14662 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE19 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Big Sandy Crayfish and 

Guyandotte River Crayfish 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy 

crayfish (Cambarus callainus) and 

Guyandotte River crayfish (C. veteranus) 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act). 

In total, approximately 717 stream 

kilometers (446 stream miles) in 

Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia 

fall within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. The effect of this 

final rule is to designate critical habitat 

for the Big Sandy crayfish, which is a 

threatened species under the Act, and 

Guyandotte River crayfish, which is an 

endangered species under the Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098 or at https:// 

www.fws.gov/northeast/ and at the West 

Virginia Ecological Services Field 

Office. Comments and materials we 

received, as well as some supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this rule, are available for public 

inspection in the docket at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this critical habitat designation and 

are available at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098, at https://

www.fws.gov/westvirginiafieldoffice/ 

index.html, and at the West Virginia 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any 

additional tools or supporting 

information that we developed for this 

critical habitat designation will also be 

available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service website and field office set out 

above, and may also be included in the 

preamble and at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer L. Norris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia 

Ecological Services Field Office, 6263 

Appalachian Highway, Davis, WV 

26260; telephone 304–866–3858; email 

FW5_WVFO@fws.gov. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. This 

document is a final rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy 

crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish. 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 

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

seq.) (Act), any species that is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species requires critical 

habitat to be designated, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

We listed the Big Sandy crayfish as a 

threatened species and the Guyandotte 

River crayfish as an endangered species 

on April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20450). On 

January 28, 2020, we published in the 

Federal Register a proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes (85 FR 

5072). 

What this document does. This 

document is a final rule that designates 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy 

crayfish and the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. The critical habitat areas we 

are designating in this rule constitute 

our current best assessment of the areas 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfishes. We are designating a 

total of approximately 717 stream 

kilometers (skm) (446 stream miles 

(smi)) of rivers and streams in Kentucky, 

Virginia, and West Virginia for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

The basis for our action. Section 

4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary 

of the Interior (Secretary) to designate 

critical habitat concurrent with listing to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

defines critical habitat as (i) the specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, at the time it 

is listed, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protections; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination by the Secretary 

that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Peer review and public comment. Our 

designation is based on the best 

scientific data available in the proposed 

and final listing rules (80 FR 18710, 

April 7, 2015, and 81 FR 20450, April 

7, 2016, respectively) and proposed and 

final critical habitat designations (85 FR 

5072, January 28, 2020, and this rule, 

respectively). The proposed listing rule 

was peer-reviewed by four scientists 

with expertise in crayfish and their 

habitats, and we also considered all 

comments and information received 

from State and Federal resource 

agencies and the public in developing 

the final listing rule (81 FR 20450, April 

7, 2016). We solicited peer review for 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat; however, none of the three 

species experts responded to our 

request. We considered all comments 

and information received from State and 

Federal resource agencies and the 

public during the comment period for 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. Information we received from 

public comment is incorporated in this 

final designation of critical habitat, as 

appropriate, or addressed below in 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We proposed the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes for listing 

on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), and 

finalized the listing on April 7, 2016 (81 

FR 20450). As such, the Big Sandy 

crayfish is included as a threatened 

species and the Guyandotte River 

crayfish is included as an endangered 

species on the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 

17.11(h). We also proposed to designate 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes on January 

28, 2020 (85 FR 5072). For information 

on any actions prior to these rules, refer 

to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 

18710, April 7, 2015). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14663 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

We have considered all comments 

and information received during the 

open comment period for the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

In the Critical Habitat section of this 

document, we provide new or revised 

information and references on crayfish 

movement (e.g., upstream) and our 

revised screening analysis. Based on 

further review and an effort to clarify 

our descriptions of the physical and 

biological features (PBFs), we modified 

the PBF 1 by adding additional 

descriptive information about habitat 

quality. Critical habitat boundaries 

remain unchanged from the proposed 

critical habitat designation (85 FR 5072, 

January 28, 2020). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes (85 FR 

5072) during a 60-day comment period 

that opened on January 28, 2020, and 

closed on March 30, 2020. A newspaper 

notice inviting general public comment 

was published in USA Today on 

February 5, 2020. We did not receive 

any requests for a public hearing. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule and draft economic 

analysis during the comment period. 

We sought comments from three 

independent specialists to ensure that 

our designation was based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We received no comments 

from the peer reviewers. During the 

comment period, we received 45 

comment submittals from organizations 

or individuals in response to the 

proposed critical habitat designation. Of 

these, 35 were nonsubstantive letters or 

form letters (submitted by 3 

nongovernmental organizations [one 

organization packaged 3,401 subletters 

and another packaged 259 subletters]) in 

support of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. One of these letters, 

representing 23 nongovernmental 

organizations, summarized threats to the 

species and their habitats, consistent 

with the information provided in the 

proposed rule. Three letters provided 

detailed information regarding the 

species or its habitat in favor of 

additional critical habitat designation 

beyond what was proposed. One letter 

provided detailed water depth/elevation 

data for the proposed habitat. Five 

letters objected to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for either 

or both of the species. All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period has either been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or is addressed below. 

In addition, several letters also 

contained suggestions applicable to 

general recovery issues for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

but not directly related to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., meaning these 

comments are outside the scope of this 

critical habitat rule). These general 

comments included topics such as the 

role of crayfish in aquatic ecosystems 

and the importance of clean water, and 

the suggestion to seek information on 

crayfish restoration from commercial 

crayfish farmers. While these comments 

may not be directly incorporated into 

the critical habitat rule, we have noted 

the suggestions and look forward to 

working with our partners on these 

topics during recovery planning for the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. 

Comments From Federal Agencies 

(1) Comment: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) provided information 

on its operation of three multipurpose 

flood control dams and how those 

actions could potentially affect 

proposed critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. 

The Corps also provided a point of 

contact for more information on the 

operations of Corps reservoirs in the 

Guyandotte and Big Sandy basins. 

Our response: We look forward to 

working with the Corps to coordinate 

dam maintenance and operation 

activities while also promoting the 

conservation of the Guyandotte and Big 

Sandy crayfishes in the identified 

subunits. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ The Service received 

supportive comments from the West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

(WVDNR). WVDNR stated that there is 

no benefit to exclusion of any of the 

proposed critical habitat areas. Further, 

WVDNR noted that current occupied 

areas do not provide sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation necessary to ensure 

persistence of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish and it supported the inclusion 

of Huff Creek, Indian Creek, and 

Guyandotte River as unoccupied critical 

habitat. Also, WVDNR recognized the 

importance of special management 

actions for Indian Creek as this stream 

is often dewatered (possibly due to 

anthropogenic causes). 

Public Comments 

(1) Comment: Two commenters who 

have researched the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes expressed 

support for the proposed critical habitat 

for both species, but they also 

recommended that we designate 

additional unoccupied critical habitat to 

support the conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. The 

commenters referred to two studies 

completed after we published the 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

5072, January 28, 2020). One study 

reported that individual Guyandotte 

River crayfish may have a tendency to 

move in an upstream direction and one 

study determined there is a high 

probability of detecting the species in 

certain headwater areas of the 

Guyandotte River (Sadecky 2020, pp. 

118–119 and Tidmore 2020, pp. 29–40). 

Both commenters hypothesized that 

crayfish in the occupied Pinnacle Creek 

subunit may move upstream in the 

Guyandotte River to occupy or reoccupy 

currently unoccupied streams, and one 

commenter recommended the addition 

of four specific tributary streams located 

upstream in the Guyandotte River be 

designated as unoccupied critical 

habitat: Barkers Creek, Devil’s Fork, 

Winding Gulf, and Tommy Creek. 

One commenter stated that 

unoccupied reaches are needed to allow 

redistribution of the species, because 

Guyandotte River crayfish are present in 

only two streams of the proposed 

critical habitat (without this protection, 

delisting/recovery is improbable). The 

commenter also noted they had 

witnessed several spills in Guyandotte 

River crayfish habitat while conducting 

field research on the species. 

Our response: These researchers have 

provided additional information on the 

life history, behavior, habitat 

requirements, and potential stressors 

(e.g., climate change) affecting the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. Species’ 

expansion into unoccupied streams 

would benefit their conservation. The 

new information confirms that 

individual crayfish move within stream 

reaches and that 59 percent of crayfish 

movements were in an upstream 

direction (Sadecky 2020, p. 119). This 

study reported one male crayfish moved 

620 m (2,034 ft) upstream during a 44- 

day study period (Sadecky 2020, pp. 

118–119). As discussed in the proposed 

critical habitat rule, and affirmed by this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14664 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

new information, we considered the 

potential for crayfish movement by 

designating entire stream reaches 

between known occurrence locations as 

critical habitat unless available data 

indicated that these areas lacked PBFs. 

Additionally, the upstream terminus of 

most critical habitat units (typically a 

stream confluence) is located beyond 

the most upstream occurrence record of 

the species. 

For the unoccupied Guyandotte River 

critical habitat subunit (1c), which we 

determined was essential for providing 

connectivity between the occupied 

Pinnacle Creek and Clear Fork subunits 

(1a and 1b, respectively), the upstream 

limit is the Guyandotte River–Pinnacle 

Creek confluence (which marks the 

downstream terminus of subunit 1a). 

Therefore, a continuous reach of critical 

habitat extends from the upstream 

terminus of the Pinnacle Creek subunit 

(1a), through the Guyandotte River 

subunit (1c), to the upstream terminus 

of the Clear Fork–Laurel Fork subunit 

(1b), a distance of approximately 90 skm 

(56 smi). Spatially arranging the critical 

habitat units in this manner facilitates 

crayfish movements consistent with 

PBF 6, which provides for ‘‘an 

interconnected network of streams and 

rivers . . . that allow(s) for the 

movement of individual crayfish in 

response to environmental, 

physiological, or behavioral drivers.’’ 

We have reviewed information on the 

four specific streams recommended for 

additional unoccupied critical habitat. 

One of these streams, Barkers Creek, is 

located approximately 21 skm (13 smi) 

upstream of the Guyandotte River– 

Pinnacle Creek confluence, and the 

remaining three, Devil’s Fork, Winding 

Gulf, and Tommy Creek (Stone Coal 

Creek), are located approximately 40 to 

42 skm (25 to 26 smi) upstream of 

Pinnacle Creek. Of these, historical 

records of the Guyandotte River crayfish 

are available from only Barkers Creek 

(1947). In 2015, a total of 15 sites in 

these and other streams above Pinnacle 

Creek were surveyed, but the 

Guyandotte River crayfish was not 

detected (Loughman 2015b, pp. 4–5). 

Site assessment data from these surveys 

indicated the extent of suitable habitat 

in these headwater areas was limited 

and that habitat quality scores were 

generally lower than in streams where 

the species was present (Loughman 

2015b, pp. 12–25). The commenter 

referenced a more recent habitat model 

(Tidmore 2020, pp. 29–40), which 

determined there was a high probability 

of suitable habitat in some portions of 

these streams; however, 31 validation 

surveys associated with this study failed 

to locate the species outside of the 

streams already proposed as occupied 

critical habitat (although the report does 

not indicate how many of these 

validation surveys occurred in the 4 

streams recommended as unoccupied 

critical habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside of 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. We acknowledge that 

some segments of these streams contain 

areas of suitable habitat as described in 

Tidmore (2020, pp. 29–40) and contain 

one or more of the PBFs required by the 

species, and we conclude that the best 

available information (e.g., 

aforementioned validation surveys) does 

not indicate that these areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. While the most downstream 

stream (Barkers Creek) has a historical 

record of the species, we have no data 

indicating the species was historically 

present in the more distant upstream 

reaches or tributaries. Areas included in 

this final designation provides sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation to conserve the species. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, we 

determined that the two occupied 

critical habitat subunits (1a and 1b) are 

not sufficient to ensure the conservation 

of the Guyandotte River crayfish; 

therefore, we proposed three subunits 

(1c, 1d, and 1e) as unoccupied critical 

habitat. Four of the proposed critical 

habitat subunits (two occupied, two 

unoccupied; totaling approximately 

106.6 skm (66.2 smi)) are connected to 

each other, while the fifth unit, Huff 

Creek (subunit 1e totaling 28.0 skm 

(17.4 smi)), provides for increased 

representation by increasing the species’ 

ability to disperse and colonize new 

areas downstream of R.D. Bailey Dam, 

which fragments the range of the 

species. As discussed in the proposed 

rule, four of these subunits have records 

of the species, while the remaining 

subunit (Guyandotte River subunit 1c) 

provides important connectivity 

between the currently occupied 

subunits. As described in the proposed 

rule, successful conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish will require 

the establishment of additional 

populations within the species’ 

historical range; the three unoccupied 

subunits advance this goal. Each 

unoccupied subunit will contribute to 

the conservation of the species by 

furthering the preliminary recovery 

goals identified in the recovery outline 

of increasing the Guyandotte River 

crayfish’s resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation and are essential for its 

conservation. 

The unoccupied critical habitat will 

provide increased redundancy in case of 

spills or other stochastic events. We also 

recognize the threat that spills and other 

stochastic and catastrophic events pose 

to the species and note special 

management may be needed to address 

these threats. 

After considering all of the above 

factors, we conclude areas included in 

this final designation provide sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation to conserve the species, 

and the four additional streams 

recommended by the commenters are 

not essential to the conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish and therefore 

do not meet the definition of critical 

habitat. 

We recognize that habitat is dynamic, 

and species may move from one area to 

another over time. Therefore, critical 

habitat designated at a particular point 

in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be needed for the recovery of the 

species. Areas that are important for the 

conservation of the listed species, both 

inside and outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to: (1) Conservation actions 

implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act, (2) regulatory protections 

afforded by the requirement in section 

7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 

ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species, 

and (3) the prohibitions found in section 

9 of the Act. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the best available information 

at the time of designation will not 

control the direction and substance of 

future recovery plans, habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs), or other 

species conservation planning efforts if 

new information available at the time of 

these planning efforts indicates a 

different outcome. Therefore, if the 

species is found in the referenced areas 

during future surveys, they would be 

subject to the conservation measures 

described above. In addition, we may 

consider these areas during future 

recovery planning and/or conservation 

assessments. 

(2) Comment: One commenter who 

has researched the Guyandotte River 

crayfish stated that alterations to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14665 

headwater streams could make them 

unsuitable for the species and affect the 

water quality of downstream critical 

habitat units. Therefore, the commenter 

recommended that these upper reaches 

be considered for (unoccupied) critical 

habitat designation. 

Our response: We acknowledge that 

degradation to upstream reaches may 

affect downstream aquatic habitat. We 

will consider effects to downstream 

habitats during recovery planning and 

in section 7 consultation processes. We 

refer the reader to our response to 

comment 1 above, which provides a 

thorough discussion of our rationale for 

designating critical habitat for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish and the 

regulatory protections afforded by 

section 7 of the Act. 

(3) Comment: One commenter stated 

that our proposed critical habitat 

designations were flawed because 

current survey data were insufficient to 

determine that certain areas were 

currently occupied; however, no 

specific examples were provided. The 

commenter concluded that the Service 

should more precisely refine critical 

habitat units to include only ‘‘occupied 

stream segments.’’ 

Our response: The regulations for 

designating critical habitat (50 CFR 

424.02) define the geographical area 

occupied by the species as ‘‘An area that 

may generally be delineated around 

species’ occurrences, as determined by 

the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas 

may include those areas used 

throughout all or part of the species’ life 

cycle, even if not used on a regular basis 

(e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal 

habitats, and habitats used periodically, 

but not solely by vagrant individuals).’’ 

As we discussed in the final listing rule 

for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes (81 FR 20450, April 7, 2016) 

and the proposed critical habitat rule 

(85 FR 5072, January 28, 2020), 

occupied critical habitat units (and 

subunits) for these species are based on 

positive survey data collected between 

2006 and 2016 (the time of listing), the 

best available information at that time. 

As we acknowledged then, continuous 

survey data do not exist, and many 

streams with known crayfish 

occurrences have not been surveyed 

completely. The best available 

information indicated both species 

occupy, transit through, or otherwise 

rely upon, stream reaches beyond that of 

any single occurrence location. This 

conclusion is supported by a study of 

Guyandotte River crayfish movements 

and habitat use, which was completed 

after we published the proposed critical 

habitat rule (see Sadecky 2020, entire). 

This study documented that individual 

crayfish routinely engage in substantial 

movements both upstream and 

downstream and that the species makes 

use of and moves through a variety of 

interconnected habitat types including 

riffles, runs, and pools (Sadecky 2020, 

pp. 150; 188–189). These data support 

our determination that stream segments 

between known capture locations are 

likely to be occupied by the crayfish and 

are essential to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

In the final listing rule (81 FR 20450, 

April 7, 2016), we identified habitat 

fragmentation as a stressor for both 

species, and in our proposed critical 

habitat rule we identified one of the 

PBFs essential to the conservation of the 

species as ‘‘An interconnected network 

of streams and rivers . . . that allow(s) 

for the movement of individual crayfish 

in response to environmental, 

physiological, or behavioral drivers. The 

scale of the interconnected stream 

network should be sufficient to allow 

for gene flow within and among 

watersheds.’’ Therefore, we determined 

that critical habitat units should be 

defined in a way that promotes 

connectivity between documented 

occurrences and between populations, 

where possible. To this end, the 

upstream limits of occupied critical 

habitat units occur upstream of a known 

occurrence location. Downstream limits 

generally terminate at stream 

confluences with the next larger 

receiving stream or river (or in some 

cases at a reservoir). We designated the 

entire reach between the upstream and 

downstream termini as critical habitat 

unless available data indicated these 

areas lacked all of the PBFs required by 

the species. 

(4) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the draft economic analysis 

underestimates the economic effects of 

the proposed designation on coal 

mining. The commenter stated that 

critical habitat designation will apply 

restrictive or protective measures to the 

entire watershed, and the Service failed 

to correctly identify the scope and reach 

of the potential economic, national 

security, and social impacts. 

Our response: Our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19 require the Service to 

compare the impacts with and without 

the critical habitat designation when 

describing the probable economic 

impact of a designation (Industrial 

Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2019, pp. 

1–2). Although the commenter provided 

some economic information, it lacked 

detail to correlate with the designation 

of critical habitat. Determining the 

economic impacts of a critical habitat 

designation involves evaluating the 

‘‘without critical habitat’’ baseline 

versus the ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario, to identify those effects 

expected to occur solely due to the 

designation of critical habitat and not 

from the protections that are in place 

due to the species being listed under the 

Act. Economic effects solely due to the 

critical habitat designation include both: 

(1) The costs of increased administrative 

efforts that result from the designation; 

and (2) the economic effects of changes 

in the action to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

These changes can be thought of as 

‘‘changes in behavior’’ or the 

‘‘incremental effect’’ that would most 

likely result from the designation if 

finalized. 

A primary goal of the screening 

analysis is to provide information about 

the likely incremental costs and benefits 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation to determine whether the 

rule meets the threshold for an 

economically significant rule. As 

demonstrated, in occupied units for 

both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfishes, the incremental 

economic costs of the rule are likely to 

be limited to additional administrative 

effort to consider adverse modification 

during section 7 consultations. In the 

unoccupied subunits for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish, incremental economic 

costs may also include project 

modifications to activities with a 

Federal nexus. For the coal mining 

industry in particular, we have 

identified that many of the project 

recommendations the industry may 

provide already are required under 

other rules and regulations (e.g., Clean 

Water Act, Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act, West Virginia Surface 

Mining Reclamation Rule) (IEc 2020). 

