18710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2015–0015; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BA85 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and 

the Guyandotte River Crayfish 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding 

and status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Big Sandy crayfish (known at the 

time of the petition as Cambarus 

veteranus, but now known as two 

distinct species: Guyandotte River 

crayfish, C. veteranus, and Big Sandy 

crayfish, C. callainus) as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. After review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list both the 

Big Sandy crayfish (C. callainus), a 

freshwater crustacean from Kentucky, 

Virginia, and West Virginia, and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish (C. 

veteranus), a freshwater crustacean from 

West Virginia, as endangered species 

under the Act. If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to both species and would 

add both species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The Service seeks data and comments 

from the public on this proposed listing 

rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

June 8, 2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by May 22, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R5–ES–2015–0015, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2015– 

0015; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered 

Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate 

Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; 

telephone 413–253–8615; facsimile 

413–253–8482. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we find that a species may 

be an endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposed rule to list the 

species in the Federal Register and 

make a final determination on our 

proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat 

shall be designated, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, for 

any species determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. Listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species and 

designations and revisions of critical 

habitat can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. 

This document consists of: 

• Our 12-month finding that listing is 

warranted for the petitioned Big Sandy 

crayfish. 

• Our status review finding that 

listing is warranted for the 

nonpetitioned Guyandotte River 

crayfish. 

• A proposed rule to list the Big 

Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) 

and the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. 

veteranus) as endangered species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (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; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the Big Sandy 

crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish 

are in danger of extinction primarily 

due to the threats of land-disturbing 

activities that increase erosion and 

sedimentation, which degrades the 

stream habitat required by both species 

(Factor A), and the effects of small 

population size (Factor E). 

We will seek peer review. We will seek 

comments from independent specialists 

to ensure that our listing determination 

is based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

invite these peer reviewers to comment 

on our listing proposal. Because we will 

consider all comments and information 

we receive during the comment period, 

our final determinations may differ from 

this proposal. 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfishes’ biology, ranges, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of these species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering. 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy. 

(c) Historical and current ranges, 

including distribution and abundance 

patterns, and quantitative evidence of 

the species’ occurrence, especially in 

lower elevation sites within the known 

watersheds. 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels and current and projected 

population trends. 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for these species, their 

habitats, or both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of these species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18711 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. Particularly: 

(a) Information regarding current 

conditions and future trends of 

managing residential and commercial 

wastewater and how those conditions 

and trends may affect the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

(b) Information on total number of 

stream miles monitored within the Big 

Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed 

for compliance with Clean Water Act of 

1977 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

(c) Quantitative water quality 

parameters (e.g., conductivity) at 

historical and current Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfish occurrence 

and sampling sites. 

(d) Trends in Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfish population 

estimates or abundance as it relates to 

water quality parameters. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to these species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution and abundance, and 

population size of each of these species, 

including the locations and habitat 

conditions of any additional 

populations. 

(5) Information concerning dispersal 

mechanisms and distances for these 

species. 

(6) Locations of likely suitable habitat 

where previously unknown populations 

of either species may occur. 

(7) Information related to climate 

change within the ranges of the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish 

and how it may affect the species’ 

habitat. 

(8) The reasons why areas should or 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

the possible risks associated with 

publication of maps designating any 

area on which these species may be 

located, now or in the future, as critical 

habitat. 

(9) The following specific information 

on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

habitat for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

(b) What areas, that are currently 

occupied and that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of these species, should be 

included in a critical habitat designation 

and why. 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed for the essential features in 

potential critical habitat area, including 

managing for the potential effects of 

climate change. 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of these species and why. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We request that you 

send comments only by the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Northeast Regional Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests for a 

public hearing must be received within 

45 days after the date of publication of 

this proposed rule in the Federal 

Register. Such requests must be sent to 

the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will 

schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we will seek the expert opinions of 

three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our listing determination is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. The peer 

reviewers have expertise in freshwater 

crayfish biology, habitat, or stressors to 

crayfish and their habitat. We will invite 

comment from the peer reviewers 

during this public comment period. 

Previous Federal Action 

We identified the Big Sandy crayfish, 

then known as Cambarus veteranus, as 

a Category 2 species in the November 

21, 1991, notice of review titled Animal 

Candidate Review for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened Species (56 

FR 58804). Category 2 candidates were 

defined as species for which we had 

information that proposed listing was 

possibly appropriate, but conclusive 

data on biological vulnerability and 

threats were not available to support a 

proposed rule at the time. The species 

remained a Category 2 species in our 

November 15, 1994, candidate notice of 

review (59 FR 58982). In the February 

28, 1996, candidate notice of review (61 

FR 7596), we discontinued the 

designation of Category 2 species as 

candidates; therefore, the Big Sandy 

crayfish was no longer a candidate 

species. 

In 2010, the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) petitioned the Service 

to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 

species from the southeastern United 

States under the Act. On September 27, 

2011, the Service published a 

substantial 90-day finding for 374 of the 

404 species, including what was then 

known as the Big Sandy crayfish 

(Cambarus veteranus), soliciting 

information about, and initiating status 

reviews for, those species (76 FR 59836). 

In 2012, CBD filed a complaint against 

the Service for failure to complete a 12- 

month finding for the Big Sandy 

crayfish within the statutory timeframe. 

In 2013, the Service entered into a 

settlement agreement with CBD to 

address the complaint; the courtapproved settlement agreement 

specified a 12-month finding for the Big 

Sandy crayfish would be delivered to 

the Federal Register by April 1, 2015. 

Since the settlement agreement, we 

received information indicating that the 

Big Sandy crayfish is two separate 

species (see the Taxonomy section, 

below): the Big Sandy crayfish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(Cambarus callainus) and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish (C. 

veteranus). Although the settlement 

agreement specified that we must make 

a 12-month finding for C. veteranus, the 

Service chose to conduct a status 

review, and subsequently prepare a 

proposed listing rule, for both C. 

veteranus and C. callainus. As 

discussed below, we will propose to 

designate critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River 

crayfish under the Act in the near 

future. 

Background 

Taxonomy 

The crayfish subspecies Cambarus 

bartonii veteranus was first described in 

1914 by Faxon (1914, pp. 389–390) from 

specimens collected from Indian Creek 

in Wyoming County, West Virginia, in 

1900. Hobbs (1955, p. 330) later elevated 

the taxon to species-level, referring to 

the animal as Cambarus veteranus. In 

1969, Hobbs described several new 

Cambarus subgenera and reclassified 

the species as C. (Puncticambarus) 

veteranus (Hobbs 1969, p. 102). 

From the late 20th century until 2011, 

Cambarus veteranus was thought to 

occur in two disjunct river systems, the 

Upper Guyandotte basin in West 

Virginia, from where it was originally 

described, and the upper tributaries of 

the Big Sandy basin in eastern 

Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and 

southern West Virginia, from where it 

has been known since 1989 (Hobbs 

1989, pp. 27–28). In 2011, a genetic 

comparison of extant specimens from 

the Upper Guyandotte and Big Sandy 

populations found significant genetic 

divergence between the two 

populations, indicative of possible 

species-level differences (Fetzner 2011, 

pp. 8–10, 25). Later, Thoma et al. (2014, 

entire) conducted the first physical 

comparison of all known, intact, 

museum specimens (292 specimens 

from the Big Sandy basin and 32 from 

the Upper Guyandotte) and noted 

significant morphological characteristics 

that distinguish the two populations. 

Based on the previous genetic evidence 

and the diagnostic morphological 

differences noted between specimens 

from the two river basins, Thoma et al. 

(2014, entire) recommended that the Big 

Sandy basin population be recognized 

as a new species, Cambarus 

(Puncticambarus) callainus. 

We have carefully reviewed the peerreviewed genetic and taxonomic 

information referenced above and 

conclude that the crayfish from the Big 

Sandy basin formerly thought to be 

Cambarus veteranus is a new, valid 

taxon, Cambarus callainus. The crayfish 

native to the Upper Guyandotte basin 

remains C. veteranus because the 

scientific name is linked with the type 

specimen. Additionally, Thoma et al. 

(2014, p. 551) proposed the common 

name ‘‘Big Sandy crayfish’’ be allied to 

the newly recognized species C. 

callainus, and that C. veteranus, which 

is endemic to the Upper Guyandotte 

system, be referred to as the 

‘‘Guyandotte River crayfish.’’ We will 

follow this naming convention herein 

and for clarity ascribe the appropriate 

species and common names when 

discussing information from older 

studies that did not distinguish between 

the two species. 

Species Description 

Cambarus callainus, the Big Sandy 

crayfish, and C. veteranus, the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, are 

freshwater, tertiary burrowing 

crustaceans of the Cambaridae family. 

Tertiary burrowing crayfish do not 

exhibit complex burrowing behavior; 

instead, they shelter in shallow 

excavations under loose cobbles and 

boulders on the stream bottom. The two 

species are closely related and share 

many basic physical characteristics. 

Adult body lengths range from 75.7 to 

101.6 millimeters (mm) (3.0 to 4.0 

inches (in)), and the cephalothorax 

(main body section) is streamlined and 

elongate, and has two well-defined 

cervical spines. The elongate convergent 

rostrum (the beak-like shell extension 

located between the crayfish’s eyes) 

lacks spines or tubercles (bumps). The 

gonopods (modified legs used for 

reproductive purposes) of Form I males 

(those in the breeding stage) are bent 90 

degrees to the gonopod shaft (Loughman 

2014, p. 1). Diagnostic characteristics 

that distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish 

from the Guyandotte River crayfish 

include the former’s narrower, more 

elongate rostrum; narrower, more 

elongate chelea (claw); and lack of a 

well-pronounced lateral impression at 

the base of the claw’s immovable finger 

(Thoma et al. 2014, p. 551). 

Carapace (shell) coloration ranges 

from olive brown to light green, and the 

cervical groove is outlined in light blue, 

aqua, or turquoise. The rostral margins 

and post orbital (behind the eye) ridges 

are crimson red. The abdominal terga 

(dorsal plates covering the crayfish’s 

abdomen) range from olive brown to 

light brown to light green and are 

outlined in red. The walking legs of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish are blue, 

while those of the Big Sandy crayfish 

range from light green to green blue to 

green. Chelae of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish range from blue green to light 

blue, while those of the Big Sandy 

crayfish are usually aqua but sometimes 

green blue to blue (Loughman 2014, p. 

1–2; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 547). 

Life History and Habitat 

Reproduction 

Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) 

reported demographic and life-history 

observations for the Big Sandy crayfish 

in Virginia and Kentucky. Based on 

these observations and professional 

expertise, he concluded that the general 

life cycle pattern of the species is 2 to 

3 years of growth, maturation in the 

third year, and first mating in 

midsummer of the third or fourth year. 

Following midsummer mating, the 

annual cycle involves egg laying in late 

summer or fall, spring release of young, 

and late spring/early summer molting. 

He hypothesized the likely lifespan of 

the Big Sandy crayfish to be 5 to 7 years, 

with the possibility of some individuals 

reaching 10 years of age. Of 60 Big 

Sandy crayfish juvenile and adult 

specimens collected, Loughman (2014, 

p. 20) noted 5 total carapace length 

(TCL) size cohorts—8.0 to 19.0 mm 

(0.31 to 0.75 in); 32.0 to 35.0 mm (1.26 

to 1.38 in); 36.0 to 43.0 mm (1.42 to 1.69 

in); 44.0 to 49.0 mm (1.73 to 1.93 in); 

and 51.0 to 53.0 mm (2.01 to 2.09 in), 

indicating at least 6 molts likely 

occurred over an individual’s lifetime 

after the first year of life. The smallest 

Form I male was 25.1 mm (0.99 in) TCL; 

the smallest ovigerous (egg-carrying) 

female was 42.0 mm (1.65 in) TCL. 

In Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 4) 

reported the presence of males, females, 

and juveniles during all months 

sampled (March and May through 

October). The author noted Form I 

males and females cohabiting under 

rocks in July, presumably in some stage 

of mating, with ovigerous females 

reported in July, August, and October 

and females carrying instars (larval 

crayfish) in September, October, and 

March (the March observation 

indicating that late spawning females 

may overwinter with instars attached). 

Two ovigerous females with TCLs of 42 

mm (1.65 in) and 46 mm (1.81 in) were 

observed with 90 and 142 eggs, 

respectively (Thoma 2009, p. 4). Thoma 

(2010, pp. 3, 5) reported males, females, 

and juveniles in both months sampled 

(July and September) in Kentucky, with 

ovigerous females reported in 

September. 

There is less information available 

specific to the life history of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, but based on 

other shared characteristics with the Big 

Sandy crayfish, we conclude the life 

span and age to maturity are similar. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18713 

Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) noted 

demographic information for the species 

in the months surveyed (April and June 

through September), reporting that Form 

II (the nonreproductive phase) males 

were present in all months sampled and 

were the dominant demographic. Form 

I males were found in April, July, and 

August. No ovigerous females were 

collected by Jezerinac et al. (1995, 

entire); however, Loughman (2014, p. 

20) collected a female in June 2009, and 

maintained the specimen live in the 

laboratory. It extruded eggs the 

following month. Loughman also noted 

females carrying instars in March, just 

as Thoma (2009, p. 4) had reported for 

some Big Sandy crayfish females. 

Loughman also observed that females 

carrying instars sought out slab boulders 

in loose, depositional sands and silts in 

stream reaches with slower velocities 

(Loughman 2014, p. 20). Loughman 

examined all known Guyandotte River 

crayfish museum specimens (n=41) and 

determined five TCL size cohorts—13 to 

17 mm (0.51 to 0.67 in); 22 to 23 mm 

(0.87 to 0.91 in); 28 to 32 mm (1.10 to 

1.26 in); 34 to 38 mm (1.34 to 1.50 in); 

and 42 to 49 mm (1.65 to 1.93 in), with 

a mean TCL of 31.0 mm (1.22 in) 

(Loughman 2014, p. 20). 

Diet 

Thoma (2009, pp. 3, 13) conducted a 

feeding study using 10 Big Sandy 

crayfishes collected from Virginia. Each 

animal was offered a variety of food 

items, and observations were made 

daily to monitor consumption. The test 

period was 1 week, and each animal 

was tested twice. The food items offered 

represented the following broad 

categories: insect, fish, worm, crayfish, 

root, nut, herbaceous plant, fruit, and 

leaf litter. Results indicated that the Big 

Sandy crayfish had a preference for 

animal tissue. In each test, animal 

matter was always consumed first; 

however, plant material was at least 

partially consumed in most trials. 

Thoma concluded that the species was 

best classified as a carnivore (Thoma 

2009, p. 13). However, Loughman (2014, 

p. 21) reviewed field studies of other 

tertiary burrowing Cambarus species, 

which indicated that crayfish filling the 

ecological niche similar to that of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfish functioned as opportunistic 

omnivores, with seasonal-mediated 

tendencies for animal or plant material. 

Loughman (2014, p. 20) concluded that 

under natural conditions the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfish likely 

exhibit similar omnivorous tendencies. 

Habitat 

Habitat requirements for these two 

closely related species appear to be 

similar in their respective, separate river 

basins. The Big Sandy crayfish is known 

only from the Big Sandy River basin in 

eastern Kentucky, southwestern 

Virginia, and southern West Virginia; 

the Guyandotte River crayfish is known 

only from the Guyandotte River basin in 

southern West Virginia (Figure 1). Both 

the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte 

Rivers flow in a northerly direction 

where they each join the Ohio River. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Both river basins are in the 

Appalachian Plateaus physiographic 

province, which in this region is 

characterized by rugged, mountainous 

terrain with steep hills and ridges 

dissected by a network of deeply incised 

valleys (Ehlke et al. 1982, pp. 4, 8; 

Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 8). Geologically, 

the area is underlain primarily by 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.000</GPH>
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coals 

(Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 1; Kiesler et al. 

1983, p. 8). The dominant land cover in 

the two basins is forest, with the natural 

vegetation community being 

characterized as mixed mesophytic 

(moderately moist) forest and 

Appalachian oak forest (McNab and 

Avers 1996, section 221E). 

