by altering prey base 

and reducing visibility of prey; impair 

reproduction due to burial of nests; and, 

ultimately, negatively impact fish 

growth, survival, and reproduction 

(Waters 1995, pp. 5–7, 55–62; Knight 

and Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). Wood 

and Armitage (1997, pp. 211–212) 

identified at least five impacts of 

sedimentation on fish, including (1) 

reduction of growth rate, disease 

tolerance, and gill function; (2) 

reduction of spawning habitat and egg, 

larvae, and juvenile development; (3) 

modification of migration patterns; (4) 

reduction of food availability through 

the blockage of primary production; and 

(5) reduction of foraging efficiency. The 

effects of these types of threats will 

likely increase as development increases 

in these watersheds. 

Non-point source pollution from land 

surface runoff can originate from 

virtually any land use activity and may 

be correlated with impervious surfaces 

and storm water runoff. Pollutants may 

include sediments, fertilizers, 

herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, 

septic tank and gray water leakage, 

pharmaceuticals, and petroleum 

products. These pollutants tend to 

increase concentrations of nutrients and 

toxins in the water and alter the 

chemistry of affected streams such that 

the habitat and food sources for species 

like the Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace are negatively impacted. 

Construction and road maintenance 

activities associated with urban 

development typically involve earthmoving activities that increase sediment 

loads into nearby streams. Other 

siltation sources, including timber 

harvesting, natural gas development 

activities, clearing of riparian 

vegetation, mining, and agricultural 

practices, allow exposed earth to enter 

streams during or after precipitation 

events. These activities result in canopy 

removal, elevated stream temperatures, 

and increased siltation, thereby 

degrading habitats used by fishes for 

both feeding and reproduction 

(Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). 

Undisturbed riparian corridors are 

important because they prevent elevated 

stream temperatures due to solar 

heating, serve as buffers against nonpoint source pollutants, provide 

submerged root materials for cover and 

feeding, and help to stabilize stream 

banks (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). 

Cumberland Darter 

The Cumberland darter’s preferred 

habitat characteristics (i.e., low- to 

moderate-gradient, low current velocity, 

backwater nature) make it extremely 

susceptible to the effects of siltation 

(O’Bara 1991, p. 11). Sediment 

(siltation) has been listed repeatedly by 

KDOW as the most common stressor of 

aquatic communities in the upper 

Cumberland River basin (KDOW 1996, 

pp. 50–53, 71–75; KDOW 2002, pp. 39– 

40; KDOW 2006, pp. 178–185). The 

primary source of sediment was 

identified as resource extraction (e.g., 

coal mining, logging). The streams 

within the Cumberland darter’s current 

range that are identified as impaired 

(due to siltation from mining, logging, 

and agricultural activities) and have 

been included on Kentucky’s 303(d) list 

of impaired waters (KDOW 2007, pp. 

155–166) include Jenneys Branch 

(Indian Creek basin), an unnamed 

tributary of Jenneys Branch (Indian 

Creek basin), Ryans Creek (Jellico Creek 

basin), Marsh Creek, and Wolf Creek 

(Clear Fork basin). 

Siltation can also occur in the 

Cumberland darter’s known habitat as a 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

result of construction activities for 

human development. For example, 

during the fall of 2007, an 8.4-km (5.2- 

mi) reach of Barren Fork in McCreary 

County, Kentucky, was subjected to a 

severe sedimentation event (Floyd pers. 

obs. 2008). This event occurred despite 

the fact that approximately 95 percent of 

the Barren Fork watershed is under 

Federal ownership within the Daniel 

Boone National Forest (DBNF). 

Construction activities associated with 

the development of a 40.5-hectare (100- 

acre) park site caused excessive 

sedimentation of two unnamed 

headwater tributaries of Barren Fork. 

Successive, large rainfall events in 

September and October carried 

sediment offsite and impacted 

downstream areas of Barren Fork known 

to support Cumberland darters and the 

Federally threatened blackside dace. 

Our initial site visit on September 7, 

2007, confirmed that sediment had been 

carried offsite, resulting in significant 

habitat degradation in the Barren Fork 

mainstem and ‘‘adverse effects’’ on the 

blackside dace. Several smaller 

sediment events have occurred despite 

Federal and State attempts to resolve the 

issue, and on July 31, 2008, another 

large rainfall event resulted in excessive 

sedimentation in two Barren Fork 

watershed streams. 

Another significant threat to the 

Cumberland darter is water quality 

degradation caused by a variety of nonpoint source pollutants. Coal mining 

represents a major source of these 

pollutants (O’Bara 1991, p. 11; Thomas 

2007, p. 5), because it has the potential 

to contribute high concentrations of 

dissolved metals and other solids that 

lower stream pH or lead to elevated 

levels of stream conductivity (Pond 

2004, pp. 6–7, 38–41; Mattingly et al. 

2005, p. 59). These impacts have been 

shown to negatively affect fish species, 

including listed species, in the Clear 

Fork system of the Cumberland basin 

(Weaver 1997, pp. 29; Hartowicz pers. 

comm. 2008). The direct effect of 

elevated stream conductivity on fishes, 

including the Cumberland darter, is 

poorly understood, but some species, 

such as blackside dace, have shown 

declines in abundance over time as 

conductivity increased in streams 

affected by mining (Hartowicz pers. 

comm. 2008). Studies indicate that 

blackside dace are generally absent 

when conductivity values exceed 240 

microSiemens (μS) (Mattingly et al. 

2005, p. 59; Black and Mattingly 2007, 

p. 12). 

Other non-point source pollutants 

that affect the Cumberland darter 

include domestic sewage (through 

septic tank leakage or straight pipe 

discharges); agricultural pollutants such 

as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and 

animal waste; and other chemicals 

associated with oil and gas 

development. Non-point source 

pollutants can cause excess nutrification 

(increased levels of nitrogen and 

phosphorus), excessive algal growth, 

instream oxygen deficiencies, increased 

acidity and conductivity, and other 

changes in water chemistry that can 

seriously impact aquatic species (KDOW 

1996, pp. 48–50; KDOW 2006, pp. 70– 

73). 

In summary, habitat loss and 

modification represent significant 

threats to the Cumberland darter. Severe 

degradation from sedimentation, 

physical habitat disturbance, and 

contaminants threatens the habitat and 

water quality on which the Cumberland 

darter depends. Sedimentation from 

coal mining, logging, agriculture, and 

development sites within the upper 

Cumberland basin negatively affect the 

Cumberland darter by reducing growth 

rates, disease tolerance, and gill 

function; reducing spawning habitat, 

reproductive success, and egg, larvae, 

and juvenile development; modifying 

migration patterns; reducing food 

availability through reductions in prey; 

and reducing foraging efficiency. 

Contaminants associated with coal 

mining (metals, other dissolved solids), 

domestic sewage (bacteria, nutrients), 

and agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, 

herbicides, and animal waste) cause 

degradation of water quality and 

habitats through increased acidity and 

conductivity, instream oxygen 

deficiencies, excess nutrification, and 

excessive algal growths. Furthermore, 

these threats faced by the Cumberland 

darter from sources of sedimentation 

and contaminants are imminent, the 

result of ongoing projects that are 

expected to continue indefinitely. As a 

result of the imminence of these threats 

combined with the vulnerability of the 

remaining small populations to 

extirpation from natural and manmade 

threats, we have determined that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

Cumberland darter habitat and range 

represents a significant threat of high 

magnitude. We have no information 

indicating that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Rush Darter 

Sediment is the most abundant 

pollutant in the Mobile River Basin 

(Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management 1996, pp. 14–15) and a 

major threat to the rush darter. Within 

the Clear Creek drainage, Johnston and 

Kleiner (2001, p. 4) reported that, during 

August 2001, the dominant land use 

adjacent to Doe Branch and Mill Creek 

appeared to be forests, and that there 

were no obvious threats to water 

quality. However, Johnston and Kleiner 

(2001, p. 4) reported that clearcutting in 

the Wildcat Branch watershed may have 

increased sedimentation into the stream. 