Our analysis accounted for potential 

Federal actions within the watershed, 

both inside and outside the proposed 

critical habitat, that may affect the 

proposed critical habitat. We identified 

two project modifications above and 

beyond these existing baseline 

requirements that may result in costs to 

the mining industry as well as Federal 

and State agencies. The final economic 

impact screening analysis presents 

information on these costs, which are 

substantially below the threshold for an 

economically significant rule (IEc 2020). 

National security and social impacts 

are not within the scope of the 

economic impact screening analysis. 

However, section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

allows for particular areas of proposed 

critical habitat to be excluded from the 

final designation based on 

considerations of economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact if the benefits of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14666 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless the Secretary 

determines, based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. However, the 

commenters did not identify any 

particular areas that should be 

considered for exclusion, based on these 

factors, nor did the commenter provide 

any specific substantive information 

that would allow the Service to quantify 

or weigh the incremental effects of these 

factors in any particular area of 

proposed critical habitat to conduct an 

exclusion analysis. We did not receive 

any information from Federal agencies 

responsible for national security that the 

proposed designation would affect these 

interests, and therefore we have not 

identified any areas for exclusion 

analysis based on this factor. 

(5) Comment: Two comments 

emphasized the historic importance of 

protection and enhancement plans 

(PEPs) and related adaptive 

management plans to protect the 

crayfish that the coal industry has 

developed with the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WDEP). One commenter suggested 

maintaining and expanding the use of 

PEPs across the proposed unoccupied 

habitat and expressed fears that the 

PEPs and adaptative management plans 

may be undermined with the 

designation of critical habitat. The 

comment concludes by suggesting that 

the resources devoted to critical habitat 

regulations could have more benefit for 

the crayfish if they were used in a 

coordinated voluntary conservation and 

recovery effort instead. 

Our response: We recognize the 

cooperative efforts of the WVDEP and 

the WV Coal Association in developing 

PEPs on projects that may affect these 

two crayfishes and looks forward to 

similar cooperative efforts in the future. 

We will continue to work with partners 

to address conservation and recovery of 

the species and its critical habitat 

through PEPs and other adaptive 

management measures, as appropriate 

and consistent with regulations. We 

note that current regulations and 

voluntary cooperative efforts have not 

resulted in the development of PEPs for 

any coal mining projects that would 

affect any streams that are designated 

for unoccupied critical habitat. 

Therefore, the designation of 

unoccupied critical habitat should not 

undermine any existing PEPs but rather 

should facilitate the development of 

additional PEPs and adaptive 

management efforts within these areas 

as recommended by the commenter. 

(6) Comment: In regard to the draft 

economic analysis (DEA), one 

commenter stated the Service should 

not generalize potential economic 

impacts to only one coal mine but 

should look at effects to the watershed 

holistically, including associated 

development like railways that transport 

coal. For coal mines higher in the 

watershed, the commenter stated that 

site-specific conditions such as 

topography and property access might 

make some conservation measures 

infeasible. 

Our response: We recognize that 

effects for these species should be 

considered on a watershed-level (see 

our response to comment 2 for 

information on how we consider effects 

to downstream resources), and also 

recognize that different conservation 

measures may be appropriate for 

different projects. For example, smallscale projects high in the watershed may 

not need the same scope or extent of 

conservation measures compared to a 

large-scale project occurring directly 

adjacent to a stream designated as 

critical habitat. In addition, construction 

techniques or conservation measures 

may not be feasible or applicable to all 

projects. As a result, when working with 

applicants, we consider issues such as 

topography and access when 

determining what conservation 

measures are appropriate. In addition, 

we have taken a watershed-level 

approach when evaluating effects from 

proposed projects including coal mines, 

as is reflected in the review of 

consultations and effects incorporated 

in our economics screening analysis. 

However, our analysis must be based on 

the best available information. For some 

project types, there may be a limited 

suite of previous project reviews 

available by which to estimate potential 

effects. We have updated our economic 

screening analysis to incorporate results 

from recent consultations. 

Based on the public comments 

received on the proposed rule package, 

a final economic impact screening 

analysis updated the evaluation of 

potential costs associated with project 

modifications for consultations on 

mining activities that occur in 

watersheds with unoccupied critical 

habitat. In particular, the analysis relies 

on more detailed information from us 

regarding the likely project 

modifications recommended to avoid 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, and a more detailed assessment 

of the incremental costs of these 

modifications. Specifically, the final 

economic impact screening analysis 

quantifies costs associated with 

biological assessment stations and 

continuous turbidity loggers based on 

communication with State and Federal 

regulatory agencies. The analysis 

additionally provides information on 

the potential for additional costs to 

mine operators of recommendations for 

more stringent cleanout of sediment 

structures at the mines affecting 

unoccupied habitat. The final economic 

impact screening analysis describes that 

project modifications may not be 

requested of all mines given their 

unique characteristics; however, to 

provide a conservative estimate of costs 

that is more likely to overstate than 

understate costs, the analysis assumes 

all future mines in watersheds with 

unoccupied habitat would undertake 

these project modifications due to the 

critical habitat designation. We expect 

to work with individual mines to assess 

which project modifications are 

recommended for their site-specific 

conditions. 

(7) Comment: One commenter 

believes that the proposed critical 

habitat for the two species is too large 

and that we included streams that ‘‘do 

not contain these species and also do 

not contain the features and 

characteristics necessary to potentially 

support the species.’’ 

Our response: Section 4 of the Act 

requires that we designate critical 

habitat on the basis of the best scientific 

data available, which we discuss and 

reference in the final listing rule (81 FR 

20450, April 7, 2016) and proposed 

critical habitat rule (85 FR 5072, January 

28, 2020). All units contain the physical 

and biological features needed to 

support the species. Additionally, in our 

responses to comments 1 and 3 above, 

we provide a thorough discussion of our 

rationale for designating (or not 

designating) critical habitat. 

(8) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, in our analysis of likely economic 

effects, we had incorrectly concluded 

that the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

‘‘owns’’ the water and that this 

(presumed) error invalidated our entire 

economic analysis. 

Our response: As we discussed in the 

proposed critical habitat rule, for the 

purposes of analyzing the potential 

economic effects of critical habitat 

designation, the critical habitat units/ 

subunits were determined to be in either 

private, Federal, or State ownership 

based on the identification of the 

adjacent riparian landowner(s) (i.e., 

private, Federal, State). This comports 

with our original citation (Energy & 

Mineral Law Institute 2011, pp. 414– 

415), which states that, in Kentucky, 

riparian landowners own the stream bed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14667 

‘‘to the middle of the stream thread.’’ It 

appears the commenter may have 

interpreted this to mean that adjacent 

landowners also own the water in the 

stream. However, this interpretation is 

contradicted by Kentucky Statute 

151.120(1), which states, ‘‘Water 

occurring in any stream, lake, ground 

water, subterranean water or other body 

of water in the Commonwealth which 

may be applied to any useful and 

beneficial purpose is hereby declared to 

be a natural resource and public water 

of the Commonwealth and subject to 

control or regulation for the public 

welfare. . . .’’ Our economic analysis is 

based upon the best available 

information regarding critical habitat 

ownership. 

(9) Comment: One coal company 

commented that costs associated with 

mining are underestimated and sample 

costs used were from small projects 

with minimal impacts. The commenter 

stated that costs of monitoring/testing 

could be over $100,000/year; plan 

modifications resulting in additional 

impacts to jurisdictional waters could 

increase costs by $1 million; and costs 

associated with relocating fills/colocating valley fills could require new 

trucks at $2 million per truck or 

$300,000 per shift. 

Our response: At the time of the 

proposed rule, there was a limited 

number of previous mining 

consultations that addressed these 

crayfish species that could be used to 

estimate potential costs. Additional 

consultations have been conducted 

since that time. We have updated the 

analysis based on a review of 

recommendations made on multiple 

mining consultations conducted 

throughout the range of these two 

species. The final economic impact 

screening analysis provides a more 

detailed assessment of the baseline 

requirements at mine sites within 

critical habitat due to State and Federal 

regulation of mining even absent critical 

habitat, as well as analysis of how the 

critical habitat rule may result in 

additional project modification 

recommendations above and beyond 

these baseline requirements. 

Specifically, Exhibit A–3 of appendix A 

of the final economic impact screening 

analysis provides information on our 

evaluation of the potential need for 

additional project modifications at mine 

sites in unoccupied critical habitat 

specifically to avoid adverse 

modification that would not already be 

recommended based on existing Federal 

and State rules and requirements in 

West Virginia. The identified 

incremental project modifications 

triggered by the critical habitat rule 

include (1) cleaning out sediment 

structures at 40-percent design capacity 

instead of the currently required 60- 

percent design capacity and (2) 

installing continuous turbidity loggers 

and biological assessment station sites 

to statistically monitor sediment and 

other water quality attributes of the 

streams that may affect the crayfish. The 

analysis also provides cost estimates 

associated with these project 

modifications in particular. The 

annualized cost of the turbidity loggers 

and biological assessment stations is 

expected to be approximately $120,000 

at both 3- and 7-percent discount rates. 

These costs are expected to be incurred 

by both the coal mining industry as well 

as some State entities responsible for 

water quality monitoring. While data are 

not available to quantify the potential 

costs of the sediment structure cleaning 

recommendation, the screening analysis 

provides qualitative information on this 

unquantified cost for consideration. 

(10) Comment: One commenter stated 

coal mining is the only consequential 

activity because high-quality coal is 

present and provides economic benefits 

to the coal and steel industry. The coal 

and steel industry support national 

security. Measures that would restrict 

coal production would affect the 

economy, and the DEA should be 

revised to include the costs of these lost 

economic resources. 

Our response: No Federal agency 

responsible for national security has 

requested an exclusion from Big Sandy 

crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish 

critical habitat designation. 

We recognize that coal mining is 

prevalent in the range of these two 

species, and as a result have placed 

specific emphasis in review of coal 

mining projects in our screening 

analysis. The screening analysis does 

not identify any incremental impacts of 

the critical habitat designation that 

would likely restrict coal production in 

the region. In the occupied units for 

both crayfish, the economic impacts of 

the rule are expected to be limited to 

additional administrative effort to 

consider adverse modification during 

section 7 consultations. In the 

unoccupied subunits for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish, the economic costs 

additionally may include project 

modification recommendations. We 

have reviewed the best available 

information including existing rules and 

regulations and recent coal mining 

consultations. We then identified those 

project modifications that may be 

incremental and attributable to the 

critical habitat rule, and have updated 

the screening analysis to reflect these 

incremental effects to the coal industry. 

See our response to comment 9 for 

additional information. 

(11) Comment: One commenter stated 

that silvicultural best management 

practices (BMPs) are implemented at 

high rates in the range of the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes and 

that these BMPs are effective at 

protecting water quality, instream 

habitats, and aquatic biota. The 

commenter supported these assertions 

by briefly summarizing the results of 43 

references that summarize the use and 

effectiveness of BMPs in protecting 

aquatic species. The commenter asked 

that the Service consider these 

references when making its final 

determination of critical habitat for the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. The commenter 

recommended the Service recognize 

BMPs as routine practices for protecting 

aquatic habitats and these practices 

should not be considered as ‘‘special 

management.’’ 

Our response: The best available 

information indicates BMP 

implementation rates are relatively high 

(80 to 90 percent) for commercial 

forestry operations across the ranges of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes, and properly implemented 

BMPs can be effective in protecting 

water quality and instream habitats (81 

FR 20450, p. 20467, April 7, 2016). 

Commercial timber harvests occur 

throughout the ranges of both 

crayfishes, and often occur directly 

adjacent to, or on the steep slopes 

above, streams and rivers inhabited by 

these species. We estimate that across 

the ranges of both species, 

approximately 12,600 ha (30,745 ac) of 

forest are harvested annually, 

representing approximately 1.9 percent 

of the total cover within the region 

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

2011b, pp. 26–27; Piva and Cook 2011, 

p. 46). 

As we discussed in Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species in the final 

listing rule (81 FR 20450, April 7, 2016), 

the species and their habitats continue 

to be at risk due to sedimentation 

associated with improperly managed 

timber-harvesting activities. Even with 

high BMP implementation rates, which 

vary from State to State, a significant 

number of acres are logged each year 

with no BMP implementation (80 FR 

18710, p. 18730, April 7, 2015). 

Monitoring and enforcement of BMPs in 

areas of timber harvests, as well as 

ensuring that BMPs are routinely 

updated to incorporate the best 

available information to reduce 

sedimentation and instream disturbance 

in crayfish watersheds are actions that 

are important to the conservation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

these species. Based on these factors, we 

conclude that features essential to the 

conservation of the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes may 

require special management 

considerations or protections from 

threats associated with timberharvesting activities. These threats may 

be ameliorated by implementation of 

BMPs that reduce erosion, 

sedimentation, and stream bank 

destruction. 

(12) Comment: One coal company 

commented that the proposed 

designation overstates the stream miles 

and locations needed for species 

protection and recovery. More 

specifically, the commenter stated that 

conductivity is not a factor/relevant for 

designating critical habitat (citing the 

Service’s Recovery Outline ‘‘[m]ean 

values for conductivity and sulfates at 

sites supporting Big Sandy crayfish 

were similar to sites where the species 

was not detected, suggesting that these 

variables were not as influential in 

determining presence or absence of this 

species.’’ (2018) (p. 3). 

Our response: The best available 

information as cited in the final listing 

rule and the proposed critical habitat 

rule confirms that water quality is 

important to the conservation of these 

crayfishes, and that conductivity is one 

component of water quality that has 

been shown to be correlated with 

Guyandotte River crayfish absence, as 

well as negative effects to other benthic 

macroinvertebrates (see the summary of 

information provided in 81 FR 20450, p. 

20471, April 7, 2016). Therefore, we 

have included reference to this water 

quality parameter in our PBFs. We 

acknowledge that additional 

information is needed to determine 

what thresholds or levels for each water 

quality parameter are sufficient for the 

normal behavior, growth, reproduction, 

and viability of all life stages of the 

species, and therefore have not cited a 

specific level within the PBFs for these 

species. We will continue to work with 

partners to evaluate the effects of 

various water quality parameters on 

these species. 

(13) Comment: One coal company 

stated that connectedness is not a 

sufficient basis for ‘‘over-designating’’ a 

large part of the Tug Fork River as 

critical habitat. 

Our response: We have reviewed data 

regarding the distribution of Big Sandy 

crayfish within the Tug Fork River. We 

proposed 65.9 smi of critical habitat 

within the Tug Fork extending from the 

confluence with Blackberry Creek 

upstream to the confluence with Dry 

Fork. The Big Sandy crayfish is 

documented to occur within both of 

these tributaries as well as throughout 

this reach of the Tug Fork River. Survey 

data collected after the listing of the 

species documented Big Sandy crayfish 

in the Tug Fork both upstream and 

downstream of the proposed critical 

habitat reach (confirming continued 

occupancy), including near the town of 

Hemphill, West Virginia, which is 28 

smi upstream from the terminus of the 

unit (Mountain State Biosurveys, LLC, 

2017, p. 8). The upper terminus of this 

unit has not been ‘‘over-designated;’’ 

instead, suitable habitat continues to 

occur farther upstream. Consistent with 

our previous listing determination and 

information received during the public 

comment period, the best available data 

indicate that interconnected stream 

segments are necessary to provide for 

movement of individuals and gene flow 

between populations. Telemetry studies 

conducted on Guyandotte River crayfish 

document that individuals engage in 

substantial movements, including 819.9 

m by a female between July and August 

and 615.8 m by a male within the month 

of June. The species moves through a 

variety of interconnected habitat types, 

including riffles, runs, and pools 

(Sadecky 2020, pp. 150; 188–189). 

These data support our determination 

that stream segments between known 

capture locations are likely to be 

occupied by the crayfish and are 

essential to provide for the conservation 

of the species. 

(14) Comment: One coal company 

stated that small headwater streams are 

not suitable habitat (cites 80 FR 18710, 

April 7, 2015). 

Our response: We have reviewed the 

best available information including 

new information provided during the 

public comment period such as Tidmore 

(2020, pp. 36–37; 84), which found that 

stream accumulation (a measure of the 

size of the watershed draining into a 

stream reach) rather than stream order is 

a more accurate predictor of habitat 

quality for these species. Other public 

commenters (Sadecky; Loughman) 

noted that the Guyandotte River crayfish 

frequently moves upstream. This 

information confirms that the two 

species need moderate to large sized 

streams but that they are not restricted 

to occurring in only third-order or larger 

streams and may occur in smaller order 

streams when there is sufficient 

accumulation of water from upstream 

reaches. We have reviewed the areas 

proposed for critical habitat designation, 

and determined that no areas of 

proposed critical habitat should be 

deleted as a result of unsuitable stream 

size or elevation. 

(15) Comment: One coal company 

stated that the Service significantly 

understates the economic impacts of its 

critical habitat rule on people living and 

operating in the affected watersheds. 

Our response: The commenter did not 

provide information or specific 

examples of economic impacts on 

people living in the affected watershed. 

The screening analysis provides an 

assessment of the likely costs and 

benefits of the proposed critical habitat 

designation using the best available 

information. 

(16) Comment: One commenter 

supports the designation of critical 

habitat for the two species but 

commented that the designation of 

unoccupied critical habitat for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish and 

reintroduction of the species would 

have adverse effects on the ecosystems 

present in those areas. 

Our response: The commenter did not 

provide specific detail about these 

potential adverse effects. As we 

discussed in the proposed rule, all three 

of the unoccupied critical habitat units 

for the Guyandotte River crayfish are 

located within the species’ historical 

range. Both Indian Creek and Huff Creek 

(subunits 1d and 1e, respectively) have 

historical records of the species, and the 

Guyandotte River (subunit 1c) connects 

(or connected) all known populations of 

the species. Therefore, the historical 

distribution of the species demonstrates 

that it is a naturally occurring 

component of the Upper Guyandotte 

River ecosystem, and reintroduction of 

the species should not cause ‘‘adverse 

effects’’ to the aquatic community in 

these areas. 

(17) Comment: One commenter 

believes the proposed areas are too 

large, the proposal includes areas where 

the species do not occur, and the areas 

do not contain the features and 

characteristics necessary to support the 

species. The commenter felt that three 

unoccupied units (Indian Creek, Huff 

Creek, and Guyandotte River in Subunit 

1c) should not be included because the 

analysis is insufficient to explain why 

these units were chosen and more 

information is needed to: (1) Evaluate 

feasibility of all historically occupied 

reaches, (2) evaluate the cost of restoring 

and maintaining stream health in these 

reaches, (3) evaluate the additive value 

of these reaches to the species’ overall 

viability, and (4) determine the 

economic impact of designating each 

reach as potential critical habitat. 

Our response: We refer the reader to 

our responses to comments 1 and 3, 

above, which provide a thorough 

discussion of our rationale for 

designating critical habitat for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish. The revised 

screening analysis provides more details 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14669 

on the likely economic costs associated 

with designating unoccupied subunits 

for the Guyandotte River crayfish. In 

particular, it provides a more detailed 

assessment of the project modification 

recommendations that would be 

attributed to the proposed rule. In doing 

so, the final economic impact screening 

analysis provides more detail on the 

quantified costs associated with these 

incremental project modifications, 

which total approximately $350,000 on 

an annualized basis for the first 10 

years. These costs are expected to be 

incurred by both the mining industry as 

well as State agencies that monitor 

water quality. Additionally, the final 

economic impact screening analysis 

identifies potential unquantified costs 

associated with recommendations for 

more stringent cleanout of sediment 

structures (i.e., cleanout at 40 percent as 

opposed to 60 percent of design 

capacity) in the unoccupied critical 

habitat areas. 