Suitable instream habitat for both 

species is generally described as clean, 

third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 

meters (m) (13 to 66 feet (ft))), fastflowing, permanent streams and rivers 

with unembedded slab boulders on a 

bedrock, cobble, or sand substrate 

(Channell 2004, pp. 21–23; Jezerinac et 

al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 1; 

Loughman 2014, pp. 22–23; Taylor and 

Shuster 2004, p. 124; Thoma 2009, p. 7; 

Thoma 2010, pp. 3–4, 6). Jezerinac et al. 

(1995, p. 170) found that specimens 

were more abundant in pools with 

current than in riffles. Loughman (2013, 

p. 1; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23) 

noted that all historical Guyandotte 

River crayfish locations originally 

maintained rocky substrates with 

abundant slabs and boulders, which is 

supported by the watershed’s 

geomorphology and available habitat 

descriptions from early survey efforts. 

Loughman (2013, p. 2) characterized the 

Guyandotte River crayfish as ‘‘a habitat 

specialist primarily associated with slab 

boulders in the immediate up and 

downstream margins of fast moving 

riffles.’’ However, some information 

indicates adult and juvenile Big Sandy 

crayfish, and presumably Guyandotte 

River crayfish, may use different 

microhabitats within the more 

generalized stream parameters described 

above. In Dry Fork (upper Tug Fork 

drainage, McDowell County, West 

Virginia), a stream described as having 

characteristics approaching those of a 

headwater stream, lacking both fast 

velocity and deep riffles (Loughman 

2014, pp. 9–11), adult Big Sandy 

crayfish specimens were captured from 

under slab boulders in the midchannel, 

fast-moving waters of riffles and runs, 

while juvenile Big Sandy crayfish were 

limited to smaller cobbles and boulders 

in the shallow, slower velocity waters 

near stream banks. Loughman (2014, pp. 

9–11) notes that this habitat partitioning 

between age classes has been observed 

in other Cambarus species. 

Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) noted 

that all occurrences of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

occurred above 457 m (1,500 ft) 

elevation. However, our analyses of both 

species’ location data (both pre- and 

post-Jezerinac et al. 1995) show that all 

known occurrences of the Big Sandy 

crayfish occurred from about 180 to 500 

m (600 to 1,640 ft) elevation, and all 

known occurrences of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish occurred from about 230 

to 520 m (750 to 1,700 ft) elevation. 

Both species also appear to be 

intolerant of excessive sedimentation 

and other pollutants. This statement is 

based on observed habitat 

characteristics from sites that either 

formerly supported either the Big Sandy 

or Guyandotte River crayfish or from 

sites within either of the species’ 

historical ranges that were predicted to 

be suitable for the species, but where 

neither of the species (and in some cases 

no crayfish from any species) were 

observed (Channell 2004, pp. 22–23; 

Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 

2013, p. 6; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 

2010, pp. 3–4). See Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species for additional 

information. 

Summary of Habitat—Suitable habitat 

for both the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish appears to be 

limited to higher elevation, clean, 

medium-sized streams and rivers in the 

upper reaches of the Big Sandy and 

Upper Guyandotte basins, respectively. 

Both species are associated with the 

faster moving water of riffles and runs 

or pools with current. An important 

habitat feature for both species is an 

abundance of large, unembedded slab 

boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock 

stream bottom. Excessive sedimentation 

appears to create unsuitable conditions 

for both the Big Sandy and the 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

Species Distribution and Status 

Historical Range and Distribution 

Results from multiple crayfish 

surveys dating back to 1900 and a 2014 

examination of all existing museum 

specimens indicate that the historical 

range of the Guyandotte River crayfish 

is limited to the Upper Guyandotte 

River basin in West Virginia and that 

the historical range of the Big Sandy 

crayfish is limited to the upper Big 

Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, 

southwest Virginia, and southern West 

Virginia. Within these larger river 

basins, the two species were apparently 

more narrowly distributed to certain 

stream reaches that exhibited the habitat 

characteristics required by the species, 

as discussed in the previous section. 

Evidence of each species’ historical 

distribution is presented below. 

Guyandotte River crayfish— 

Specimens collected from Indian Creek 

in the Upper Guyandotte basin in 

Wyoming County, West Virginia, in 

1900 were the basis for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish’s initial description 

(Faxon 1914, pp. 389–390), and 

additional collections in the basin in 

1947, 1953, and 1971 confirmed the 

species’ presence in Wyoming County 

and added a new record in Logan 

County, West Virginia (Jezerinac et al. 

1995, p. 170; Loughman 2014, p.5). 

From 1987 to 1989, Jezerinac et al. 

(1995, p. 170) conducted a Statewide 

survey of the crayfish of West Virginia, 

and devoted considerable sampling 

effort to the Upper Guyandotte basin 

(Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and 

Wyoming Counties, West Virginia). 

Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) sampled 

13 of the 15 known Guyandotte River 

crayfish locations (as well as 42 other 

potentially suitable sites) in the Upper 

Guyandotte basin and documented the 

species at only two of the known 

historical locations (a single Wyoming 

County site and the Logan County site) 

and reported a new occurrence in 

Wyoming County (Jezerinac et al. 1995, 

p. 170). A 2001 survey of the 15 

historical locations in the Upper 

Guyandotte system failed to locate the 

species at any site (Channell 2004, pp. 

16–21; Jones et al. 2010 entire). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18715 

Big Sandy crayfish—Records of the 

Big Sandy crayfish in the Virginia 

portions of the Big Sandy basin date to 

1937, with a specimen collected from 

the Russell Fork drainage in Dickenson 

County. A series of surveys conducted 

in 1950 confirmed the species’ presence 

in Dickenson County and added an 

occurrence in Buchanan County, 

Virginia. Surveys in 1998–99 collected 

specimens from several locations in 

Dickenson County and added a new 

occurrence record for Buchanan County 

(Loughman 2014, pp. 14–15). In 2001, 

Channell (2004, pp. 21–23) confirmed 

the presence of the species in the Levisa 

Fork drainage in Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties. 

Prior to Thoma (2009, entire), little 

information exists regarding the species’ 

status in Kentucky. The earliest 

reference of the species was Hobbs 

(1969, pp. 134–135), who provided no 

specific collection records but did 

provide a shaded range map including 

portions of the Levisa Fork, Russell 

Fork, and Tug Fork basins as part of the 

species’ range. A survey of the region by 

the U.S. National Museum in 1972–74 

did not record the species’ presence 

(Loughman 2014, p. 11). The first 

confirmed specimens from Kentucky 

were collected in 1991, from two 

locations in the Russell Fork in Pike 

County, and in 1998, another survey 

confirmed the species’ presence in this 

river (Loughman 2014, p. 11). In 1999, 

the species was found in the Levisa Fork 

in Floyd County, and in 2002, the 

species was found in Knox Creek (Tug 

Fork drainage) in Pike County 

(Loughman 2014, p. 11). Based on his 

best professional judgment, Thoma 

(2010, p. 6) concludes that prior to the 

widespread habitat degradation in the 

region (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species—Factor A), the 

species likely occupied suitable streams 

throughout the basin, from the Levisa 

Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the 

headwaters. Evidence that the species 

once occupied suitable habitat down to 

the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence is 

also provided by Fetzner and Thoma 

(2011, pp. 9–10), who found that the 

pattern of certain genetic markers in Big 

Sandy crayfish specimens collected 

from the now isolated Russell Fork, 

Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork watersheds 

indicate that the species once had a 

significantly larger range than it 

currently occupies. In his 2014 report 

describing the species, Thoma et al. 

(2014, p. 12) reported the species as 

endemic to the Levisa Fork, Tug Fork, 

and Russell Fork watersheds in the 

upper Big Sandy basin. 

There are three known occurrences of 

the Big Sandy crayfish in West Virginia, 

all occurring in 2009 or later and from 

McDowell County (Loughman 2014, pp. 

9–11). See the Current Range and 

Distribution section below for additional 

information. 

Erroneous or Dubious Records 

Collections of crayfish specimens 

from the region are held at the United 

States National Museum, Eastern 

Kentucky University, Ohio State 

University, West Liberty University, and 

the Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries. Several vouchered 

specimens in some of these collections 

were labeled as Cambarus veteranus 

and were reported to have originated 

from river basins other than the Upper 

Guyandotte or Big Sandy. Upon further 

examination these were found to be 

erroneous or dubious records. Jezerinac 

et al. (1995, p. 170) examined 

specimens identified as C. veteranus 

collected from the Greenbrier, Little 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.001</GPH>
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Kanawha, and Elk River basins in 1948, 

and determined that they were 

misidentified C. robustus and C. 

elkensis. Subsequent analysis of these 

specimens by Loughman (2014, p. 16) 

determined that the Greenbrier River 

specimens were actually C. smilax and 

that the Elk River specimens were in 

fact Big Sandy crayfish (C. callainus) 

(identification based on the 

morphological characteristics described 

previously). However, Loughman (2014, 

p. 16) questioned the recorded origin of 

this collection, noting that the Elk River 

and Big Sandy basins are separated by 

hundreds of stream kilometers and that 

thorough sampling in the Elk River 

basin by Jezerinac et al. (1995, pp. 170– 

171) and Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. 

64) were negative for the species. Both 

Loughman and Jezerinac et al. (1995) 

surmise that neither C. veteranus nor C. 

callainus is native to the Elk River basin 

(Loughman 2014, p. 16). 

Also questionable are specimens 

collected in 1900, reportedly from Crane 

Creek in the New River basin in Mercer 

County, West Virginia. While Loughman 

(2014, p. 17) did confirm that these 

specimens are Big Sandy crayfish 

(Cambarus callainus), he concluded that 

the collection location was likely not 

‘‘Crane Creek’’ in the New River system, 

but the identically named ‘‘Crane 

Creek’’ in McDowell County, West 

Virginia, part of the Big Sandy River 

basin. Loughman (2014, p. 17) notes that 

several surveys of the New River’s Crane 

Creek (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; 

Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 64) 

confirmed the presence of other 

Cambarus species in this creek, 

indicating habitat conditions were 

favorable for the genus, but failed to 

produce any Big Sandy crayfish. In 

Loughman’s best professional judgment, 

the species is not native to the New 

River basin (Loughman 2014, p. 17). 

The Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries possesses a collection 

of specimens from the New River 

Watershed that were originally 

identified as Cambarus veteranus; these 

specimens were later determined by 

Thoma to be misidentified and are 

actually C. sciotensis (Loughman 2014, 

p. 17). 

Taylor and Shuster (2004) report a 

single 1967 Cambarus veteranus 

collection from the Kentucky River 

basin in Estill County, Kentucky. 

However, subsequent survey efforts in 

the area have been negative for C. 

veteranus and C. callainus. In addition, 

the Kentucky River basin has no direct 

connectivity with either the Big Sandy 

or Upper Guyandotte River basins—the 

mouths of the Kentucky River and the 

Big Sandy River are separated by more 

than 230 kilometers (km) (143 miles 

(mi)) of the Ohio River mainstem and 

the mouth of the Guyandotte River is 

separated by about 255 km (158 mi). 

Therefore, the authors concluded that 

the Estill County record was dubious. 

After reviewing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

historical range of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish (Cambarus veteranus) is limited 

to the Upper Guyandotte River basin in 

West Virginia, including Wyoming 

County and parts of Logan and Mingo 

Counties. We conclude that the 

historical range of the Big Sandy 

crayfish (C. callainus) is limited to the 

upper Big Sandy River basin (Levisa 

Fork, Tug Fork, and Russell Fork 

watersheds) in eastern Kentucky (Pike 

and Floyd Counties where the species 

has been confirmed, and perhaps 

Johnson, Martin, and Lawrence 

Counties based on the watershed 

boundary and stream connectivity), 

southwestern Virginia (Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties and parts of Wise 

County), and southern West Virginia 

(McDowell and Mingo Counties). 

Current Range and Distribution 

The best available scientific 

information indicates that both the 

Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big 

Sandy crayfish initially occurred in 

suitable stream habitat throughout their 

respective historical ranges (Loughman, 

pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 

2010, p. 10; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 2). 

However, by the late 1800s, commercial 

logging and coal mining in the region 

had begun to severely alter the 

landscape and affect the streams and 

rivers (Eller 1982, pp. 93–111, 128–162). 

These widespread and intensive timber 

and mining enterprises, coupled with 

rapid human population growth that led 

to increased development in the narrow 

valley riparian zones, sewage 

discharges, road construction, and 

similar activities throughout both the 

Big Sandy and the Upper Guyandotte 

basins, degraded the aquatic systems 

and apparently extirpated both crayfish 

species from many subwatersheds 

within much of their respective 

historical ranges (discussed below in 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species). The best available information 

on each species’ current range and 

distribution, based on survey data 

collected since 2004, is presented 

below. 

Guyandotte River crayfish—The 

current range of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish appears to be limited to the 

midreach of a single stream, Pinnacle 

Creek, in Wyoming County, West 

Virginia (Figure 3). In 2001, targeted 

sampling of the 9 streams (15 individual 

sites) where the species had previously 

been confirmed failed to produce the 

species (Channell 2004, pp. 17–18), and 

it was theorized that the species might 

be extirpated from West Virginia (Jones 

et al. 2010, entire). In 2009, 

considerable sampling effort was 

dedicated toward assessing the species’ 

status in West Virginia with 30 likely 

sites being sampled in the Upper 

Guyandotte basin. Thirteen of these 

sites were historical locations, and the 

remaining 17 sites were randomly and 

nonrandomly selected sites meeting the 

basic habitat characteristics for the 

species (e.g., size, gradient, bottom 

substrate) (Loughman 2013, pp. 4–5). 

This effort succeeded in collecting two 

specimens from one of the historical 

locations, Pinnacle Creek (Loughman 

2013, pp. 5–6). In 2011, Loughman 

(2014, p.10) returned to the Pinnacle 

Creek site and collected five specimens. 

In 2014, Loughman (2014, pp. 10–11) 

surveyed a different downstream 

location at Pinnacle Creek but was 

unable to confirm the species’ presence; 

he was not able to survey the historical 

Pinnacle Creek site during this 2014 

effort because of time constraints. See 

Table 1a for all known stream 

occurrences of the species. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18717 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.002</GPH> EP07AP15.003</GPH>

mi 

Figure 3.-Survey history for the Guyandotte River crayfish (1988 to 2014). The 

open (clear) circles indicate likely suitable sites that were surveyed but were 

negative for the species. The closed (dark) circles indicate known historical 

locations; however, all but one of these occurrences has been negative for the species 

since the mid-20th century. The large circle indicates the extant Pinnacle Creek 

population. 

Table 1a.-All known stream occurrences of the Guyandotte River crayfish (some 

streams may have multiple survey locations). An asterisk indicates that the 

surveyed location is different than the earlier location. 

\\' ater5hed Stream 

Indian Greek 

Little HuffCreek 

Pinnacle Creek 

State 

ht 

Detected 

Last 

Sune"l!'ed 

Table lb.-All known stream occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish (some streams 

may have multiple survey locations). An asterisk indicates that the surveyed 

location is different than the earlier location. 
18718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Big Sandy crayfish—In 2009 and 

2010, Thoma (2010, p. 6) conducted a 

survey of likely Big Sandy crayfish 

locations to determine the range of the 

species in Kentucky, sampling sites in 

Pike (n=15), Floyd (n=10), and Martin 

(n=2) Counties. The Big Sandy crayfish 

was confirmed at 10 sites in Pike 

County and 1 in Floyd County. Broken 

down by watershed, of the 18 likely 

sites sampled in the Levisa Fork portion 

of the basin, the species was found at 8 

sites; 2 in the mainstem of the Levisa 

Fork, 3 in Shelby Creek, 3 in Russell 

Fork, and 1 in Elkhorn Creek. In the Tug 

Fork portion of the Big Sandy basin, 

eight likely sites were surveyed, with 

the species being confirmed at single 

sites in three tributary streams near their 

respective confluences with the 

mainstem of the Tug Fork (Figure 4). 

In 2007 and 2012, the Kentucky 

Division of Water (KDOW; 2014) noted 

two occurrences of the Big Sandy 

crayfish in Pike County, Kentucky. In 

2007, the species was reported in the 

Russell Fork near the Virginia border, 

the same area from which the species 

was reported in 1991 and 1998 (as 

discussed previously). In 2012, the 

species was again confirmed at this 

location and at a site in Shelby Creek, 

from where the species was known 

since Thoma’s 2009 survey work 

(discussed above). 