Approximately 84 percent (i.e., 5 km or 

3 mi) of Wildcat Branch is privately 

owned, and recent land exchanges 

within the Bankhead National Forest 

have taken about 0.9 km (0.6 mi) of 

stream west of Clear Creek out of U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) management and 

protection. In 2001, Service and USFS 

personnel noted heavy siltation at the 

County Road 329 Bridge over Doe 

Branch and at several other road 

crossings in other tributary streams in 

the immediate area during a modest 

spring rain event. Sediment in area 

streams is also the result of increased 

erosion from the scouring of roadside 

ditches, and erosion of the gravel 

County Road 329 itself adjacent to Doe 

and Wildcat branches (Drennen pers. 

obs. 2005). 

Blanco (2001, p. 68) identified 

siltation from development projects as 

the greatest threat to the fauna of Turkey 

Creek. New subdivisions have been 

developed throughout the watershed, 

increasing the amount of impervious 

surfaces in the recharge areas of springs. 

The increase in impervious surfaces is 

leading to increased stormwater runoff 

and is reducing the amount of recharge 

(water storage) available to the aquifers 

that feed springs in the watershed. 

These flow alterations reduce the 

amount and complexity of rush darter 

habitat by eroding stream banks, 

destabilizing substrates and aquatic 

vegetation, and decreasing overall water 

quality. 

There are four major soil types that 

occur within the Turkey Creek 

watershed, and all are considered highly 

erodible due to the steep topography 

(Spivey 1982, pp. 5, 7, 8, 14). Therefore, 

any activity that removes native 

vegetation on these soils can be 

expected to lead to increased sediment 

loads in Turkey Creek watershed 

(USFWS 2001, p. 59370), including the 

areas near Penny and Tapawingo 

Springs. Industrialization is extensive 

and expanding throughout the 

watershed, particularly near the type 

locality for the rush darter (Bart and 

Taylor 1999, p. 33; Drennen pers. obs. 

2007–2010). 

Point source siltation has impacted 

the Turkey Creek watershed, including 

an abundance of sites affecting Beaver 

Creek, a major tributary to Turkey 


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 

bridge, road, and sewer line 

construction; industrialized areas; road 

maintenance; and storm water 

mismanagement (Drennen pers. obs. 

1999, 2004–2010). Rapid urbanization 

in this area renders this population 

extremely vulnerable during the 

breeding season when rush darters 

concentrate in wetland pools and 

shallow pools with aquatic vegetation in 

headwater streams (Stiles and Mills 

2008, p. 5; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 10). 

Springs throughout the rush darter’s 

range, especially in Pinson Valley, flush 

and dilute sediments and excessive 

nutrients from streams by providing a 

constant flow of cool, clean water. 

However, the ongoing destruction of 

spring heads and wetlands throughout 

the species’ range has significantly 

reduced the species’ movement and 

colonization. Little Cove Creek and 

Bristow Creek spring heads have been 

channelized, and the head of Cove 

Spring has a pumping facility built on 

it (Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1). 

Channelization and groundwater 

withdrawals from spring heads might do 

more to impact water quality in these 

systems than overall spring drainage 

disturbances such as beaver dam 

construction, and road maintenance 

(Drennen per. obs. 2005). Alteration of 

spring head habitats has reduced water 

quality and increased sediment loads 

into spring-fed tributary streams 

throughout the range of the rush darter. 

In summary, threats to rush darter 

include stormwater runoff and siltation, 

caused by an increase in urbanization 

and impervious surfaces in the 

watershed. Other threats include spring 

head alteration, roadside maintenance, 

and logging. These threats are ongoing 

and thus considered imminent. The 

magnitude of the threats is high due to 

the small population sizes and high 

levels of alterations and destruction of 

the springs and streams. We have no 

information indicating that the 

magnitude or imminence of these 

threats is likely to be appreciably 

reduced in the foreseeable future. 

Yellowcheek Darter 

Robison and Harp (1981, p. 17), 

McDaniel (1984, p. 92), and Robison 

and Buchanan (1988, p. 429) have 

attributed the decline in populations of 

yellowcheek darters in the four forks of 

the Little Red River and the mainstem 

Little Red River to habitat alteration and 

degradation. The suspected primary 

cause of the species’ decline is the 

impoundment of the Little Red River 

and lower reaches of the Devils, Middle, 

and South Forks, areas that in the past 

provided optimal habitat for this 

species. The creation of Greers Ferry 

Lake, in 1962, converted optimal 

yellowcheek darter habitat (clear, cool, 

perennial flow with large substrate 

particle size (Robison and Buchanan 

1988, p. 429)), to a deep, standing water 

environment. This dramatic change in 

habitat flooded spawning sites and 

changed chemical and physical 

characteristics in the streams that 

provide habitat for the species. 

Impoundments profoundly alter 

channel characteristics, habitat 

availability, and flow regime with 

serious consequences for biota (Allan 

and Flecker 1993, p. 36, Ward and 

Stanford 1995, pp. 105–119). Some of 

these include converting flowing to still 

waters, increasing depths and 

sedimentation, decreasing dissolved 

oxygen, drastically altering resident fish 

populations (Neves et al. 1997, p. 63), 

disrupting fish migration, and 

destroying spawning habitat (Ligon et 

al. 1995, pp. 185–86). Channelization of 

the lower 5.6 km (3.5 miles) of Archey 

and South Forks in 1985 and 

subsequent, and ongoing, channel 

maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) and City of Clinton, 

Arkansas, degraded habitat in this reach 

as well as segments upstream of the 

project area. Based upon current 

knowledge and a 2004–2005 threats 

assessment (Davidson and Wine 2004, 

pp. 6–13; Davidson 2005, pp. 1–4), 

gravel mining, unrestricted cattle access 

into streams, water withdrawal for 

agricultural and recreational purposes 

(i.e., golf courses), lack of adequate 

riparian buffers, construction and 

maintenance of county roads, and nonpoint source pollution arising from a 

broad array of activities also appear to 

be degrading suitable habitat for the 

species. The threats assessment 

documented occurrences of the 

aforementioned activities and found 52 

sites on the Middle Fork, 28 sites on the 

South Fork, 8 sites on Archey Fork 

(Davidson 2005, pp. 1–4), and 1 site in 

the Turkey/Beech/Devils Fork system 

that are adversely affected by these 

activities and are likely contributors to 

the decline of the species. 

Ozark headwater streams typically 

exhibit seasonal fluctuations in flows, 

with flow rates highest in spring and 

lowest in late summer and fall. The 

upper reaches of these small streams are 

most affected by seasonally fluctuating 

water levels (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 

17). As a result, they often lack 

consistent and adequate flows, and by 

late summer or fall are reduced to a 

series of isolated pools (Wine pers. 

comm. 2008). Expanding natural gas 

development activities that began in the 

upper Little Red River watershed in 

2006 require large quantities of water 

(both surface water and groundwater) 

and pose an imminent threat to the 

continued existence of yellowcheek 

darter as these activities rapidly expand 

and increase in the watersheds of all 

four forks (Davidson pers. comm. 2008). 