(18) Comment: One commenter 

commented that the economic analysis 

underestimates the economic costs of 

the proposed action because: (A) The 

Service underestimated costs by using 

one mining project as an example of 

conservation measures; (B) the baseline 

is incorrect, because all areas are not 

occupied; (C) full economic effects are 

missed (information is missing on 

compliance costs, construction costs, 

lost resource revenue, and 

socioeconomic benefits, including lost 

tax revenue, royalties to landowners, 

and wages/benefits to employees); (D) 

outdated data are used (relies on 2002 

data); (E) there is an erroneous 

assumption that no project modification 

would be recommended; (F) there is no 

consideration of State/local 

requirements (surface water standards); 

(G) the analysis of property value 

impacts is flawed; and (H) the 

assumption that all proposed areas are 

occupied is incorrect. 

Our response: The screening analysis 

provides information on the likely costs 

and benefits of the proposed critical 

habitat rule using the best available 

data. In general, the screening analysis 

provides conservative estimates where 

possible and is more likely to overstate 

costs than understate costs, to determine 

if the rule could meet the threshold for 

an economically significant rule. 

Following are responses to the specific 

points of this comment: 

(A) The revised screening analysis 

provides updated cost estimates and 

more detail on the project modification 

recommendations likely to be requested 

of the surface coal mining industry in 

the unoccupied units for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. In particular, it provides 

a more thorough assessment of the 

project modifications we may request 

that go above and beyond existing rules 

and requirements in West Virginia 

based on a review of recent 

consultations on the species. We 

identify two specific recommendations 

we may request that would be 

incremental to the proposed rule and 

provide an updated assessment of the 

costs associated with these 

recommendations. 

(B) The screening analysis 

distinguishes between costs associated 

with occupied and unoccupied subunits 

for the crayfish. The costs of critical 

habitat designation for occupied habitat, 

as noted by the commenter, are 

generally lower because the listing 

status of the species provides baseline 

protection in these areas. That is, project 

modifications undertaken as part of 

section 7 consultations to avoid 

jeopardy to the species in these areas 

most likely also result in the projects 

avoiding adverse modification of critical 

habitat. Thus, we would not likely 

recommend more or different project 

modifications due to the designation of 

critical habitat in these areas. It is for 

this reason that the screening analysis 

separately considers the costs of the 

proposed critical habitat designation in 

occupied and unoccupied units. In 

particular, the incremental section 7 

consultation costs (i.e., above and 

beyond baseline costs) are separately 

assessed for occupied and unoccupied 

units (IEc 2020, pp. 13, 15, 16 (Exhibits 

5, 6, and 7)). While the screening 

analysis identifies only limited 

administrative costs resulting from the 

designation of the occupied units, it 

estimates greater administrative costs, as 

well as the costs of project 

modifications from the designation of 

the unoccupied units. Specifically, the 

screening analysis identifies costs 

associated with the designation of three 

unoccupied habitat subunits for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, where 

project modifications to future mining 

projects are likely and could range from 

$119,933 to $120,682 in a single year. 

(C) The commenter did not provide 

specific cost detail (in United States 

dollars) on compliance costs, 

construction costs, lost resource 

revenue, socioeconomic benefits, lost 

tax revenue, royalties to landowners, or 

wages/benefits to employees. The 

screening analysis finds that the 

incremental costs of the rule are likely 

to include additional administrative 

costs to consider adverse modification 

during section 7 consultations in all 

units, as well as costs of project 

modification recommendations in the 

unoccupied subunits for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. The revised screening 

analysis provides a more detailed 

assessment of costs that may arise from 

these project modification 

recommendations. Given the limited 

incremental costs associated with the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

the screening analysis does not 

anticipate reductions in coal 

production, lost wages, or lost tax 

revenue resulting from the rule. 

(D) The commenter is correct that the 

screening analysis relies on a range of 

incremental costs derived from an 

analysis effort performed in 2002. 

However, while the time required to 

complete the consultations remains 

fixed at the levels assumed in 2002, the 

screening analysis relies on updated 

salary and benefit information reflected 

in the 2019 Federal Government 

Schedule Rules. The administrative 

costs of consultation consider not only 

the level of effort required of us and 

other Federal agencies, but also of third 

parties to consultation, including 

private industry. Exhibit 6 of the 

screening analysis provides more details 

on the breakdown of costs by party. 

(E) As described in (B) above, the 

screening analysis differentiates 

between occupied and unoccupied 

subunits. In occupied units, incremental 

costs due to project modifications are 

not anticipated. As described in section 

3 of the screening analysis, this is 

because project modifications requested 

to avoid adverse modification of critical 

habitat are expected to be identical to 

project modifications requested to avoid 

jeopardy of the species where they 

currently reside. In other words, while 

project modifications may be requested 

in these occupied units, these same 

project modifications would be 

requested due to the listing of the 

species, and therefore critical habitat 

would not likely generate additional 

project modification recommendations. 

In unoccupied subunits, project 

modifications are not undertaken due to 

the presence of the crayfish and thus 

there is greater potential for incremental 

costs of project modifications. We 

identify that critical habitat designation 

may affect mine projects in unoccupied 

habitat in West Virginia due to two 

project modifications; the revised 

screening analysis provides more detail 

about these recommendations as well as 

the costs associated with implementing 

them. 

(F) Section 4 of the screening analysis 

considers the potential for State or other 

local laws to be triggered by the critical 

habitat designation, resulting in an 

incremental impact of the rule. As 

described in the screening analysis as 

well as the Incremental Effects 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14670 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Memorandum, a range of State and local 

laws have been triggered by the listing 

of the species under the Endangered 

Species Act (Act). However, we expect 

that no new State or local rules will 

apply as a result of the critical habitat. 

In other words, the cost of complying 

with State and local laws that were 

triggered by the listing of the species are 

baseline conditions and cannot be 

attributed to the critical habitat 

designation specifically. 

(G) As a riverine species, the crayfish 

do not occur on land, and the literature 

has not evaluated effects of riverine 

critical habitat on property values. 

While the economics screening 

memorandum acknowledges the 

potential exists for the critical habitat 

designation to affect private property 

values, it does not conclude that these 

effects are ‘‘likely,’’ as implied in this 

comment. The economics literature 

evaluating the potential land value 

effects of critical habitat is limited and 

is specific to particular species and 

geographic areas. The memorandum 

therefore highlights this issue as an 

uncertainty associated with the 

screening analysis. Please also see 

comment and response 8, above, 

regarding land ownership in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

(H) As described in (B) above, the 

screening analysis differentiates costs 

incurred in occupied and unoccupied 

subunits. The best available information 

supports our determination of which 

subunits are occupied and unoccupied. 

(19) Comment: One commenter 

suggests that our economic analysis 

consider the economic benefits of 

critical habitat designation. 

Our response: Section 6 of the 

screening analysis considers the 

potential benefits of the critical habitat 

designation. Incremental benefits of the 

critical habitat designation are most 

likely to occur in the unoccupied 

subunits for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish, where consultation to avoid 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

may alter the management of projects, 

resulting in incremental conservation 

efforts. Various economic benefits may 

result from these incremental 

conservation efforts, including 

improved water quality and improved 

ecosystem health for other coexisting 

species, which, in turn, may reduce the 

effort necessary for water treatment and 

ecosystem management. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Refer to our January 28, 2020, 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

5072) for a summary of species 

information available to the Service at 

the time that the proposed rule was 

published. 

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 

(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. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

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 species 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 Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features: (1) Which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside of 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. When designating critical 

habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate 

areas occupied by the species. The 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14671 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. In 

addition, for an unoccupied area to be 

considered essential, the Secretary must 

determine that there is a reasonable 

certainty both that the area will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and that the area contains one 

or more of those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species, the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species, and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to the recovery of this 

species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, HCPs, or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the PBFs that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of 

nonnative species consistent with 

conservation needs of the listed species. 

The features may also be combinations 

of habitat characteristics and may 

encompass the relationship between 

characteristics or the necessary amount 

of a characteristic essential to support 

the life history of the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, the Service may consider an 

appropriate quality, quantity, and 

spatial and temporal arrangement of 

habitat characteristics in the context of 

the life-history needs, condition, and 

status of the species. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derived the specific PBFs required 

for the Big Sandy crayfish and the 

Guyandotte River crayfish from studies 

and observations of these species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history, which 

are discussed in full in the proposed 

critical habitat designation (85 FR 5072, 

January 28, 2020), the species’ proposed 

and final listing rules (80 FR 18710, 

April 7, 2015; 81 FR 20450, April 7, 

2016, respectively), and information 

summarized here. While data are sparse 

with which to quantitatively define the 

optimal or range of suitable conditions 

for a specific biological or physical 

feature needed by these species (e.g., 

degree of sedimentation, water quality 

thresholds, extent of habitat 

connectedness), the available speciesspecific information, in combination 

with information from other similar 

crayfish species, provides sufficient 

information to qualitatively discuss the 

physical and biological features needed 

to support these species. As discussed 

in the proposed (80 FR 18710, April 7, 

2015) and final (81 FR 20450, April 7, 

2016) listing rules, these species are 

classified as ‘‘tertiary’’ (stream) 

burrowing crayfish, meaning that they 

do not exhibit complex burrowing 

behavior; instead of digging holes, they 

shelter in shallow excavations under 

loose cobbles and boulders on the 

stream bottom (Loughman 2013, p. 1). 

These species feed on plant and/or 

animal material, depending on the 

season (Thoma 2009, p. 13; Loughman 

2014, p. 21). The general life cycle 

pattern of these species is 2 to 3 years 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of growth, maturation in the third year, 

and first mating in midsummer of the 

third or fourth year (Thoma 2009, entire; 

Thoma 2010, entire). Following 

midsummer mating, the annual cycle 

involves egg laying in late summer or 

fall, spring release of young, and late 

spring/early summer molting (Thoma 

2009, entire; Thoma 2010, entire). The 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes’ likely lifespan is 5 to 7 years, 

with the possibility of some individuals 

reaching 10 years of age (Thoma 2009, 

entire; Thoma 2010, entire; Loughman 

2014, p. 20). 

Suitable habitat for both the Big 

Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte 

River crayfishes appears to be limited to 

higher elevation, clean, medium-sized 

streams and rivers in the upper reaches 

of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte river 

basins, respectively (Jezerinac et 

al.1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. 21– 

23; Taylor and Shuster 2004, p. 124; 

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

3–4, 6; Loughman 2013, p. 1; Loughman 

2014, pp. 22–23). These streams are 

generally third-order streams or larger; 

however, the species may also occur in 

smaller order streams, as stream 

accumulation rather than stream order 

has been found to be a better predicter 

of habitat quality for these species 

(Tidmore 2020, pp. 36–37; 84). Both 

species are associated with the faster 

moving water of riffles and runs or 

pools with current (Jezerinac et al. 1995, 

p. 170). An important habitat feature for 

both species is large, unembedded slab 

boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock 

stream bottom (Loughman 2013, p. 2; 

Loughman 2014, pp. 9–11). Excessive 

sedimentation leading to substrate 

embeddedness can smother these 

habitats, creating unsuitable habitat 

conditions for these species (Jezerinac et 

al. 1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. 22– 

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

3–4; Loughman 2013, p. 6). As such, we 

have determined that the following 

PBFs are essential for the conservation 

of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes: 

(1) Fast-flowing stream reaches with 

unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or 

isolated boulder clusters within an 

unobstructed stream continuum (i.e., 

riffle, run, pool complexes) of 

permanent, moderate- to large-sized 

(generally third order and larger) 

streams and rivers (up to the ordinary 

high-water mark as defined at 33 CFR 

329.11). 

(2) Streams and rivers with natural 

variations in flow and seasonal flooding 

sufficient to effectively transport 

sediment and prevent substrate 

embeddedness. 

(3) Water quality characterized by 

seasonally moderated temperatures and 

physical and chemical parameters (e.g., 

pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) 

sufficient for the normal behavior, 

growth, reproduction, and viability of 

all life stages of the species. 

(4) An adequate food base, indicated 

by a healthy aquatic community 

structure including native benthic 

macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant 

matter (e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus). 

(5) Aquatic habitats protected from 

riparian and instream activities that 

degrade the PBFs described in (1) 

through (4), above, or cause physical 

(e.g., crushing) injury or death to 

individual Big Sandy or Guyandotte 

River crayfish. 

(6) An interconnected network of 

streams and rivers that have the PBFs 

described in (1) through (4), above, that 

allow for the movement of individual 

crayfish in response to environmental, 

physiological, or behavioral drivers. The 

scale of the interconnected stream 

network should be sufficient to allow 

for gene flow within and among 

watersheds. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes may require special 

management considerations or 

protections to reduce the following 

threats: (1) Resource extraction (coal 

mining, timber harvesting, and oil and 

gas development); (2) road construction 

and maintenance (including unpaved 

roads and trails); (3) instream dredging 

or construction projects; (4) off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use; (5) activities that 

may modify water quantity or quality; 

and (6) other sources of point and nonpoint source pollution, including spills. 

These activities are discussed in more 

detail under Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species in the final listing 

rule (81 FR 20450; April 7, 2016). These 

threats are in addition to potential 

adverse effects of drought, floods, or 

other natural phenomena. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to: Use of best management 

practices (BMPs) designed to reduce 

erosion, sedimentation, and stream bank 

destruction; development of alternatives 

that avoid and minimize stream bed 

disturbances; regulation of ORV use in 

or near streams; reduction of other 

watershed and floodplain disturbances 

that contribute excess sediments or 

pollutants into the water; and 

development and implementation of 

spill prevention and response plans. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are designating 

critical habitat in areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the Big 

Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River 

crayfish at the time of listing in 2016. 

For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we 

also are designating areas in three 

specific streams outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing because we 

have determined that a designation 

limited to occupied areas would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. These currently unoccupied 

streams are within the larger occupied 

watershed of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish’s range and adjacent to 

currently occupied streams. The critical 

habitat designation includes the water 

and stream channel up to the ordinary 

high water mark as defined at 33 CFR 

329.11. Refer to the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfish proposed 

critical habitat designation for a full 

description of criteria used to identify 

critical habitat (85 FR 5072, January 28, 

2020). 

On December 16, 2020, we published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (85 

FR 81411) adding a definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ to our regulations for purposes 

of critical habitat designations under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This rule became 

effective on January 15, 2021 and only 

applies to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 15, 2021. Consequently, 

this new regulation does not apply to 

this final rule. 

The current distribution of both the 

Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfishes is fragmented and much 

reduced from its historical distribution. 

As specified in the Service’s recovery 

outline for these species (Service 2018, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14673 

entire), we anticipate that recovery will 

require protection of existing 

populations and habitat for both 

species, and in the case of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, 

reestablishing populations in some 

historically occupied streams where the 

species is presumed extirpated. These 

additional populations will increase the 

species’ resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy, thereby increasing the 

likelihood that it will sustain 

populations over time. 

Sources of data for this critical habitat 

designation include crayfish survey and 

habitat assessment reports (Jezerinac et 

al. 1995, entire; Channell 2004, entire; 

Taylor and Schuster 2004, entire; 

Thoma 2009a, entire; Thoma 2009b, 

entire; Thoma 2010, entire; Loughman 

2013, entire; Loughman 2014, entire; 

Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 

2015b, entire) and project-specific 

reports submitted to the Service 

(Appalachian Technical Services, Inc. 

(ATS) 2009, entire; ATS 2010, entire; 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) 

2011, entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 

2012b, entire; Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) 2014a, entire; 

VDOT 2014b, entire; VDOT 2015, entire; 

ATS 2017, entire; Red Wing 2017, 

entire; Third Rock 2017, entire; Red 

Wing 2018, entire). 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

As described in the final listing rule 

for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes (81 FR 20450, April 7, 2016), 

the best available data (stream surveys 

conducted between 2006 and 2016) 

indicate that at the time of listing, the 

Big Sandy crayfish occupied 26 streams 

and rivers (generally third order and 

larger) in the Russell Fork, Upper Levisa 

Fork, Lower Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork 

watersheds in the upper Big Sandy 

River basin of Kentucky, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. The Guyandotte River 

crayfish occupied two similarly sized 

streams in the Upper Guyandotte River 

basin of West Virginia. 

We are designating a total of 4 

occupied units, including a total of 19 

occupied subunits, as critical habitat for 

the Big Sandy crayfish in the 

aforementioned watersheds. In addition, 

we are designating one unit, including 

two occupied subunits, as critical 

habitat for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish in the Upper Guyandotte River 

watershed in West Virginia. For the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, we have 

determined that a designation limited to 

the two occupied subunits would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. The Guyandotte River 

crayfish is historically known from six 

connected stream systems within the 

Upper Guyandotte River basin (its 

geographical range); however, at the 

time of listing, the species was limited 

to two isolated subunits in Pinnacle 

Creek and Clear Fork. In our review, we 

determined that these two subunits 

would not provide sufficient 

redundancy or resiliency necessary for 

the conservation of the species. The 

Pinnacle Creek population is known 

from a 5.2-skm (3.3-smi) stream reach, 

but survey data collected between 2009 

and 2015 indicate that this reach has 

low crayfish numbers. This small, 

isolated population is at risk of 

extirpation from demographic and 

environmental stochasticity, or a 

catastrophic event. The Clear Fork 

population occurs along a 33-km (22-mi) 

stream reach, and surveys from 2015 

indicate Guyandotte River crayfish was 

the most prevalent crayfish species 

collected at sites maintaining the 

species (Loughman 2015b, pp. 9–11). 

The primary risk to this population is 

extirpation from a catastrophic event; 

however, because it is an isolated 

population, demographic or stochastic 

declines present some risk. 

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range 

at the Time of Listing 

Because we have determined 

occupied areas alone are not adequate 

for the conservation of the Guyandotte 

River crayfish, we have evaluated 

whether any unoccupied areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. We considered the life-history, 

status, and conservation needs of both 

species. Our decision was further 

informed by observations of specieshabitat relationship, habitat suitability 

models derived from these observations, 

and the locations of historical records to 

identify which features and specific 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species and, as a result, the 

development of the critical habitat 

designation. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

three currently unoccupied subunits 

within the Upper Guyandotte basin 

unit. We have determined that each is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Two of the currently 

unoccupied subunits, Guyandotte River 

and Indian Creek, provide for an 

increase in the species’ redundancy and, 

by providing connectivity between the 

subunits, increase the resiliency of the 

extant populations in Pinnacle Creek 

and Clear Fork. One of the unoccupied 

subunits, Huff Creek, is isolated from 

the other subunits by the R.D. Bailey 

dam, which fragments the range of the 

species and limits the species’ ability to 

disperse and colonize new areas. 

Therefore, this unit will increase the 

species’ overall redundancy and add 

representation in this area of its 

historical range. As discussed in the 

recovery outline for the species (Service 

2018, entire), successful conservation of 

the Guyandotte River crayfish will 

require the establishment of additional 

populations within the species’ 

historical range; the three unoccupied 

subunits advance this goal. All three 

subunits have at least one of the PBFs 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, as described below. 

To reduce threats to the species and 

its habitat, the Service is working 

cooperatively with the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

and the coal industry to develop 

protection and enhancement plans for 

coal mining permits that may affect 

crayfish streams. The Service and 

WVDEP are also working with the 

Hatfield McCoy Trail system and the 

Federal Highway Administration to 

avoid and minimize effects from ORV 

use in and around Pinnacle Creek and 

other trail systems adjacent to crayfish 

streams. Local watershed groups along 

with State and Federal partners have 

been conducting stream restoration and 

enhancement projects in Huff Creek. In 

addition, the Service, West Virginia 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Virginia Department of Wildlife 

Resources, and West Liberty University 

are working together to conduct 

additional research on both the 

Guyandotte River and Big Sandy 

crayfishes, including research on habitat 

use, activity patterns, and captive 

holding and propagation. We are 

reasonably certain that each unoccupied 

subunit will contribute to the 

conservation of the species by furthering 

preliminary recovery goals identified in 

the recovery outline. Establishing 

populations in the three unoccupied 

subunits will increase the Guyandotte 

River crayfish’s resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation, thereby bolstering 

the species’ viability and reducing the 

species’ risk of extinction. 