From 2007 to 2009, Thoma (2009, pp. 

2, 10) conducted a comprehensive 

survey of the Big Sandy River basin of 

Virginia and confirmed the species’ 

continued presence in Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties, and added a new 

occurrence in Wise County. Buchanan 

County is drained primarily by the 

Levisa Fork tributary system; however, 

the southwestern portion of the county 

is drained by the Russell Fork system, 

and a section of the north portion is 

drained by the Tug Fork system. Thoma 

sampled 16 likely Big Sandy crayfish 

sites in the Levisa Fork system in 

Buchanan County and found the species 

at 5 sites, all in a single stream, Dismal 

Creek. One site was sampled in the Tug 

Fork drainage of Buchanan County, but 

the species was not found. In the 

Russell Fork drainage of Buchanan, 

Dickenson and Wise Counties, the Big 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18719 

Sandy crayfish was noted at 16 of the 24 

sites surveyed. Thoma also reported the 

species’ presence in the Russell Fork 

system in Buchanan County, finding the 

species at both of the sites sampled. 

However, it is important to note that 

two of the streams (the Pound River and 

Cranes Nest River) that were positive for 

the species (at five individual sites) are 

physically isolated from each other and 

from the remainder of the Russell Fork 

(and wider) system by the Flannagan 

Dam and Reservoir (completed in 1964). 

In October 2014, the Virginia 

Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

surveyed a site in the Open Fork 

(Russell Fork system) in Dickenson 

County and confirmed the presence of 

the Big Sandy crayfish at that location 

(VDOT 2014, entire). 

In 2009, Loughman (2014, pp. 8–11) 

surveyed 22 likely sites in the upper 

Tug Fork basin in McDowell and Mingo 

Counties, West Virginia, with the 

species being found at 1 site in Dry 

Fork. This was the first observation of 

the species in the West Virginia section 

of the Big Sandy basin. In 2011, 

Loughman confirmed the species’ 

presence at the Dry Fork site and 

reported a new occurrence in the Tug 

Fork mainstem. In 2014, Loughman 

again confirmed the species’ presence at 

the Dry Fork site and reported a new 

location 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther 

upstream in the Dry Fork. This is the 

farthest upstream occurrence in the Tug 

Fork drainage of West Virginia 

(Loughman 2014, p. 11). See Table 1b 

for all stream occurrences of the Big 

Sandy crayfish. 

Population Estimates and Status 

Data to inform a rangewide 

population estimate for either the Big 

Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River 

crayfish are sparse, but historical 

evidence, observations from existing 

healthier sites, and expert opinion 

suggest that, prior to the significant 

land-disturbing activities that began in 

the late 1800s (see Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species—Factor A), these 

species were the dominant tertiary 

burrowing crayfish occupying the 

previously described habitat type 

throughout their respective ranges 

(Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 

2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10). Loughman 

(pers. comm., October 24, 2014) 

surmises that, within each suitable 

stream reach (e.g., the riffles and runs of 

third order or larger streams with a 

sand, gravel, or bedrock substrate and 

abundant unembedded slab boulders), 

each large slab boulder in midstream 

likely harbored an adult specimen. This 

is based on his observations of the 

population densities of similar streamdwelling Cambarus species, historical 

accounts, and the results of Thoma’s 

(2009) surveys for C. callainus in 

Virginia. It is also reasonable to 

conclude based on the historical range 

of each species, that the instream habitat 

conditions (including an absence of 

physical obstacles such as dams) were 

once conducive to the movement of 

individuals between subpopulations or 

to the colonization (or recolonization) of 

unoccupied sites. This movement (via 

downstream drift or active upstream 

migration) has been documented in 

other stream crayfish (Kerby et al. 2005, 

p. 407; Momot 1966, pp. 158–159), and 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species and the flexibility of 

individuals to occupy or abandon 

different sites as environmental 

conditions change. 

Guyandotte River crayfish—While the 

collection methods and level of effort is 

not described for the early surveys, it is 

notable that on August 16, 1900, a 

researcher visited the Upper Guyandotte 

River and was able to collect 25 

Guyandotte River crayfish specimens 

from Indian Creek and 15 specimens 

from Little Indian Creek in Wyoming 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.005</GPH>
18720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

County, West Virginia (Faxon 1914, p. 

390; Loughman 2014, p. 5). These sites 

are approximately 5 km (3 mi) apart, 

indicating the historical relative 

abundance of the species and providing 

an indication of the historical ‘‘catch per 

unit effort’’ (CPUE) discussed in detail 

below. A subsequent survey of Indian 

Creek in 1947 produced six specimens, 

and since that time, no single site in the 

Upper Guyandotte basin has produced 

more than five individual specimens 

during a survey. 

The best available information 

indicates that, of the nine streams where 

the Guyandotte River crayfish had 

previously been confirmed, it persists in 

only one: Pinnacle Creek. The R.D. 

Bailey Dam (completed in 1980) and 

Lake, on the Guyandotte River near the 

town of Justice, West Virginia, 

physically isolates two of the streams 

with historical records of the species 

(Huff Creek and Little Huff Creek) from 

the remaining seven subwatersheds 

known to have harbored the species, 

including Pinnacle Creek. The species 

was confirmed in Little Huff Creek in 

1971, and Huff Creek in 1989 (Jezerinac 

et al. 1995, p. 170), and while survey 

efforts in 2001 and 2009 failed to find 

the species in either creek, Loughman 

did remark that unlike most streams in 

the basin, in 2009 Huff Creek appeared 

to have habitat conducive to the species 

(Channell 2004, p. 17; Loughman 2013, 

pp. 5–6, 9). 

Since 1978, four Pinnacle Creek sites 

have been surveyed for the species. One 

of these sites is located near the creek’s 

confluence with the Guyandotte River, 

and the other three are located 

approximately 21 km (13 mi) upstream 

of this site. The three upstream sites are 

within about 1.6-km (1.0-mi) stream 

distance of each other and were 

surveyed in 1988, 2001, 2009, and 2011, 

with one, zero, two, and five individual 

Guyandotte River crayfish reported in 

each respective year (Channell 2004, pp. 

16–17, Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; 

Loughman, 2013, pp. 6–10). The site 

near the confluence was surveyed in 

1978 and in 2014 but was negative for 

the species. In addition, during the 2014 

survey, Loughman (2014, pp. 10–11) did 

not find crayfish of any species. 

Big Sandy crayfish—In the Big Sandy 

basin of Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 10) 

noted apparently healthy populations of 

the Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell 

Fork drainage in Dickenson and parts of 

Buchanan and Wise Counties. Of the 18 

sites sampled in 8 individual streams 

that harbored the species, a total of 344 

individuals were observed (an average 

of 19 individuals per site). Two of the 

occupied streams (Pound River and 

Cranes Nest River) (five individual sites) 

are physically isolated from each other 

and from the rest of the Russell Fork 

system (and remainder of the species’ 

range) by the Flannagan Dam and 

Reservoir. 

In the upper Levisa Fork drainage of 

Buchanan County, Virginia, the species 

was found only in a single stream: 

Dismal Creek. During separate sampling 

events in 2007, 2008, and 2009, 33 

specimens were collected from 4 sites (3 

to 12 individuals per site) in Dismal 

Creek. The upper Levisa Fork (including 

Dismal Creek) is physically isolated 

from the rest of the species’ range by the 

Fishtrap Dam and Lake (completed in 

1969), located on the Levisa Fork about 

4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream of the Levisa 

Fork-Russell Fork confluence in 

Kentucky. 

In the Kentucky portion of the Big 

Sandy crayfish’s range, Thoma (2010, p. 

6) found the species in very low 

numbers (one to two individuals) at two 

sites in the lower portion of the Levisa 

Fork and described the population as 

stressed and in poor condition (Thoma 

2010, p. 6). He also found the species in 

two tributaries to the Levisa Fork: 

Shelby Creek and Russell Fork. 

Specimens were collected at 3 sites in 

Shelby Creek, with the farthest 

downstream site producing 12 

individuals and the farthest upstream 

site producing 4. The author described 

these populations as ‘‘very healthy,’’ but 

noted that the middle sampling site 

produced only two specimens. In the 

Russell Fork upstream of Shelby Creek, 

7 specimens were collected from 1 site 

and 20 from another; this section was 

also described as a ‘‘healthy’’ 

population. Thoma did not detect the 

species in the mainstem of the Levisa 

Fork between Shelby Creek and the 

Virginia State line. However, the 

previously mentioned Fishtrap Dam and 

Lake makes much of this stretch of river 

unsuitable for the species and isolates 

the Big Sandy crayfish population in the 

lower Levisa Fork system from the 

upper reaches, including the only 

remaining population in Dismal Creek, 

Virginia. 

In the Tug Fork drainage of Kentucky, 

Thoma (2010, p. 6) surveyed seven sites 

and confirmed the species in low 

numbers (one, three, and seven 

individuals) at three sites. Those sites 

that produced specimens were all 

located in tributary streams near their 

confluences with the Tug Fork 

mainstem. In 2009, Loughman and 

Welsh (as reported in Loughman 2014, 

pp. 8–11) surveyed 24 likely sites in the 

Tug Fork basin in West Virginia, and 

observed the species at one site, 

collecting three individuals from Dry 

Creek, an upper Tug Fork tributary. In 

2011, Loughman returned to the area 

and, with the same level of sampling 

effort, recovered nine specimens from 

Dry Creek and eight individuals from a 

site in the Tug Fork mainstem. The Tug 

Fork site had produced zero specimens 

in 2009. In 2014, Loughman again 

confirmed the species’ presence at the 

Dry Fork site, collecting 11 individuals, 

and reported a new occurrence 25.8 km 

(16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry 

Fork, where he collected seven 

individuals. See Tables 2a and 2b for a 

summary of the survey results for the 

Big Sandy crayfish (2006 to 2014) by 

watershed boundaries and by State 

boundaries. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18721 

To better compare the status of the Big 

Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfish populations among existing 

sites, Loughman (2014, pp. 8–15) 

standardized the results of his and 

Thoma’s (2009; 2010) survey work, 

which used the same sampling 

techniques, to the common metric CPUE 

(i.e., ‘‘crayfish per hour of searching’’). 

The results indicate that, compared to 

the seemingly healthy population of Big 

Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork 

system (including the Pound and Cranes 

Nest Rivers), where the average CPUE 

ranged from 12 to 21.7 crayfish/hour 

(hr), the remaining populations of Big 

Sandy crayfish in the Levisa Fork and 

Tug Fork drainages, and the single 

remaining Guyandotte River crayfish 

population in Pinnacle Creek, are 

depressed, ranging from 1 to 11 

crayfish/hr in the Levisa Fork and Tug 

Fork, and 2 to 2.5 crayfish/hr in the 

Guyandotte (see Table 3). The data also 

illustrate an apparent decrease in 

abundance of the Big Sandy crayfish 

from upstream waters (i.e., Virginia) to 

downstream waters (i.e., Kentucky). 

Loughman (2014, pp. 13, 15) pooled the 

data from all sites sampled in Kentucky 

and Virginia (including the sites that 

were negative for the species) and 

determined the average CPUEs for the 

Big Sandy crayfish in those States to be 

1.9 and 3.83, respectively. The pattern 

is stark for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish, as the species is known to 

persist in only one upstream 

subwatershed, Pinnacle Creek, with a 

CPUE of 2.0 to 2.5 crayfish/hr; all other 

likely sites downstream of this were 

negative for the species (i.e., zero 

crayfish/hr). The Guyandotte River 

crayfish has apparently been extirpated 

from all waters downstream of Pinnacle 

Creek. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.006</GPH>
18722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Population Estimates/

Status—Multiple survey results dating 

back to 1900 and the best professional 

judgment of crayfish experts indicate a 

significant reduction in the Guyandotte 

River crayfish’s historical range and a 

likely reduction in the Big Sandy 

crayfish’s historical range. Specifically, 

the best available information indicates 

a contraction in range from the lower 

reaches of each watershed to the higher 

elevation streams. Based on a reduction 

in CPUE and a reduction in the number 

of observed specimens, the populations 

of both the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish appear to be 

depressed, and critically so for the 

latter. Neither species is particularly 

cryptic. Multiple researchers have 

demonstrated that, given suitable 

habitat conditions, individuals of each 

species are readily located, collected, 

and identified. Survey efforts since 2004 

have adequately covered the ranges of 

both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte 

River crayfishes; therefore, if 

individuals of either species occupied a 

surveyed site it is reasonable to 

conclude that their presence would 

have been noted. While it is possible 

that future survey efforts could identify 

additional occurrences of either the Big 

Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

the best available information indicates 

a reduction in distribution and 

abundance for both species. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on any 

of the following five factors: (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. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Based on the best available 

information, and as previously 

described, the Guyandotte River 

crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish 

exist only in suitable stream habitats in 

the Upper Guyandotte basin of southern 

West Virginia and the Big Sandy basin 

of eastern Kentucky, southwestern 

Virginia, and southern West Virginia, 

respectively. Within the historical range 

of each species, aquatic habitat has been 

severely degraded by past and ongoing 

human activities (Channell 2004, pp. 

16–23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; 

Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2014, 

pp. 10–11; Loughman and Welsh 2013, 

p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, 

pp. 3–4). Visual evidence of habitat 

degradation, such as excessive bottom 

sedimentation, discolored sediments, or 

stream channelization and dredging, is 

often obvious, while other water quality 

issues such as changes in pH, low 

dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, high 

dissolved solids, high conductivity, 

high metals concentrations, and changes 

in other chemical parameters are less 

visually obvious. These perturbations 

may occur singly or in combination, and 

may vary temporally from chronic 

issues to acute episodic events. 

Degradation of the aquatic habitat can 

affect the stream biota and community 

structure in multiple ways. Some 

conditions can cause direct mortality to 

stream organisms (e.g., exceedingly high 

or low pH, exceedingly low DO), while 

others such as sedimentation may make 

the stream uninhabitable for some 

species (by removing access to shelter or 

breeding substrates), but not 

uninhabitable for other species. Within 

the range of each species, water quality 

monitoring reports, most recently from 

the KDOW (2013, entire), the EPA 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18723 

(2004, entire), the Virginia Department 

of Environmental Quality (VADEQ 

2012, entire), and the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP 2014, entire), have linked these 

widespread and often interrelated direct 

and indirect stressors to coal mining 

(and abandoned mine land (AML)), 

commercial timber harvesting, 

residential and commercial 

development, roads, and sewage 

discharges. 

Historical context—The initial 

degradation of the rivers and streams 

within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes was a result 

of industrial-scale forestry and coal 

mining. By the late 1800s, the timber 

resources in the Northeast and Great 

Lakes region were in decline, and 

companies began focusing on the largely 

intact forests of the southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Initially the 

cutting was selective and only the most 

valuable trees were taken, but beginning 

in about 1900 and continuing into the 

1920s, the cutting became more 

intensive, widespread, and 

indiscriminate. During this same period, 

the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, 

southwestern Virginia, and southern 

West Virginia began to be mined and 

railroads expanded throughout the 

region to transport the lumber and coal 

to outside markets (Forest History 

Society 2008, entire). Since this period, 

many thousands of individual 

underground and surface mines have 

been constructed throughout the region, 

and extensive areas have been disturbed 

(Kentucky Surface Mining Viewer 2015; 

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, 

and Energy (VDMME) 2015; West 

Virginia Geological and Economic 

Survey 2015). Figure 5 provides 

historical coal extraction data for those 

counties making up the core ranges of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. To date, the cumulative 

tonnage of coal extracted from these 

counties, standardized by area, ranges 

from 1.16 million to 2.78 million tons of 

coal per square mile (Virginia Energy 

Patterns and Trends 2015; Kentucky 

Geological Survey (KGS) 2015; West 

Virginia Office of Miners’ Health Safety 

and Training 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 

2014). 