Because the yellowcheek darter requires 

permanent flows with moderate to 

strong current (Robison and Buchanan 

1988, p. 429), and because downstream 

refugia have been lost to impoundments 

and channelization, water withdraws 

that exacerbate seasonal stream 

reductions and reduce moving water 

(lotic) habitat are a serious threat. 

Additional threats to the yellowcheek 

darter include habitat degradation from 

land use activities in the watershed, 

including agriculture and forestry. 

Traditional farming practices, feedlot 

operations, and associated poor land use 

practices contribute many pollutants to 

rivers. Neves et al. (1997, p. 65) suggest 

that agriculture affects 72 percent of 

impaired river reaches in the United 

States. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, 

and other organic compounds generally 

are found in higher concentrations in 

agricultural areas than forested areas. 

Nutrient concentrations in streams may 

result in increased algal growth in 

streams, and a related alteration in fish 

community composition (Petersen et al. 

1999, p. 16). Major agricultural activities 

within the Little Red River watershed 

include poultry, dairy, swine, and beef 

cattle operations. 

The Arkansas Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) has 

identified animal wastes, nutrients, 

excessive erosion, loss of plant 

diversity, and loss of species as water 

quality concerns associated with 

agricultural land use activities in the 

upper Little Red River watershed (NRCS 

1999). Large poultry and dairy 

operations increase nutrient inputs to 

streams when producers apply animal 

waste to pastures to stimulate vegetation 

growth for grazing and hay production. 

Continuous grazing methods in the 

watershed allow unrestricted animal 

access to grazing areas, and on steeper 

slopes this results in increased runoff 

and erosion (NRCS 1999). Since 

pastures often extend directly to the 

edge of the stream, and lack a riparian 

zone with native vegetation, runoff from 

pastures carries pollutants directly into 

streams. Eroding stream banks also 

result in alterations to stream hydrology 

and geomorphology, degrading habitat. 

Livestock spend a disproportionate 

amount of time in riparian areas during 

hot summer months. Trampling and 

grazing can change and reduce 

vegetation and eliminate riparian areas 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

by channel widening, channel 

aggradation, or lowering of the water 

table (Armour et al. 1991, pp. 7–11). 

Additionally, earthen dams were 

constructed across a riffle in the lower 

South Fork to create a pool for annual 

chuckwagon races for many years 

leading up to 2003. The Service and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with 

the responsible landowner in 2004 and 

suggested an alternative to dam 

construction that would minimize 

impacts to the yellowcheek darter. 

These recommendations were followed 

for several years; however, another 

earthen dam was constructed in 2008 

using material from the South Fork to 

facilitate events associated with the 

annual chuckwagon races. This dam, 

like its predecessors, was unpermitted 

and resulted in habitat degradation and 

alteration for several miles upstream 

and downstream of the site. 

The chuckwagon race event draws 

approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people 

per year to the South Fork Little Red 

River for a 1-week period around Labor 

Day. Horses and wagons traverse the 

river and its tributaries for miles leading 

to increased habitat disturbance, 

sedimentation, and trampling. The 

chuckwagon races continue to grow 

annually and pose a threat to the 

continued existence of yellowcheek 

darters in the South Fork Little Red 

River. 

Timber harvesting activities involving 

clear-cutting entire steep hillsides were 

observed during 1999–2000 in the 

Devils Fork watershed (Wine pers. 

comm. 2008). The failure to implement 

voluntary State best management 

practices (BMPs) for intermittent and 

perennial streams during timber 

harvests has resulted in water quality 

degradation and habitat alteration in 

stream reaches adjacent to harvesting 

operations. When timber harvests 

involve clear cutting to the water’s edge, 

without leaving a riparian buffer, silt 

and sediment enter streams lying at the 

bottom of steep slopes. The lack of 

streamside vegetation also promotes 

bank erosion that alters stream courses 

and introduces large quantities of 

sediment into the channel (Allan 1995, 

p. 321). Timber harvest operations that 

use roads on steep slopes to transport 

timber can carry silt and sediment from 

the road into the stream at the bottom 

of the slope. Logging impacts on 

sediment production are considerable, 

but often erosion of access and haul 

roads produces more sediment than the 

land harvested for timber (Brim Box and 

Mossa 1999, p. 102). These activities 

have occurred historically and continue 

to occur in the upper Little Red River 

watershed. 

Natural gas exploration and 

development is a newly emerging threat 

to yellowcheek darter populations. 

Erosion and sedimentation issues 

associated with natural gas development 

activities, particularly pipelines (herein 

defined as all flow lines, gathering lines, 

and non-interstate pipelines), were first 

documented by Service biologists 

during 2007 in the South Fork Little Red 

River watershed. In June 2008, the 

Service began documenting significant 

erosion and sedimentation issues 

associated with natural gas pipeline 

construction and maintenance as 

natural gas development activities 

expanded into the watershed. Service 

biologists documented erosion and 

sedimentation at almost every new 

pipeline stream crossing in the South 

Fork and Middle Fork Little Red River 

watersheds, regardless of the diameter 

of the pipe. Channel incision was 

documented at numerous stream 

crossings that are tributaries to the 

South Fork Little Red River. The 

incision increased erosion and 

sedimentation, as well as altering the 

hydrology and geomorphology 

characteristics of the streams. Pipeline 

rights-of-way were found to have one of 

the following conditions: (1) No BMPs 

(i.e., silt fences, grade breaks, nonerodible stream crossing materials) 

installed to prevent erosion and 

sedimentation; (2) ineffective erosion 

minimization practices in place; (3) 

effective erosion minimization practices 

that had not been maintained and, thus, 

had become ineffective; or (4) final 

reclamation of the pipeline right-of-way 

had not occurred for months and in 

some cases greater than a year after 

construction activities ceased, leading to 

prolonged periods of erosion and 

sedimentation. The magnitude of the 

impacts to the South Fork and Middle 

Fork Little Red River from 2007–2008 

also was exacerbated due to aboveaverage rainfall, which led to more 

frequent and larger pipeline erosion 

events. 

In summary, threats to the 

yellowcheek darter from the present 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

negatively impact the species. Threats 

include such activities as 

impoundment, sedimentation, poor 

livestock grazing practices, improper 

timber harvest practices, nutrient 

enrichment, gravel mining, 

channelization/channel instability, and 

natural gas development. These threats 

are considered imminent and of high 

magnitude throughout the species’ 

entire range. We have no information 

indicating that the magnitude or 

imminence of these threats is likely to 

be appreciably reduced in the 

foreseeable future, and in the case of 

pipeline disturbance, we expect this 

threat to become more problematic over 

the next several years as natural gas 

development continues to intensify. 

Chucky Madtom 

The current range of the chucky 

madtom is believed to be restricted to an 

approximately 1.8-mi (3-km) reach of 

Little Chucky Creek in Greene County, 

Tennessee. Land use data from the 

Southeast GAP Analysis Program (SE– 

GAP) show that land use within the 

Little Chucky Creek watershed is 

predominantly agricultural, with the 

vast majority of agricultural land being 

devoted to production of livestock and 

their forage base (Jones et al. 2000). 

Traditional farming practices, feedlot 

operations, and associated land use 

practices contribute many pollutants to 

rivers. Neves et al. (1997, p. 65) suggest 

that agriculture affects 72 percent of 

impaired river reaches in the United 

States. These practices erode stream 

banks and result in alterations to stream 

hydrology and geomorphology, 

degrading habitat. Nutrients, bacteria, 

pesticides, and other organic 

compounds generally are found in 

higher concentrations in agricultural 

areas than forested areas. Nutrient 

concentrations in streams may result in 

increased algal growth in streams, and 

a related alteration in fish community 

composition (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 

16). 