General Information on the Maps of the 

Critical Habitat Designation 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Regulation 

Promulgation. We include more detailed 

information on the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation in the 

discussion of individual units and 

subunits, provided below. We will make 

the coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based available to 

the public on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098, and at the 

West Virginia Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above). When determining 

critical habitat boundaries, we made 

every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by pavement, buildings, and other 

structures because such lands lack PBFs 

necessary for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. The scale 

of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries shown 

on the maps of this final rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

under the Act with respect to critical 

habitat and the requirement of no 

adverse modification unless the specific 

action would affect the PBFs in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

In making its determination on the 

appropriate scale for designating critical 

habitat, the Service may consider, 

among other things, the life history of 

the species, the scales at which data are 

available, and biological or geophysical 

boundaries (such as watersheds). For 

the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River 

crayfishes, streams or stream segments 

(as opposed to individual occurrence 

locations) are the appropriate units for 

designating critical habitat. We base this 

on the following factors: 

(1) The regional geology and stream 

morphology in the upper Big Sandy and 

Upper Guyandotte River basins lead to 

a general abundance of slab boulders 

and/or cobble in most streams, although 

in some areas this habitat is sparse or 

occurs as isolated boulder clusters. 

Furthermore, while continuous crayfish 

survey data do not exist (i.e., not every 

reach of every stream has been 

surveyed), more intensive crayfish 

surveys in portions of the Russell Fork 

watershed and in Clear Fork and 

Pinnacle Creek in the Upper Guyandotte 

basin indicate that the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes may occur 

throughout stream reaches where the 

required PBFs (e.g., riffles and runs with 

unembedded slab boulders or 

unembedded boulder clusters, adequate 

water quality, and connectivity) are 

present. 

(2) Streams are dynamic, linear 

systems, and local water quality 

parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, 

temperature, pH) can vary temporally 

and are largely reliant on upstream 

conditions (barring known point or nonpoint source discharges or other factors 

that affect water quality more locally). 

Likewise, the various stream 

microhabitats (e.g., riffles, runs, pools) 

with attendant fauna do not generally 

occur in isolation, but form a 

continuous gradient along the stream 

continuum. Because the known 

occupied Big Sandy and Guyandotte 

River crayfish sites possess the required 

PBFs, at least to some minimal degree, 

for these species to survive, and because 

these PBFs are likely representative of 

stream conditions beyond any single 

survey location, we conclude that Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish 

likely occupy, or otherwise rely upon, 

stream areas beyond any single 

occurrence location. 

(3) Studies of other crayfish species 

suggest that adult and larger juvenile 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfish move both upstream and 

downstream in response to changes in 

environmental conditions or local 

crayfish demographics, or for other 

behavioral or physiological reasons 

(Momot 1966, pp. 158–159; Kerby et al. 

2005, p. 407; Sadecky 2020, entire). The 

evidence also indicates that some 

individuals, especially newly 

independent juveniles, may be passively 

dispersed to downstream locations by 

swiftly flowing water (Loughman 2019, 

pers. comm.). 

Therefore, within the greater 

geographical ranges of the Big Sandy 

crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish 

(i.e., the upper Big Sandy River basin 

and the Upper Guyandotte River basin, 

respectively), the general morphology 

and connectedness of the streams and 

the life history of these species lead us 

to reasonably conclude that both species 

likely occupy, transit through, or 

otherwise rely upon stream reaches 

beyond any known occurrence location. 

We acknowledge that some areas along 

a stream segment designated as critical 

habitat may not contain all of the PBFs 

required by either species, either 

naturally or as a result of habitat 

modification, but based on the 

considerations discussed above, we 

conclude that streams or stream 

segments are appropriate units of scale 

for describing critical habitat for these 

species. 

In summary, we designate as critical 

habitat streams and stream segments up 

to the ordinary high water mark that 

were occupied at the time of listing and 

contain one or more of the PBFs that are 

essential to support the life-history 

processes of the Big Sandy crayfish and 

the Guyandotte River crayfish. 

Additionally, for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish, we designate three subunits 

outside the geographical range of that 

species occupied at the time of listing; 

however, these subunits are within the 

larger occupied watershed. Two of these 

subunits have historical records of the 

species, and one subunit, while not 

having a record of the species, is within 

its historical range and provides 

connectivity between occupied and 

unoccupied subunits. These unoccupied 

subunits provide for increased 

redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. We designate specific critical 

habitat unit/subunit boundaries based 

on the following general criteria: 

(1) We delineated areas within the 

historical range of each species that had 

positive survey data between 2006 and 2016 

(Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

were listed in 2016). For the Guyandotte 

River crayfish, we also delineated three 

stream segments as unoccupied critical 

habitat. 

(2) Upstream termini of critical habitat 

units/subunits are located at the confluence 

of the primary stream and a smaller named 

tributary stream (usually a second-order 

stream). These termini are generally within 

about 5 skm (3.1 smi) upstream of a known 

crayfish occurrence record. The downstream 

termini are usually located at the confluence 

of the primary stream and the next larger 

receiving stream or river. In some instances, 

dams or reservoirs are used to demark critical 

habitat units/subunits. 

(3) We included intervening stream 

segments between occurrence locations 

unless available occurrence data suggested 

the PBFs required by the species were absent 

from the intervening segment. 

(4) We describe the designated critical 

habitat units/subunits by their upstream and 

downstream coordinates (i.e., latitude and 

longitude) and geographic landmarks (e.g., 

confluence of named streams and/or a town 

or population center). 

Within these stream segments, 

designated critical habitat includes the 

stream channel within the ordinary high 

water mark. As defined at 33 CFR 

329.11, the ‘‘ordinary high water mark’’ 

on nontidal rivers is the line on the 

shore established by the fluctuations of 

water and indicated by physical 

characteristics such as a clear, natural 

line impressed on the bank; shelving 

changes in the character of soil; 

destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the 

presence of the litter and debris; or 

other appropriate means that consider 

the characteristics of the surrounding 

areas. 

For the purposes of analyzing the 

potential economic effects of critical 

habitat designation for the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the 

critical habitat units/subunits are 

determined to be in either private, 

Federal, or State ownership. We 

describe ownership of designated 

critical habitat units/subunits based on 

the identification of the adjacent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14675 

riparian landowner(s) (i.e., private, 

Federal, or State entity). In Kentucky, 

Virginia, and West Virginia, jurisdiction 

over the water itself is maintained by 

the State or Commonwealth; however, 

ownership of the stream bottom may 

vary depending on specific State law or 

legal interpretation (Energy & Mineral 

Law Institute 2011, pp. 409–427; 

Virginia Code at section 62.1–44.3; West 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection 2013, section C). For 

example, the bed of a navigable stream 

in West Virginia may be owned by the 

state, whereas the bed of a nonnavigable stream may be privately 

owned (Energy & Mineral Law Institute 

2011, p. 427). 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

For the Big Sandy crayfish, we 

designate approximately 582 skm (362 

smi) in 4 units (including 19 subunits) 

in Kentucky, Virginia, and West 

Virginia as critical habitat (see table 1, 

below). These streams or stream 

segments were considered occupied at 

the time of listing and contain all 

known extant populations. Based on our 

review, we conclude that the units 

occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish at 

the time of listing (described below) are 

representative of the species’ historical 

range and include core population areas 

in the Russell Fork watershed in 

Virginia and the upper Tug Fork 

watershed (e.g., Dry Fork) in West 

Virginia, as well as other peripheral 

populations in Kentucky, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. We determined that there 

is sufficient area for the conservation of 

the Big Sandy crayfish within these 

occupied units, and we therefore do not 

designate any unoccupied critical 

habitat for the species. The designated 

units constitute our best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 2 identifies the ownership of 

lands adjacent to the entirely aquatic 

Big Sandy crayfish designated critical 

habitat. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.038</GPH>

TABLE I-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND SUBUNITS FOR THE BIG SANDY 

CRAYFISH 

Unit/Watershed Subunit River/Stream State County(ies) Occupied Stream Length 

at Listing skm SIDI 

Unit 1 Dismal Creek VA Buchanan Yes 29.2 18.1 

Upper Levisa 

Fork 

Unit2 a Russell Fork KYNA Buchanan, Yes 83.8 52.1 

Russell Fork Dickenson, 

Pike 

b Hurricane Creek VA Buchanan Yes 5.9 3.7 

C Indian Creek VA Buchanan, Yes 7.4 4.6 

Dickenson 

d Fryingoan Creek VA Dickenson Yes 4.6 2.9 

e Lick Creek VA Dickenson Yes 16.2 10.1 

f Russell Prater VA Dickenson Yes 8.4 5.2 

Creek 

g McClure River, VA Dickenson Yes 35.6 22.1 

McClure Creek 

Open Fork VA Dickenson Yes 4.9 3.0 

h Elkhorn Creek KY Pike Yes 8.5 5.3 

i Cranes Nest VA Dickenson, Yes 24.6 15.3 

River Wise 

Birchfield Creek VA Wise Yes 6.9 4.3 

j Pound River VA Dickenson, Yes 28.5 17.7 

Wise 

Unit3 a Levisa Fork KY Pike Yes 15.9 9.9 

Lower Levisa (upstream) 

Fork Levisa Fork KY Floyd, Yes 17.5 10.9 

( downstream) Johnson 

b Shelby Creek KY Pike Yes 32.2 20.0 

Long Fork KY Pike Yes 12.9 8.0 

Unit4 a Tug Fork KYNA/WV Buchanan, Yes 106.1 65.9 

Tug Fork (upstream) McDowell, 

Mingo, 

Wayne, 

Pike 

Tug Fork KY/WV Martin, Yes 11.7 7.3 

( downstream) Wayne 

b Dry Fork WV McDowell Yes 45.2 28.1 

Bradshaw Creek WV McDowell Yes 4.6 2.9 

C Panther Creek WV McDowell Yes 10.7 6.6 

d Knox Creek KYNA Buchanan, Yes 16.6 10.3 

Pike 

e Peter Creek KY Pike Yes 10.1 6.3 

f Blackberry KY Pike Yes 9.1 5.7 

Creek 

g Pigeon Creek WV Mingo Yes 14.0 8.7 

Laurel Fork WV Mingo Yes 11.1 6.9 

Total: 582 362 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14677 

For the Guyandotte River crayfish, we 

designate approximately 135 skm (84 

smi) in one unit, consisting of five 

subunits, in West Virginia as critical 

habitat. Approximately 67 skm (42 smi) 

in two subunits are considered occupied 

by the species at the time of listing and 

represent all known extant populations 

(see table 3, below). However, we 

determined that these two subunits do 

not provide sufficient resiliency, 

representation, or redundancy to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

Therefore, we are designating 

approximately 68 skm (42 smi) in three 

subunits as unoccupied critical habitat 

(see table 3, below). The designated 

subunits constitute our best assessment 

of areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish. 

Table 4 identifies the ownership of 

lands adjacent to the entirely aquatic 

Guyandotte River crayfish designated 

critical habitat. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Below, we present brief descriptions 

of all units/subunits and reasons why 

they meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes. Each unit/ 

subunit of Big Sandy crayfish critical 

habitat contains all six PBFs identified 

above (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features) that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Each unit/subunit of 

Guyandotte River crayfish critical 

habitat contains one or more of the six 

PBFs. 

Big Sandy Crayfish 

Unit 1: Upper Levisa Fork—Dismal 

Creek, Buchanan County, Virginia 

This occupied unit includes a single 

subunit of approximately 29.2 stream 

kilometers (skm) (18.1 smi) of Dismal 

Creek in the Upper Levisa Fork 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.006</GPH> ER15MR22.007</GPH> ER15MR22.008</GPH>

TABLE 2-LAND OWNERSHIP ADJACENT TO DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE 

BIG SANDY CRAYFISH (BSC', 

Critical Habitat Unit Federal State/Local Private Total 

skm SIDI skm SIDI skm SIDI skm SIDI 

Unit 1 Upper Levisa Fork 0 0 0 0 29 18 29 18 

Unit2 Russell Fork 23 14 11 7 201 125 235 146 

Unit3 Lower Levisa Fork 0 0 0 0 79 49 79 49 

Unit4 Tug Fork 0 0 11 7 228 142 239 149 

Grand Total BSC 23 14 22 14 537 334 582 362 

TABLE 3-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE GUY ANDOTTE RIVER CRAYFISH 

Unit/Watershed Subunit River/Stream State County(ies) Occupied Stream 

at Listing Length 

skm SIDI 

Unit 1 a Pinnacle WV Wyoming Yes 28.6 17.8 

Upper Creek 

Guyandotte b Clear Fork WV Wyoming Yes 24.9 15.5 

Laurel Fork WV Wyoming Yes 13.1 8.1 

C Guyandotte WV Wyoming No 35.8 22.2 

River 

d Indian Creek WV Wyoming No 4.2 2.6 

e Huff Creek WV Wyoming, No 28.0 17.4 

Logan 

Total: 135 84 

TABLE 4-LAND OWNERSHIP ADJACENT TO DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE 

GUY ANDOTTE RIVER CRAYFISH 

Critical Habitat Unit Federal State Private Total 

skm SIDI skm SIDI skm SIDI skm SIDI 

Unit 1 I Occupied 0 0 6 4 60 38 67 42 

I Unoccupied 0 0 16 10 52 32 68 42 

Grand Total GRC 0 0 23 14 112 70 135 84 
14678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

watershed. The upstream boundary of 

this unit is the confluence of Dismal 

Creek and Laurel Fork, and the 

downstream limit is the confluence of 

Dismal Creek and Levisa Fork. This unit 

is located almost entirely on private 

land, except for any small amount that 

is publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. 

Recent surveys of Dismal Creek 

indicated an abundance of unembedded 

slab boulders and boulder clusters, and 

live Big Sandy crayfish have been 

collected in relatively high numbers 

from several locations within this unit 

(Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, 

p. 26). The Dismal Creek watershed is 

mostly forested; however, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic 

maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) provide 

evidence of legacy and ongoing surface 

coal mining throughout the watershed. 

This unit may need special management 

considerations due to resource 

extraction (coal mining, timber 

harvesting, and oil and gas 

development), road construction and 

maintenance (including unpaved roads 

and trails), instream dredging or 

construction projects, and other sources 

of non-point source pollution. The 

narrow stream valley contains scattered 

residences and small communities, 

commercial facilities, occasional gas 

wells, and transportation infrastructure 

(i.e., roads and rail lines). There is a 

large coal coke plant straddling Dismal 

Creek at the confluence of Dismal Creek 

and Levisa Fork. The Dismal Creek 

population of Big Sandy crayfish 

represents the species’ only 

representation in the upper Levisa Fork 

watershed, which is physically isolated 

from the rest of the Big Sandy basin by 

Fishtrap Dam and Reservoir. The Dismal 

Creek population appears to be 

relatively robust and contributes to the 

representation and redundancy of the 

species. 

Unit 2: Russell Fork 

Unit 2 consists of the 10 subunits 

described below. The PBFs within this 

entire unit may need special 

management considerations from 

resource extraction (coal mining, timber 

harvesting, and oil and gas 

development), road construction and 

maintenance (including unpaved roads 

and trails), instream dredging or 

construction projects, and other sources 

of non-point source pollution. 

Subunit 2a: Russell Fork, Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties, Virginia, and Pike 

County, Kentucky 

Subunit 2a includes approximately 

83.8 skm (52.1 smi) of the Russell Fork 

mainstem from the confluence of 

Russell Fork and Ball Creek at Council, 

Virginia, downstream to the confluence 

of Russell Fork and Levisa Fork at 

Levisa Junction, Kentucky. Recent 

surveys of the Russell Fork indicated an 

abundance of unembedded slab 

boulders, boulder clusters, isolated 

boulders, and large cobbles, and live Big 

Sandy crayfish have been captured at 

numerous locations within this subunit 

(Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, 

p. 23). The Russell Fork watershed is 

mostly forested; however, USGS 

topographic maps and aerial imagery 

(ESRI) provide evidence of legacy and 

ongoing coal mining throughout the 

watershed. In the upper portion of the 

watershed, the narrow stream valley 

contains scattered residences and roads, 

but human development increases 

farther downstream in the form of small 

communities and towns, commercial 

facilities, and transportation 

infrastructure (i.e., roads and rail lines). 

Approximately 12 skm (7.4 smi) of 

Subunit 2a is within the Jefferson 

National Forest and Breaks Interstate 

Park. The remainder of the subunit is 

located almost entirely on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. The Big 

Sandy crayfish population in Subunit 2a 

appears to be relatively robust and 

provides important connectivity 

between crayfish populations in several 

tributary streams and rivers, 

contributing to their resiliency. 

Additionally, some Big Sandy crayfish 

from Subunit 2a likely disperse to areas 

downstream in the Levisa Fork 

watershed, contributing to the species’ 

representation and redundancy. 

Subunit 2b: Hurricane Creek, Buchanan 

County, Virginia 

Subunit 2b includes approximately 

5.9 skm (3.7 smi) of Hurricane Creek, a 

tributary to Russell Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Hurricane Creek and Gilbert Fork 

downstream to the confluence of 

Hurricane Creek and Russell Fork at 

Davenport, Virginia. Recent surveys of 

Hurricane Creek indicate an abundance 

of unembedded slab boulders, boulders, 

and cobbles, and live Big Sandy crayfish 

have been collected from two locations 

in lower Hurricane Creek (ATS 2009, 

entire; VDOT 2014, entire). Based on 

our review of USGS topographic maps 

and aerial imagery (ESRI) the Hurricane 

Creek watershed is composed of 

relatively intact forest, with the 

exception of ongoing oil or gas 

development on the ridges to the north 

and south of the creek and scattered 

residences, small agricultural fields, and 

roads in the narrow valley. This subunit 

is located almost entirely on private 

land, except for any small amount that 

is publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. This 

subunit contributes to the redundancy 

of the species. 

Subunit 2c: Indian Creek, Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties, Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 7.4 skm (4.6 smi) of 

Indian Creek, a tributary to Russell Fork. 

Subunit 2c extends from the confluence 

of Indian Creek and Three Forks 

upstream of Duty, Virginia, to the 

confluence of Indian Creek and Russell 

Fork below Davenport, Virginia. Recent 

surveys of Indian Creek indicate an 

abundance of slab boulders and 

boulders with low to moderate 

embeddedness, and live Big Sandy 

crayfish have been collected from 

several locations (ATS 2009, entire; ATS 

2010, entire; Loughman 2015a, pp. 24– 

25). The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the lower 

portion of the Indian Creek watershed is 

mostly forested, with the exception of 

oil or gas development on a ridgeline to 

the west of the creek. The upper portion 

of the watershed is dominated by a large 

surface coal mine. The narrow creek 

valley contains scattered residences, 

small agricultural fields, and roads. This 

subunit is located almost entirely on 

private land, except for any small 

amount that is publicly owned in the 

form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. This subunit contributes to 

the redundancy of the species. 

Subunit 2d: Fryingpan Creek, Dickenson 

County, Virginia 

Subunit 2d includes approximately 

4.6 skm (2.9 smi) of Fryingpan Creek, a 

tributary to Russell Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Fryingpan Creek and Priest Fork 

downstream to the confluence of 

Fryingpan Creek and Russell Fork. 