The regional timber and coal booms 

led to a concurrent increase in human 

population as people moved into the 

area for work. Between 1900 and 1950, 

the human populations of the five 

counties that constitute the core ranges 

of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes increased by a range of 300 

percent to more than 500 percent 

(Figure 6). And because of the rugged 

topography of the region, most of the 

main roads, railroads, and residential 

and commercial development was (and 

remains) confined to the narrow valley 

bottoms, through which the region’s 

streams and rivers also flow. This 

pattern of development resulted in the 

destruction of riparian habitat and the 

direct discharge of sewage, refuse, and 

sediments into the adjacent waters (Eller 

1982, pp. 162, 184–186). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.008</GPH>
18724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

While most of the residential and 

commercial development was, and 

remains, concentrated in the valley 

bottoms, the timber cutting and coal 

mining operations occurred throughout, 

including the ridges and steep 

mountainsides, resulting in severe soil 

erosion and sedimentation of the 

region’s streams and rivers. An account 

from the 1920s described the regional 

landscape as being ‘‘scarred and ugly, 

and streams ran brown with garbage and 

acid runoff from the mines’’ (Eller 1982, 

p. 162). While we are not aware of 

rigorous water quality or habitat studies 

from this early period, a U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) report on the coal 

resources in Pike County, Kentucky (Big 

Sandy basin) provides evidence that by 

1937, habitat conditions conducive to 

the Big Sandy crayfish were likely 

degraded, noting that throughout the 

county the clearing of timber from the 

hillsides and subsequent attempts at 

cultivating the steep slopes caused 

severe soil erosion into the basin’s 

streams ‘‘keeping them muddy and 

partly filling their channels’’ (Hunt et al. 

1937, p. 7). Because timber cutting and 

coal mining were ubiquitous in the 

region, it is reasonable to conclude that 

these conditions were common 

throughout the historical ranges of the 

Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfishes and that this habitat 

degradation led to the extirpation of the 

species from much of their historical 

ranges. 

Current conditions—The KDOW 

reported that in the Big Sandy basin in 

Pike County (Tug Fork and Levisa Fork 

drainages), 30 streams or stream 

segments (about 285 km (177 mi) of 

stream length) are impaired, meaning 

they violate water quality standards or 

do not meet one or more of their 

designated uses (e.g., human health, 

aquatic life) (KDOW 2013, appendix E). 

Of these, 25 are listed for aquatic habitat 

impairment, 9 for coliform bacteria 

(indicators of sewage discharges), and 1 

for a fish consumption advisory due to 

chemical contamination (KDOW 2013, 

appendix E). Many of the streams have 

multiple impairments. Of those streams 

listed for aquatic habitat impairment, 

coal mining is cited as a cause in all but 

two cases (which are listed as 

‘‘unknown’’). According to the report, 

the next most commonly cited cause of 

stream habitat degradation is 

sedimentation, which is associated with 

mining, stream channelization, urban 

runoff, road runoff, and silviculture 

(which are also cited individually as 

sources of impairment). The WVDEP 

reported that in the Tug Fork drainage 

in West Virginia, 47 streams or stream 

segments (about 523 km (325 mi) of 

stream length) are impaired, primarily 

for ‘‘biological impairment’’ (as 

measured by the WVSCI), coliform 

bacteria, and selenium (a toxic metal) 

(WVDEP 2012, pp. 32–33). 

In the Big Sandy basin of Virginia, the 

VADEQ reported that 25 streams, stream 

segments, or stream systems (about 475 

km (295 mi) of stream length) were 

impaired. Impairment assessments for 

aquatic life are based on measures such 

as benthic macroinvertebrate 

community structure or water 

temperature and for recreational use 

based on measures such as Escherichia 

coli and fecal coliform bacteria 

contamination (e.g., sewage) (VADEQ 

2014, pp. 1098–1124). The primary 

causes of these impairments are listed as 

coal mining (n=5), rural residential 

development (n=12), forestry (n=1), or 

unknown (n=7). Additionally, more 

than 212 km (138 mi) of the Knox Creek 

(Tug Fork drainage) and Levisa Fork 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18725 

systems are impaired, the assessment of 

which is based on a fish consumption 

advisory due to chemical 

contamination. 

Water quality monitoring data for the 

Upper Guyandotte basin indicate that 62 

streams (362 km (225 mi) of stream 

length) in the basin are impaired. Fortyfour streams are listed for biological 

impairment, 14 streams exceed the 

water quality standard for selenium, and 

4 streams are listed for fecal coliform 

bacteria (WVDEP 2012, pp. 28, 42–44). 

Although the specific sources of these 

impairments are listed as ‘‘unknown,’’ a 

2004 report by the EPA (2004, entire) 

links the metals and pH impairments to 

coal mining-related activities, including 

AML drainage, and links the fecal 

coliform impairments to ‘‘urban and 

residential runoff, leaking sanitary 

sewers, failing septic systems, straight 

pipe discharges, grazing livestock, 

runoff from cropland, and wildlife’’ 

(EPA 2004, p. 2). 

Water quality information appears to 

be correlated with the presence or 

absence of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. For example, during their 1988 

and 1989 surveys for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish at 13 of the 15 known 

locations for the species (as well as 42 

other potentially suitable sites) in the 

Upper Guyandotte basin, Jezerinac et al. 

(1995, p. 171) a noted an absence of the 

species in many otherwise suitable 

streams that displayed visible evidence 

of sewage, sedimentation, and coal 

fines. 

In 2001, Channell (2004, pp. 16–21) 

surveyed and assessed habitat 

conditions at each of the 15 historical 

Guyandotte River crayfish locations. 

Habitat quality was assessed and scored 

per the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) rapid bioassessment 

protocol (RBP) (Barbour et al. 1999, 

entire) and the West Virginia Stream 

Condition Index (WVSCI) (Tetra Tech, 

Inc. 2000, entire). The RBP (see http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/monitoring/rsl/

bioassessment/index.cfm; last accessed 

March 3, 2015) is ‘‘an integrated 

assessment, comparing habitat (e.g., 

physical structure, flow regime), water 

quality and biological measures with 

empirically defined reference 

conditions (via actual reference sites, 

historical data, and/or modeling or 

extrapolation)’’ (Barbour et al. 1999, 

chapter 2) using benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblages (see 

http://www.dep.wv.gov/wwe/watershed/

bio_fish/pages/bio_fish.aspx#wvwvsci; 

last accessed March 3, 2015). The index 

allows comparison of assessed streams 

to reference streams that contain little to 

no human disturbance. Although the 

RBP and WVSCI use macroinvertebrates 

instead of crayfish as indicators, the 

WVSCI is a valid screening tool for 

water quality assessment because 

macroinvertebrates are sensitive to 

changes in water quality due to their 

limited mobility and short life span 

(e.g., sensitive life stages respond 

quickly to deteriorating conditions). 

Macroinvertebrates are also abundant in 

most streams and easy to sample, and 

are food for other stream biota (Barbour 

et al. 1999, chapter 3). The WVSCI was 

the best available screening tool at the 

time of the 2001 crayfish surveys and is 

a standard measure used to comply with 

the monitoring requirements of the 

CWA. Of five crayfish species native to 

the basin (the presence of each having 

been confirmed in 1988 and 1989 by 

Jezerinac et al. (1995)), two species 

(Cambarus veteranus and C. robustus) 

were not detected at any site during this 

effort. Four of the historical sites 

produced no species in the genus 

Cambarus (e.g., crayfish of the same 

genus as C. veteranus). Results of the 

habitat assessment indicated that 7 of 15 

sites were ‘‘impaired’’ per the EPA 

protocol, with 3 sites also being 

‘‘impaired’’ per the WVSCI definition. 

Impairment indicates that habitat 

conditions at these sites exhibited some 

level of degradation, as compared to 

high-quality reference streams in the 

region. 

In 2009, Pinnacle Creek was the only 

site in the Upper Guyandotte system 

confirmed to still harbor the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. This site is located in a 

mostly forested floodplain and was 

characterized as having coal fines and 

moderate sedimentation but with an 

abundance of unembedded slab 

boulders in both riffles and runs 

(Loughman 2013, p. 6). At another 

historical site, Huff Creek, the species 

had been reported as ‘‘moderately 

abundant’’ in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 

1995). However in 2009, while the 

habitat appeared conducive to the 

species, Loughman (2013, p. 6) did not 

observe the species in Huff Creek. Based 

on personal observation, Loughman 

(2013, pp. 6, 9) concluded that the 

Guyandotte River crayfish was 

eliminated from Huff Creek by channel 

bulldozing in the early 2000s, and 

perhaps chemical inputs from upstream 

coal mines. 

In association with her study of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish population, 

Channell (2004, pp. 21–23) also 

surveyed suitable locations in the Levisa 

Fork system (Big Sandy basin) in 

Virginia. Big Sandy crayfish were 

confirmed at three of the six sites 

surveyed, with the author noting that 

the species was found under large rocks 

(greater than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) across) in 

streams from 4 to 15 m (13 to 49 ft) wide 

and without coal fines in the substrate. 

While RBP scores for the six sites did 

not indicate impairment, the author 

noted that the three streams where the 

Big Sandy crayfishes were not observed 

were included on the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters as a result 

of damming, urban influence, mining 

activities, or sewage (Channell 2004, pp. 

22–23). 

Thoma (2009, p. 7 and 2010, pp. 

3–4) examined the relationship of 

Cambarus callainus abundance and 

various habitat parameters in Kentucky 

and Virginia, and correlated his results 

with several habitat variables at each 

site, quantified using the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 

(QHEI) (Ohio EPA 2006, entire). The 

QHEI ‘‘is a physical habitat index 

designed to provide an empirical, 

quantified evaluation of the general lotic 

macrohabitat characteristics that are 

important to fish communities’’ (Ohio 

EPA 2006, p. 3). The habitat variables 

captured in the QHEI include substrate 

quality, instream cover, riparian zone 

and bank erosion, and pool/glide and 

riffle/run quality (Thoma 2009, p. 7). At 

sample sites in Virginia, he found Big 

Sandy crayfish numbers positively 

correlated with higher quality habitat, as 

measured by the QHEI, and negatively 

correlated with pollution, fine bottom 

sediments, and stream gradient (Thoma 

2009, p. 7). A similar analysis of the 

species’ status in Kentucky supported 

his findings from Virginia that the Big 

Sandy crayfish ‘‘was most strongly 

associated with clean, third order or 

larger streams, low in bedload 

sediments, with moderate gradient, and 

an abundance of boulder/cobble 

substrate’’ (Thoma 2010, p. 3). The 

Kentucky data indicated a strong 

positive correlation between Big Sandy 

crayfish numbers and general habitat 

quality (i.e., QHEI), riffle quality, and 

percent boulders. A site’s riffle quality 

and riffle embeddedness (bottom 

sedimentation) were the best correlates 

of the species’ abundance (Thoma 2010, 

p. 4). 

In 2009 and 2011, Loughman and 

Welsh (2013) surveyed specifically for 

the species in the Upper Guyandotte 

River basin, Tug Fork basin (Big Sandy 

River basin), and the Bluestone River 

basin (a tributary of the New River) in 

West Virginia. Results of this intensive 

effort (69 sites surveyed in 2009) 

indicated that most sites exhibited 

excessive sedimentation and embedded 

slab boulders, or had been channelized 

and were devoid of large boulders 

(Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Loughman 2013, p. 6). Loughman (2013, 

p. 6) also reported that most surveyed 

sites harbored other native crayfish 

species, with Cambarus theepiensis, a 

newly described Cambarus species 

associated with lower gradient streams 

dominated by depositional bottom 

substrate (e.g., finer substrates) and 

fewer slab boulders, being common in 

the region’s streams. In these situations, 

C. theepiensis has been observed 

sheltering in simple burrows in the 

stream bottom or stream banks. Neither 

the Big Sandy crayfish nor the 

Guyandotte River crayfish has been 

observed exhibiting this sheltering 

behavior (Loughman et al. 2013, p. 70). 

Coal mining—The past and ongoing 

effects of coal mining in the 

Appalachian Basin are well 

documented, and both underground and 

surface mines are reported to degrade 

water quality and stream habitats 

(Bernhardt et al. 2012, entire; Demchak 

et al. 2004, entire; Hartman et al. 2005, 

pp. 94–100; Hopkins et al. 2013, entire; 

Lindberg et al. 2011, entire; Matter and 

Ney 1981, pp. 67–70; Merriam et al. 

2011, entire; Palmer and Hondula 2014, 

entire; Pond et al. 2008, entire; Pond 

2011, entire; Sams and Beer 2000, 

entire; USEPA 2011, entire; Wang et al. 

2013, entire; Williams et al. 1996, p. 41– 

46). Notable water quality changes 

associated with coal mining in this 

region include increased concentrations 

of sulfate, calcium, and other ions 

(measured collectively by a water’s 

electrical conductivity); increased 

concentrations of iron, magnesium, 

manganese, and other metals; and 

increased alkalinity and pH, depending 

on the local geology (Lindberg et al. 

2011, pp. 2–6; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 

67–68; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717–718; 

Sams and Beer 2000, pp. 3–5; Williams 

et al. 1996, pp. 10–17). The common 

physical changes to local waterways 

associated with coal mining include 

increased erosion and sedimentation, 

changes in flow, and in many cases the 

complete burial of headwater streams 

(Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 91–92; Matter 

and Ney 1981, entire; Pond et al. 2008, 

pp. 717–718; USEPA 2011, pp. 7–9). 

These mining-related effects are 

commonly noted in the streams and 

rivers within the ranges of the Big 

Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfishes (KDOW 2013; USEPA 2004; 

VADEQ 2014; WVDEP 2012). 

The response of aquatic species to 

coal mining-induced degradation are 

also well documented, commonly 

observed as a shift in a stream’s 

macroinvertebrate (e.g., insect larva or 

nymphs, aquatic worms, snails, clams, 

crayfish) or fish community structure 

and resultant loss of sensitive taxa and 

an increase in tolerant taxa (Diamond 

and Serveiss 2001, pp. 4714–4717; 

Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 96–97; Hitt and 

Chambers 2014, entire; Lindberg et al. 

2011b, p. 1; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 

66–67; Pond et al. 2008). As mentioned 

above, coal mining can cause a variety 

of changes to water chemistry and 

physical habitat; therefore, it is often 

difficult to attribute the observed effects 

to a single factor. It is likely that the 

observed shifts in community structure 

(including the extirpation of some 

species) are, in many cases, a result of 

a combination of factors. 

There is less specific information 

available on the effects of coal mining– 

induced degradation to crayfishes. A 

study in Ohio using juvenile 

Appalachian Brook crayfish (Cambarus 

bartonii cavatus), a stream-dwelling 

species in the same genus as the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

found that individuals from 

downstream of a mine drainage were 

somewhat more tolerant of high 

conductivity conditions than 

individuals from upstream of the 

discharge (Gallaway and Hummon 1991, 

pp. 168–170). The authors noted that 

during ecdysis (molting, a particularly 

vulnerable stage in the animal’s 

lifecycle), however, individuals were 

more sensitive to high conductivity 

levels. In the laboratory, conductivity 

levels of 1,200 to 2,000 micro Siemens/ 

centimeter (mS) resulted in the crayfish 

having difficulty molting, while field 

observations indicated that crayfish in 

isolated pools with conductivity levels 

of 800 to 1,920 mS died in midmolt or 

experienced obviously stressful molts as 

demonstrated by missing chelea and/or 

periopods or other physical 

malformations. The authors also noted 

that a 1-week exposure to water with a 

conductivity level of 3,000 mS, as might 

be experienced during summer low flow 

conditions, would be lethal to all of the 

crayfish in the study (Gallaway and 

Hummon 1991, pp. 168–170). 

Welsh and Loughman (2014, entire) 

analyzed crayfish distributions in the 

heavily mined upper Kanawha River 

basin in southern West Virginia and 

determined that physical habitat quality 

(including substrate type and quality, 

embeddedness, instream cover, channel 

morphology, and gradient) and stream 

order (size) were the best predictors of 

crayfish presence or absence and 

crayfish diversity. They observed that, 

in general, secondary and tertiary 

burrowing species such as Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes were 

associated with high-quality physical 

habitat conditions. The exception to this 

pattern was Cambarus bartonii cavatus 

(a secondary burrower), the same 

species studied by Gallaway and 

Hummon (1991) and discussed above, 

that was found to be more closely 

associated with low-quality physical 

habitat but high-quality water (i.e., low 

conductivity). For most species studied, 

the results did not demonstrate a 

relationship between conductivity 

levels and a species’ presence or 

absence. However, Welsh and 

Loughman (2014, entire) noted that 

stream conductivity levels can vary 

seasonally or with flow conditions, 

making assumptions regarding species’ 

presence or absence at the time of 

surveys difficult to correlate with prior 

ephemeral conductivity conditions. 