The TVA Index of Biological Integrity 

results indicate that Little Chucky Creek 

is biologically impaired (Middle 

Nolichucky Watershed Alliance 2006, p. 

13). Given the predominantly 

agricultural land use within the Little 

Chucky Creek watershed, non-point 

source sediment and agrochemical 

discharges may pose a threat to the 

chucky madtom by altering the physical 

characteristics of its habitat, thus 

potentially impeding its ability to feed, 

seek shelter from predators, and 

successfully reproduce. The Little 

Chucky Creek watershed also contains a 

portion of the City of Greeneville, 

providing an additional source for input 

of sediments and contaminants into the 

creek and threatening the chucky 

madtom. Wood and Armitage (1997, pp. 

211–212) identify at least five impacts of 

sedimentation on fish, including (1) 

reduction of growth rate, disease 

tolerance, and gill function; (2) 

reduction of spawning habitat and egg, 

larvae, and juvenile development; (3) 

modification of migration patterns; (4) 

reduction of food availability through 


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 

(5) reduction of foraging efficiency. 

The chucky madtom is a bottomdwelling species. Bottom-dwelling fish 

species are especially susceptible to 

sedimentation and other pollutants that 

degrade or eliminate habitat and food 

sources (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, pp. 

290–292; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1091; 

Waters 1995, p. 72). Etnier and Jenkins 

(1980, p. 20) suggested that madtoms, 

which are heavily dependent on 

chemoreception (detection of chemicals) 

for survival, are susceptible to humaninduced disturbances, such as chemical 

and sediment inputs, because the 

olfactory (sense of smell) ‘‘noise’’ they 

produce could interfere with a 

madtom’s ability to obtain food and 

otherwise monitor its environment. 

In summary, threats to the chucky 

madtom from the present destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range negatively impact the 

species. Degradation from 

sedimentation, physical habitat 

disturbance, and contaminants threaten 

the habitat and water quality on which 

the chucky madtom depends. 

Sedimentation from agricultural lands 

could negatively affect the chucky 

madtom by reducing growth rates, 

disease tolerance, and gill function; 

reducing spawning habitat, reproductive 

success, and egg, larvae, and juvenile 

development; reducing food availability 

through reductions in prey; and 

reducing foraging efficiency. 

Contaminants associated with 

agriculture (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, 

herbicides, and animal waste) can cause 

degradation of water quality and 

habitats through instream oxygen 

deficiencies, excess nutrification, and 

excessive algal growths. Furthermore, 

these threats faced by the chucky 

madtom from sources of sedimentation 

and contaminants are imminent; the 

result of ongoing agricultural practices 

that are expected to continue 

indefinitely. As a result of the 

imminence of these threats combined 

with the vulnerability of the remaining 

small population to extirpation from 

natural and manmade threats, we have 

determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the chucky madtom 

habitat and range represents a 

significant threat of high magnitude. We 

have no information indicating that the 

magnitude or imminence of these 

threats is likely to be appreciably 

reduced in the foreseeable future. 

Laurel Dace 

Skelton (2001, p. 127) concluded that 

the laurel dace is ‘‘presumably tolerant 

of some siltation.’’ However, Strange 

and Skelton (2005, p. 7 and Appendix 

2) observed levels of siltation they 

considered problematic during later 

surveys for the laurel dace and 

concluded this posed a threat in several 

localities throughout the range of the 

species. Sediment has been shown to 

abrade and or suffocate bottom-dwelling 

fish and other organisms by clogging 

gills; reducing aquatic insect diversity 

and abundance; impairing fish feeding 

behavior by altering prey base and 

reducing visibility of prey; impairing 

reproduction due to burial of nests; and, 

ultimately, negatively impacting fish 

growth, survival, and reproduction 

(Waters 1995, pp. 5–7, 55–62; Knight 

and Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). 

However, we do not currently know 

what levels of siltation laurel dace are 

able to withstand before populations 

begin to decline due to these siltationrelated stressors. The apparent stability 

of the northern population of laurel 

dace in the Piney River system suggests 

that this species is at least moderately 

tolerant of siltation-related stressors. We 

do not know the extent to which other 

factors might have driven the decline of 

the southern populations in Sale and 

Soddy Creeks. 

Of the streams inhabited by the 

southern populations recognized by 

Strange and Skelton (2005, p. Appendix 

2), the reaches from which laurel dace 

have been collected in Soddy Creek and 

Horn Branch approach 1 km (0.6 mi) in 

length. In Cupp Creek, collections of 

this species are restricted to less than 

300 m (984 ft) of stream, in spite of 

surveys well beyond the reach known to 

be inhabited. In each of the streams 

occupied by the southern populations, 

Strange and Skelton (2005, Appendix 2) 

identified siltation as a factor that could 

alter the habitat and render it unsuitable 

for laurel dace. The restricted 

distribution of laurel dace in streams 

inhabited by the southern populations 

leaves them highly vulnerable to 

potential deleterious effects of excessive 

siltation or other localized disturbances. 

A newly emerging threat to laurel 

dace in Soddy Creek is the conversion 

of silvicultural lands to row crop 

agriculture. Two large pine plantations 

within the Soddy Creek Watershed were 

harvested and then converted to tomato 

farms. An irrigation impoundment was 

built on one Soddy Creek tributary and 

another is under construction. As a 

result of these activities, a large silt 

source was introduced into the Soddy 

Creek headwaters. In addition to 

contributing sediment, crop fields often 

allow runoff from irrigation water to 

flow directly into the creek. This water 

contains fungicides, herbicides, and 

fertilizers (Thurman pers. comm. 2010). 

Strange and Skelton (2005, p. 7 and 

Appendix 2) identified siltation as a 

threat in all of the occupied Piney River 

tributaries (Young’s, Moccasin, and 

Bumbee Creeks). The Bumbee Creek 

type locality for the laurel dace is 

located within industrial forest that has 

been subjected to extensive clear-cutting 

and road construction in close 

proximity to the stream. Strange and 

Skelton (2005, p. 7) noted a heavy 

sediment load at this locality and 

commented that conditions in Bumbee 

Creek in 2005 had deteriorated since the 

site was visited by Skelton in 2002. 

Strange and Skelton (2005, pp. 7 and 8 

and Appendix 2) also commented on 

excessive siltation in localities they 

sampled on Young’s and Moccasin 

Creeks, and observed localized removal 

of riparian vegetation around residences 

in the headwaters of each of these 

streams. They considered the removal of 

riparian vegetation problematic not only 

for the potential for increased siltation, 

but also for the potential thermal 

alteration of these small headwater 

streams. Skelton (2001, p. 125) reported 

that laurel dace occupy cool streams 

with a maximum recorded temperature 

of 26 °C (78.8 °F). The removal of 

riparian vegetation could potentially 

increase temperatures above the laurel 

dace’s maximum tolerable limit. 

Water temperature may be a limiting 

factor in the distribution of this species 

(Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19). Canopy cover 

of laurel dace streams often consists of 

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 

mixed hardwoods, pines (Pinus spp.), 

and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). 

The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges 

tsugae) is a nonnative insect that infests 

hemlocks, causing damage or death to 

trees. The woolly adelgid was recently 

found in Hamilton County, Tennessee, 

and could impact eastern hemlock in 

floodplains and riparian buffers along 

laurel dace streams in the future 

(Simmons pers. comm. 2008). Riparian 

buffers filter sediment and nutrients 

from overland runoff, allow water to 

soak into the ground, protect stream 

banks, and provide shade for streams 

(Waters 1995, p. 149–152). Because 

eastern hemlock is primarily found in 

riparian areas, the loss of this species 

adjacent to laurel dace streams would be 

detrimental to fish habitat. 