Recent surveys of Fryingpan Creek 

indicate an abundance of isolated slab 

boulders and boulder clusters with low 

embeddedness, and live Big Sandy 

crayfish have been collected from the 

lower reach of Fryingpan Creek 

(Loughman 2015a, pp. 24–25). The 

USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the watershed is 

mostly intact forest, with the exception 

of oil or gas development on some 

adjacent ridgelines and legacy coal 

mining in the upper portion of the 

watershed. The narrow creek valley 

contains scattered residences, small 

agricultural fields, and roads. This 

subunit is located almost entirely on 

private land, except for any small 

amount that is publicly owned in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14679 

form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. This subunit contributes to 

the redundancy of the species. 

Subunit 2e: Lick Creek, Dickenson 

County, Virginia 

Subunit 2e includes approximately 

16.2 skm (10.1 smi) of Lick Creek, a 

tributary of Russell Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Lick Creek and Cabin Fork near Aily, 

Virginia, downstream to the confluence 

of Lick Creek and Russell Fork at 

Birchfield, Virginia. Recent surveys of 

Lick Creek indicate an abundance of 

unembedded slab boulders and cobbles, 

with live Big Sandy crayfish collected at 

several locations (ATS 2012a, entire; 

ATS 2012b, entire). The USGS 

topographic maps and aerial imagery 

(ESRI) indicate the watershed is mostly 

forested, with the exception of oil or gas 

development on some adjacent 

ridgelines and legacy coal mining and 

timber harvesting sites at various 

locations within the watershed. The 

narrow creek valley contains scattered 

residences, small agricultural fields, and 

roads. This subunit is located almost 

entirely on private land, except for any 

small amount that is publicly owned in 

the form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. This subunit contributes to 

the redundancy of the species. 

Subunit 2f: Russell Prater Creek, 

Dickenson County, Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 8.4 skm (5.2 smi) of 

Russell Prater Creek, a tributary to 

Russell Fork. This subunit extends from 

the confluence of Russell Prater Creek 

and Greenbrier Creek downstream to the 

confluence of Russell Prater Creek and 

Russell Fork at Haysi, Virginia. Recent 

surveys of Russell Prater Creek indicate 

abundant unembedded slab boulders, 

boulders, and cobbles, with live Big 

Sandy crayfish collected from two sites 

in the lower portion of the creek (Thoma 

2009b, p. 10; Loughman 2015a, pp. 22– 

23). The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Russell Prater watershed is mostly 

forested; however, legacy coal mines 

and valley fills occur throughout the 

watershed. The narrow creek valley 

contains scattered residences, 

commercial facilities, small agricultural 

fields, and roads. This subunit is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. This subunit 

contributes to the redundancy of the 

species. 

Subunit 2g: McClure River and McClure 

Creek and Open Fork, Dickenson 

County, Virginia 

Subunit 2g includes approximately 

35.6 skm (22.1 smi) of the McClure 

River and Creek, a major tributary to 

Russell Fork, and its tributary stream, 

Open Fork (4.9 skm (3.0 smi)); this 

subunit is occupied. The McClure River 

and McClure Creek section extends from 

the confluence of McClure Creek and 

Honey Branch downstream to the 

confluence of McClure River and 

Russell Fork. Recent surveys of the 

McClure River indicated a generally 

sandy bottom with unembedded, 

isolated slab boulders and boulder 

clusters, with live Big Sandy crayfish 

collected at several locations (Thoma 

2009b, p. 18; Loughman 2015a, p. 22). 

The McClure River valley contains 

scattered residences, small 

communities, commercial miningrelated facilities, small agricultural 

fields, roads, railroads, and other 

infrastructure. The riparian zone along 

much of the river is relatively intact. 

The Open Fork section of Subunit 2g 

extends from the confluence of Middle 

Fork Open Fork and Coon Branch 

downstream to the confluence of Open 

Fork and McClure Creek at Nora, 

Virginia. Recent surveys of Open Fork 

indicated unembedded, isolated slab 

boulders and boulder clusters, with live 

Big Sandy crayfish collected at one 

location (Loughman 2015a, p. 22). The 

narrow valley contains scattered 

residences, some small agricultural 

fields, roads, and railroads. 

The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

McClure River watershed is mostly 

forested; however, legacy and active 

coal mining occurs in the middle and 

upper portions of the watershed. 

Natural gas development is also 

apparent on many of the adjacent ridges, 

and recent or ongoing logging 

operations continue at several locations 

in the watershed. This subunit is 

located almost entirely on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. This 

subunit contributes to the redundancy 

of the species. 

Subunit 2h: Elkhorn Creek, Pike County, 

Kentucky 

Subunit 2h includes approximately 

8.5 skm (5.3 smi) of Elkhorn Creek, a 

tributary to Russell Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Elkhorn Creek and Mountain Branch 

downstream to the confluence of 

Elkhorn Creek and Russell Fork at 

Elkhorn City, Kentucky. Recent surveys 

indicated unembedded slab boulders 

and boulders in Elkhorn Creek with 

‘‘extensive bedrock glides’’ in the lower 

reaches of the creek. Live Big Sandy 

crayfish have been collected from under 

slab boulders in lower Elkhorn Creek 

(Loughman 2015a, pp. 18–19). The 

USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the watershed is 

mostly forested; however, significant 

legacy and active coal mining and other 

mining and quarrying occurs in the 

watershed. Human development, in the 

form of small communities, residences, 

small agricultural fields, and 

commercial and industrial facilities, as 

well as roads, railroads, and other 

infrastructure, occurs almost 

continually in the riparian zone along 

Elkhorn Creek. The watershed to the 

south of Elkhorn Creek is a unit of the 

Jefferson National Forest; however, 

Subunit 2h is located almost entirely on 

private land, except for any small 

amount that is publicly owned in the 

form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. This subunit contributes to 

the redundancy of the species. 

Subunit 2i: Cranes Nest River and 

Birchfield Creek, Dickenson and Wise 

Counties, Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 24.6 skm (15.3 smi) of 

Cranes Nest River, a major tributary to 

Russell Fork, and approximately 6.9 

skm (4.3 smi) of Birchfield Creek, a 

tributary to Cranes Nest River. The 

Cranes Nest River section of Subunit 2i 

extends from the confluence of Cranes 

Nest River and Birchfield Creek 

downstream to the confluence of Cranes 

Nest River and Lick Branch. Recent 

surveys of the Cranes Nest River 

indicated abundant, unembedded slab 

boulders, boulder clusters, isolated 

boulders, and coarse woody debris, and 

live Big Sandy crayfish have been 

collected at multiple sites (Thoma 

2009b, p. 10; VDOT 2014b, entire; 

VDOT 2015, entire; Loughman 2015a, 

pp. 21–22). The riparian zone of this 

section is largely intact; however, 

human development, in the form of 

residences, small communities, small 

agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and 

other infrastructure, occurs along some 

segments of Cranes Nest River. 

The Birchfield Creek section of this 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Birchfield Creek and Dotson Creek 

downstream to the confluence of 

Birchfield Creek and Cranes Nest River. 

Recent surveys resulted in observations 

of live Big Sandy crayfish from a site in 

the lower portion of Birchfield Creek. 

Human development, in the form of 

residences, roads, and other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

infrastructure, occurs in the riparian 

zone along Birchfield Creek. 

The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Cranes Nest River watershed is mostly 

forested; however, significant legacy 

and active coal mining is evident 

throughout the watershed. Natural gas 

development is ongoing on some of the 

ridges adjacent to the Cranes Nest River. 

Approximately 10.3 skm (6.4 smi) of 

Subunit 2i is within the John W. 

Flannagan Recreation Area. The 

remainder of the subunit is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. Since 1964, this 

subunit has been physically isolated 

from the Russell Fork by the John W. 

Flannagan Dam and Reservoir. The Big 

Sandy crayfish population in Subunit 2i 

appears to be relatively robust and 

contributes to the redundancy of the 

species. 

Subunit 2j: Pound River, Dickenson and 

Wise Counties, Virginia 

Subunit 2j includes approximately 

28.5 skm (17.7 smi) of the Pound River, 

a major tributary to Russell Fork that 

has been physically isolated from that 

river since 1964 by the John W. 

Flannagan Dam and Reservoir. This 

occupied subunit extends from the 

confluence of Pound River and Bad 

Creek downstream to the confluence of 

Pound River and Jerry Branch. Recent 

surveys indicate abundant, unembedded 

slab boulders, boulders, and boulder 

clusters in the riffle and run sections, 

and live Big Sandy crayfish have been 

collected from multiple locations 

(Thoma 2009b, entire; VHB, Inc. 2011, 

entire; Loughman 2015a, p. 21). The 

USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the Pound River 

watershed is mostly forested; however, 

significant legacy and recent coal 

mining is evident, especially to the 

south of the river. Aerial imagery also 

indicates recent or ongoing logging 

operations at several locations in the 

watershed. Much of the immediate 

riparian zone is intact forest, with 

occasional human development in the 

form of small communities, residences, 

small agricultural fields, commercial 

development, and roads and other 

infrastructure adjacent to the river. 

Approximately 11.4 skm (7.1 smi) of 

Subunit 2j is within the John W. 

Flannagan Recreation Area. The 

remainder of the subunit is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. The Big Sandy crayfish 

population in Subunit 2j appears to be 

relatively robust and contributes to the 

redundancy of the species. 

Unit 3: Lower Levisa Fork 

Unit 3 consists of the two subunits 

described below. The unit may need 

special management consideration due 

to resource extraction (coal mining, 

timber harvesting, and oil and gas 

development); road construction and 

maintenance (including unpaved roads 

and trails); instream dredging or 

construction projects; and other sources 

of non-point source pollution. 

Subunit 3a: Levisa Fork, Pike, Floyd, 

and Johnson Counties, Kentucky 

Subunit 3a includes approximately 

33.4 skm (20.8 smi) of the mainstem 

Levisa Fork in two disjunct segments. 

The occupied upstream segment 

includes approximately 15.9 skm (9.9 

smi) of the Levisa Fork from its 

confluence with the Russell Fork at 

Levisa Junction, Kentucky, downstream 

to the confluence of Levisa Fork and 

Island Creek at Pikeville, Kentucky. 

Surveys indicate that suitable, 

unembedded, boulder habitat is present 

in the Levisa Fork, and live Big Sandy 

crayfish have been recently collected 

both upstream of Subunit 3a in the 

Russell Fork and at one location near 

Pikeville, Kentucky (Thoma 2010, pp. 

5–6; Loughman 2015a, pp. 5–10). 

The occupied downstream segment of 

Subunit 3a includes approximately 17.5 

skm (10.9 smi) of the Levisa Fork near 

Auxier, Kentucky, from the confluence 

of Levisa Fork and Abbott Creek 

downstream to the confluence of Levisa 

Fork and Miller Creek. Recent surveys 

indicate isolated boulder clusters in this 

segment, with live Big Sandy crayfish 

collected from two locations (Thoma 

2009b, entire; Loughman 2014, pp. 12– 

13). 

The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Subunit 3a watershed is mostly forested; 

however, legacy and ongoing coal 

mining is evident in several locations. 

Human development, in the form of 

towns, small communities, residences, 

small agricultural fields, commercial 

and industrial development, roads, 

railroads, and other infrastructure, 

occurs nearly continuously in the 

riparian zone of these segments of the 

Levisa Fork. Subunit 3a is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. The upper segment of 

the subunit provides connectivity 

between the Russell Fork and Shelby 

Creek populations (discussed below), 

and the lower segment supports the 

most downstream population of Big 

Sandy crayfish in the Levisa Fork 

watershed. Because the natural habitat 

characteristics (e.g., size, gradient, 

bottom substrate) in the Levisa Fork 

differ from those in the upper 

tributaries, this subunit increases Big 

Sandy crayfish representation as well as 

the species’ redundancy. 

Subunit 3b: Shelby Creek and Long 

Fork, Pike County, Kentucky 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 32.2 skm (20.0 smi) of 

Shelby Creek, a tributary to Levisa Fork, 

and approximately 12.9 skm (8.0 smi) of 

Long Fork, a tributary to Shelby Creek. 

The Shelby Creek portion of this 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Shelby Creek and Burk Branch 

downstream to the confluence of Shelby 

Creek and Levisa Fork at Shelbiana, 

Kentucky. The Long Fork portion of 

Subunit 3b extends from the confluence 

of Right Fork Long Fork and Left Fork 

Long Fork downstream to the 

confluence of Long Fork and Shelby 

Creek at Virgie, Kentucky. Recent 

surveys of this subunit indicated an 

abundance of unembedded slab 

boulders, boulder clusters, and 

anthropogenic structures such as 

concrete slabs and blocks in Shelby 

Creek and Long Fork. Live Big Sandy 

crayfish have been collected at multiple 

locations within this subunit (Thoma 

2010, pp. 5–6; Loughman 2015a, p. 18). 

The USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the Shelby 

Creek watershed is mostly forested; 

however, several large surface coal 

mines are evident west of the stream. 

The Long Fork watershed is also mostly 

forested; however, legacy and active 

coal mining is evident in the upper 

portion of this watershed. Human 

development, in the form of towns, 

small communities, residences, small 

agricultural fields, commercial and 

industrial development, roads, 

railroads, and other infrastructure, 

occurs nearly continuously in the 

riparian zone of Shelby Creek. In the 

riparian zone of Long Fork, residences, 

small agricultural fields, roads, and 

other infrastructure occur nearly 

continuously. Subunit 3b is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. This subunit maintains 

the most robust population of Big Sandy 

crayfish in the lower Levisa Fork (as 

indicated by recent survey capture rates) 

and increases the representation and 

redundancy of the species. 

Unit 4: Tug Fork 

Unit 4 consists of the seven subunits 

described below. The threats within this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14681 

entire unit that may need special 

management consideration include 

resource extraction (coal mining, timber 

harvesting, and oil and gas 

development); road construction and 

maintenance (including unpaved roads 

and trails); instream dredging or 

construction projects; and other sources 

of nonpoint source pollution. 

Subunit 4a: Tug Fork, McDowell, 

Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West 

Virginia; Buchanan County, Virginia; 

and Pike and Martin Counties, Kentucky 

Subunit 4a includes approximately 

117.8 skm (73.2 smi) of the Tug Fork 

mainstem in two disjunct, occupied 

segments. The upstream segment 

includes approximately 106.1 skm (65.9 

smi) of the Tug Fork from the 

confluence of Tug Fork and Elkhorn 

Creek at Welch, West Virginia, 

downstream to the confluence of Tug 

Fork and Blackberry Creek in Pike 

County, Kentucky. Surveys indicate that 

suitable unembedded boulder habitat is 

sparse and discontinuous in this 

segment of the Tug Fork; however, live 

Big Sandy crayfish have been collected 

at four locations within this subunit 

(Loughman 2015a, p. 16). The 

downstream segment includes 

approximately 11.7 skm (7.3 smi) of the 

Tug Fork near Crum, West Virginia, 

from the confluence of Tug Fork and 

Little Elk Creek downstream to the 

confluence of Tug Fork and Bull Creek. 

The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Subunit 4a watershed is mostly forested; 

however, there is evidence of legacy and 

ongoing coal mining throughout the 

subunit. The riparian zone in the upper 

segment of Subunit 4a is relatively 

intact, with human development 

consisting primarily of road and railroad 

corridors. In the lower segment of the 

subunit, towns, small communities, 

residences, small agricultural fields, 

commercial and industrial 

development, roads, railroads, and other 

infrastructure become prevalent. 

Subunit 4a is located almost entirely on 

private land, except for any small 

amount that is publicly owned in the 

form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. Because of the diversity of 

natural habitat characteristics (e.g., size, 

gradient, bottom substrate) in this 

subunit, it contributes to Big Sandy 

crayfish representation and redundancy. 

This subunit provides habitat for the Big 

Sandy crayfish, as well as providing 

potential connectivity between the Dry 

Fork, Panther Creek, Knox Creek, Peter 

Creek, Blackberry Creek, and Pigeon 

Creek populations (discussed below). 

Subunit 4b: Dry Fork and Bradshaw 

Creek, McDowell County, West Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 45.2 skm (28.1 smi) of 

Dry Fork, a large tributary to the Tug 

Fork, and approximately 4.6 skm (2.9 

smi) of Bradshaw Creek, a tributary to 

Dry Fork. The Dry Fork portion of 

Subunit 4b extends from the confluence 

of Dry Fork and Jacobs Fork 

downstream to the confluence of Dry 

Fork and Tug Fork at Iaeger, West 

Virginia. The Bradshaw Creek portion 

extends from the confluence of 

Bradshaw Creek and Hite Fork at Jolo, 

West Virginia, downstream to the 

confluence of Bradshaw Creek and Dry 

Fork at Bradshaw, West Virginia. Recent 

surveys indicate abundant unembedded 

slab boulders, boulders, boulder 

clusters, and large cobbles, with live Big 

Sandy crayfish collected at numerous 

locations within this subunit 

(Loughman 2013, pp. 7–8; Loughman 

2014, pp. 10–11; Loughman 2015a, pp. 

14–15). The USGS topographic maps 

and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Subunit 4b watershed is mostly 

forested; however, legacy coal mining is 

evident throughout, and natural gas 

development is apparent in the upper 

portions of the watershed. The riparian 

zone in the upper portion of Dry Fork 

is relatively intact, with human 

development consisting primarily of 

road and railroad corridors. In the 

middle and lower portions of Dry Fork, 

small communities, residences, small 

agricultural fields, commercial and 

industrial development, roads, 

railroads, and other infrastructure 

become prevalent. The Bradshaw Creek 

riparian zone is dominated by 

residences, small agricultural fields, 

roads, and other infrastructure. The 

middle portion of Dry Fork passes 

through the Berwind Lake State Wildlife 

Management Area; otherwise, Subunit 

4b is located almost entirely on private 

land, except for any small amount that 

is publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. This 

subunit appears to maintain a relatively 

robust population of the Big Sandy 

crayfish and likely serves as a source 

population for areas downstream in the 

Tug Fork basin. This subunit 

contributes to the redundancy of the 

species. 

Subunit 4c: Panther Creek, McDowell 

County, West Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 10.7 skm (6.6 smi) of 

Panther Creek, a tributary to Tug Fork. 

Subunit 4c extends from the confluence 

of Panther Creek and George Branch 

downstream to the confluence of 

Panther Creek and Tug Fork at Panther, 

West Virginia. Big Sandy crayfish have 

been collected at one site in the lower 

portion of this subunit. The USGS 

topographic maps and aerial imagery 

(ESRI) indicate the majority of the 

Panther Creek watershed is intact forest 

with evidence of only limited legacy 

coal mining. The riparian zone of this 

narrow valley is largely intact, 

containing a road and occasional 

residences (mostly in the lower portion 

of the subunit). Approximately 6.1 skm 

(3.8 smi) of Subunit 4c is located within 

the Panther State Forest, and the 

remainder is located on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. This 

subunit contributes to the redundancy 

of the species. 

Subunit 4d: Knox Creek, Buchanan 

County, Virginia, and Pike County, 

Kentucky 

Subunit 4d includes approximately 

16.6 skm (10.3 smi) of Knox Creek, a 

tributary to Tug Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Knox Creek and Cedar Branch 

downstream to the confluence of Knox 

Creek and Tug Fork in Pike County, 

Kentucky. Recent surveys indicated 

abundant unembedded slab boulders, 

boulders, and boulder clusters, with live 

Big Sandy crayfish collected at four sites 

in the Kentucky portion of the creek 

(Thoma 2010, p. 5; Loughman 2015a, p. 

12). The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the Knox 

Creek watershed is mostly forested, with 

evidence of significant legacy, recent, 

and ongoing coal mining in the 

watershed. In the upper portion of this 

subunit, human development in the 

form of small communities, residences, 

roads, railroads, and other infrastructure 

is common. In the middle and lower 

sections, the riparian zone is relatively 

intact, except for scattered residences 

and a road and railroad line. Subunit 4d 

is located almost entirely on private 

land, except for any small amount that 

is publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. This 

subunit contributes to the redundancy 

of the species. 