In addition to degrading water 

quality, coal mining increases erosion 

and sedimentation in downgradient 

streams and rivers (Hartman et al. 2005, 

pp. 91–92; Matter and Ney 1981; Pond 

et al. 2008, pp. 717–718; USEPA 1976, 

pp. 3–11; USEPA 2011, pp. 7–9); this is 

of particular importance for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

which, as tertiary burrowers, rely on 

unembedded slab boulders for shelter. 

While some other crayfish species 

(secondary burrowers) are known to 

excavate burrows in the streambank or 

bottom, or utilize leaf packs or other 

vegetation for shelter, neither the Big 

Sandy crayfish nor the Guyandotte 

River crayfish has been observed 

exhibiting this behavior. Channell 

(2004, p. 18), Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 

170), Loughman (2014, pp. 32–33), and 

Loughman and Welsh (2013, pp. 22–24) 

theorize that, because of habitat 

degradation, the habitat-specialist Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

may be at a competitive disadvantage to 

other more generalist crayfish species 

(see Factor E—Interspecific competition, 

below, for additional information), 

which has contributed to the decline, 

extirpation, and continued low 

abundance of the former two species. 

Whatever the exact mechanism may be, 

multiple researchers have observed that 

excessive bottom sedimentation appears 

to make otherwise suitable stream 

reaches uninhabitable by the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

(Channell 2004, pp. 16–23; Jezerinac et 

al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; 

Loughman 2014, pp. 10–11; Loughman 

and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 

7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3–4). 

While coal extraction from the 

southern Appalachian region has 

declined from the historical highs of the 

20th century, and is unlikely to ever 

return to those levels (McIlmoil, et al. 

2013, pp. 1–8, 49–57; Milici and 

Dennen 2009, pp. 9–10), significant 

mining still occurs within the ranges of 

the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18727 

crayfishes. The U.S. Department of 

Energy (2013, table 2) reports that in 

2012, there were 192 active coal mines 

(119 underground mines and 73 surface 

mines) in the counties that constitute 

the core ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. The total 

amount of coal extracted from these 

operations in 2012 was more than 32.6 

million tons. Underground mining 

accounts for most of the coal excavated 

in the region, but since the 1970s, 

surface mining (including ‘‘mountaintop 

removal mining’’ or MTR) has become 

more prevalent. Mountaintop removal 

mining is differentiated from other 

mining techniques by the shear amount 

of overburden that is removed to access 

the coal seams and the use of ‘‘valley 

fills’’ to dispose of the overburden. This 

practice results in the destruction of 

springs and headwater streams and 

often leads to water quality degradation 

in downstream reaches (USEPA 2011, 

pp. 7–10). An immediate threat to the 

continued existence of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish is several active and 

inactive surface coal mines (including 

MTR mines) in the mid and upper 

reaches of the Pinnacle Creek watershed 

(discussed in detail below). 

The detrimental effects of coal mining 

often continue long after active mining 

ceases. Hopkins et al. (2013, entire) 

studied water quality in a southeast 

Ohio watershed where most of the coal 

mining operations are closed and in 

varying stages of reclamation, and found 

that, while pH levels were not 

correlated with mining activity (and 

appeared to be within the tolerance 

limits of most stream taxa), 

conductivity, aluminum, and sulfate 

concentrations were correlated with 

past mining activity and that, despite 

mine reclamation efforts, these 

parameters were measured at levels 

associated with the impairment of 

aquatic biota. While the Hopkins et al. 

(2013, entire) study does not include 

crayfish species specifically, the results 

are compared to water quality 

parameters that may negatively affect all 

aquatic species, including crayfish. 

Sams and Beer (2000, pp. 11–16) 

studied the effects of acid mine drainage 

in the Allegheny and Monongahela 

River basins in Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia, and estimated trends in sulfate 

concentrations over a 30-year period 

(1965 to 1995). For several creeks and 

rivers they found that sulfate 

concentrations were correlated with 

coal production in the individual 

basins. In one stream system with longterm data and where coal mining had 

been in decline since 1950, they noted 

a decrease in sulfate concentrations over 

time as abandoned mine lands were 

reclaimed and with the natural 

weathering of the exposed sulfide 

minerals. However, while the decline in 

sulfate concentrations was initially 

rapid, the rate of improvement slowed 

over time, and they concluded that mine 

drainage would continue to degrade 

water quality for many years. 

By-products of deep and surface 

mines include manganese and iron 

(Sams and Beers 2000, pp. 2, 4, 6). 

When these by-products enter the 

aquatic environment, they can affect 

crayfish in two ways: directly through 

the body and indirectly through food 

sources (Loughman 2014, p. 27). Both 

iron and manganese are upregulated 

into the body through gill respiration 

and stomach and intestinal absorption 

(Baden and Eriksson 2006, pp. 67–75). 

In addition, both iron and manganese 

bioaccumulate in crayfish when they 

feed on benthic macroinvertebrates. 

Although manganese is ‘‘an essential 

metal and is thus required in at least a 

minimum concentration for an animal 

to be able to fulfil its metabolic 

functions’’ (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 

64), it can be physiologically toxic to 

crayfishes when levels are too high 

(Loughman 2014, p. 27). While 

manganese absorption may not directly 

cause mortality, it may adversely affect 

reproductive cycles and oocytes 

(immature egg cells) (Baden and 

Eriksson 2006, p. 73). ‘‘Iron and 

manganese also physically bond to 

crayfish exoskeletons following ecydisis 

[e.g., molting], clogging sensory sensila 

[e.g., receptor] and reducing overall 

health of crayfish’’ (Loughman 2014, 

p. 27). 

Loughman (2014, pp. 26–27) has 

observed Guyandotte River crayfish that 

have visible signs of manganese 

encrustation. While Hay’s 1900 Indian 

Creek, Wyoming County, West Virginia, 

specimen did not exhibit manganese 

encrustation, Hobbs’ 1947 specimens 

from Indian Creek did. In addition, Big 

Sandy crayfish specimens collected by 

Loughman in 2014, from Dry Fork, 

McDowell County, West Virginia, also 

exhibited manganese encrustation. The 

Dry Fork specimens were sampled from 

a site immediately downstream of deep 

mine effluents entering Dry Fork 

(Loughman 2014, p. 27). While 

manganese encrustations have been 

found on both Guyandotte River and Big 

Sandy crayfish specimens, we are 

uncertain the extent to which these 

deposits occur across the species’ ranges 

or if and to what extent the effects of the 

manganese and iron exposure has 

contributed to the decline of the Big 

Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

Ancillary to the coal mines are the 

processing facilities that use various 

mechanical and hydraulic techniques to 

separate the coal from rock and other 

geological waste material. This process 

results in the creation of large volumes 

of ‘‘coal slurry,’’ a blend of water, coal 

fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, 

which is commonly disposed of in large 

impoundments created in the valleys 

near the coal mines. In multiple 

instances, these impoundments have 

failed catastrophically and caused 

substantial damage to downstream 

aquatic habitats (and in some cases the 

loss of human life) (Frey et al. 2001, 

entire; Michael et al. 2010, entire; 

Michalek et al. 1997, entire; National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2002, pp. 

23–30). In 2000, a coal slurry 

impoundment in the Tug Fork 

watershed failed and released 

approximately 946 million liters (250 

million gallons) of viscous coal slurry to 

several tributary creeks of the Tug Fork, 

which ultimately affected 177.5 km 

(110.3 mi) of stream length, including 

the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork 

mainstems (Frey et al. 2001, entire). The 

authors reported a complete fish kill in 

92.8 km (57.7 mi) of stream length, and 

based on their description of the 

instream conditions following the event, 

it is reasonable to conclude that all 

aquatic life in these streams was killed, 

including individuals of the Big Sandy 

crayfish, if they were present at that 

time. The authors also noted that the 

effects of this release will continue to 

negatively affect aquatic species, 

including benthic macroinvertebrates, 

for a considerable time into the future. 

Coal slurry impoundments are common 

throughout the ranges of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes, and 

releases have been documented in each 

of the States within these ranges (NAS 

2002, pp. 25–30). However, the exact 

location of impoundments as they relate 

to the streams known to support Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

is unknown. 

In addition to the stressors described 

above, several active surface coal mines 

in the Pinnacle Creek watershed may 

pose an immediate threat to the 

continued existence of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. These mines represent 

geographic extents of 13 to 242 hectares 

(ha) (33 to 598 acres (ac)) and are 

located either on Pinnacle Creek (e.g., 

encroaching to within 0.5 km (0.31 mi) 

of the creek) and directly upstream (e.g., 

within 7.0 km (4.4 mi)) of the last 

documented location of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish or on tributaries that 

drain into Pinnacle Creek upstream of 

the Guyandotte River crayfish location 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(WVDEP 2014a; WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 

2014c; WVDEP 2014d). Some of these 

mines also have reported violations 

related to mandatory erosion and 

sediment control measures (e.g., 3 to 37) 

within the last 2 years (WVDEP 2014a; 

WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 2014d). 

Coal mining summary— While coal 

extraction in the Appalachian region 

has declined from the historical highs of 

the 20th century, we expect that the 

ongoing and legacy effects of coal 

mining, including the drainage from 

closed and abandoned mine lands, will 

continue to degrade aquatic habitats and 

act as a stressor to both the Big Sandy 

and the Guyandotte River crayfishes 

into the future. 

Residential and commercial 

development—Because of the rugged 

topography within the ranges of the Big 

Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfishes, most residential and 

commercial development and the 

supporting transportation infrastructure 

is confined to the narrow valley 

floodplains (Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 14; 

Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 14). The close 

proximity of this development to the 

region’s streams and rivers has 

historically resulted in the loss of 

riparian habitat and the continued 

direct discharge of sediments, chemical 

pollutants, sewage, and other refuse into 

the aquatic systems (KDOW 2013; 

VADEQ 2014; WVDEP 2012), which 

degrades habitat quality and complexity 

(Merriam et al. 2011, p. 415). The best 

available information indicates that the 

human population in these areas will 

continue to decrease over the next 

several decades (see Figure 6, above). 

For example, between 2010 and 2030, 

the human populations of the five 

counties that make up the core ranges of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes are projected to decline 

between 3 to 28 percent (University of 

Louisville 2011; University of Virginia 

2012; West Virginia University 2012). 

However, while the human populations 

may decline, the human population 

centers are likely to remain in the 

riparian valleys. We have no 

information on whether the historical 

trend of releasing untreated waste into 

the streams will decrease, increase, or 

stay the same, but are seeking comments 

on this knowledge gap. 

In summary, we conclude that even 

with the observed and projected decline 

in human population within the ranges 

of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes, development will still be 

concentrated in the narrow valley 

riparian zones and may contribute to the 

degradation of water quality and the 

aquatic habitat required by both species. 

Roads—Both paved and unpaved 

roads can degrade the aquatic habitat 

required by the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. Paved 

roads, coincident with and connecting 

areas of residential and commercial 

development, generally occur in the 

narrow valley bottoms adjacent to the 

region’s streams and rivers. Runoff from 

these paved roads can include a 

complex mixture of metals, organic 

chemicals, deicers, nutrients, pesticides 

and herbicides, and sediments that, 

when washed into local streams, can 

degrade the aquatic habitat and have a 

detrimental effect on resident organisms 

(Buckler and Granato 1999, entire; 

Boxall and Maltby 1997, entire; NAS 

2005, pp. 72–75, 82–86). We are not 

aware of any studies specific to the 

effects of highway runoff on the Big 

Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes; 

however, one laboratory study from 

Khan et al. (2006, pp. 515–519) 

evaluated the effects of cadmium, 

copper, lead, and zinc exposure on 

juvenile Orconectes immunis, a species 

of pond crayfish. These particular 

metals, which are known constituents of 

highway runoff (Sansalone et al. 1996, 

p. 371), were found to inhibit oxygen 

consumption in O. immunis. We are 

uncertain to what extent these results 

may be comparable to how Big Sandy or 

Guyandotte River crayfishes may react 

to these contaminants, but it was the 

only relevant study exploring the topic 

in crayfish. Boxall and Maltby (1997, 

pp. 14–15) studied the effects of 

roadway contaminants (specifically the 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or 

PAHs) on Gammarus pulex, a 

freshwater amphipod crustacean 

commonly used in toxicity studies. The 

authors noted an acute toxic response to 

some of the PAHs, and emphasized that 

because of possible interactions between 

the various runoff contaminants, 

including deicing salts and herbicides, 

the toxicity of road runoff likely varies 

depending on the mixture. We are 

uncertain to what extent these results 

may be comparable to how Big Sandy or 

Guyandotte River crayfishes may react 

to these contaminants. 

The construction of new roads also 

has the potential to further degrade the 

aquatic habitat in the region, primarily 

by increasing erosion and sedimentation 

and perhaps roadway contaminant 

loading to local streams. Two new, 

multi-lane highway projects, the King 

Coal Highway and the Coalfields 

Expressway, are in various stages of 

development within the Big Sandy and 

Upper Guyandotte River watersheds 

(VDOT 2015; West Virginia Department 

of Transportation (WVDOT) 2015a; 

WVDOT 2015b). In West Virginia, the 

King Coal Highway right-of-way runs 

along the McDowell and Wyoming 

County line, the dividing line between 

the Tug Fork and Upper Guyandotte 

watersheds, and continues into Mingo 

County (which is largely in the Tug Fork 

watershed). This highway project will 

potentially affect the current occupied 

habitat of both crayfish species, but is of 

particular concern for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish because of a section that 

will parallel and cross Pinnacle Creek. 

In West Virginia, the Coalfields 

Expressway right-of-way crosses 

Wyoming and McDowell Counties 

roughly perpendicular to the King Coal 

Highway and continues into Buchanan, 

Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia. 

This project runs through the Upper 

Guyandotte, Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, and 

Russell Fork watersheds and has the 

potential to affect the aquatic habitats in 

each basin. Of particular concern are 

sections of the Coalfields Expressway 

planned through perhaps the most 

robust Big Sandy crayfish populations 

in Dickenson County, Virginia. 

Unpaved forest roads (e.g., haul roads, 

access roads, and skid trails constructed 

by the extractive industries or others) 

are often located on the steep hillsides 

and are recognized as a major source of 

sediment loading to streams and rivers 

(Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 22– 

24; Clinton and Vose 2003, entire; Greir 

et al. 1976, pp. 1–8; MacDonald and Coe 

2008, entire; Morris et al. 2014, entire; 

Stringer and Taylor 1998, entire; Wade 

et al. 2012, pp. 408–409; Wang et al. 

2013, entire). These unpaved roads, 

especially those associated with mining, 

forestry, and oil and gas activities, are 

ubiquitous throughout the range of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. The estimated erosion rate 

for undisturbed forested sites in 

mountainous terrain ranges from about 

0.16 tonnes of sediment/ha/year (yr) 

(0.063 tons/ac/yr) to 0.31 tonnes/ha/yr 

(0.12 tons/ac/yr) (Grant and Wolff 1991, 

p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56); however, 

the construction of unpaved forest roads 

in an area greatly increases this natural 

erosion process. Wade et al. (2012, p. 

403) cite typical erosion rates for 

unpaved roads and trails as being from 

10 to greater than 100 tonnes/ha/yr (4 to 

greater than 40 tons/ac/yr), with one 

study of trails established on steep 

slopes in the western United States 

resulting in an erosion rate of 163 

tonnes/ha/yr (64.7 tons/ac/yr). 

Christopher and Visser (2007, pp. 23– 

24) estimated soil erosion rates for 

forestry operations in the coastal plain, 

piedmont, and mountains of Virginia, 

and determined that access roads and 

skid trails lost an average of 21.1 and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18729 

11.2 tonnes/ha/year (8.4 and 4.4 tons/

ac/yr), respectively. The authors 

estimated the erosion from one hillside 

skid trail to be in excess of 50 tonnes/ 

ha/yr (19.8 tons/ac/yr) and erosion from 

another undescribed site to be 270 

tonnes/ha/year (107.1 tons/ac/yr). The 

authors concluded that in mountainous 

areas, access roads and skid trails 

accounted for an average of 27 and 54 

percent of the erosion from a timber 

harvest operation, respectively. We 

anticipate the number of unpaved roads 

throughout the crayfishes’ range to 

remain the same or expand as new oil 

and gas facilities are built and new areas 

are logged. 

In addition to erosion from unpaved 

road surfaces, we expect erosion from 

unpaved road stream crossings 

throughout the range of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes to also 

contribute significant sediment loading 

to local waters. Wang et al. (2013, 

entire) studied stream turbidity levels 

and suspended sediment loads 

following construction of a forest haul 

road stream crossing in West Virginia. 

The authors reported significant 

increases in both parameters following 

construction of the stream crossing and 

noted that, with site revegetation, 

sediment loads improved over time. 

However, sediment remained in the 

stream channel 2 years after 

construction, and the authors concluded 

that it could require decades to flush 

from the system. Morris et al. (2014, 

entire) studied sediment loading from 

an unpaved, but properly sized and 

installed, culvert stream crossing in the 

Virginia piedmont. Their results 

indicated that, by applying the minimal 

Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) 

‘‘Best Management Practices’’ (BMPs) 

for this type of stream crossing, the 

estimated annual sediment load to the 

creek was 98.5 tonnes/yr (96.5 tons/yr). 

By instituting the standard (vice 

minimum) BMP measures and installing 

a geotextile and stone covering on the 

running surface, the sediment loading 

was reduced to 28.5 tonnes/yr (27.9 

tons/yr). A Statewide survey of these 

types of crossings by the VDOF found 

that 33 percent met the minimum 

criteria and 64 percent met the standard 

BMP recommendations. About 3 percent 

of the crossings exceeded the State BMP 

recommendations, but even with 

additional erosion control measures the 

estimated sediment load was 22.5 

tonnes/yr (22.1 tons/yr). Christopher 

and Visser (2007, p. 23–24) estimated 

the average erosion rate for stream 

crossings at logging sites in Virginia to 

be 20.8 tonnes/ha/yr (8.3 tons/ac/yr). 

This average includes sites in the 

mountain, coastal plain, and piedmont 

physiographic provinces, the latter two 

of which would be expected to have less 

erosion potential than the steep 

mountainous terrain indicative of Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish 

habitat. 

Offroad Vehicles (ORVs)—Offroad 

vehicle use of haul roads and trails has 

become an increasingly popular form of 

recreation in the region (see http://

www.riderplanet-usa.com, last accessed 

February 13, 2015). Recreational ORV 

use, which includes the use of 

unimproved stream crossings, stream 

channel riding, and ‘‘mudding’’ (the 

intentional and repeated use of wet or 

low-lying trail sections that often results 

in the formation of deep ‘‘mud holes’’), 

may cause increased sediment loading 

to streams and possibly kill benthic 

organisms directly by crushing them 

(Switalski and Jones 2012, pp. 14–15; 

YouTube.com 2008; YouTube.com 

2010; YouTube.com 2011; 

YouTube.com 2013). Ayala et al. (2005, 

entire) modeled long-term sediment 

loading from an ORV stream crossing in 

a ridge and valley landscape in 

Alabama, and estimated that the ORV 

crossing contributed 45.4 tonnes/ha/yr 

(18 tons/ac/yr) to the stream. Chin et al. 

(2004, entire) studied ORV use at stream 

crossings in Arkansas, and found that 

pools below ORV crossings experienced 

increased sedimentation and decreased 

pool depth, compared to unaffected 

streams. The quantitative data on stream 

bottom embeddedness were unclear, but 

the authors did note that none of the 

sites below ORV crossings was less than 

10 percent embedded, while some of the 

control sites had little or no 

embeddedness. Christopher and Visser 

(2007, p. 24) looked at the effect of ORV 

use on previously logged sites and 

found that ORV use significantly 

increased erosion at stream crossings 

and access roads, as compared to sites 

that were closed to ORV use. 

Nearly all of the land within the 

ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfishes is privately owned. 

Offroad vehicle use on private land is 

largely unregulated, and we found no 

comprehensive information on the 

extent of offroad trails in the region, 

ridership numbers, or the effects to local 

streams. However, the Hatfield-McCoy 

Trail system, which was created in 2000 

to promote tourism and economic 

development in southern West Virginia, 

may provide some insight into the scale 

of ORV recreation within the ranges of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes (Pardue et al. 2014, p. 1). As 

of 2014, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail 

system had eight individual trail 

networks totaling more than 700 mi of 

cleared trails, with the stated long-term 

goal being approximately 2,000 mi of 

accessible trails (Pardue et al. 2014, pp. 

4–5), and in 2013, 35,900 trail permits 

were sold (Hatfield-McCoy presentation 

2013, p. 8). Two of the designated 

Hatfield-McCoy trail networks, Pinnacle 

Creek and Rockhouse, are located in the 

Upper Guyandotte basin and one, 

Buffalo Mountain, is in the Tug Fork 

basin. 

The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, 

opened in 2004, is located entirely 

within the Pinnacle Creek watershed 

and may pose a significant threat to the 

continued existence of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. The majority of this 

unpaved trail network runs along the 

ridgelines or up and down the steep 

mountainsides; however, approximately 

13 km (8.0 mi) of ORV trail is located 

in the Pinnacle Creek riparian zone, 

including the area last known to harbor 

the Guyandotte River crayfish. At 

several locations along this section of 

trail, riders are known to operate their 

vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent 

‘‘mud holes’’ (You Tube 2008; You Tube 

2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; 

Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 

2014). It is reasonable to conclude that 

these activities increase erosion and 

sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and 

degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. In addition, the instream 

operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has 

the potential to crush or injure 

individual crayfish directly. 

Summary of Roads (Paved and 

Unpaved) and ORVs—In summary, we 

conclude that contaminant runoff from 

paved road surfaces and erosion and 

sedimentation from road construction 

projects, unpaved roads and trails, and 

ORV use throughout the ranges of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes likely contribute directly to 

degradation of the species’ habitat and 

will continue to do so into the future. 

Forestry—The dominant land cover 

within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes is forest, 

and commercial timber harvesting 

occurs throughout the region. While not 

approaching the scale of the intensive 

cutting that occurred in the early 20th 

century, commercial logging still has the 

potential to degrade aquatic habitats, 

primarily by increasing erosion and 

sedimentation (Arthur et al. 1998, 

entire; Hood et al. 2002, entire; Stone 

and Wallace 1998, entire; Stringer and 

Hilpp 2001, entire; Swank et al. 2001, 

entire). The most recent records 

available on timber harvesting within 

the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes indicate 

that in 2007, McDowell and Wyoming 

Counties, West Virginia, produced 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

238,711 cubic meters (m3) (8,426,498 

cubic feet (ft3)) of timber; in 2009, Pike 

County, Kentucky, produced 75,266 m3

(2,656,890 ft3) of timber, and Buchanan, 

Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia, 

produced 264,338 m3 (9,331,131 ft3) of 

timber (Cooper et al. 2011a, p. 27; 

Cooper et al. 2011b, pp. 26–27; Piva and 

Cook 2011, p. 46). While we were 

unable to locate data on how much land 

area was subject to harvesting, the West 

Virginia Forestry Association (2001, p. 

2) reported that a well-stocked timber 

stand in this region contains about 45.9 

m3/ha (8,000 board feet/ac or 664 ft3/ac) 

of timber. By dividing the total amount 

of timber harvested, 578,315 m3

(20,414,520 ft3), by 45.9 m3/ha (664 ft3/ 

ac), we estimate that approximately 

12,600 ha (30,745 ac) of forest were 

harvested within the core ranges of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes during a single year (either 

2007 or 2009, depending on the State). 

Based on land cover data from the USGS 

(2015, entire) this represents 

approximately 1.9 percent of the total 

forest cover within this area. 

Hood et al. (2002, p. 56) estimated the 

erosion rate for an undisturbed forested 

site in the southern Appalachians to be 

about 0.31 tonnes/ha/yr (0.12 tons/ac/

yr). The authors then estimated the 

erosion rates resulting from several 

different timber harvest techniques (e.g., 

clearcut, leave tree, group selection, and 

shelterwood) and found that during the 

first year postharvest, erosion rates 

ranged from 5.33 to 11.86 tonnes/ha/yr 

(2.11 to 4.71 tons/ac/yr). Applying these 

erosion rates to the estimated singleyear harvested area calculated above 

(12,600 ha (30,745 ac)) indicates that, if 

the forest is undisturbed, about 3,906 

tonnes (3,828 tons) of sediment will 

erode, while logging the same area will 

produce perhaps 67,158 to 149,436 

tonnes (65,815 to 146,447 tons) of 

sediment. While Hood et al. (2002) 

found that erosion rates improved 

quickly in subsequent years following 

logging, Swank, et al. (2001, pp. 174– 

176) studied the long-term effects of 

timber harvesting at a site in the Blue 

Ridge physiographic province in North 

Carolina, and determined that 15 years 

postharvest, the annual sediment yield 

was still 50 percent above 

predisturbance levels. 

This analysis of potential erosion 

within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes likely 

underestimates actual erosion rates. 

Hood et al. (2002, p. 54) provide the 

caveat that the model they used does 

not account for gully erosion, 

landslides, soil creep, stream channel 

erosion, or episodic erosion from single 

storms, and, therefore, their estimates of 

actual sediment transport are low. The 

authors also reported that applicable 

BMPs were applied diligently at their 

study sites and that all skid trails were 

closed to vehicle traffic after harvesting 

was completed (Hood et al. 2002, p. 55). 

The rates of BMP adherence and 

effectiveness at other logging sites 

within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes vary. 

Stringer and Queary (1997, entire) found 

that in eastern Kentucky, which 

includes the Big Sandy drainage, BMPs 

were either not used or not effective at 

43.2 percent of the logging sites and that 

at 13.5 percent of the sites the BMPs 

were used but not effective. Wang et al. 

(2007, p.15) studied randomly selected 

sites that were logged between 

November 2003 and March 2004 and 

determined that, within the West 

Virginia Forestry District that includes 

the Upper Guyandotte watershed, BMP 

adherence was 80 percent. A 2012 

report on forestry BMP implementation 

in the southeast United States (Southern 

Group of State Foresters 2012, p. 6) 

indicates that the Statewide level of 

compliance in Virginia improved from 

about 75 to 86 percent between 2007 

and 2011. The implementation of 

forestry BMPs to reduce erosion and 

sedimentation is not required for certain 

timber cutting operations. In Kentucky, 

tree clearing incidental to preparing coal 

mining sites is specifically exempted, 

and in West Virginia, tree-clearing 

activities incidental to grounddisturbing construction activities, 

including those related to oil and gas 

development, are exempted (Kentucky 

Division of Forestry undated fact sheet, 

downloaded February 5, 2015); West 

Virginia Division of Forestry 2014, pp. 

3–4). 

Swank et al. (2001) also referenced 

several associated studies on the 

response of stream invertebrates to the 

timber harvest and resultant sediment 

loading. These studies showed an 

alteration in abundance, biomass, and 

productivity of taxa, notably a decrease 

in abundance of species that inhabit 

lower gradient sand and pebble habitats. 

They also note that after more than 15 

years, the stream invertebrate 

community was gradually returning 

toward that found in a reference stream 

(Swank, et al. 2001, p. 175). 

Because timber harvesting occurs year 

to year on a rotational basis throughout 

the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte 

watersheds, and because the excess 

sedimentation from harvested sites may 

take decades to flush from area streams, 

we conclude that soil erosion and 

sedimentation from commercial timber 

harvesting is likely relatively constant 

and ongoing in the region, and 

continually degrades the aquatic habitat 

required by the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

Stream channelization and 

dredging—Flooding is a recurring 

problem for people living in the 

southern Appalachians, and many 

individuals and mountain communities 

have resorted to unpermitted stream 

dredging or bulldozing to deepen 

channels and/or remove obstructions in 

an attempt to alleviate damage from 

future floods (West Virginia 

Conservation Agency (WVCA), pp. 4, 

36–38, 225–229). As recently as 2009, 

Loughman (pers. comm., October 24, 

2014) observed heavy equipment being 

operated in stream channels in the 

Upper Guyandotte basin. Unfortunately, 

these efforts are rarely effective at 

reducing major flood damage and often 

cause other problems such as stream 

bank erosion, lateral stream migration, 

channel downcutting, and 

sedimentation (WVCA, pp. 225–229). 

Stream dredging or bulldozing also 

causes direct damage to the aquatic 

habitat by removing benthic structure, 

such as slab boulders, and likely kills 

benthic organisms by crushing or burial. 

Because these dredging and bulldozing 

activities are unpermitted, we have little 

data on exactly how widespread or how 

often they occur within the ranges of the 

Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. However, during their 2009 

survey work for Cambarus veteranus in 

the Upper Guyandotte and Tug Fork 

basins, Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. 

23) noted that 54 percent of the sites 

they surveyed (these were sites 

predicted to be suitable to the species) 

appeared to have been dredged, 

evidenced by monotypic gravel or 

cobble bottoms and a conspicuous 

absence of large slab boulders. These 

sites were thus rendered unsuitable for 

occupation by C. veteranus and 

confirmed so by the absence of the 

species. 

Gas and oil development—The 

Appalachian Plateaus physiographic 

province is underlain by numerous 

geological formations that contain 

natural gas, and to a lesser extent oil. 

The Marcellus shale formation underlies 

the entire range of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish and a high proportion of the 

range of the Big Sandy crayfish, 

specifically McDowell County, West 

Virginia, and part of Buchanan County, 

Virginia (U.S. Department of Energy 

(USDOE) 2011, p. 5), and various 

formations that make up the Devonian 

Big Sandy shale gas play (e.g., a 

favorable geographic area that has been 

targeted for exploration) underlie the 

entire range of the Big Sandy crayfish 

and some of the range of the Guyandotte 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18731 

River crayfish (USDOE 2011, p. 9). In 

addition to these shale gas formations, 

natural gas also occurs in conventional 

formations and in coal seams (referred 

to as ‘‘coal bed methane’’ or CBM) in 

each of the counties making up the 

ranges of the two species. The intensity 

of resource extraction from these 

geological formations has varied over 

time depending on market conditions 

and available technology, but since the 

mid- to late 20th century, many 

thousands of gas and oil wells have 

been installed within the ranges of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes (KGS 2015; VDMME 2015, 

WVDEP 2015). 

Numerous studies have reported that 

natural gas development has the 

potential to degrade aquatic habitats 

(Adams et al. 2011, pp. 8–10, 18; Boelter 

et al. 1992, pp. 1192–1195; Drohan and 

Brittingham, 2012, entire; Harkness et 

al. 2015, entire; McBroom et al. 2012, 

pp. 953–956; Olmstead et al. 2013, pp. 

4966–4967; Papoulias and Velasco 2013, 

entire; USEPA 2014, entire; Vegosh et 

al. 2014, pp. 8339–8342; Vidic et al. 

2013, entire; Warner et al. 2013, entire). 

The construction of well pads and 

related infrastructure (e.g., gas 

pipelines, compressor stations, 

wastewater pipelines and 

impoundments, and access roads) can 

increase erosion and sedimentation, and 

the release of drilling fluids, other 

industrial chemicals, or formation 

brines can contaminate local streams. 

Within the ranges of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes the 

topography is rugged and the dominant 

land cover is forest; therefore, the 

construction of new gas wells and 

related infrastructure usually involves 

timber cutting and significant earth 

moving to create level well pads, access 

roads, and pipeline rights-of-way. 

Drohan and Brittingham (2012, entire) 

analyzed the runoff potential for shale 

gas development sites in the Allegheny 

Plateau region of Pennsylvania, and 

found that 50 to 70 percent of existing 

or permitted pad sites had medium to 

very high runoff potential and were at 

an elevated risk of soil erosion. 

McBroom et al. (2012, entire) studied 

soil erosion from two well pads 

constructed in a forested area in the 

Gulf Coastal Plain of east Texas. One 

well was constructed in the channel of 

an intermittent stream, which was 

rechanneled around the pad following 

construction. The second well was 

constructed on a terraced hillside but 

with a 15-m (50-ft) vegetated riparian 

buffer. The observed sediment losses 

were 14 and 0.7 tonnes/ha/yr (5.54 and 

0.28 tons/ac/yr), respectively. The 

authors reference their earlier study in 

east Texas that found the average 

sediment yield from undisturbed 

forested sites to be 0.042 tonnes/ha/yr 

(0.017 tons/ac/yr) (McBroom et al. 2012, 

pp. 954–955). As noted previously, 

Hood et al. (2002, p. 56) estimated the 

erosion rate for an undisturbed forested 

site in the steeper terrain of the southern 

Appalachians to be about 0.31 tonnes/ 

ha/yr (0.12 tons/ac/yr), an order of 

magnitude greater than that reported by 

McBroom et al. (2012) for an 

undisturbed site in east Texas. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude 

that the erosion potential from disturbed 

sites within the ranges of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes is also 

much greater than that observed by 

McBroom et al. (2012) in east Texas. 

Natural gas well drilling and well 

stimulation, especially the technique of 

hydraulic fracturing, can also degrade 

aquatic habitats when drilling fluids or 

other associated chemicals or high 

salinity formation waters (e.g., flowback 

water and produced water) are released, 

either intentionally or by accident, into 

local surface waters (Harkness et al. 

2015, entire; McBroom et al. 2012, p. 

951; Papoulias and Velasco 2013, entire; 

USEPA 2014, entire; Vidic et al. 2013, 

entire; Warner et al. 2013, entire). We 

anticipate the rate of oil and gas 

development within the ranges of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes to increase based on 

projections from a report by IHIS Global, 

Inc. (2013, p. 4) produced for the 

American Petroleum Institute, which 

indicate that the ‘‘recent surge in oil and 

gas transportation and storage 

infrastructure investment is not a short 

lived phenomenon. Rather, we find that 

a sustained period of high levels of oil 

and gas infrastructure investment will 

continue through the end of the 

decade.’’ While this projection is 

generalized across all oil and gas 

infrastructure within the United States, 

an increase of new infrastructure within 

the ranges of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes is also 

anticipated because of the yet untapped 

Marcellus and Devonian Big Sandy 

shale resources discussed above. 

Summary of Factor A—The best 

available information indicates the 

primary threats to both the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

throughout their respective ranges are 

land-disturbing activities that increase 

erosion and sedimentation, which 

degrades the stream habitat required by 

both species. Identified sources of 

ongoing erosion and sedimentation that 

occur throughout the ranges of the 

species include active surface coal 

mining, commercial forestry, unpaved 

roads, gas and oil development, and 

road construction. These activities are 

ongoing (e.g., imminent) and expected 

to continue at variable rates into the 

future. For example, while active coal 

mining may decline, the legacy effects 

will continue, and oil and gas activities 

and road construction are expected to 

increase. An additional threat specific to 

the Guyandotte River crayfish is the 

ongoing operation of ORVs in and 

adjacent to the species’ last known 

location in Pinnacle Creek; this ORV use 

is expected to continue. Contributing 

stressors include water quality 

degradation resulting from abandoned 

coal mine drainage; untreated (or poorly 

treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; 

unpermitted stream dredging; and 

potential catastrophic spills of coal 

slurry, fluids associated with gas well 

development, or other contaminants. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

We found no information indicating 

that overutilization has led to the loss of 

populations or a significant reduction in 

numbers of individuals for either the 

Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River 

crayfish. Therefore, we conclude based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

information available that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes does not currently pose a 

threat to the Big Sandy crayfish or the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. However, 

because the best available information 

indicates that the Guyandotte River 

crayfish persists only in very low 

numbers in the midreach of a single 

stream, increased awareness of the 

species’ rarity may make it more 

desirable to collectors. Similarly, 

because the Big Sandy crayfish is now 

recognized as a newly described 

species, it too could become more 

desirable to collectors. Any future 

collection of either species, but 

especially of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish, could pose a threat to their 

continued existence. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

We found no information indicating 

that disease or predation has led to the 

loss of populations or a significant 

reduction in numbers of individuals of 

the Guyandotte River crayfish. However, 

because the species is known to persist 

only in very low numbers in the 

midreach of a single stream, any source 

of mortality or any impairment of 

growth, reproduction, or fitness may 

pose a threat to its continued existence. 

Additionally, it is possible that this 

remnant population lacks the genetic 

diversity of the original wider 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

population, which may now make it 

more vulnerable to disease. 

Similarly, we have no information 

indicating that disease or predation has 

led to the decline of the Big Sandy 

crayfish. However, the existing 

population is fragmented into at least 

four isolated subpopulations in several 

different watersheds, the upper Tug 

Fork system, the upper Levisa Fork 

system, Russell Fork/Levisa Fork 

system, and the Pound River/Cranes 

Nest River system (see Factor E, below). 

While this isolation may provide the 

species some resiliency should disease 

(or other catastrophe) affect any one of 

the subpopulations, this potentially 

positive aspect of habitat fragmentation 

is countered by the fact that each 

isolated subpopulation is at a higher 

risk of extirpation. However, the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available indicates that disease or 

predation do not pose a threat to the 

existence of either the Guyandotte River 

crayfish or the Big Sandy crayfish now 

or in the future. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Few existing Federal or State 

regulatory mechanisms specifically 

protect the Big Sandy or Guyandotte 

River crayfishes or the aquatic habitats 

where they occur. The species’ habitats 

are afforded some protection from water 

quality and habitat degradation under 

the Federal CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) and the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) 

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), along with State 

laws and regulations such as the 

Kentucky regulations for water quality, 

coal mining, forest conservation, and 

natural gas development (401 KAR, 402 

KAR, 405 KAR, 805 KAR); the Virginia 

State Water Control Law (Va. Code sec. 

62.1–44.2 et seq.); and the West Virginia 

Water Pollution Control Act (WVSC sec. 

22–11) and Logging and Sediment 

Control Act (WVSC sec.19–1B). 

Additionally, the Big Sandy crayfish is 

listed as endangered by the State of 

Virginia (Va. Code sec. 29.1–563 to 570), 

which provides that species some direct 

protection within the Virginia portion of 

its range. However, while water quality 

has generally improved since 1977, 

when the CWA and SMCRA were 

enacted or amended, there is 

continuing, ongoing degradation of 

habitat for both species, as detailed 

under Factor A, above. Therefore, 

despite the protections afforded by these 

laws and implementing regulations, 

both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfishes continue to be affected 

by degraded water quality and habitat 

conditions. 

In 1989, 12 years after enactment of 

the CWA and SMCRA, the Guyandotte 

River crayfish was known to occur in 

low numbers in Huff Creek and 

Pinnacle Creek (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 

170). However, surveys since 2002 

indicate the species has been extirpated 

from Huff Creek and continues to be 

found only in very low numbers in 

Pinnacle Creek. Despite more than 35 

years of CWA and SMCRA regulatory 

protection, the range of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish has declined 

substantially, and the single known 

population contains few individuals. 

There is little information available to 

determine trends in the Big Sandy 

crayfish’s range or population since 

enactment of the CWA or SMCRA. 

However, as discussed previously, 

surveys conducted between 2007 and 

2010 (Thoma 2009 and 2010, entire) 

indicate that the species’ current range 

is significantly reduced from its 

historical range, and that much of the 

historical habitat continues to be 

degraded by sediments and other 

pollutants. In addition, at many of the 

sites that do continue to harbor the 

species, the Big Sandy crayfish is found 

only in low numbers with individual 

crayfish often reported to be in poor 

physical condition (Thoma 2010, p. 6; 

Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 

2014). Reduction in the range of the Big 

Sandy Crayfish and continued 

degradation of its habitat lead us to 

conclude that neither the CWA nor the 

SMCRA has been wholly effective at 

protecting this species. 

As discussed in previous sections, 

erosion and sedimentation caused by 

various land-disturbing activities, such 

as surface coal mining, roads, forestry, 

and oil and gas development, pose an 

ongoing threat to the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. State 

efforts to address excessive erosion and 

sedimentation involve the 

implementation of BMPs; however, as 

discussed under Factor A, above, BMPs 

are often not strictly applied, are 

sometimes voluntary, or are 

situationally ineffective. Additionally, 

studies indicate that even when BMPs 

are properly applied and effective, 

erosion rates at disturbed sites are still 

significantly above erosion rates at 

undisturbed sites (Christopher and 

Visser 2007, pp. 22–24; Grant and Wolff 

1991, p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56; 

McBroom et al. 2012, pp. 954–955; 

Wang et al. 2013, pp. 86–90). 

Although the majority of the land 

throughout the ranges of the two species 

is privately owned, publicly managed 

lands in the region include a portion of 

the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, 

and 10 State wildlife management areas 

and parks in the remainder of the Big 

Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed 

(one in Russell Fork, three in Levisa 

Fork, four in Tug Fork, two in Upper 

Guyandotte). However, three of these 

parcels surround artificial reservoirs 

that are no longer suitable habitat for 

either the Big Sandy crayfish or 

Guyandotte River crayfish, and six 

others are not in known occupied 

crayfish habitat. Only the Jefferson 

National Forest and the Breaks Interstate 

Park in the Russell Fork watershed at 

the Kentucky/Virginia border appear to 

potentially offer additional protections 

to extant Big Sandy crayfish 

populations, presumably through 

stricter management of land-disturbing 

activities that cause erosion and 

sedimentation. However, the extent of 

publically owned land adding to the 

protection of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes is minimal 

and not sufficient to offset the 

rangewide threats to either species. 

Summary of Factor D—Degradation of 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfish habitat (Factor A) is ongoing 

despite existing regulatory mechanisms. 

While these regulatory efforts have led 

to some improvements in water quality 

and aquatic habitat conditions, the 

precipitous decline of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish and the decline of the Big 

Sandy crayfish within most of its range 

indicate that these regulatory efforts 

have not been effective at protecting 

these two species. In addition, the threat 

resulting from the species’ endemism 

and their isolated and small population 

sizes (discussed below under Factor E) 

cannot be addressed through regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Locally endemic, isolated, and small 

population size—It is intuitive and 

generally accepted that the key factors 

governing a species’ risk of extinction 

include small population size, reduced 

habitat size, and fragmented habitat 

(Hakoyama et al. 2000, pp. 327, 334– 

336; Lande 1993, entire; Pimm et al. 

1988, pp. 757, 774–777; Wiegand et al. 

2005, entire). Relevant to wholly aquatic 

species, such as the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

Angermeier (1995, pp. 153–157) found 

that fish species that were limited by 

physiographic range or range of 

waterbody sizes were also more 

vulnerable to extirpation or extinction, 

especially as suitable habitats became 

more fragmented. As detailed in 

previous sections, both the Big Sandy 

crayfish and the Guyandotte River 

crayfish are known to exist only in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18733 

Appalachian Plateaus physiographic 

province and are limited to certain 

stream classes and habitat types within 

their respective river basins. 

Furthermore, the extant populations of 

each species are limited to certain 

disjunct subwatersheds, which are 

physically isolated from the others by 

distance, human-induced inhospitable 

intervening habitat conditions, and/or 

physical barriers (e.g., dams and 

reservoirs). 

Genetic fitness—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, and reducing the 

fitness of individuals (Allendorf and 

Luikart 2007, pp. 117–146; Hunter 2002, 

pp. 97–101; Soule 1980, pp. 157–158). 

Similarly, the random loss of adaptive 

genes through genetic drift may limit 

the ability of the Big Sandy crayfish 

and, especially, the Guyandotte River 

crayfish to respond to changes in their 

environment such as the chronic 

sedimentation and water quality effects 

described above or catastrophic events 

(Noss and Cooperrider 1994, p. 61). 

Small population sizes and inhibited 

gene flow between populations may 

increase the likelihood of local 

extirpation (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 

32–34). 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 (Harris 1984, pp. 93–104; Noss 

and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264–297). 

The populations of the Big Sandy 

crayfish are isolated from other existing 

populations and known historical 

habitats by inhospitable stream 

conditions and dams that are barriers to 

crayfish movement. The current 

population of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish is restricted to one location in 

one stream. This population is isolated 

from other known historical habitats by 

inhospitable stream conditions. The 

level of isolation and the restricted 

ranges seen in each species make 

natural repopulation of historical 

habitats or other new areas following 

previous localized extirpations virtually 

impossible without human intervention. 

Guyandotte River crayfish—As 

discussed previously, the historical 

range of the Guyandotte River crayfish 

has been greatly reduced. Early surveys 

confirmed the species in 9 streams (15 

individual sites) in the Upper 

Guyandotte basin, and prior to the 

widespread habitat degradation that 

began in the early 20th century, it 

undoubtedly occurred at other suitable 

sites throughout the system (Loughman, 

pers. comm. October 24, 2014). In 2009, 

35 likely sites were surveyed in the 

Upper Guyandotte basin (including 13 

of the historical sites), and the species 

was found only in very low numbers at 

a single site in the midreach of Pinnacle 

Creek (Loughman 2013, pp. 5–6). Any 

further reduction in the range of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish (i.e., loss of 

the Pinnacle Creek population) would 

likely result in the species’ extinction. 

Based on the Guyandotte River 

crayfish’s original distribution and the 

behavior of other similar streamdwelling crayfish, it is reasonable to 

surmise that, prior to the widespread 

habitat degradation in the basin, 

individuals from the various occupied 

sites were free to move between sites or 

to colonize (or recolonize) suitable 

vacant sites (Kerby et al. 2005, pp. 407– 

408; Momot 1966, entire). According to 

Loughman (2013, p. 9), Huff Creek, 

where the species was last noted in 

1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170), is 

one of the few streams in the basin that 

still appears to maintain habitat 

conducive to the species. However Huff 

Creek and another historical stream, 

Little Huff Creek, are physically isolated 

from the extant Pinnacle Creek 

population by the R.D. Bailey Dam on 

the Guyandotte River near the town of 

Justice, West Virginia. This physical 

barrier, as well as generally inhospitable 

habitat conditions throughout the basin, 

makes it unlikely and perhaps 

impossible for individuals from the 

extant Pinnacle Creek population to 

successfully disperse to recolonize other 

locations in the basin. 

And, as noted above in Factor A, the 

persistence of the last known 

Guyandotte River crayfish population is 

threatened by several proximate active 

surface coal mines and ORV use in the 

Pinnacle Creek watershed. The species 

lacks redundancy (e.g., the ability of a 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events) and representation (e.g., the 

ability of a species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions), and has very 

little resiliency (e.g., the ability of the 

species to withstand stochastic events); 

therefore, this single small population is 

at an increased risk of extirpation, and 

in this case likely extinction, from 

natural demographic or environmental 

stochasticity, a catastrophic event, or 

even a modest increase in any existing 

threat at the single known site of 

occurrence. 

Big Sandy crayfish—The survey work 

of Thoma (2009, p. 10; 2010, p. 6) and 

Loughman (2013, pp. 7–8) demonstrates 

that the geographic extent of the Big 

Sandy crayfish’s occupied habitat, in 

the context of the species’ historical 

range, is significantly reduced. 

Additionally, their research indicates 

that, because of widespread habitat 

degradation, the species is notably 

absent from many individual streams 

where its presence would otherwise be 

expected, and at most sites where it 

does still persist, it is generally found in 

low numbers. 

Because the Big Sandy crayfish is 

wholly aquatic and therefore limited in 

its ability to move from one location to 

another by the basin’s complex 

hydrology, the species’ overall 

population size and current geographic 

range must be considered carefully 

when evaluating its risk of extinction. 

Prior to the significant habitat 

degradation that began in the late 1800s, 

the Big Sandy crayfish likely occurred 

in suitable stream habitat throughout its 

range (from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork 

confluence to the headwater streams in 

the Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug 

Fork basins) (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Thoma 

et al. 2014, p. 549), and individuals 

were free to move between occupied 

sites or to colonize (or recolonize) 

suitable vacant sites. The current 

situation is quite different, with the 

species’ occupied subwatersheds being 

isolated from each other by linear 

distance (of downstream and upstream 

segments), inhospitable intervening 

habitat, and/or dams. Therefore, the 

status and risk of extirpation of each 

individual subpopulation must be 

considered in assessing the species’ risk 

of extinction. Based on habitat 

connectedness (or lack thereof), we 

consider the existing Big Sandy crayfish 

subpopulations to be the upper Tug 

Fork population, the upper Levisa Fork 

population, the Russell Fork/Levisa 

Fork population (including Shelby 

Creek), and the Pound River/Cranes 

Nest River population (Figure 7). While 

the Pound River and Cranes Nest River 

are in the same subwatershed, they both 

flow into the Flannagan Reservoir, 

which is unsuitable habitat for the 

species. Therefore, the Big Sandy 

crayfish populations in these streams 

are not only isolated from other 

populations by the dam and reservoir, 

but also most likely isolated from each 

other by the inhospitable habitat in the 

reservoir itself (Loughman, pers. comm., 

December 1, 2014). It is conceivable, 

however, that on occasions when 

reservoir levels are low, crayfish from 

the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers could 

intermix. Also, because the Fishtrap 

Dam physically isolates the upper 

Levisa Fork (Dismal Creek) population 

from the remainder of the species’ 

range, only the upper Tug Fork and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Russell Fork/Levisa Fork 

subpopulations still maintain any 

possible connection. However, 

intervening stream distance (240 km 

(150 mi)) and poor habitat conditions in 

both the lower Tug Fork and the lower 

Levisa Fork make it unlikely that 

individuals from either subpopulation 

can migrate out of their respective 

subbasins to intermix or recolonize 

other sites. 

There is one exception to this 

subpopulation organization. In 2009, a 

single Big Sandy crayfish was recovered 

by Thoma (2010, p. 6) in the lower 

Levisa Fork at the town of Auxier, 

Kentucky, more than 50 km (31 mi) 

downstream of the nearest other 

occupied site near the town of Coal Run 

Village, Kentucky (Figure 7). The author 

surveyed 8 other likely sites in the 

lower Levisa system between Auxier 

and Coal Run Village, but did not 

confirm the species at any location. 

Therefore, we conclude that the lower 

Levisa Fork system does not represent a 

viable subpopulation. 

The four remaining subpopulations 

differ in their resiliency. The upper 

Levisa Fork population persists in a 

single stream, as do the Pound River/

Cranes Nest River populations. While 

the species appears to be moderately 

abundant in these streams (see Table 3, 

above), the fact that they are restricted 

to single streams (versus a network of 

streams) makes them especially 

susceptible to catastrophic loss as a 

result of a contaminant spill, disease, 

stream dredging, or other perturbation. 

The upper Tug Fork population also 

appears to be relatively insecure, with 

most sites where the species is still 

found showing very low abundance. 

Thoma (2010, p. 6) found the species in 

low numbers in the Kentucky portion of 

the upper Tug Fork system and 

described their status there as ‘‘highly 

tenuous.’’ 

This isolation, caused by habitat 

fragmentation, reduces the resiliency of 

the species by eliminating the potential 

movement of individuals from one 

subpopulation to another, or to 

unoccupied sites that could become 

habitable in the future. This inhibits 

gene flow in the species as a whole and 

will likely reduce the genetic diversity 

and perhaps the fitness of individuals in 

the remaining subpopulations. 

Interspecific competition—A 

contributing factor to the imperilment of 

the habitat-specialist Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes may be 

increased interspecific competition 

brought about by habitat degradation. In 

the Upper Guyandotte, researchers 

surmise that as the benthic habitat was 

degraded by sedimentation, competition 

between the habitat-specialist 

Guyandotte River crayfish and more 

generalist native crayfish species may 

have contributed to the former’s decline 

(Loughman 2014, pp. 32–33). The 

Guyandotte River crayfish has always 

been associated with faster moving 

water of riffles and runs, while other 

native species such as Cambarus 

theepiensis are typically associated with 

the lower velocity portions of streams. 

Loughman surmises that, because these 

lower velocity stream habitats suffer the 

effects of increased sedimentation and 

bottom embeddedness before the effects 

are manifested in the faster moving 

reaches, the native crayfish using these 

habitats migrated into the relatively less 

affected riffle and run habitats that are 

normally the niche of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. In the ensuing 

competition between the habitatspecialist Guyandotte River crayfish and 

the more generalist species, the former 

is thought to be at a competitive 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07AP15.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18735 

disadvantage. Survey results support 

this hypothesis, with C. theepiensis 

being found commonly in the riffle 

habitats of streams suffering from high 

sediment loads, including the historical 

Guyandotte River crayfish locations. At 

the Pinnacle Creek location, Loughman 

(2014, pp. 9, 33) noted a 40:1 ratio 

between C. theepiensis and Guyandotte 

River crayfish numbers. We have no 

information to determine whether or not 

the Big Sandy crayfish faces similar 

competitive pressures. 

Direct Mortality Due to Crushing 

As discussed above under Factor A, 

ORV use of unpaved trails are a source 

of sedimentation into the aquatic 

habitats within the range of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition 

to this habitat degradation, there is the 

potential for direct crayfish mortality as 

a result of crushing when ORVs use 

stream crossings, or when they deviate 

from designated trails or run over slab 

boulders that the Guyandotte River 

crayfish use for shelter (Loughman 

2014, pp. 30–31). 

Summary of Factor E—The habitat of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes is highly fragmented, thereby 

isolating the remaining populations of 

each species from each other. The 

remaining individuals are found in very 

low numbers at most locations where 

they still exist. The level of isolation 

and the restricted ranges seen in each 

species make natural repopulation of 

historical habitats or other new areas 

following previous localized 

extirpations virtually impossible 

without human intervention. This 

reduction in redundancy and 

representation significantly impairs the 

resiliency of each species and poses a 

threat to their continued existence. In 

addition, direct mortality due to 

crushing may have a significant effect 

on the Guyandotte River crayfish. 

Interspecific competition from other 

native crayfish species that are more 

adapted to degraded stream conditions 

may also act as an additional stressor to 

the Guyandotte River crayfish. 

Cumulative Effects From Factors A 

Through E 

Based on the risk factors described 

above, the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish are at an 

increased risk of extinction primarily 

due to land-disturbing activities that 

increase erosion and sedimentation, and 

subsequently degrade the stream habitat 

required by both species (Factor A), and 

due to the effects of small population 

size (Factor E). Other contributing 

factors are degraded water quality and 

unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). 

While events such as collection (Factor 

B) or disease and predation (Factor C) 

are not currently known to affect either 

species, any future incidences will 

further reduce the resiliency of the 

Guyandotte River and Big Sandy 

crayfishes. 

12-Month Petition Finding 

Big Sandy Crayfish 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

Big Sandy crayfish is an endangered or 

threatened species, as cited in the 

petition, throughout all of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the Big Sandy crayfish. 

We reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized crayfish experts and other 

Federal and State agencies. 

We identify that the primary threats to 

the Big Sandy crayfish are attributable 

to land disturbance that increases 

erosion and sedimentation, which 

degrades the stream habitat required by 

both species (Factor A), and to the 

effects of small population size (Factor 

E). Other contributing factors are 

degraded water quality and unpermitted 

stream dredging (Factor A). Existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to reduce these threats (Factor D). 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list the 

Big Sandy crayfish as an endangered or 

threatened species is warranted. A 

determination on the status of the 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species is presented below in the 

proposed listing determination. 

Status Review Finding 

Guyandotte River Crayfish 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

Guyandotte crayfish is an endangered or 

threatened species throughout all of its 

range. We examined the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. We reviewed information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized crayfish experts and other 

Federal and State agencies. 

We identify that the primary threats to 

the Guyandotte River crayfish are 

attributable to land disturbance that 

increases erosion and sedimentation, 

which degrades the stream habitat 

required by both species (Factor A), and 

to the effects of small population size 

(Factor E). Other contributing factors are 

degraded water quality and unpermitted 

stream dredging (Factor A). Existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to reduce these threats (Factor D). 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the Guyandotte River crayfish 

warrants listing as an endangered or 

threatened species. A determination on 

the status of the species as an 

endangered or threatened species is 

presented below in the proposed listing 

determination. 

Determination 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on (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; or (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. 

As discussed above, we have carefully 

assessed the best scientific and 

commercial information and data 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Big Sandy 

crayfish and the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. Rangewide habitat loss and 

degradation (Factor A) is occurring from 

land-disturbing activities that increase 

erosion and sedimentation, which 

degrades the stream habitat required by 

both species. Identified sources of 

ongoing erosion include active surface 

coal mining, commercial forestry, 

unpaved roads, gas and oil 

development, and road construction. An 

additional threat specific to the 

Guyandotte River crayfish is the 

operation of ORVs in and adjacent to 

Pinnacle Creek, the last known 

remaining extant population. 

Contributing stressors to both species 

include water quality degradation 

(Factor A) resulting from abandoned 

coal mine drainage; untreated (or poorly 

treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; 

unpermitted stream dredging; and 

potential catastrophic spills of coal 

slurry, fluids associated with gas well 

development, or other contaminants. 

The effects of habitat loss have resulted 

in a significant range contraction of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Big Sandy crayfish to all but higher 

elevation habitats, and the Guyandotte 

River crayfish’s current distribution is 

limited to one site with five known 

individuals confirmed during last 

survey in 2011. Existing State wildlife 

laws and Federal regulations such as the 

CWA and SMCRA are insufficient to 

address the threats to the species (Factor 

D). Additionally, the habitat of the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

is highly fragmented, thereby isolating 

the remaining populations of each 

species (Factor E) from each other. The 

remaining individuals are found in very 

low numbers at most locations where 

they still exist. The single remaining 

population of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish has no redundancy and 

significantly reduced representation. 

The level of isolation and the restricted 

range of each species make natural 

repopulation of historical habitats or 

other new areas following previous 

localized extirpations virtually 

impossible without human intervention. 

The reduction in redundancy and 

representation for each species 

significantly impairs their resiliency 

and poses a threat to their continued 

existence. The interspecific competition 

(Factor E) from other native crayfish 

species that are more adapted to 

degraded stream conditions may act as 

an additional stressor to the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. These Factor A and 

Factor E threats are rangewide; are not 

likely to be reduced in the future; are 

likely to increase (e.g., for Factor A, oil 

and gas development and road 

construction; for Factor E, extirpation 

and further isolation of populations); 

and are significant because they further 

restrict limited available habitat and 

decrease the resiliency of Big Sandy 

crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish 

within those habitats. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as any species ‘‘that 

is likely to become endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range within the foreseeable future.’’ 

As discussed above, we find that the Big 

Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte 

River crayfish are in danger of 

extinction throughout their entire ranges 

based on the severity and immediacy of 

threats currently affecting these species. 

For the Big Sandy crayfish, although the 

species still occupies sites located 

throughout the breadth of its historical 

range, the remaining sites are 

significantly reduced to only the higher 

elevations within the watersheds; the 

remaining habitat and populations are 

threatened by a variety of factors acting 

in combination to reduce the overall 

viability of the species. The risk of 

extinction is high because the remaining 

populations are small and isolated, and 

because there is limited potential for 

recolonization. For the Guyandotte 

River crayfish, the species has been 

reduced to a single site, and its habitat 

and population are threatened by a 

variety of factors acting in combination 

to reduce, and likely eliminate, the 

overall viability of the species. The risk 

of extinction is high because the single 

population is very small and isolated, 

and has essentially no potential to 

recolonize other sites. Therefore, on the 

basis of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we propose to 

list the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish as 

endangered species in accordance with 

sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act 

because the threats are impacting both 

of the species at a high level of severity 

across their severely contracted ranges 

now, and are expected to increase into 

the future. All of these factors combined 

lead us to conclude that the threat of 

extinction is high and immediate, thus 

warranting a determination as an 

endangered species rather than a 

threatened species for both the Big 

Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish are 

endangered throughout all of their 

ranges, no portion of their ranges can be 

‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ See the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). 

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 by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan also identifies recovery 

criteria for review of when a species 

may be ready for downlisting or 

delisting, and methods for monitoring 

recovery progress. Recovery plans also 

establish a framework for agencies to 

coordinate their recovery efforts and 

provide estimates of the cost of 

implementing recovery tasks. Recovery 

teams (composed of species experts, 

Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our Web site 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from the Northeast Regional Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation, removal of 

sedimentation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18737 

because they may occur primarily or 

solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve 

recovery of these species requires 

cooperative conservation efforts on 

private, State, and Tribal lands. If these 

species are listed, funding for recovery 

actions will be available from a variety 

of sources, including Federal budgets; 

State programs; and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the States of 

Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia 

would be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

the Big Sandy crayfish, and the State of 

West Virginia would be eligible for 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Big Sandy crayfish and 

Guyandotte River crayfish are only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for these species. Additionally, 

we invite you to submit any new 

information on these species whenever 

it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species 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) of 

the Act 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 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 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 management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (ACOE); issuance of section 

404 CWA permits by the ACOE; 

issuance or oversight of coal mining 

permits by the Office of Surface Mining 

(OSM); and construction and 

maintenance of roads, bridges, or 

highways by the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may 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. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the ranges of species proposed for 

listing. Based on the best available 

information, the following actions are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if these activities are carried 

out in accordance with existing 

regulations and permit requirements; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Normal agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, which are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices; and 

(2) Surface coal mining and 

reclamation activities conducted in 

accordance with the 1996 Biological 

Opinion between the Service and OSM. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unlawful destruction or alteration 

of the habitat of the Big Sandy crayfish 

or Guyandotte River crayfish (e.g., 

unpermitted instream dredging, 

impoundment, water diversion or 

withdrawal, channelization, discharge 

of fill material) that impairs essential 

behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering, or results in killing or 

injuring a Big Sandy crayfish or 

Guyandotte River crayfish. 

(2) Unauthorized discharges or 

dumping of toxic chemicals or other 

pollutants into waters supporting the 

Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River 

crayfish that kills or injures individuals, 

or otherwise impairs essential lifesustaining behaviors such as breeding, 

feeding, or finding shelter. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the appropriate office: 

• Kentucky Ecological Services Field 

Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, 

Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 

695–0468; facsimile (502) 695–1024. 

• Southwest Virginia Ecological 

Services Field Office, 330 Cummings 

Street, Abingdon, VA 24210; telephone 

(276) 623–1233; facsimile (276) 623– 

1185. 

• West Virginia Field Office, 694 

Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; 

telephone (304) 636–6586; facsimile 

(304) 636–7824. 

Critical Habitat for the Big Sandy 

Crayfish and Guyandotte River 

Crayfish 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary designate 

critical habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

There is currently no imminent threat 

of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism under Factor B for either the 

Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River 

crayfish, and identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is not likely 

to increase any such threat. In the 

absence of finding that the designation 

of critical habitat would increase threats 

to a species, if there are any benefits to 

a critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. The 

potential benefits of designation 

include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is or has become unoccupied or the 

occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 

conservation activities on the most 

essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

Therefore, because we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

will not likely increase the degree of 

threat to these species and may provide 

some measure of benefit, we find that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the species is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: (i) Information 

sufficient to perform required analyses 

of the impacts of the designation is 

lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of 

the species are not sufficiently well 

known to permit identification of an 

area as critical habitat. 

As discussed above, we have 

reviewed the available information 

pertaining to the biological needs of 

these species and habitat characteristics 

where these species are located. Because 

we are seeking additional information 

regarding water quality conditions 

within the range of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes, updated 

occurrence records for both species, 

future climate change effects on the 

species’ habitat, and other analyses, we 

conclude that the designation of critical 

habitat is not determinable for the Big 

Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River 

crayfish at this time. We will make a 

determination on critical habitat no later 

than 1 year following any final listing 

determination. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18739 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We are not aware of any Big Sandy 

Crayfish or Guyandotte River Crayfish 

populations on tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Northeast 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Northeast Regional Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

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

for ‘‘Crayfish, Big Sandy’’ and ‘‘Crayfish, 

Guyandotte River’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under 

CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth 

below: 

§ 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 

*******

CRUSTACEANS 

*******

Crayfish, Big Sandy ... Cambarus callainus ... U.S.A. (KY, VA, WV) Entire ....... E TBD NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Crayfish, Guyandotte 

River.

Cambarus veteranus U.S.A. (WV) ............... Entire ....... E TBD NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * Dated: March 17, 2015. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07625 Filed 4–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2