Habitat destruction and modification 

also stem from existing or proposed 

infrastructure development in 

association with silvicultural activities. 

The presence of culverts at one or more 

road crossings in most of the streams 

inhabited by laurel dace may disrupt 

upstream dispersal within those systems 

(Chance pers. obs. 2008). Such dispersal 

barriers could prevent re-establishment 


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 

where they suffer localized extinctions 

due to natural or human-caused events. 

In summary, the primary threat to 

laurel dace throughout its range is 

excessive siltation resulting from 

agriculture and extensive silviculture 

involving both inadequate riparian 

buffers in harvest areas and the failure 

to use BMPs during road construction. 

Severe degradation from sedimentation, 

physical habitat disturbance, and 

contaminants threatens the habitat and 

water quality on which the laurel dace 

depends. Sedimentation negatively 

affects species (such as the laurel dace) 

by reducing growth rates, disease 

tolerance, and gill function; reducing 

spawning habitat, reproductive success, 

and egg, larvae, and juvenile 

development; reducing food availability 

through reductions in prey; and 

reducing foraging efficiency (Waters 

1995, pp. 5–7; 55–62; Wood and 

Armitage 1997, pp. 211–212; Knight and 

Welch 2001, pp. 134–136). These threats 

faced by the laurel dace from sources of 

sedimentation and contaminants are 

imminent, the result of ongoing 

agricultural and silvicultural practices 

that are expected to continue. Since the 

identified threats substantially affect 

survival, growth, reproduction, and 

feeding, we have determined that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

laurel dace habitat and range represents 

a significant threat of high magnitude. 

We have no information indicating that 

the magnitude or imminence of these 

threats is likely to be appreciably 

reduced in the foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace are not commercially 

utilized. Individuals have been taken for 

scientific and private collections in the 

past, but collecting is not considered a 

factor in the decline of these species and 

is not expected to be so in the future. 

The available information does not 

indicate that overutilization is likely to 

become a threat to any of these five 

fishes in the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease is not considered to be a 

factor in the decline of the Cumberland 

darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, 

chucky madtom, or laurel dace. 

Although the Cumberland darter, rush 

darter, yellowcheek darter, and laurel 

dace are undoubtedly consumed by 

predators, the available information 

suggests that this predation is naturally 

occurring, or a normal aspect of the 

population dynamics. As a result, we do 

not believe that predation is considered 

to currently pose a threat to these 

species. Furthermore, the information 

we do have does not indicate that 

disease or predation is likely to become 

a threat to any of these five fishes in the 

foreseeable future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Cumberland Darter 

The Cumberland darter and its 

habitats are afforded some protection 

from water quality and habitat 

degradation under the Clean Water Act 

of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 

Kentucky’s Forest Conservation Act of 

1998 (KRS 149.330–355), Kentucky’s 

Agriculture Water Quality Act of 1994 

(KRS 224.71–140), additional Kentucky 

laws and regulations regarding natural 

resources and environmental protection 

(KRS 146.200–360; KRS 224; 401 KAR 

5:026, 5:031), and Tennessee’s Water 

Quality Control Act of 1977 (TWQCA; 

T.C.A. 69–3–101). However, as 

demonstrated under Factor A, 

population declines and degradation of 

habitat for this species are ongoing 

despite the protection afforded by these 

laws and corresponding regulations. 

While these laws have resulted in some 

improvements in water quality and 

stream habitat for aquatic life, including 

the Cumberland darter, they alone have 

not been adequate to fully protect this 

species; sedimentation and non-point 

source pollutants continue to be a 

significant problem. 

States maintain water-use 

classifications through issuance of 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits to 

industries, municipalities, and others. 

NPDES permits set maximum limits on 

certain pollutants or pollutant 

parameters. For water bodies on the 

303(d) list, States are required under the 

Clean Water Act to establish a total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) for the 

pollutants of concern that will bring 

water quality into the applicable 

standard. Three Cumberland darter 

streams, Jenneys Branch, Marsh Creek, 

and Wolf Creek, have been identified as 

impaired by the KDOW and placed on 

the State’s 303(d) list (KDOW 2008). 

Causes of impairment were listed as 

siltation/sedimentation from 

agriculture, coal mining, land 

development, and silviculture and 

organic enrichment/eutrophication from 

residential areas. TMDLs have not yet 

been developed for these pollutants. 

The Cumberland darter has been 

designated as an endangered species by 

Tennessee (TWRA 2005, p. 240) and 

Kentucky (KSNPC 2005, p. 11), but the 

designation in Kentucky conveys no 

legal protection. Under the Tennessee 

Nongame and Endangered or 

Threatened Wildlife Species 

Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee 

Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t 

is unlawful for any person to take, 

attempt to take, possess, transport, 

export, process, sell or offer for sale or 

ship nongame wildlife, or for any 

common or contract carrier knowingly 

to transport or receive for shipment 

nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations 

included in the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Commission Proclamation 

00–15 Endangered Or Threatened 

Species state the following: ‘‘Except as 

provided for in Tennessee Code 

Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and 

(e), it shall be unlawful for any person 

to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed 

as threatened or endangered or 

otherwise to violate terms of Section 

70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly 

the habitat of such species without due 

consideration of alternatives for the 

welfare of the species listed in (1) of this 

proclamation, or (2) the United States 

list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these 

regulations, potential collectors of this 

species are required to have a State 

collection permit, therefore protecting 

against potential threats under Factor B. 

However, in terms of project 

management, and potential habitat 

disturbance, this regulation only 

provides for the consideration of 

alternatives, and does not require the 

level of project review afforded by the 

Act. 

In 7 of 12 streams where the 

Cumberland darter still occurs, the 

species receives incidental protection 

under the Act due to the coexistence of 

the Federally threatened blackside dace. 

These streams are in watersheds that are 

at least partially owned by the Federal 

Government (i.e., DBNF). The five 

remaining streams supporting 

populations of the Cumberland darter 

are not afforded this protection. 

In summary, population declines and 

degradation of habitat for the 

Cumberland darter are ongoing despite 

the protection afforded by State and 

Federal laws and corresponding 

regulations. Because of the vulnerability 

of the small remaining populations of 

the Cumberland darter and the 

imminence of these threats, we find the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to be a significant threat of 

high magnitude. Further, the 

information available to us at this time 

does not indicate that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48737 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Rush Darter 

The rush darter and its habitats are 

afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Clean Water Act and the Alabama 

Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended, 1975 (Code of Alabama, 

§§ 22–22–1 to 22–22–14). However, as 

demonstrated under Factor A, 

population declines and degradation of 

habitat for this species are ongoing 

despite the protection afforded by these 

laws. While these laws have resulted in 

some improvement in water quality and 

stream habitat for aquatic life, including 

the rush darter, they alone have not 

been adequate to fully protect this 

species; stormwater mismanagement, 

sedimentation, and non-point source 

pollutants continue to be a significant 

problem. In addition, these laws have 

not adequately addressed water quantity 

issues that are a problem throughout the 

range of the species. Sediment is the 

most abundant pollutant in the Mobile 

River Basin and is among the greatest 

threats to the rush darter. 

The State of Alabama maintains 

water-use classifications through 

issuance of NPDES permits to 

industries, municipalities, and others 

that set maximum limits on certain 

pollutants or pollutant parameters. For 

water bodies on the 303(d) list, States 

are required under the Clean Water Act 

to establish a TMDL for the pollutants 

of concern that will bring water quality 

into the applicable standard. The State 

of Alabama has not identified any 

impaired water bodies in Jefferson, 

Winston, and Etowah counties in the 

immediate or upstream portion of the 

rush darter range or in any watersheds 

in Winston or Etowah counties. 