Subunit 4e: Peter Creek, Pike County, 

Kentucky 

Subunit 4e includes approximately 

10.1 skm (6.3 smi) of Peter Creek, a 

tributary to Tug Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Left Fork Peter Creek and Right Fork 

Peter Creek at Phelps, Kentucky, 

downstream to the confluence of Peter 

Creek and Tug Fork at Freeburn, 

Kentucky. Recent surveys indicate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

moderate sedimentation in Peter Creek, 

but some unembedded bottom 

substrates continue to be present 

(Loughman 2015a, p. 12). Big Sandy 

crayfish have been collected at two sites 

in the lower portion of this subunit. The 

USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the Peter Creek 

watershed is mostly forested, with 

evidence of significant legacy, recent, 

and ongoing coal mining throughout the 

watershed. The riparian zone in Subunit 

4e is dominated by human development 

in the form of small communities, 

residences, roads, railroads, and other 

infrastructure. This subunit is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. Subunit 4e contributes 

to the redundancy of the species. 

Subunit 4f: Blackberry Creek, Pike 

County, Kentucky 

Subunit 4f includes approximately 9.1 

skm (5.7 smi) of Blackberry Creek, a 

tributary to Tug Fork. This occupied 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Blackberry Creek and Bluespring Branch 

downstream to the confluence of 

Blackberry Creek and Tug Fork. Recent 

surveys indicate moderate 

sedimentation in Blackberry Creek, but 

some unembedded bottom substrates 

continue to be present (Loughman 

2015a, p. 12). Big Sandy crayfish have 

been collected at two sites in the lower 

portion of this subunit. The USGS 

topographic maps and aerial imagery 

(ESRI) indicate the Blackberry Creek 

watershed is mostly forested, with 

evidence of significant legacy, recent, 

and ongoing coal mining throughout the 

watershed. The narrow riparian zone in 

Subunit 4f is dominated by human 

development in the form of small 

communities, residences, roads, and 

other infrastructure. This subunit is 

located almost entirely on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. Subunit 4f 

contributes to the redundancy of the 

species. 

Subunit 4g: Pigeon Creek and Laurel 

Creek, Mingo County, West Virginia 

Subunit 4g includes approximately 

14.0 skm (8.7 smi) of Pigeon Creek, a 

tributary to Tug Fork, and 

approximately 11.1 skm (6.9 smi) of 

Laurel Fork, a tributary to Pigeon Creek; 

this subunit is occupied. The Pigeon 

Creek portion of this subunit extends 

from the confluence of Pigeon Creek and 

Trace Fork downstream to the 

confluence of Pigeon Creek and Tug 

Fork. The Laurel Creek portion extends 

from the confluence of Laurel Fork and 

Lick Branch 0.6 skm (0.4 smi) 

downstream of the Laurel Lake dam to 

the confluence of Laurel Fork and 

Pigeon Creek at Lenore, West Virginia. 

Recent surveys indicate the bottom 

substrates in Pigeon Creek consist of 

fine sediments, sand, and occasional 

boulders, with Big Sandy crayfish 

collected at a single site (Loughman 

2015a, p. 11). Laurel Fork maintains a 

bottom substrate of sand, gravel, cobble, 

and occasional slab boulders, with Big 

Sandy crayfish collected at two sites 

(Loughman 2015a, pp. 10–11). The 

USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the Pigeon 

Creek watershed is mostly forested, with 

evidence of significant legacy, recent, 

and ongoing coal mining and valley fills 

in the upper portion of the watershed. 

The Pigeon Creek riparian zone is 

dominated by human development in 

the form of small communities, 

residences, roads, railroads, and other 

infrastructure. The majority of the 

Laurel Creek watershed is located 

within the Laurel Creek State Wildlife 

Management Area and is mostly intact 

forest; however, the narrow riparian 

zone is dominated by human 

development in the form of residences, 

roads, and other infrastructure. Subunit 

4g is located almost entirely on private 

land, except for any small amount that 

is publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. With the 

exception of the Big Sandy crayfish 

occurrence in the Tug Fork mainstem 

near Crum, West Virginia, Subunit 4g 

supports the most downstream Big 

Sandy crayfish population in the Tug 

Fork watershed. Therefore, this subunit 

contributes to the representation and 

redundancy of the species. 

Guyandotte River Crayfish 

Below we present brief descriptions of 

all units/subunits and reasons why they 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the Guyandotte River crayfish. Each 

unit/subunit contains one or more of the 

PBFs identified above (see Summary of 

Essential Physical or Biological 

Features) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 1: Upper Guyandotte 

We propose to designate a single 

critical habitat unit (Unit 1), consisting 

of five subunits, for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. This unit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

resource extraction (coal mining, timber 

harvesting, and oil and gas 

development), road construction and 

maintenance (including unpaved roads 

and trails), instream dredging or 

construction projects, and other sources 

of point and non-point source pollution 

including spills. In addition, subunits 

1a and 1e may need special 

management considerations to address 

threats from ORV use. The subunits are 

described below. 

Subunit 1a: Pinnacle Creek, Wyoming 

County, West Virginia 

This occupied subunit includes 

approximately 28.6 skm (17.8 smi) of 

Pinnacle Creek, a tributary to the 

Guyandotte River. Subunit 1a extends 

from the confluence of Pinnacle Creek 

and Beartown Fork downstream to the 

confluence of Pinnacle Creek and the 

Guyandotte River at Pineville, West 

Virginia. The USGS topographic maps 

and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Pinnacle Creek watershed is mostly 

forested; however, legacy, recent, and 

ongoing coal mining is evident in the 

watershed. The riparian zone in this 

subunit is mostly intact, with human 

development consisting of unimproved 

roads or trails. In the lower portion of 

the subunit, some commercial and coalrelated facilities are adjacent to the 

stream. This subunit is located almost 

entirely on private land, except for any 

small amount that is publicly owned in 

the form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. 

Recent surveys of Pinnacle Creek 

confirmed the presence of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish in at least 

five sites in the upper portion of the 

stream. The subunit contains bottom 

substrate consisting of gravel with 

unembedded cobbles, small boulders, 

and isolated slab boulders (PBF 1). 

Substrate embeddedness was reported 

to increase markedly in downstream 

reaches (Loughman 2015b, p. 11). As 

one of only two known Guyandotte 

River crayfish populations, this subunit 

provides critical representation and 

redundancy for the species. 

Subunit 1b: Clear Fork and Laurel Fork, 

Wyoming County, West Virginia 

Subunit 1b includes approximately 

38.0 skm (23.6 smi) of Clear Fork and 

its primary tributary Laurel Fork. This 

occupied subunit extends from the 

confluence of Laurel Creek and Acord 

Branch downstream to the confluence of 

Clear Fork and the Guyandotte River. 

The USGS topographic maps and aerial 

imagery (ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1b 

watershed is mostly forested; however, 

coal mining activity occurs throughout 

the subunit. Human development is 

prevalent in the riparian zone in this 

subunit and consists of communities, 

residences, commercial facilities, 

agricultural fields, roads, railroads, and 

other infrastructure. Approximately 6.2 

skm (3.9 smi) of Subunit 1b is within 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14683 

the R.D. Bailey Lake State Wildlife 

Management Area, and the remainder is 

located almost entirely on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. 

Surveys confirmed the Guyandotte 

River crayfish at six sites within this 

subunit, with the stream bottom 

substrate generally characterized as 

sand with abundant unembedded slab 

boulders, boulders, or boulder clusters 

(Loughman 2015b, pp. 9–10). Of the two 

remaining Guyandotte River crayfish 

populations, Subunit 1b contains the 

most robust population and provides 

critical representation and redundancy 

for the species. 

Subunit 1c: Guyandotte River, Wyoming 

County, West Virginia 

Subunit 1c includes approximately 

35.8 skm (22.2 smi) of the Guyandotte 

River from its confluence with Pinnacle 

Creek at Pineville, West Virginia, 

downstream to its confluence with Clear 

Fork. The USGS topographic maps and 

aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate the 

Subunit 1c watershed is mostly forested; 

however, some legacy and ongoing coal 

mining is evident along with natural gas 

development on adjacent ridges. In the 

lower portion of the subunit, the 

riparian zone is largely intact, with the 

exception of road and railroad rights-ofway. In the middle and upper portions 

of this subunit, human development in 

the riparian zone increases and consists 

of communities, residences, commercial 

facilities, agricultural fields, roads, 

railroads, and other infrastructure. 

Approximately 15.0 skm (9.3 smi) of 

Subunit 1c is located within the R.D. 

Bailey Lake State Wildlife Management 

Area, and the remainder is located 

almost entirely on private land, except 

for any small amount that is publicly 

owned in the form of bridge crossings or 

road easements. 

Although it is considered unoccupied, 

this subunit contains at least two of the 

PBFs essential to the conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, and we are 

reasonably certain that it will contribute 

to the conservation of the species. This 

subunit maintains ‘‘optimal’’ 

Guyandotte River crayfish habitat, 

including abundant unembedded slab 

boulders, boulders, boulder clusters, 

and cobble (PBF 1) (Loughman 2015b, 

pp. 22–24). Along with providing 

suitable habitat for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish and thereby providing the 

potential to increase its redundancy, 

this subunit provides connectivity (PBF 

6) between the extant Pinnacle Creek 

and Clear Fork populations and 

provides connectivity between these 

two populations and the unoccupied 

critical habitat subunit at Indian Creek 

(Subunit 1d, described below). 

Subunit 1d: Indian Creek, Wyoming 

County, West Virginia 

Subunit 1d includes approximately 

4.2 skm (2.6 smi) of Indian Creek, a 

tributary to the Guyandotte River. This 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Indian Creek and Brier Creek at 

Fanrock, West Virginia, downstream to 

the confluence of Indian Creek and the 

Guyandotte River. The USGS 

topographic maps and aerial imagery 

(ESRI) indicate the Subunit 1d 

watershed is mostly intact forest, with 

evidence of legacy coal mining and 

natural gas drilling on the adjacent 

slopes. Residences, roads, and other 

infrastructure occur in the narrow 

riparian zone. Approximately 1.3 skm 

(0.8 smi) of Subunit 1d is located within 

the R.D. Bailey Lake State Wildlife 

Management Area, and the remainder is 

located almost entirely on private land, 

except for any small amount that is 

publicly owned in the form of bridge 

crossings or road easements. 

Although it is considered unoccupied, 

this subunit contains at least two of the 

PBFs essential to the conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, and we are 

reasonably certain that it will contribute 

to the conservation of the species. This 

subunit represents the type location for 

the Guyandotte River crayfish, with 

specimens last collected in 1947. The 

best available survey data (Loughman 

2015b, p. 14) indicate this subunit 

maintains unembedded slab boulders 

and boulders in the faster moving 

stream sections, with some 

sedimentation observed in slow or slack 

water sections (PBF 1). This subunit is 

located approximately midway between 

the extant Pinnacle Creek and Clear 

Fork populations and, if recolonized, 

would increase the redundancy of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish and 

contribute to population connectedness 

within the species’ range (PBF 6). 

Subunit 1e: Huff Creek, Wyoming and 

Logan Counties, West Virginia 

Subunit 1e includes approximately 

28.0 skm (17.4 smi) of Huff Creek, a 

tributary of the Guyandotte River. This 

subunit extends from the confluence of 

Huff Creek and Straight Fork 

downstream to the confluence of Huff 

Creek and the Guyandotte River at Huff, 

West Virginia. The USGS topographic 

maps and aerial imagery (ESRI) indicate 

the Subunit 1e watershed is mostly 

intact forest, with evidence of legacy 

and ongoing coal mining and legacy 

natural gas drilling on the adjacent 

slopes. Human development, in the 

form of residences, roads, and other 

infrastructure, occurs in the narrow 

riparian zone throughout this subunit. 

Subunit 1e is located almost entirely on 

private land, except for any small 

amount that is publicly owned in the 

form of bridge crossings or road 

easements. 

Although it is considered unoccupied, 

this subunit contains at least one of the 

PBFs essential to the conservation of the 

Guyandotte River crayfish, and we are 

reasonably certain that it will contribute 

to the conservation of the species. The 

best available survey data (Loughman 

2015b, pp. 14–15) indicate this subunit 

maintains unembedded slab boulders 

and boulder clusters with only minimal 

sedimentation (PBF 1). Guyandotte 

River crayfish were last collected from 

this subunit in 1989. The R.D. Bailey 

Dam, constructed in 1980, prevents 

connectivity between this subunit and 

the extant Guyandotte River crayfish 

populations upstream. Successful 

reintroduction of the species to this 

subunit would contribute to the species’ 

redundancy and increase the ability of 

the species to disperse and colonize 

areas of its historical range that are 

isolated from existing populations by 

R.D. Bailey Dam. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

Such alterations may include, but are 

not limited to, those that alter the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of a species or that 

preclude or significantly delay 

development of such features. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As a result of section 7 consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions. These requirements apply when 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law), and, subsequent to 

the previous consultation, we have 

listed a new species or designated 

critical habitat that may be affected by 

the Federal action, or the action has 

been modified in a manner that affects 

the species or critical habitat in a way 

not considered in the previous 

consultation. In such situations, Federal 

agencies sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

increase sediment deposition within the 

stream channel. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, excessive 

erosion and sedimentation from coal mining 

or abandoned mine lands, oil or natural gas 

development, timber harvests, unpaved forest 

roads, road construction, channel alteration, 

off-road vehicle use, and other landdisturbing activities in the watershed and 

floodplain. Sedimentation from these 

activities could lead to stream bottom 

embeddedness that eliminates or reduces the 

sheltering habitat necessary for the 

conservation of these crayfish species. 

(2) Actions that would significantly alter 

channel morphology or geometry. Such 

activities could include, but are not limited 

to, channelization, dredging, impoundment, 

road and bridge construction, pipeline 

construction, and destruction of riparian 

vegetation. These activities may cause 

changes in water flows or channel stability 

and lead to increased sedimentation and 

stream bottom embeddedness that eliminates 

or reduces the sheltering habitat necessary 

for the conservation of these crayfish species. 

(3) Actions that would significantly alter 

water chemistry or temperature. Such 

activities could include, but are not limited 

to, the release of chemicals, fill, biological 

pollutants, or heated effluents into the 

surface water or connected groundwater at a 

point source or by dispersed release (nonpoint source). These activities could alter 

water conditions to levels that are beyond the 

tolerances of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte 

River crayfish and result in direct or 

cumulative adverse effects to individual 

crayfish. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: 

‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as 

critical habitat any lands or other 

geographic areas owned or controlled by 

the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan [INRMP] prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the final critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute on its face, as well as the 

legislative history are clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. On 

December 18, 2020, we published a final 

rule in the Federal Register (85 FR 

82376) revising portions of our 

regulations pertaining to exclusions of 

critical habitat. These final regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14685 

became effective on January 19, 2021, 

and apply to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 19, 2021. Consequently, 

these new regulations do not apply to 

this final rule. 

We describe below the process that 

we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socioeconomic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this designation of 

critical habitat. The information 

contained in our IEM was then used to 

develop a screening analysis of the 

probable effects of the designation of 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes (IEc 2019, 

entire). We began by conducting a 

screening analysis of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat in order to 

focus our analysis on the key factors 

that are likely to result in incremental 

economic impacts. 

The purpose of the screening analysis 

is to filter out particular geographic 

areas of critical habitat that are already 

subject to such protections and are, 

therefore, unlikely to incur incremental 

economic impacts. In particular, the 

screening analysis considers baseline 

costs (i.e., absent critical habitat 

designation) and includes probable 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may be subject to conservation 

plans, land management plans, best 

management practices, or regulations 

that protect the habitat area as a result 

of the Federal listing status of the 

species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus on 

evaluating the specific areas or sectors 

that may incur probable incremental 

economic impacts as a result of the 

designation. If there are any unoccupied 

units in the proposed critical habitat 

designation, the screening analysis 

assesses whether any additional 

management or conservation efforts may 

incur incremental economic impacts. 

This screening analysis combined 

with the information contained in our 

IEM are what we consider our draft 

economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes and are summarized in the 

narrative below. The IEM dated August 

14, 2019, and the draft screening 

analysis, dated October 7, 2019, was 

made available for public review from 

January 28, 2020, through March 30, 

2020 (85 FR 5072). We received public 

comments on the DEA. A copy of the 

DEA may be obtained by contacting the 

West Virginia Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with the E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

designation of critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, 

first we identified, in the IEM dated 

August 14, 2019 (Service 2019, entire), 

probable incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: (1) Watershed and stream 

restoration activities; (2) construction of 

recreation improvements and 

management of recreation activities; (3) 

energy extraction (coal, oil, and gas) and 

maintenance/management of facilities 

(e.g., abandoned mine lands, active 

mines, pipelines); (4) road and bridge 

maintenance; (5) pesticide use; (6) 

timber harvest; (7) agriculture; and (8) 

instream emergency response activities. 

We considered each industry or 

category individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. In areas where the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes are 

present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act on activities 

they fund, permit, or implement that 

may affect the species. When this final 

critical habitat designation rule becomes 

effective, consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

will result from the species being listed 

and those attributable to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., difference 

between the jeopardy and adverse 

modification standards) for the Big 

Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes’ 

critical habitat. Because all of the units/ 

subunits we are designating as critical 

habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish are 

occupied, we do not expect that the 

critical habitat designation will result in 

any additional consultations. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation recommendations 

provided to address impacts to the 

occupied critical habitat will be the 

same as those recommended to address 

impacts to the species because the 

habitat tolerances of the Big Sandy 

crayfish are inextricably linked to the 

health, growth, and reproduction of the 

crayfish, which are present year-round 

in their occupied streams. Furthermore, 

because the critical habitat and the Big 

Sandy crayfish’s known range are 

identical, the results of consultation 

under adverse modification are not 

likely to differ from the results of 

consultation under jeopardy. In the 

event of an adverse modification 

determination, we expect that 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid jeopardy to the species would also 

avoid adverse modification of the 

critical habitat. The only incremental 

costs of critical habitat designation that 

we anticipate are the small 

administrative costs required during 

section 7 consultation to document 

effects on the physical and biological 

features of the critical habitat and 

whether the action appreciably 

diminishes the value of critical habitat 

as a whole for the conservation of the 

listed species. 

The above conclusion is also accurate 

for the occupied Guyandotte River 

crayfish subunits (1a and 1b). For the 

unoccupied Guyandotte River crayfish 

subunits (1c, 1d, and 1e), we anticipate 

project modifications may result in the 

future from consultations on one 

planned surface mining project as well 

as one existing surface mining project. 

Examples of project modifications may 

include, but are not limited to, sediment 

monitoring, chemical testing, 

macroinvertebrate monitoring, installing 

box culverts at all stream crossings, 

collocating valley fills or constructing 

regarded backstacks, and maintaining a 

spill response plan (IEc 2019, p. 15). 

Informed by discussions with a mining 

company operating in Guyandotte River 

crayfish occupied habitat, the cost 

estimates associated with such project 

modifications were projected to be 

relatively minor, ranging from $30,000 

to $60,000 in the year of 

implementation. 

We received several comments during 

the public comment period stating that 

we underestimated the economic impact 

of the proposed designation, so we 

revised the screening analysis (IEc 2020, 

p. 2). We worked with IEc and Federal 

and State agencies to better understand 

the likely effects of critical habitat 

designation. The final screening 

analysis examines potential project 

modifications for consultations in 

unoccupied critical habitat in more 

detail (i.e., cleaning out sediment 

structures [e.g., ponds] at 40% of design 

capacity instead of the 60% of design 

capacity that is required under existing 

regulations and installing continuous 

turbidity loggers, isolating mine 

discharge with upstream and 

downstream Biological Assessment 

Station [BAS] sites, statistically 

monitoring sediment within crayfish 

streams and receiving streams, sediment 

transport modeling) (IEc 2020, p. 16). 

Insufficient information is available to 

quantify the costs of sediment cleanout; 

therefore, annualized project 

modification costs were qualitatively 

discussed and total costs were estimated 

to be on the order of $350,000 (IEc 2020, 

p. 21). The administrative costs are 

discussed below. The final screening 

analysis states that critical habitat 

designation for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfish is unlikely to 

generate costs exceeding $100 million in 

a single year and, therefore, would not 

be significant as defined by Executive 

Order 13211 (below). 

The critical habitat designation for the 

Big Sandy crayfish totals approximately 

582 skm (362 smi), all of which is 

currently occupied by the species. The 

critical habitat designation for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish totals 

approximately 135 skm (84 smi), of 

which approximately 49% is currently 

occupied by the species. 

As stated in the final screening 

analysis (IEc 2020, p. 24), critical habitat 

designation for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfish would be 

unlikely to generate costs exceeding 

$100 million in a single year, and 

therefore would not be significant. The 

direct section 7 costs would most likely 

be limited to additional administrative 

effort to consider adverse modification, 

as well as the project modifications 

discussed above, in unoccupied habitat 

for the Guyandotte River crayfish. All of 

the critical habitat units/subunits for the 

Big Sandy crayfish and two subunits of 

critical habitat for the Guyandotte River 

crayfish are occupied year-round by 

these species. Within occupied habitat, 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated, all projects with a Federal 

nexus are already subject to section 7 

requirements due to the listing of the 

species. The administrative time 

required to address critical habitat in 

these consultations is minor. The results 

of consultation for adverse modification 

are not likely to differ from the results 

of consultation for jeopardy. Three 

subunits of critical habitat for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish are currently 

unoccupied by the species. Section 7 

consultations for all projects with a 

Federal nexus in this unoccupied 

habitat would be fully attributable to the 

critical habitat designation. We 

anticipate incremental project 

modifications resulting from these 

consultations, including for existing and 

planned surface mines. 

Based on the rate of historical 

consultations in occupied units/ 

subunits, these two species are likely to 

generate a total of approximately 285 

consultations and technical assistances 

in a given year; this includes multiple 

project types including roads and 

transportation projects, pipeline and 

utility crossings, and other project types 

as described in the IEM. The total 

additional administrative cost of 

addressing adverse modification in 

these new and existing consultations is 

not expected to exceed $870,000, 

depending on the range of cost estimates 

for unoccupied critical habitat (see 

below), in a given year. This value likely 

overestimates the cost because technical 

assistance consultations, which cost 

substantially less, cannot be separated 

from informal consultations in the 

consultation information provided to 

the economists. The cost of project 

modifications resulting from currently 

identified existing and future activities 

in unoccupied habitat for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish is expected to 

be about $350,000 in a given year. 

Further, the designation of critical 

habitat is not expected to trigger 

additional requirements under State or 

local regulations. Additionally, because 

the critical habitat is located in stretches 

of river, rather than on land, impacts on 

property values resulting from the 

perception of additional regulation are 

unlikely. Project modifications in 

unoccupied habitat for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish have the potential to 

increase conservation in these areas, 

resulting in an incremental benefit. Data 

limitations preclude IEc’s ability to 

monetize these benefits; however, these 

benefits are unlikely to exceed $100 

million in a given year. 

The units with the highest potential 

costs resulting from the designation of 

critical habitat are Unit 2 for the Big 

Sandy crayfish and the unoccupied 

subunits of Unit 1 for the Guyandotte 

River crayfish. Because Unit 1 for the 

Guyandotte River crayfish (in West 

Virginia) includes unoccupied stream 

miles, requests for project modifications 

would be likely for existing and planned 

projects in this area. Unit 2 for the Big 

Sandy crayfish (Russell Fork, spanning 

both Kentucky and Virginia) contains 

the most stream miles with adjacent 

Federal land ownership and, therefore, 

a higher probability of intersecting with 

projects or activities with a Federal 

nexus that require consultation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14687 

We have considered additional 

economic impact information we 

received during the public comment 

period, and determined that no areas 

may be excluded from the final critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

The first sentence of section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act requires the Service to consider 

the economic impacts (as well as the 

impacts on national security and any 

other relevant impacts) of designating 

critical habitat. In addition, economic 

impacts may, for some particular areas, 

play an important role in the 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis under the second sentence of 

section 4(b)(2). In both contexts, the 

Service has considered the probable 

incremental economic impacts of the 

designation. When the Service 

undertakes a discretionary section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis with respect 

to a particular area, we weigh the 

economic benefits of exclusion (and any 

other benefits of exclusion) against any 

benefits of inclusion (primarily the 

conservation value of designating the 

area). The conservation value may be 

influenced by the level of effort needed 

to manage degraded habitat to the point 

where it could support the listed 

species. 

The Service uses its discretion in 

determining how to weigh probable 

incremental economic impacts against 

conservation value. The nature of the 

probable incremental economic impacts, 

and not necessarily a particular 

threshold level, triggers considerations 

of exclusions based on probable 

incremental economic impacts. For 

example, if an economic analysis 

indicates high probable incremental 

impacts of designating a particular 

critical habitat unit of lower 

conservation value (relative to the 

remainder of the designation), the 

Service may consider exclusion of that 

particular unit. 

As discussed above, the Service 

considered the economic impacts of the 

critical habitat designation and the 

Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

based on economic impacts. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense where a national security 

impact might exist. We have determined 

that the lands within the final 

designation of critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

are not owned or managed by the 

Department of Defense or Department of 

Homeland Security, and, therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on national 

security. We did not receive any 

requests from Federal agencies 

responsible for national security or 

homeland security requesting 

exclusions from Big Sandy crayfish or 

Guyandotte River crayfish critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, the 

Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from the 

final designation based on impacts on 

national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the 

Service considers any other relevant 

impacts of the critical habitat 

designation, in addition to economic 

impacts and impacts on national 

security as discussed above. The Service 

considers a number of factors including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, or candidate conservation 

agreements with assurances, or whether 

there are nonpermitted conservation 

agreements and partnerships that would 

be encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at the existence of 

Tribal conservation plans and 

partnerships and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this designation, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

HCPs or other management plans for the 

Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 

crayfishes, and the designation does not 

include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. We anticipate no impact on 

Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from 

this critical habitat designation. 

As explained above, there are no 

Department of Defense or national 

security impacts or Tribal trust impacts 

associated with the designation. 

Therefore, the Secretary is not 

exercising her discretion to exclude any 

areas from this final designation based 

on other relevant impacts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

Executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000 (13 CFR 

121.201). To determine whether 

potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

Agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. There is no 

requirement under RFA to evaluate the 

potential impacts to entities not directly 

regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies 

are not small entities. Therefore, 

because no small entities are directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that the final critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

During the development of this final 

rule we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment period that may pertain to our 

consideration of the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

critical habitat designation. Based on 

this information, we affirm our 

certification that this final critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. Coal 

mining, pipeline and utility crossings, 

and oil and gas exploration activities 

regularly occur within the range of the 

Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes and their critical habitat 

units/subunits (Service 2019, pp. 7–8). 

These are routine activities that the 

Service consults on with the Office of 

Surface Mining, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers under section 

7 of the Act. In our screening analysis, 

we do not find that the designation of 

this critical habitat would significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. As discussed in the revised 

screening analysis, the costs associated 

with consultations related to occupied 

critical habitat would be largely 

administrative in nature and the costs 

associated with projects in unoccupied 

critical habitat are estimated not to 

exceed $350,000 per year (IEc 2020, p. 

21). The full cost of the entire 

designation is not expected to exceed 

$1,000,000 per year, which does not 

reach the significant threshold of $100 

million per year. Therefore, this action 

is not a significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the waters 

being designated for critical habitat are 

owned by the States of Kentucky, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. These 

government entities do not fit the 

definition of ‘‘small government 

jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14689 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the Big 

Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 

in a takings implications assessment. 

The Act does not authorize the Service 

to regulate private actions on private 

lands or confiscate private property as a 

result of critical habitat designation. 

Designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership, or establish any 

closures, or restrictions on use of or 

access to the designated areas. 

Furthermore, the designation of critical 

habitat does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. However, Federal agencies are 

prohibited from carrying out, funding, 

or authorizing actions that would 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Big Sandy and 

Guyandotte River crayfishes does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this critical 

habitat designation with, appropriate 

State resource agencies in Kentucky, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. We 

received comments from the West 

Virginia DNR and have addressed them 

in the Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations section of the 

preamble. From a federalism 

perspective, the designation of critical 

habitat directly affects only the 

responsibilities of Federal agencies. The 

Act imposes no other duties with 

respect to critical habitat, either for 

States and local governments, or for 

anyone else. As a result, the rule does 

not have substantial direct effects either 

on the States, or on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

powers and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical and 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

because these local governments no 

longer have to wait for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, the rule identifies 

the elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

crayfishes. The designated areas of 

critical habitat are presented on maps, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

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 determined that there are no Tribal 

lands that were occupied by the Big 

Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes at 

the time of listing that contain the 

features essential for conservation of the 

species, and no Tribal lands unoccupied 

by the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 

crayfishes that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we are not designating critical habitat 

for the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 

crayfishes on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the West 

Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
14690 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Authors 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking are the staff members of the 

North Atlantic—Appalachian Regional 

Office, Kentucky Ecological Services 

Field Office, Southwestern Virginia 

Field Office, and the West Virginia Field 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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 revising the 

entries for ‘‘Crayfish, Big Sandy’’ and 

‘‘Crayfish, Guyandotte River’’ under 

‘‘Crustaceans’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

CRUSTACEANS

* * * * * * * 

Crayfish, Big Sandy ............. Cambarus callainus ............ Wherever found .................. T 81 FR 20450, 4/7/2016; 50 CFR 

17.95(h).CH

* * * * * * * 

Crayfish, Guyandotte River .. Cambarus veteranus .......... Wherever found .................. E 81 FR 20450, 4/7/2016; 

50 CFR 17.95(h).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95(h) by adding entries 

for ‘‘Big Sandy Crayfish (Cambarus 

callainus)’’ and ‘‘ Guyandotte River 

Crayfish (Cambarus veteranus)’’ after 

the entry for ‘‘ Pecos amphipod 

(Gammarus pecos)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) Crustaceans. 

* * * * * 

Big Sandy Crayfish (Cambarus 

callainus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Martin, Pike, Johnson, and Floyd 

Counties, Kentucky; Buchanan, 

Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia; 

and McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne 

Counties, West Virginia, on the maps in 

this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Big Sandy crayfish 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Fast-flowing stream reaches with 

unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or 

isolated boulder clusters within an 

unobstructed stream continuum (i.e., 

riffle, run, pool complexes) of 

permanent, moderate- to large-sized 

(generally third order and larger) 

streams and rivers (up to the ordinary 

high water mark as defined at 33 CFR 

329.11). 

(ii) Streams and rivers with natural 

variations in flow and seasonal flooding 

sufficient to effectively transport 

sediment and prevent substrate 

embeddedness. 

(iii) Water quality characterized by 

seasonally moderated temperatures and 

physical and chemical parameters (e.g., 

pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) 

sufficient for the normal behavior, 

growth, reproduction, and viability of 

all life stages of the species. 

(iv) An adequate food base, indicated 

by a healthy aquatic community 

structure including native benthic 

macroinvertebrates and fishes, and plant 

matter (e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus). 

(v) Aquatic habitats protected from 

riparian and instream activities that 

degrade the physical and biological 

features described in paragraphs (2)(i) 

through (iv) of this entry or cause 

physical (e.g., crushing) injury or death 

to individual Big Sandy crayfish. 

(vi) An interconnected network of 

streams and rivers that have the 

physical and biological features 

described in paragraphs (2)(i) through 

(iv) of this entry and that allow for the 

movement of individual crayfish in 

response to environmental, 

physiological, or behavioral drivers. The 

scale of the interconnected stream 

network should be sufficient to allow 

for gene flow within and among 

watersheds. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on April 14, 2022. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created on a base of U.S. 

Geological Survey digital ortho-photo 

quarter-quadrangles, and critical habitat 

units were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15N 

coordinates. ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.0 

software was used to determine latitude 

and longitude coordinates using 

decimal degrees. The USA Topo ESRI 

online basemap service was referenced 

to identify features (like roads and 

streams) used to delineate the upstream 

and downstream extents of critical 

habitat units. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at the Service’s internet 

site at https://www.fws.gov/ 

westvirginiafieldoffice/, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Index map of critical habitat Units 

1 and 2 for the Big Sandy crayfish 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14691 

(6) Unit 1: Upper Levisa Fork—Dismal 

Creek, Buchanan County, Virginia. 

(i) Unit 1 includes approximately 29.2 

stream kilometers (skm) (18.1 smi) of 

Dismal Creek from its confluence with 

Laurel Fork downstream to its 

confluence with Levisa Fork in 

Buchanan County, Virginia. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.009</GPH>

Figure 1 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (5) 

Index Map of Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Unit 1 - Upper Levisa Fork and Unit 2 - Russell Fork 

- Crlll<:al Habitat ~-::.-::: Counly Boundary 

-- Rivers and Slieams D state Boundary 

• - • Roads 

o 275 5.5 n 

0:157 14 2t 

N 

' l .... ,"' .......... ,"'-;_. ... f ,,_,,,....\_ 

West ~; 

Virginia 

Buchanan 

County 

Russell 

County 

A 
14692 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Unit 2: Russell Fork—Buchanan, 

Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia, 

and Pike County, Kentucky. 

(i) Subunit 2a: Russell Fork, 

Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, 

Virginia, and Pike County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 2a consists of 

approximately 83.8 skm (52.1 smi) of 

Russell Fork from its confluence with 

Ball Creek at Council, Virginia, 

downstream to its confluence with 

Levisa Fork at Levisa Junction, 

Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2a follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.010</GPH>

Figure 2 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (6)(ii) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Unit 1 -

Upper Levisa Fork (Dismal Creek) 

- Critical Hal>ilat ~ = = 1 County Bounda,y 

- Rivers and SlrellTIS D slale Boun<lal}' 

=-ccx Roads 

• 4 

..... O 0:.75 Hi -4.5 6: 

-
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14693 

(ii) Subunit 2b: Hurricane Creek, 

Buchanan County, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2b consists of 

approximately 5.9 skm (3.7 smi) of 

Hurricane Creek from its confluence 

with Gilbert Fork downstream to its 

confluence with Russell Fork at 

Davenport, Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2b follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.011</GPH>

Figure 3 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(i)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2a - Russell Fork 

-Crilital l!abital ~-::_ ~ County Bounda,y 

RTVer.,an<1 streams OstateBoundaiy 

-• - Roads 

0 U 1 6 9 D :~~=~~iiiiiii==••es .......... 0 2 4 8 ~ ffl 
14694 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Subunit 2c: Indian Creek, 

Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, 

Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2c consists of 

approximately 7.4 skm (4.6 smi) of 

Indian Creek from its confluence with 

Three Forks in Buchanan County, 

Virginia, downstream to its confluence 

with Russell Fork in Buchanan and 

Dickenson Counties, Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2c follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.012</GPH>

Figure 4 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(ii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2b - Hurricane Creek 

...... 

Virginia 

State Roule 

Buchanan 

County 

-C1111ca1 Habitat ~-::_ ~ counly BOOO<laiy N 

-. - Rivers and stieams .D state Boundary .A 

-••Roads A 0 Q '175 Q:l5 lH 1.05 1.4 

Mies 

l<iometem 

Q Q22fil45 Q9 1.35 1.8 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14695 

(iv) Subunit 2d: Fryingpan Creek, 

Dickenson County, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2d consists of 

approximately 4.6 skm (2.9 smi) of 

Fryingpan Creek from its confluence 

with Priest Fork downstream to its 

confluence with Russell Fork. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2d follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.013</GPH>

Figure 5 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(iii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2c - Indian Greek 

Dickenson 

County 

' J 

I 

\ 

J 

I 

-cn1u:a1ffabi1al ~-:_ ~CountyBoun<laiy N 

--Rivers and streams D state Boundary A -•-Roads " 0 0.125 0.25 0,5 o.75 1 

Mies l(lomet,rs 

0 0,15 0,3 0;6 o.9 1.2 

Buchanan 

County 
14696 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(v) Subunit 2e: Lick Creek, Dickenson 

County, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2e consists of 

approximately 16.2 skm (10.1 smi) of 

Lick Creek from its confluence with 

Cabin Fork near Aily, Virginia, 

downstream to its confluence with 

Russell Fork at Birchfield, Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2e follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.014</GPH>

Figure 6 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(iv)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2d - Fryingpan Creek 

Virginia 

Dickenson 

County 

- critical lfabitat ~-::_ -=.i County Boundaiy N 

A -_ - Rillera and streams t::].state Boundary 

-- -.Roaas 

0 !11250.:15 0:5 1175 1 

Mies l<lomelera 

0 o.1751135 117 UIS 1.4 ---- sfu,;-... JUPDl!ief.Otlly. 

\. ~ 

.. ~ 

.. 

" "-I 

....... .. ........ 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14697 

(vi) Subunit 2f: Russell Prater Creek, 

Dickenson County, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2f consists of 

approximately 8.4 skm (5.2 smi) of 

Russell Prater Creek from its confluence 

with Greenbrier Creek downstream to its 

confluence with Russell Fork at Haysi, 

Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2f follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.015</GPH>

Figure 7 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(v)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2e- Lick Creek 

- Critical Habilat l = =' Counly Boundary 

- Rivers and Streams D stale Boundary 

=-=-=- Roads 

o e.35 n.7 

0 0.5 1 2 • 
14698 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(vii) Subunit 2g: McClure River, Open 

Fork and McClure Creek, Dickenson 

County, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2g consists of 

approximately 35.6 skm (22.1 smi) of 

the McClure River and McClure Creek 

from the confluence of McClure Creek 

and Honey Branch downstream to the 

confluence of McClure River and 

Russell Fork; and approximately 4.9 km 

(3.0 mi) of Open Fork from the 

confluence of Middle Fork Open Fork 

and Coon Branch downstream to the 

confluence of Open Fork and McClure 

Creek at Nora, Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2g follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.016</GPH>

Figure 8 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(vi)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2f - Russell Prater Creek 

"l--... .,.,. Sate-Rmtte 

-...... so 

........ 

';. ... , ... 

i 

• \ , 

,, 

, 

' 

Virginia 

D"n:kenson 

County 

-CrilicatHabitat L-::_ -=_rcounty8ouooaiy 

--Rl\lerslmd streams D stale Boundary 

•• •Roads 

o Q2 Q4 

O OJ15 !l5 

QB ~2 ~6 

Mies l<Jom!ters 

rn 2 

Jl'll!bad:groundfaya' 

iiab"~ 

"'"'""""only 

\ Buchanan 

1 County 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14699 

(viii) Subunit 2h: Elkhorn Creek, Pike 

County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 2h consists of 

approximately 8.5 skm (5.3 smi) of 

Elkhorn Creek from its confluence with 

Mountain Branch downstream to its 

confluence with Russell Fork at Elkhorn 

City, Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2h follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.017</GPH>

Figure 9 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(vii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2g -

McClure River- Open Fork 

- Ctlllcal Habllal ~-=-J County Boumlaly 

- Rtvers all<t S1111am1 D state Boundary 

•••Roac!S 

0 0.5 1 2 3 

0 Cl75'1.S 3 45 

4 

MIU !(lo'""'" a 
14700 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(ix) Subunit 2i: Cranes Nest River and 

Birchfield Creek, Dickenson and Wise 

Counties, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2i consists of 

approximately 24.6 skm (19.0 smi) of 

the Cranes Nest River from its 

confluence with Birchfield Creek 

downstream to its confluence with Lick 

Branch and approximately 6.9 skm (4.3 

smi) of Birchfield Creek from its 

confluence with Dotson Creek 

downstream to its confluence with 

Cranes Nest River. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2i follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.018</GPH>

Figure 10 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(viii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2h - Elkhorn Creek 

Kentucky 

Pike 

County 

- Grilieal lfabitat ~-::__, ~ County 8oundaiy N 

A -- Rilreis and Streams Ostate Boundary 

•••Roads 

0 Q.225 0.45 O.!! 

O d275Ccffi 'U tffi 

t:!5 t8 1heba!t_..,.. Mies abd....., 2~""' ,..,.,. .. ,.,,,., 

.. 

" ", Stall, Roule 

""' ,-80 "--- ... 

-~---.... .... 

Virginia 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14701 

(x) Subunit 2j: Pound River, 

Dickenson and Wise Counties, Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 2j consists of 

approximately 28.5 skm (17.7 smi) of 

the Pound River from its confluence 

with Bad Creek downstream to the 

confluence of the Pound River and Jerry 

Branch. 

(B) Map of Subunit 2j follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.019</GPH>

Figure 11 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(ix)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2i - Cranes Nest River -

Birchfield Creek 

Virginia 

., --~ ., ... •.,. •~ .... • .,, State Rout& ,,,.,,,- ..... .. ._ -.:a 83 J • . -l.~ 

~ -~---P I .• ,,. ..• ,-!!Y ..'" 

i 

, 

Sate-Rout&• ' 

72 I ' • ' ·: 

I 

i 

. ' -~ 

-cr111ca1 Habitat L -:__-~, County BouOiJatY 

- River., and Streams D Slate Bowidaly 

•--Roacls 

o 9-5 1 2 

Klotnll"" 0051 2 3 4 
14702 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Index map of critical habitat Unit 

3 for the Big Sandy crayfish follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.020</GPH>

Figure 12 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (7)(x)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 2j - Pound River 

Virginia ~"" 

_:!>-" ____ ...,. .... J~ .... .. 

\ I 

Stat&Route; 

72 ' 

. 

' ' 

• \ 

-C!ilk:al Habitat ~.~ ~ CoURty Boundary 

--Rlver.;all(f streams D state Boundaly 

-· - Roads 

0 0.5 1 2 

0 0;75 1.5 3 

3 

45 

4 

Ides l<lometers 

6 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14703 

(9) Unit 3: Lower Levisa Fork—Floyd, 

Johnson, and Pike Counties, Kentucky. 

(i) Subunit 3a: Levisa Fork, Floyd, 

Johnson, and Pike Counties, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 3a consists of 

approximately 15.9 km (9.9 mi) of 

Levisa Fork from its confluence with 

Russell Fork at Levisa Junction, 

Kentucky, downstream to its confluence 

with Island Creek at Pikeville, 

Kentucky; and 17.5 skm (10.9 smi) of 

Levisa Fork from its confluence with 

Abbott Creek downstream to its 

confluence with Miller Creek at Auxier, 

Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 3a follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.021</GPH>

Figure 13 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (8) 

Index Map of Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Unit 3 - Lower Levisa Fork 

Kentucky 

Knott 

County 

- Critical Habitat ~-:_-::: county Boundaiy N 

--Rivers and streams t::] state Bolilldaty & 

---Roads A 

Q 1. 75 3.5 7 10.5 14 'Thla,l:>adQSound ra;e, 

Mies " 1':lr dilpil¥ kioml!ters Q 225 45 9 13.5 f8 -~-1YPike 

County 

3atuf)Slream) 
14704 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Subunit 3b: Shelby Creek and 

Long Fork, Pike County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 3b consists of 

approximately 32.2 skm (20.0 smi) of 

Shelby Creek from its confluence with 

Burk Branch downstream to its 

confluence with Levisa Fork at 

Shelbiana, Kentucky; and 

approximately 12.9 skm (8.0 smi) of 

Long Fork from the confluence of Right 

Fork Long Fork and Left Fork Long Fork 

downstream to the confluence of Long 

Fork and Shelby Creek at Virgie, 

Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 3b follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.022</GPH>

Figure 14 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (9)(i)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 3a - Levisa Fork 

-c-Habilal ~-::. -_l County Bouooary N 

--

____ RiVers and streams D stale Boundary i ,, A 

0 1.-5 3 6 -9- 12 Toe~a,er- Mles: i!.fi:lrdiilpl&!f 

O 1.75 35 7 10..5 14 Rlamet-efS JUp05i!S ®¥ 

Martin 

County 

Pike 

County 

.. 

. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14705 

(10) Index map of critical habitat Unit 

4 for the Big Sandy crayfish follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.023</GPH>

Figure 15 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (9)(ii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subtmit 3b -

Shelby Creek - Long Fork 

() 

- Cfilical Habilal ~ - - , CoURly Boun<la'lf N 

- Rlversan<!Stieams CJStateBoundaly i 

O ---- d5 1 2 3 4 " :~==~~==Mies _..,. 0 0.75 1.5 3 45 6 

theblldla,ound~ 

~b--dll~ 

JUpOSeSO(liy.· 
14706 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Unit 4: Tug Fork—McDowell, 

Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West 

Virginia; Buchanan County, Virginia; 

and Pike and Martin Counties, 

Kentucky. 

(i) Subunit 4a: Tug Fork, McDowell, 

Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West 

Virginia; Buchanan County, Virginia; 

and Pike and Martin Counties, 

Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 4a consists of 

approximately 106.1 skm (65.9 smi) of 

the Tug Fork from its confluence with 

Elkhorn Creek at Welch, West Virginia, 

downstream to its confluence with 

Blackberry Creek in Pike County, 

Kentucky; and 11.7 skm (7.3 smi) of the 

Tug Fork from its confluence with Little 

Elk Creek downstream to its confluence 

with Bull Creek at Crum, West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4a follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.024</GPH>

Figure 16 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (10) 

Index Map of Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat 

Unit 4 - Tug Fork 

Wayne 

County 

Martin 

County r-

"""--..,,,-5 

Kentucky 

Pike 

C1>0nty 

Virginia 

Logan 

County 

West 

Virginia 

> 

/ 

', ~ 

Boone 

County 

., ....... ,,,.. .... 40,1 ... 

'~ 

Wyoming 

County 

Buchanan ___,_.r 

Dickenson County ~ 

County .r .. r"·..r'' 

{ -~~ 

- Critical 1-fabilat ~-::.. ~ county BOlllldaty N 

A --. Rivers and streams D Slate Bollndaly 

-- - Roads 

0 125 6.5 13 

0 4 3 16 24 

19.5 26 

Mies 

Klomelers 

12 

___ ,.,., 

il!brdi,pl&!f 

_ .. onlJI. 

Tazewell 

County 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14707 

(ii) Subunit 4b: Dry Fork and 

Bradshaw Creek, McDowell County, 

West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 4b consists of 

approximately 45.2 skm (28.1 smi) of 

Dry Fork from its confluence with 

Jacobs Fork downstream to its 

confluence with Tug Fork at Iaeger, 

West Virginia; and approximately 4.6 

skm (2.9 smi) of Bradshaw Creek from 

its confluence with Hite Fork at Jolo, 

West Virginia, downstream to its 

confluence with Dry Fork at Bradshaw, 

West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4b follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.025</GPH>

Figure 17 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (11 )(i)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4a - Tug Fork 

unc:otn 

,, .,..""""'..!t-

~ 

county ' /' . Boone 

County 

Dickenson 

County 

-Ctitical Habilal ~: °j COUnlyBoundary 

Riven, and Streams D state B<>tlhdol)! 

• • ..,Road& 

0 3.5 7 14 21 

17 25.5 

~-✓ 

"'--, "\. 

West { 

Virginia '-.....~-, 

Wyoming 

County 
14708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Subunit 4c: Panther Creek, 

McDowell County, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 4c consists of 

approximately 10.7 skm (6.6 smi) of 

Panther Creek from its confluence with 

George Branch downstream to its 

confluence with Tug Fork at Panther, 

West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4c follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.026</GPH>

Figure 18 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (11 )(ii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4bDry Fork- Bradshaw Creek 

- Ctllical Habitat ~ - - I county Bounda'}' N 

- Rivers and Stieams D stale Bollndary ,l 

0 ---- 05 I 2 3 4 " :~~=~~==Mies -... OQ751.5 3 45 6 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14709 

(iv) Subunit 4d: Knox Creek, 

Buchanan County, Virginia, and Pike 

County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 4d consists of 

approximately 16.6 skm (10.3 smi) of 

Knox Creek from its confluence with 

Cedar Branch downstream to its 

confluence with Tug Fork in Pike 

County, Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4d follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.027</GPH>

Figure 19 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (1 l)(iii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4c - Panther Creek 

,. .. ,-; 

./ 

.. 

West 

Virginia 

·":" .._ _ Panther Creek 

- - - ""••~RDad 

McDowell 

County 

... "· -·-

-Clilk:allfabltat ~ -:_-:_ieoQnlyBoundary 

-- R.iveisand Streams □ stale Boull<lary 

---ROa<ls 

0 0.:225 0-45 0~ 

0 0.27!il55 1.1 Ui5 

tll5 Ul 

Illes Klornelers 

22 ---- ilfof'diii-pltv 

purpme$'0t1ilf. 
14710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(v) Subunit 4e: Peter Creek, Pike 

County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 4e consists of 

approximately 10.1 skm (6.3 smi) of 

Peter Creek from the confluence of Left 

Fork Peter Creek and Right Fork Peter 

Creek at Phelps, Kentucky, downstream 

to the confluence of Peter Creek and Tug 

Fork at Freeburn, Kentucky. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4e follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.028</GPH>

Figure 20 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (11 )(iv)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4d - Knox Creek 

) 

Pike 

county 

- CritlcalHabitat ~ ~ ~ County Boundaiy N 

--RIYers and Stieams D state Boundary ,& 

•••Roads A. 0 0:3 116 1s2 lll 24 .,,,. __ _ 

Mies a fanl Ptav 

o ll37!ill75 1.!i 225 t19msers ,.. ..... """' 

Kentucky 

Buchanan 

County 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14711 

(vi) Subunit 4f: Blackberry Creek, Pike 

County, Kentucky. 

(A) Subunit 4f consists of 

approximately 9.1 skm (5.7 smi) of 

Blackberry Creek its confluence with 

Bluespring Branch downstream to the 

confluence of Blackberry Creek and Tug 

Fork. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4f follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.029</GPH>

Figure 21 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (1 l)(v)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4e - Peter Creek 

Kentucky 

~ Pike 

County 

.-Critical Habitat. ~- -, eountyBouooaiy N 

-- Rivers. and streams D state Boundary ,l 

-- - Roads " 

0. 0.1750c35 (l.7 '1:05 U --"""' 

Illes """d""""' o. 0.2'l50.45 0.9 1.35 1.:-"melers iu,... .. """" 
14712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(vii) Subunit 4g: Pigeon Creek and 

Laurel Fork, Mingo County, West 

Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 4g consists of 

approximately 14.0 skm (8.7 smi) of 

Pigeon Creek from its confluence with 

Trace Fork downstream to its 

confluence with Tug Fork; and 

approximately 11.1 skm (6.9 smi) of 

Laurel Fork from its confluence with 

Lick Branch downstream to its 

confluence with Pigeon Creek at Lenore, 

West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 4g follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.030</GPH>

Figure 22 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (1 l)(vi)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habita.t Subunit 4f - Blackberry Creek 

Kentucky 

\\ ? '. I , State Roote .... ~ ... 319 

.... ... ~ 

~ 

Pike 

county 

~ 

- Crilieal llabilat ~~~County 80llndalY 

--rovers and Streams D Slate Boundaly 

•• - Roads 

0 ,(1.175 0.36 0. 7 1. 00 1-4 

Illes 

- - l<lome!ers 0 0.2250.45 Q.9 1,:is U ---- Sfardiqmlf ~E!SOO~. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14713 

Guyandotte River Crayfish (Cambarus 

veteranus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Logan and Wyoming Counties, West 

Virginia, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Guyandotte River 

crayfish consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Fast-flowing stream reaches with 

unembedded slab boulders, cobbles, or 

isolated boulder clusters within an 

unobstructed stream continuum (i.e.. 

riffle, run, pool complexes) of 

permanent, moderate- to large-sized 

(generally third order and larger) 

streams and rivers (up to the ordinary 

high water mark as defined at 33 CFR 

329.11). 

(ii) Streams and rivers with natural 

variations in flow and seasonal flooding 

sufficient to effectively transport 

sediment and prevent substrate 

embeddedness. 

(iii) Water quality characterized by 

seasonally moderated temperatures and 

physical and chemical parameters (e.g., 

pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) 

sufficient for the normal behavior, 

growth, reproduction, and viability of 

all life stages of the species. 

(iv) An adequate food base, indicated 

by a healthy aquatic community 

structure including native benthic 

macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant 

matter (e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus). 

(v) Aquatic habitats protected from 

riparian and instream activities that 

degrade the physical and biological 

features described in paragraphs (2)(i) 

through (iv) of this entry or cause 

physical (e.g., crushing) injury or death 

to individual Guyandotte River crayfish. 

(vi) An interconnected network of 

streams and rivers that have the 

physical and biological features 

described in paragraphs (2)(i) through 

(iv) of this entry and that allow for the 

movement of individual crayfish in 

response to environmental, 

physiological, or behavioral drivers. The 

scale of the interconnected stream 

network should be sufficient to allow 

for gene flow within and among 

watersheds. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on April 14, 2022. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created on a base of U.S. 

Geological Survey digital ortho-photo 

quarter-quadrangles, and critical habitat 

units were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15N 

coordinates. ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.0 

software was used to determine latitude 

and longitude coordinates using 

decimal degrees. The USA Topo ESRI 

online basemap service was referenced 

to identify features (like roads and 

streams) used to delineate the upstream 

and downstream extents of critical 

habitat units. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.031</GPH>

Figure 23 to Big Sandy Crayfish paragraph (11 )(vii)(B) 

Big Sandy Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 4g -

Pigeon Creek - laurel Fork 

-clilical Habitat ~ - - 1 county Boun<lary N 

Rivers an<i Stream~ CJ stale Boundary A - - - Roa<!s " l,0.51 2 3 4 

:~:;:~~~~~=--Mle-:s l<llomett!S 

0-0:5 1 2 3 -4 
14714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at the Service’s internet 

site at https://www.fws.gov/ 

westvirginiafieldoffice/, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098, and at the 

North Atlantic–Appalachian Regional 

Office. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Index map of critical habitat for 

the Guyandotte River crayfish follows: 

(6) Unit 1: Upper Guyandotte—Logan 

and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. 

(i) Subunit 1a: Pinnacle Creek, 

Wyoming County, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 1a consists of 

approximately 28.6 skm (17.8 smi) of 

Pinnacle Creek from its confluence with 

Beartown Fork downstream to its 

confluence with the Guyandotte River at 

Pineville, West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 1a follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.032</GPH>

Figure 1 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (5) 

Index Map of Guyandotte River Crayfish Critical Habitat Unit 1 -

Upper Guyandotte 

Logan 

County 

McDO\Vell 

County 

-Cfilicalttabltat L ~ ~CountyBouooaiy 

-- RJversand streams c:J S1ate Boundary 

•••Roads 

Q 175 3.5 

0 2 4 II 

7 

12 

105 

l<IOmetss 

16 

N 

A 

Raleigh 

County 

Wyoming 

County 

1a 

' \ 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14715 

(ii) Subunit 1b: Clear Fork and Laurel 

Fork, Wyoming County, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 1b consists of 

approximately 38.0 skm (23.6 smi) of 

Clear Fork and its primary tributary 

Laurel Fork from the confluence of 

Laurel Creek and Acord Branch 

downstream to the confluence of Clear 

Fork and the Guyandotte River. 

(B) Map of Subunit 1b follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.033</GPH>

Figure 2 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (6)(i)(B) 

Guyandotte River Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 1 a -

Pimacle Creek 

Wyoming 

County 

-crmcalflallitat ~ ~ ~ County Bouooaiy N 

-. - Rivers 3IKf streams D state Boundaty i -- - Roads " 

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Mles --- isbdiipf.E¥ 

0 0.5 1, 2 3 p.JJO!ies on:l'y, 
14716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Subunit 1c: Guyandotte River, 

Wyoming County, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 1c consists of 

approximately 35.8 skm (22.2 smi) of 

the Guyandotte River from its 

confluence with Pinnacle Creek at 

Pineville, West Virginia, downstream to 

its confluence with Clear Fork. 

(B) Map of Subunit 1c follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.034</GPH>

Figure 3 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (6)(ii)(B) 

Guyandotte River Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 1 b -

Clear Fork - laurel Fork 

-crilicalHallllal i:_-::__-::: CounlyBoulldary 

--Riveisaridstreams. c::J stale Boulldaly 

•· - Roads 

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 

Mies 

0 0.751.5 3 4.5 6 -... ---- 5-fhr_di!i:pfar 

JUp(l!ill!Soirl,'. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14717 

(iv) Subunit 1d: Indian Creek, 

Wyoming County, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 1d consists of 

approximately 4.2 skm (2.6 smi) of 

Indian Creek from the confluence of 

Indian Creek and Brier Creek at 

Fanrock, West Virginia, to the 

confluence of Indian Creek and the 

Guyandotte River. 

(B) Map of Subunit 1d follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.035</GPH>

Figure 4 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (6)(iii)(B) 

Guyandotte River Crayfish Critical Habitat SubUnit 1cGuyandotte RiVer 

' '\.) ' ' 

e,.. • 16 .. -

,~· 

C /"-- .. ? -·--.-.~.-.. J L) ~ 

.._.__,.....-~ ...... ...._,J 

-crttical Habitat ~-:_ ~ County 8011ndaiy 

-- Riveis and streams c::J Slate Boomlary 

-- • Roads 

0 075 1.5 3 4:5 

Klometll!S 

0 0.751.5 3 4:5 6 
14718 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(v) Subunit 1e: Huff Creek, Wyoming 

and Logan Counties, West Virginia. 

(A) Subunit 1e consists of 

approximately 28.0 skm (17.4 smi) of 

Huff Creek from its confluence with 

Straight Fork downstream to its 

confluence with the Guyandotte River at 

Huff, West Virginia. 

(B) Map of Subunit 1e follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.036</GPH>

Figure 5 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (6)(iv)(B) 

Guyandotte River Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 1 d -

Indian Creek 

f 

.., 

Wyoming 

County 

- Critical Habitat ~-::_ ~ county eoulKlaiy N 

--RiVer.. and streams D Slate Boundaiy A •••ROa<IS ~ 

0.5 

0 ll1511.3 0.6 ll:9 

0.75 _..,. 

1.2 

l 

; 

West 

Virginia 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14719 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04598 Filed 3–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15MR22.037</GPH>

Figure 6 to Guyandotte River Crayfish paragraph (6)(v)(B) 

Guyandotte RiVer Crayfish Critical Habitat Subunit 1 e -

Huff Creek 

- Critical Habitat ~--:._ --:._1 County Boundaiy 

--RiVers and streams D state Boull!laly 

•·•Roads 

0 Q.75 Ui 3 ll5 

0 1 2 4 6