However, sedimentation events are 

usually related to stormwater runoff 

episodes, and are usually not captured 

by routine water quality sampling. 

Although stormwater events are 

temporary in nature, they are still 

harmful to aquatic species. The size and 

frequency of floods and stormwater 

events increases with urbanization 

(Konrad 2003, pp. 1–4). Stormwater 

events in urban areas decrease the 

storage capacity for water in urban 

basins compared to rural basins; and 

urbanization promotes more rapid 

runoff, higher peak discharge rates, and 

total volume of water (Konrad 2003, pp. 

1–4). Not only does urbanization and 

associated runoff change the physical 

aspects of water resources, but also the 

chemical and biological conditions of 

waterways (AMEC Earth and 

Environmental 2001, p. 1). Jefferson 

County, Alabama (2005, pp. 2, 39) has 

noted that the expansion of impervious 

surfaces in the Turkey Creek Drainage 

Basin caused an increase in flood 

heights and water velocity during 

stormwater events. Due to these 

observations, the Storm Water 

Management Authority and Jefferson 

County Department of Health (2010, pp. 

4–9) are tracking and monitoring 

construction and maintenance sites that 

impact stormwater management within 

the Turkey Creek and City of Pinson 

area. As demonstrated under Factor A, 

flow alterations associated with 

stormwater runoff reduce the amount 

and complexity of rush darter habitat by 

eroding stream banks, destabilizing 

substrates and aquatic vegetation, and 

decreasing overall water quality. 

In summary, population declines and 

degradation of habitat for the rush darter 

are ongoing despite the protection 

afforded by State and Federal laws and 

corresponding regulations. Despite these 

laws, sedimentation, flow alterations, 

and non-point source pollution 

continue to adversely affect the species. 

Because of the vulnerability of the small 

remaining populations of the rush darter 

and the imminence of these threats, we 

find the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to be a 

significant threat of high magnitude. 

Further, the information available to us 

at this time does not indicate that the 

magnitude or imminence of this threat 

is likely to be appreciably reduced in 

the foreseeable future. 

Yellowcheek Darter 

The Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

established water quality standards for 

surface waters in Arkansas, including 

specific standards for those streams 

designated as ‘‘extraordinary resource 

waters’’ (ERW) based on ‘‘a combination 

of the chemical, physical, and biological 

characteristics of a waterbody and its 

watershed, which is characterized by 

scenic beauty, aesthetics, scientific 

values, broad scope recreation potential, 

and intangible social values’’ (ADEQ 

Regulation 2, November 25, 2007). As 

described in ADEQ’s Regulation 2, 

Section 2.203, ERW ‘‘shall be protected 

by (1) water quality controls, (2) 

maintenance of natural flow regime, (3) 

protection of in stream habitat, and (4) 

pursuit of land management protective 

of the watershed.’’ This regulatory 

mechanism has precluded most largescale commercial gravel mining in the 

Little Red River watershed; however, 

illegal gravel mining is still considered 

a cause of habitat degradation and a 

threat in this watershed. The Middle, 

Archey, and Devils (and its major 

tributaries) forks are designated as ERW. 

The South Fork has not been designated 

as an ERW. The applicable water quality 

standards have not protected 

yellowcheek darter habitat from 

alterations and water quality 

degradation from traditional land use 

and expanding natural gas development 

activities. 

The Arkansas Forestry Commission is 

the State agency responsible for 

establishing BMPs for timber harvests in 

Arkansas. BMPs for timber harvests in 

Arkansas are only recommendations; 

there is no requirement that timber 

harvesters include BMPs in timber 

operations. The BMPs are currently 

under revision, but the Service does not 

know what effect these revisions will 

have on aquatic habitats within the 

range of the species. 

Natural gas production in the upper 

Little Red River watershed presents a 

unique problem for yellowcheek darter 

conservation. In Arkansas, mineral 

rights for properties supersede the 

surface rights. Even where private 

landowners agree to implement certain 

BMPs or conservation measures on their 

lands for yellowcheek darter 

conservation, there is no guarantee that 

these BMPs or conservation measures 

will be implemented by natural gas 

companies, their subsidiaries, or 

contractors that lease and develop the 

mineral rights for landowners. For this 

reason, the intended benefits of 

conservation measures agreed to by 

landowners in agreements such as 

Candidate Conservation Agreements 

with Assurances may never be realized. 

Additionally, natural gas projects often 

do not contain a Federal nexus that 

would allow the Service to comment on 

proposed or ongoing projects. 

The Arkansas Natural Resources 

Commission regulates water withdrawal 

in Arkansas streams. To date, they have 

not precluded water withdrawal for 

natural gas development activities in the 

upper Little Red River watershed. The 

USACE regulates instream activities 

under the Clean Water Act. Their policy 

to date has been to issue permits for 

instream activities associated with 

pipeline construction and maintenance 

under Nationwide Permits rather than 

Individual Permits that require more 

public involvement. The ADEQ lacks 

the resources necessary to enforce 

existing regulations under the Clean 

Water Act and the Arkansas Water and 

Air Pollution Act for activities 

associated with natural gas 

development. 

The yellowcheek darter receives 

incidental protection under the Act due 

to the coexistence of the Federally 

endangered speckled pocketbook 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

mussel (Lampsilis streckeri), which 

occurs throughout the upper Little Red 

River drainage. However, this protection 

has been insufficient to mitigate the 

threats to either species. 

In summary, the threats of inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms are 

imminent and considered high in 

magnitude. This is of particular concern 

in regard to the vulnerability of the 

species to threats from natural gas 

development, which is already 

impacting populations in the South and 

Middle forks of the Little Red River and 

is expected to intensify in the next 

several years throughout the range of the 

species. Further, the information 

available to us at this time does not 

indicate that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Chucky Madtom 

The chucky madtom and its habitats 

are afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Clean Water Act and TDEC’s 

Division of Water Pollution Control 

under the TWQCA. However, as 

demonstrated under Factor A, 

population declines and degradation of 

habitat for this species are ongoing 

despite the protection afforded by these 

laws. While these laws have resulted in 

improved water quality and stream 

habitat for aquatic life, including the 

chucky madtom, they alone have not 

been adequate to fully protect this 

species; sedimentation and non-point 

source pollutants continue to be a 

significant problem. Sediment is the 

most abundant pollutant in the Little 

Chucky Creek watershed and is the 

greatest threat to the chucky madtom. 

Portions of the Nolichucky River and 

its tributaries in Greene County, 

Tennessee, are listed as impaired (303d) 

by the State of Tennessee due to pasture 

grazing, irrigated crop production, 

unrestricted cattle access, land 

development, municipal point source 

discharges, septic tank failures, gravel 

mining, agriculture, and channelization 

(TDEC 2010, pp. 64–73). However, Little 

Chucky Creek is not listed as ‘‘an 

impaired water’’ by the State of 

Tennessee (TDEC 2010, pp. 64–73). For 

water bodies on the 303(d) (impaired) 

list, States are required under the Clean 

Water Act to establish a TMDL for the 

pollutants of concern that will bring 

water quality into the applicable 

standard. The TDEC has developed 

TMDLs for the Nolichucky River 

watershed to address the problems of 

fecal coliform loads, siltation, and 

habitat alteration by agriculture. 

The chucky madtom receives 

incidental protection under the Act due 

to the coexistence of the Federally 

endangered Cumberland bean (Villosa 

trabalis), which is still thought to occur 

in Little Chucky Creek, Greene County, 

Tennessee (Ahlstedt pers. comm. 2008). 

However, this protection has been 

insufficient to mitigate the threats to 

either species. 

The chucky madtom was listed as 

Endangered by the State of Tennessee in 

September of 2000. Under the 

Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or 

Threatened Wildlife Species 

Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee 

Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t 

is unlawful for any person to take, 

attempt to take, possess, transport, 

export, process, sell or offer for sale or 

ship nongame wildlife, or for any 

common or contract carrier knowingly 

to transport or receive for shipment 

nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations 

included in the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Commission Proclamation 

00–15 Endangered Or Threatened 

Species state the following: ‘‘Except as 

provided for in Tennessee Code 

Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and 

(e), it shall be unlawful for any person 

to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed 

as threatened or endangered or 

otherwise to violate terms of Section 

70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly 

the habitat of such species without due 

consideration of alternatives for the 

welfare of the species listed in (1) of this 

proclamation, or (2) the United States 

list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these 

regulations, potential collectors of this 

species are required to have a State 

collection permit. However, in terms of 

project management, this regulation 

only provides for the consideration of 

alternatives, and does not require the 

level of project review afforded by the 

Act. 

In summary, population declines and 

degradation of habitat for the chucky 

madtom are ongoing despite the 

protection afforded by State and Federal 

laws and corresponding regulations. 

Despite these laws, sedimentation and 

non-point source pollution continue to 

adversely affect the species. Because of 

the vulnerability of the small remaining 

populations of the chucky madtom and 

the imminence of these threats, we find 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to be a significant threat of 

high magnitude. Further, the 

information available to us at this time 

does not indicate that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Laurel Dace 

The laurel dace and its habitats are 

afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Clean Water Act and by TDEC’s 

Division of Water Pollution Control 

under the TWQCA. However, as 

demonstrated under Factor A, 

population declines and degradation of 

habitat for this species are ongoing 

despite the protection afforded by these 

laws. While these laws have resulted in 

improved water quality and stream 

habitat for aquatic life, including the 

laurel dace, they alone have not been 

adequate to fully protect this species; 

sedimentation and non-point source 

pollutants continue to be a significant 

problem. Sediment is the most abundant 

pollutant in the watershed and one of 

the greatest threats to the laurel dace. 

The State of Tennessee maintains 

water-use classifications through 

issuance of NPDES permits to 

industries, municipalities, and others 

that set maximum limits on certain 

pollutants or pollutant parameters. For 

water bodies on the 303(d) list, States 

are required under the Clean Water Act 

to establish a TMDL for the pollutants 

of concern that will bring water quality 

into the applicable standard. The TDEC 

has not identified any impaired water 

bodies in the Soddy Creek, the Sale 

Creek system, or the Piney River system 

(TDEC 2008). 

The TWRA lists the laurel dace as 

endangered. Under the Tennessee 

Nongame and Endangered or 

Threatened Wildlife Species 

Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee 

Code Annotated §§ 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t 

is unlawful for any person to take, 

attempt to take, possess, transport, 

export, process, sell or offer for sale or 

ship nongame wildlife, or for any 

common or contract carrier knowingly 

to transport or receive for shipment 

nongame wildlife.’’ Further, regulations 

included in the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Commission Proclamation 

00–15 Endangered Or Threatened 

Species state the following: ‘‘Except as 

provided for in Tennessee Code 

Annotated, Section 70–8–106 (d) and 

(e), it shall be unlawful for any person 

to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed 

as threatened or endangered or 

otherwise to violate terms of Section 

70–8–105 (c) or to destroy knowingly 

the habitat of such species without due 

consideration of alternatives for the 

welfare of the species listed in (1) of this 

proclamation, or (2) the United States 

list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these 

regulations, potential collectors of this 

species are required to have a State 

collection permit. However, in terms of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 48739 

project management, this regulation 

only provides for the consideration of 

alternatives, and does not require the 

level of project review afforded by the 

Act. 

In summary, population declines and 

degradation of habitat for the laurel dace 

are ongoing despite the protection 

afforded by State and Federal water 

quality laws. While these laws have 

resulted in improved water quality and 

stream habitat for aquatic life, including 

the laurel dace, they alone have not 

been adequate to fully protect this 

species; sedimentation and non-point 

source pollutants continue to be a 

significant problem. Non-point source 

pollution is not regulated by the Clean 

Water Act. Due to the vulnerability of 

the laurel dace to water quality and 

habitat degradation, we find the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

that address water quality to be an 

imminent threat of high magnitude. 

Further, the information available to us 

at this time does not indicate that the 

magnitude or imminence of this threat 

is likely to be appreciably reduced in 

the foreseeable future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Restricted Range and Population Size 

The Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace have limited geographic 

ranges and small population sizes. Their 

existing populations are extremely 

localized, and geographically isolated 

from one another, leaving them 

vulnerable to localized extinctions from 

intentional or accidental toxic chemical 

spills, habitat modification, progressive 

degradation from runoff (non-point 

source pollutants), natural catastrophic 

changes to their habitat (e.g., flood 

scour, drought), other stochastic 

disturbances, and to decreased fitness 

from reduced genetic diversity. 

Potential sources of unintentional spills 

include accidents involving vehicles 

transporting chemicals over road 

crossings of streams inhabited by one of 

these five fish, or the accidental or 

intentional release of chemicals used in 

agricultural or residential applications 

into streams. 

Species that are restricted in range 

and population size are more likely to 

suffer loss of genetic diversity due to 

genetic drift, potentially increasing their 

susceptibility to inbreeding depression, 

decreasing their ability to adapt to 

environmental changes, and reducing 

the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980, 

pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp. 97–101; 

Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117– 

146). It is likely that some of the 

Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace populations are below 

the effective population size required to 

maintain long-term genetic and 

population viability (Soule 1980, pp. 

162–164; Hunter 2002, pp. 105–107). 

The long-term viability of a species is 

founded on the conservation of 

numerous local populations throughout 

its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. 

93–104). These separate populations are 

essential for the species to recover and 

adapt to environmental change (Noss 

and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264–297; 

Harris 1984, pp. 93–104). The level of 

isolation seen in these five species 

makes natural repopulation following 

localized extirpations virtually 

impossible without human intervention. 

Climate Change 

Climate change has the potential to 

increase the vulnerability of the 

Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace to random catastrophic 

events (e.g., McLaughlin et al. 2002; 

Thomas et al. 2004). Climate change is 

expected to result in increased 

frequency and duration of droughts and 

the strength of storms (e.g., Cook et al. 

2004). During 2007, a severe drought 

affected the upper Cumberland River 

basin in Kentucky and Tennessee. 

Streamflow values for the Cumberland 

River at Williamsburg, Kentucky (USGS 

Station Number 03404000), in 

September and October of 2007 were 

among the lowest recorded monthly 

values (99th percentile for low-flow 

periods) during the last 67 years 

(Cinotto pers. comm. 2008). Climate 

change could intensify or increase the 

frequency of drought events, such as the 

one that occurred in 2007. Thomas et al. 

(2004, p. 112) report that the frequency, 

duration, and intensity of droughts are 

likely to increase in the Southeast as a 

result of global climate change. 

Fluker et al. (2007, p. 10) reported 

that drought conditions, coupled with 

rapid urbanization in watersheds that 

contain rush darters, render the 

populations vulnerable, especially 

during the breeding season when they 

concentrate in wetland pools and 

shallow pools of headwater streams. 

Drought conditions from 2006 to 2007 

greatly reduced spawning habitat for 

rush darter in Jefferson County 

(Drennen pers. obs. 2007). Survey 

numbers for the rush darter within the 

spring-fed headwaters for the unnamed 

tributary to Turkey Creek during 2007 

were reduced due to a lack of water 

(Kuhajda pers. comm. 2008). In Winston 

County, Stiles and Mills (2008, pp. 5– 

6) noted that Doe Branch almost 

completely dried up during the summer 

of 2007 (Stiles pers. comm. 2008). 

The Little Red River watershed in 

Arkansas experienced moderate drought 

conditions during 1997–2000 (Southern 

Regional Climate Center 2000), which 

reduced flows in its tributaries and 

affected yellowcheek darter 

populations. During a status survey for 

the species conducted in 2000, the stage 

height of the Little Red River was 0.3 m 

(1 ft) lower than what was reported 

during a 1979–1980 status survey of the 

darter (Wine et al. 2000, p. 7). Stream 

flow is strongly correlated with 

important physical and chemical 

parameters that limit the distribution 

and abundance of riverine species 

(Power et al. 1995, p. 159; Resh et al. 

1988, p. 437) and it regulates the 

ecological integrity of flowing water 

systems (Poff et al. 1997, p. 769). During 

the 2000 status survey, the yellowcheek 

darter was not found in the upper 

reaches of any study streams or in the 

Turkey/Beech Fork reach of Devils Fork, 

a likely result of drought conditions. 

This indicates a contraction of 

yellowcheek darter range to stream 

reaches lower in the watershed where 

flows are maintained for a greater 

portion of the year (Wine et al. 2000, p. 

11). It is possible that the perceived 

contraction in range occurs only during 

low precipitation years in north-central 

Arkansas. The threat of drought is 

imminent and moderate to high, 

respectively, in all four watersheds for 

the yellowcheek darter. Exacerbation of 

natural drought cycles as a result of 

global climate change could have 

detrimental effects on the species, 

which could continue for the 

foreseeable future. 

Competition From Introduced Species 

The Federally endangered watercress 

darter (Etheostoma nuchale) was 

translocated outside of its native range 

by the Service into Tapawingo Springs 

in 1988 in order to assist in the species’ 

recovery by expanding its range (Moss 

1995, p. 5). The watercress darter is now 

reproducing and is competing with the 

rush darter in Tapawingo Springs 

(USFWS 1993, p. 1; Drennen pers. obs. 

2004; George et al. 2009, p. 532). In 

2001, a population of watercress darters 

was found in the Penny Springs site 

(Stiles and Blanchard 2001, p. 3). The 

introduced watercress darter appears to 

be out-competing the rush darter at this 

site (Fluker et al. 2008, p. 1; George et 

al. 2009, p. 532), even though the rush 

darter has always been considered rare 

in the Tapawingo Spring area (Stiles 

pers. comm. 2008). Further investigation 

may be required to determine whether 

interspecific competition is occurring 


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 

rush darter at this site (Stiles pers. 

comm. 2008). However, Fluker et al. 

(2008, p. 1) and George et al. (2009, p. 

532) consider the rush darter to be 

extirpated after completing 2 years of 

surveys (2008–2009) in Tapawingo 

Spring. 

Reduced Fecundity 

The low fecundity rates exhibited by 

many madtom catfishes (Breder and 

Rosen 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, 

p. 58) could limit the potential for 

populations to rebound from 

disturbance events. The short lifespan 

exhibited by members of the N. 

hildebrandi clade (a taxonomic group of 

organisms classified together on the 

basis of homologous features traced to a 

common ancestor) of madtoms, if also 

true of chucky madtoms, would further 

limit the species’ viability by rendering 

it vulnerable to severe demographic 

shifts from disturbances that prevent 

reproduction in even a single year, and 

could be devastating to the population 

if the disturbance persists for successive 

years. 

Summary 

Because the Cumberland darter, rush 

darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky 

madtom, and laurel dace all have 

limited geographic ranges and small 

population sizes, they are subject to 

several ongoing natural and manmade 

threats. Since these threats are ongoing, 

they are considered to be imminent. The 

magnitude of these threats is high for 

each of these species because they result 

in a reduced ability to adapt to 

environmental change. Further, the 

information available to us at this time 

does not indicate that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Exacerbation of natural drought cycles 

as a result of global climate change 

could have detrimental effects on these 

five species, which are expected to 

continue or increase in the future. The 

specific threat of global climate change 

is considered to be nonimminent. The 

Federally endangered watercress darter 

(Etheostoma nuchale) introduced into 

the range of the rush darter is now 

potentially competing with the rush 

darter. The low fecundity rates 

exhibited by many madtom catfishes 

could specifically affect the chucky 

madtom and exacerbate the problem of 

its recovering from disturbance events. 

These threats are considered moderate/ 

low in magnitude because of the 

uncertainty of their effects, but are 

considered imminent as they are 

ongoing. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Cumberland 

darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, 

chucky madtom, and laurel dace. 

Section 3(6) of the Act defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ We find that each of these 

five species is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its entire range, 

based on the immediacy and magnitude 

of the threats described above. Based on 

our analysis, we have no reason to 

believe that the negative population 

trends for any of the five species 

addressed in this final rule will 

improve, nor will the effects of current 

threats acting on the species be 

ameliorated in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the 

Cumberland darter, rush darter, 

yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace as endangered under the 

Act. 

Without the protection of the Act, 

these five species are in danger of 

extinction throughout all of their highly 

localized ranges. Extinction could occur 

within a few years, given the reduction 

of habitats and ranges, small population 

sizes, current habitat threats, and 

natural or human-induced catastrophic 

events. Furthermore, because of the 

immediate and ongoing significant 

threats to each species throughout their 

entire respective ranges, as described 

above in the five-factor analysis, we find 

that it is unnecessary to analyze 

whether there are any significant 

portions of ranges for each species that 

may warrant a different determination 

of status. 

Critical Habitat 

In the June 24, 2010 proposed listing 

rule (75 FR 36035) we determined that 

designation of critical habitat was 

prudent for all five species. However, 

we found that critical habitat was not 

determinable at the time, and set forth 

the steps we would undertake to obtain 

the information necessary to develop a 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

We have completed these steps and 

intend to publish a proposed 

designation in the next few months for 

all five species. We were unable to 

include the critical habitat with the final 

listing rule due to an internal publishing 

issue requiring separate publication of 

proposed and final rules in the Federal 

Register. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation 

actions by Federal, State, and private 

organizations; and individuals. The Act 

encourages cooperation with the States 

and requires that recovery actions be 

carried out for all listed species. The 

protection measures required of Federal 

agencies and the prohibitions against 

certain activities are discussed, in part, 

below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with the 

Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include, but are not limited to, the 

carrying out or the issuance of permits 

for reservoir construction, stream 

alterations, discharges, wastewater 

facility development, water withdrawal 

projects, pesticide registration, mining, 

and road and bridge construction. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 

for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to take 

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt any of these), 

import or export, ship in interstate 


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 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It also is illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any wildlife that has been taken 

illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 

agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife species 

under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits are 

codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered 

species, and at 17.32 for threatened 

species. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 

following purposes: for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. 

Required Determinations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Field 

Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries 

for ‘‘Dace, laurel,’’ ‘‘Darter, 

Cumberland,’’ ‘‘Darter, rush,’’ ‘‘Darter, 

yellowcheek,’’ and ‘‘Madtom, chucky’’ 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, in alphabetical 

order, under FISHES, to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

Darter, Cumberland Etheostoma 

susanae.

U.S.A. (KY, TN) ...... Entire ...................... E 791 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Darter, rush .............. Etheostoma 

phytophilum.

U.S.A. (AL) ............. Entire ...................... E 791 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES