[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20450-20481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07744]



[[Page 20449]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 67

April 7, 2016

Part II





 Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the 
Guyandotte River Crayfish; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 20450]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA85


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the 
Guyandotte River Crayfish

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus), a 
freshwater crustacean from Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, and 
endangered status for the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. veteranus), a 
freshwater crustacean from West Virginia. This rule adds these species 
to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015 and at our Web 
site at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/crayfish/. Comments and materials 
we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing 
this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we 
considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during 
normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast 
Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 
413-253-8615; facsimile 413-253-8482.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered 
Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 
Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; 
facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a 
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule.
    This rule makes final the listing of the Big Sandy crayfish 
(Cambarus callainus) as a threatened species and the Guyandotte River 
crayfish (C. veteranus) as an endangered species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we may 
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based 
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the 
Guyandotte River crayfish is in danger of extinction (i.e., is 
endangered) and that the Big Sandy crayfish is likely to become in 
endangered within the foreseeable future (i.e., is threatened) due 
primarily to the threats of land-disturbing activities that increase 
erosion and sedimentation, which degrade the stream habitat required by 
both species (Factor A), and of the effects of small population size 
(Factor E).
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
and the public to comment on our listing proposal during two comment 
periods, for a total of 90 days. We considered all comments and 
information we received during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Big Sandy 
crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these 
species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by June 8, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the 
Lexington Herald on April 9, 2015, and in the Coalfield Progress and 
Charleston Gazette on April 10, 2015. We did not receive any requests 
for a public hearing. On December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77598), we reopened 
the public comment period for an additional 30 days to make the results 
of two 2015 summer surveys of the species available for public review 
and comment.
    During the initial 60-day public comment period (April 7, 2015, to 
June 8, 2015) and the reopened 30-day comment period (December 15, 
2015, to January 14, 2016), we received public comments from 42,026 
individuals or organizations. Of these, 41,974 were form letters 
submitted by individuals associated with several nongovernmental 
organizations (NGOs) that expressed support for the listing of the two 
species but did not provide any new or substantive information. One NGO 
also submitted a separate comment letter on behalf of itself and 26 
other NGOs. This comment letter was supportive of listing the Big Sandy 
and Guyandotte River crayfishes and generally reiterated information 
from the proposed rule. We also received five comments from government 
agencies. Two were generally supportive of the proposed listing, one 
was opposed, and two did not offer an opinion.
    We received 46 comments from individuals, including peer reviewers 
and various industry groups or companies. Of these 46, 18 were 
supportive of listing the two species, 14 were opposed, and 7 did not 
offer an opinion. The remaining seven public commenters submitted 
comments on topics related to other issues not specific to the listing 
proposal, such as general criticism of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
or of coal mining. Because these seven comments are not substantive 
regarding the proposed listing rule, we do not address them further. 
Comments regarding recommendations for research or conservation actions 
are outside the scope of this final listing rule, but such recommended 
actions will be considered during the recovery planning process. All 
substantive information provided during the comment periods is 
summarized below and has either been incorporated directly into this 
final determination or is addressed in the response to comments below.

Comments From Peer Reviewers

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion

[[Page 20451]]

from seven knowledgeable individuals with expertise in the field of 
astacology (the study of crayfishes) and stream ecology. We received 
individual responses from six of these peer reviewers.
    In general, the peer reviewers all commented that we had thoroughly 
and accurately summarized the best available scientific data. We 
incorporated revisions into the final rule as a result of the peer 
reviewer comments. Any substantive comments are discussed below.
    (1) Comment: We received conflicting comments from five of the six 
peer reviewers about the sufficiency of the data from which we 
determined the population status and trends for the Big Sandy or 
Guyandotte River crayfishes. Two of the reviewers indicated that 
additional quantitative evidence was needed to support our conclusions 
regarding declines in range, population, or abundance for the Big Sandy 
crayfish, including the historical presence of the species in the lower 
Levisa Fork and Tug Fork basins. In contrast to the concern regarding a 
lack of data, a third reviewer commented that the proposed rule was 
based on more quantitative data than are available for most crayfish 
species, which supports a fourth reviewer's conclusion that the recent 
survey data were sufficient to suggest declining ranges and possibly 
abundances for both species. Finally, a fifth reviewer observed that, 
while data to inform precise population trends for these (and most 
other) crayfish species are lacking, the decline in population and 
range for both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes was 
undebatable.
    Our Response: The Act requires that the Service make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available. When we published the proposed rule on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 
18710), we relied on the best quantitative and qualitative data 
available at that time to determine the status of each species, 
including previous crayfish surveys and habitat assessments, range 
maps, genetic evidence, analysis of museum specimens, and expert 
scientific opinion. As we discussed in the proposed rule, the available 
scientific data indicated that the range of each species has been 
reduced and that most existing subpopulations of these species had low 
abundance.
    Since publishing the proposed rule, the Service funded additional 
crayfish surveys in the Upper Guyandotte and Big Sandy River basins to 
better inform our final analysis. The results of these new crayfish 
surveys (see Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire) generally 
confirmed our previous analysis of each species' status and range, and 
are discussed in more detail under Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, below. The surveys found two new stream occurrences (four 
sites) for the Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Tug Fork basin (Loughman 
2015a, pp. 10-17). These data, along with the 2009 confirmation of the 
species in the lower Levisa Fork, support our conclusion that the Big 
Sandy crayfish historically occupied suitable habitat in the lower 
portions of these river basins. As discussed in the proposed rule, 
other lines of evidence that the species once occupied a much greater 
range in the lower reaches of the Levisa and Tug Fork basins than it 
currently does include: (1) Genetic evidence that the range of the 
species within the Big Sandy basin was once much larger than it is 
presently; (2) the opinion of crayfish experts who have surveyed for 
the species; and (3) the analogous range reduction of the closely 
related Guyandotte River crayfish, which is subject to similar 
environmental stressors and threats as the Big Sandy crayfish.
    Additionally, the new occurrence locations in the lower Tug Fork, 
specifically the three Pigeon Creek sites, indicate an increase in the 
Big Sandy crayfish's redundancy above what was known when we published 
the proposed rule. This increase in redundancy also contributes to the 
species' overall resiliency and is discussed under Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats, below.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the existing 
scientific data may have been insufficient to provide for an accurate 
assessment of the habitat preferences of the Big Sandy crayfish. This 
reviewer noted that our cited sources consisted of status and 
distribution surveys that were not designed to determine specific 
microhabitats used by the species among the suite of all habitats 
present. However, this reviewer further stated that the available 
information does likely support that the Big Sandy crayfish is 
associated with unembedded slab boulders.
    Our Response: As we described in the proposed rule, there is 
consensus among crayfish experts that have surveyed for the Big Sandy 
and Guyandotte River crayfishes that these species are naturally 
associated with the faster-flowing sections of streams and rivers 
because these sections maintain an abundance of unembedded slab 
boulders that provide shelter for the species. Following publication of 
the proposed rule, the Service funded additional crayfish surveys (224 
individual survey sites) throughout the ranges of both species (see 
Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). All Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfish collected during these surveys were 
associated with faster-flowing waters in streams with unembedded 
substrates and slab boulders. At sites where these habitat conditions 
were degraded or absent, more generalist crayfish species (e.g., the 
spiny stream crayfish (Orconectes cristavarius)) were dominant and were 
found utilizing other instream habitats including woody debris snags 
and leaf packs. Neither the Big Sandy crayfish nor Guyandotte River 
crayfish was found associated with woody debris or leaf packs.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned our conclusion that the 
Flannagan Reservoir posed a barrier that prevented Big Sandy crayfish 
movement between the Pound River and the Cranes Nest River 
subpopulations. The reviewer correctly noted that the Flannagan 
Reservoir was not sampled for the Big Sandy crayfish. The reviewer 
referenced a scientific study on a different species of stream crayfish 
native to Arkansas and Missouri that had been found to inhabit a 
reservoir in Missouri as evidence that the Flannagan Reservoir might 
not be a barrier to the Big Sandy crayfish.
    Our Response: We are not aware of any surveys for the Big Sandy 
crayfish in the Flannagan Reservoir, but because reservoirs generally 
lack flowing water and accumulate bottom sediments at an accelerated 
rate (Baxter 1997, p. 259; Appalachian Power Company 2008, pp. 28-33), 
it is reasonable to conclude that the bottom substrate in the Flannagan 
Reservoir (and the lower reaches of the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers, 
which form arms of the reservoir) lacks unembedded slab boulders and is 
therefore likely not suitable habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish. 
However, because no physical barrier separates the subpopulations of 
Big Sandy crayfish in the Pound River and Cranes Nest Rivers, we do not 
rule out that these subpopulations may interact with each other, 
perhaps seasonally when reservoir levels are lowered and the lower 
portions of these rivers temporarily assume more riverine 
characteristics. However, the best available data support our ongoing 
conclusions that the Flannagan Dam poses a barrier between the Pound 
River and Cranes Nest River subpopulations and the wider Russell Fork 
and Levisa Fork populations because it physically separates areas of 
suitable habitat, and

[[Page 20452]]

that habitat fragmentation is a threat to the species.
    (4) Comment: Several peer reviewers commented on other potential 
threats to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and suggested 
that we discuss the effects of climate change and dams on the two 
species.
    Our Response: We agree that the potential effects of dams and 
climate change on the two species warrant further analyses; we have 
incorporated these below, under Factors A and E, respectively, in this 
final rule.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer examined the genetic data in 
GenBank[supreg] (a database of genetic sequence data maintained by the 
National Center for Biotechnology Information; see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) and commented that the available 
molecular evidence suggests that the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes are distinct taxonomic entities that are only distantly 
related to each other. The reviewer also commented that additional 
genetic analysis of coexisting Cambarus crayfish species in the region 
is needed to better understand their relationships.
    Our Response: We appreciate this additional independent analysis 
that supports our conclusion that the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes are separate taxonomic entities. And while we also agree 
that additional genetic research on the native crayfish of this region 
would help inform future conservation efforts, we must base our listing 
decision on the best available scientific data.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested several potential new 
lines of inquiry or alternative methods of analyzing or presenting 
existing data that would provide additional support for our proposed 
decision to list the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. For 
example, the commenter suggested we use probabilistic analyses of State 
water quality data to better infer the degree of impairment across the 
species' ranges.
    Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions and 
recognize that alternative analyses could be used to assess the primary 
and contributing threats affecting the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. However, the Act requires that the Service make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, and the analyses suggested by the reviewer would require 
data that are not available. When we published the proposed rule on 
April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we relied on the best quantitative and 
qualitative data available at that time to determine the status of each 
species. And while there may be other methods for analyzing the 
existing data, we concluded, and the six scientific peer reviewers 
(including this reviewer) generally concurred, that our analysis was 
sufficient to make a listing determination for these two species. We 
welcome any new data the reviewer can provide and may consider his 
suggestions during the recovery planning process to help inform 
potential conservation measures.

Comments From Federal Agencies

    (7) Comment: One Federal agency stated that it works with 
landowners on a voluntary basis to implement conservation measures, 
some of which may provide direct and indirect benefits to the Big Sandy 
and Guyandotte River crayfishes or their habitats. In order to continue 
their successful conservation partnerships with private landowners, the 
Federal agency expressed a willingness to work with the Service to 
develop mutually acceptable avoidance measures and practices that will 
benefit these species.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates the work of the Federal 
agency and looks forward to working with them as conservation partners 
regarding the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.

Comments From States

    (8) Comment: The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 
(KDFWR) commented that it is difficult to determine Big Sandy crayfish 
population changes based on the supporting documents and survey 
information. The agency also commented that the species' present 
distribution appears to differ from its historical distribution, but 
that it is difficult to determine the magnitude and implication of 
these changes. The KDFWR also concurred that the available information 
indicates that physical habitat quality is correlated with the presence 
or absence of the Big Sandy crayfish.
    Our Response: We appreciate the KDFWR's review and comments on the 
proposed rule and acknowledge the challenges in analyzing the best 
available data to determine the status of the Big Sandy crayfish 
(please see our response to Comment 1, above). We look forward to 
working with the KDFWR as a conservation partner as we develop a 
recovery strategy for the species.
    (9) Comment: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 
(VDGIF) commented that its data on the Big Sandy crayfish support our 
determination to list the species as endangered. The agency confirmed 
that in Virginia, the species is extant in at least 10 sites in the 
Russell Fork watershed and 1 site in the Levisa Fork watershed. The 
VDGIF also provided information on an occurrence location within the 
Russell Fork watershed that we were unaware of and noted two locations 
in the upper Levisa Fork watershed from which the species appears to 
have been extirpated. However, the agency does not believe the addition 
of the new occurrence location affects the listing proposal.
    Our Response: We appreciate the VDGIF's additional data on Big 
Sandy crayfish occurrence locations in Virginia, and we have 
incorporated this information into this final rule. We look forward to 
continuing our conservation partnership with the VDGIF as we develop a 
recovery strategy for the species.
    (10) Comment: The VDGIF commented that while recent survey data 
describe Big Sandy crayfish distribution in the Commonwealth, data on 
population sizes and trends do not exist. They noted that while Big 
Sandy crayfish surveys conducted in 2009 (see Thoma 2009b) were not 
necessarily designed to determine the species' population numbers, the 
agency interpreted the results as evidence that the Big Sandy crayfish 
subpopulations in the Russell Fork, Indian Creek, and Dismal Creek 
appeared to be stable and reproducing, and the subpopulations in the 
Pound River and Cranes Nest River appeared smaller and did not appear 
to be stable.
    Our Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we agree that 
quantitative data on which to base population estimates for this 
species are sparse, and we concur that, based on the best available 
data, the species' health appears to vary at different occurrence 
locations throughout its range. Following publication of the proposed 
rule, the Service funded additional crayfish surveys in the Big Sandy 
River basin to better inform our final analysis (Loughman 2015a, 
entire). These new data confirmed that the Big Sandy crayfish is 
generally present throughout the Russell Fork basin, with eight of the 
nine surveyed stream systems supporting the species. However, in the 
upper Levisa Fork basin, six streams were surveyed, and the species was 
confirmed to be present in only one. The 2015 data also indicated that 
the species is notably absent from many other streams within its range, 
especially in the lower Levisa Fork and Tug Fork basins.
    Additionally, in January 2016, the VDGIF provided the Service with 
12 Big Sandy crayfish survey and relocation

[[Page 20453]]

reports for work conducted in the Russell Fork and upper Levisa Fork 
watersheds in Virginia between 2009 and 2014. These crayfish survey and 
relocation efforts were associated with infrastructure projects (i.e., 
pipeline stream crossings, bridge replacements, culvert replacement) 
and generally confirmed the species' presence in streams for which we 
already had occurrence records. Because most of these efforts were 
intended to remove all Big Sandy crayfish from pending construction 
areas, the raw numbers of individual crayfish captured provides some 
indication of the species' population densities and supports our 
conclusion (80 FR 18710, pp. 18719-18720) that where suitable habitat 
conditions exist, about 20 to 25 individual Big Sandy (or Guyandotte 
River) crayfish should be present at a survey location. The numbers of 
individual crayfish captured at the Russell Fork sites surveyed (n=22) 
ranged from 0 to 99, with a mean of 21.7 Big Sandy crayfish per site.
    (11) Comment: The VDGIF commented that the available evidence 
indicates that the Russell Fork and Levisa Fork subpopulations of Big 
Sandy crayfish are genetically distinct and may warrant conservation as 
separate management units.
    Our Response: We agree that the best available scientific data 
indicate there are genetic distinctions between the various 
subpopulations of the Big Sandy crayfish. The potential species 
management implications of these genetic differences will be discussed 
during the recovery planning process.
    (12) Comment: The VDGIF commented that a female crayfish with 
instars was found during the month of May, which could indicate either 
that late-breeding females from the previous mating season overwinter 
instars longer than previously reported or that the species can spawn 
earlier in the year than previously reported.
    Our Response: We appreciate this new information. While this 
observation does not alter our listing determination, it may be useful 
in developing the species' recovery plan and other conservation 
measures.
    (13) Comment: The VDGIF provided comments related to critical 
habitat and future recovery options for the Big Sandy crayfish.
    Our Response: We appreciate the VDGIF's interest in contributing to 
the conservation of the Big Sandy crayfish. However, these comments 
related to critical habitat and recovery planning are outside the scope 
of this final listing rule. We will consider these comments when 
developing a proposed critical habitat designation, and we look forward 
to working with the agency as we develop a recovery plan for the 
species.
    (14) Comment: The West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection, Division of Mining and Reclamation (WVDEP/DMR) concurred 
with our conclusion that both species have reduced ranges and generally 
low abundances at existing occurrence locations, but the agency 
recommended the two species not be listed at this time. The WVDEP/DMR 
requested that additional time be afforded to research existing museum, 
academic, and government crayfish collections to verify the 
distribution and abundance of the two species within their described 
ranges.
    Our Response: We appreciate the WVDEP/DMR's comments on the 
proposed listing rule and their request that additional time be 
afforded to conduct more research. However, section 4(b)(6)(A) of the 
Act provides a statutory timeline for making listing determinations: 
within 1 year from the date a proposed regulation is published, the 
Secretary will either publish a final regulation, provide notice that 
the proposed regulation is being withdrawn, or provide notice that the 
1-year period is being extended for up to 6 months because of 
substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the 
available data relevant to the determination. In addition to the 
statutory time limitations described above, the Act requires that the 
Secretary make listing determinations based solely on the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    When we published the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we relied on 
the best scientific and commercial data available at that time to 
determine the distribution and abundance of the Big Sandy and the 
Guyandotte River crayfishes. As described in the proposed rule, these 
data included a Service-funded biological status review of the two 
species, which included an examination of records and vouchered 
specimens in all known crayfish collections from the region. These 
collections are held by the United States National Museum, Illinois 
Natural History Survey, Eastern Kentucky University, Ohio State 
University, West Liberty University, and the Virginia Department of 
Game and Inland Fisheries. The only relevant new data we received 
during the public comment period were three new stream occurrence 
records, two for the Big Sandy crayfish (Pigeon Creek and lower Tug 
Fork mainstem) and one for the Guyandotte River crayfish (Clear Fork). 
We used this information in developing this final rule. We received no 
other substantive information regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 
the available data and note that the six scientific peer reviewers 
indicated that we conducted a thorough review and analysis of the best 
available data. There is no substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data to indicate the need for 
a 6-month extension.
    (15) Comment: The WVDEP/DMR expressed concern that only three Big 
Sandy crayfish survey sites were identified in the West Virginia 
portion of the species' range and that this indicated insufficient 
information regarding the species' status in West Virginia.
    Our Response: As we indicated in Table 2b in the proposed rule (80 
FR 18710, p. 18721), between 2006 and 2014, 25 individual sites in West 
Virginia were surveyed for the Big Sandy crayfish. Of these, the 
species was confirmed at four of these sites. During the summer of 
2015, the Service funded additional survey work that included 32 sites 
in West Virginia. The Big Sandy crayfish was confirmed at 11 of these 
sites. These new data provided the first occurrence records for the 
species in the lower Tug Fork and confirmed the species' presence in 7 
of 17 stream systems in the Tug Fork basin (this includes streams in 
both Kentucky and West Virginia). This information has been 
incorporated into this final rule.
    (16) Comment: The WVDEP/DMR disagreed with our inclusion of water 
quality degradation, specifically high conductivity levels, as one of 
the greatest threats to the two crayfish species. The agency contends 
that the evidence provided in the proposed rule indicates that bottom 
sedimentation is the primary threat to the species and that because of 
the marine ancestry of the taxonomic order Decapoda (which includes 
crayfish), the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes are not likely 
sensitive to elevated conductivity levels.
    Our Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, the best 
available scientific data indicate that degradation of stream habitat 
from sedimentation and substrate embeddedness is the primary threat to 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. However, the best 
available data also suggest that water quality degradation is likely a 
contributing threat to these species.
    The Service funded new crayfish surveys during the summer of 2015 
that compared crayfish presence and abundance (as catch per unit effort

[[Page 20454]]

(CPUE)) with various habitat parameters, including conductivity levels 
(Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). The results of both 
of these studies clearly demonstrated that high instream habitat 
quality, as measured by the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 
(QHEI), is positively correlated with the presence of both species. 
While Loughman found a statistical relationship between high 
conductivity levels and the absence of Guyandotte River crayfish, the 
data for the Big Sandy crayfish did not indicate such a relationship 
(Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire). However, studies of a 
different crayfish species did indicate that high conductivity levels 
were harmful, especially during certain crayfish life stages (see 
``Water Quality Degradation,'' under the Factor A discussion in Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species).
    (17) Comment: The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 
(WVDNR), which funded some of the survey work referenced in the 
proposed rule, indicated that they have no additional data regarding 
the status of the two species and generally concurred with our analysis 
and conclusions that the existing data indicate that the ranges of both 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes have decreased from their 
historical distributions, that existing populations are small and 
vulnerable, and that habitat degradation continues to affect both 
species. Based on the available data, the WVDNR concurred that listing 
of the two species is warranted.
    Our Response: We appreciate the WVDNR's contribution toward 
assessing the status of the two species within West Virginia and their 
comments on the proposed rule. We look forward to continuing our 
conservation partnership with the WVDNR as we develop a recovery 
strategy for these species.

Comments From the Public

    (18) Comment: Several commenters requested that the 60-day public 
comment period be extended by 60 to 180 days to provide additional time 
to: (1) Review the available data; (2) seek new data; (3) examine the 
data in light of the taxonomic split of Cambarus callainus from C. 
veteranus or; (4) prepare comments.
    Our Response: The 60-day comment period for the April 7, 2015, 
proposed rule closed on June 8, 2015. At that time, we declined to 
extend the comment period because we intended to reopen the comment 
period after the results of new surveys became available. During the 
summer of 2015, the Service funded those surveys, as discussed above. 
On December 15, 2015, the results of these survey efforts were made 
available to the public and the public comment period was reopened for 
30 days (80 FR 77598) to afford the public an opportunity to comment on 
these survey results and to submit any new data or analysis that became 
available since the close of the initial comment period. This reopened 
comment period closed on January 14, 2016. We received six new comments 
during the reopened comment period, including substantive information 
that has been incorporated into this final rule.
    Because the two public comment periods totaled 90 days and because 
we received few comments during the reopened comment period, we believe 
that there has been sufficient time for the public to review and 
provide comments on the proposed rule and supporting information. While 
we welcome new information about these species at any time, as 
previously stated, the Service must make listing determinations based 
solely on the best available data and within certain statutory 
timeframes (see our response to Comment 14).
    (19) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that we 
published the proposed listing rule prior to submitting it for peer 
review or that we did not seek input from the State wildlife agencies.
    Our Response: In accordance with our peer review policy published 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinion of seven 
independent specialists regarding the pertinent scientific or 
commercial data and assumptions related to the proposed listing of the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Our policy provides that 
this process take place during the public comment period on the 
proposed rule.
    Prior to drafting the proposed rule, we did seek input from the 
State wildlife or environmental resource agencies in Kentucky, 
Virginia, and West Virginia. We also submitted notice of the proposed 
rule to the affected States in accordance with the Act. In response, we 
received substantive data and/or comments from the Kentucky Division of 
Water (KDOW), the VDGIF, the WVDEP/DMR, and the WVDNR. We addressed the 
agency comments (see Comments from States, above) and incorporated them 
into this rule where appropriate. As we discussed above, these comments 
generally supported our analysis in the proposed rule. We note also 
that much of the recent survey work for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes (see Thoma 2009b; Thoma 2010; Loughman and Welsh 2010) 
was funded by several of these same State agencies.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters stated that we should withdraw or 
postpone our listing decision or that we should make a ``warranted but 
precluded'' finding until more data are available upon which to base 
our listing decisions. Some commenters stated that the Service's 
timeline for developing the listing rule was governed by the settlement 
agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity rather than 
sufficient study or data development.
    Our Response: The Act requires that we make listing determinations 
based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. As 
we discussed in response to Comment 1, above, when we published the 
proposed rule on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we relied on the best 
quantitative and qualitative data available at that time. Furthermore, 
as we discussed previously, the Act requires us to, within 1 year after 
the date the proposed rule is published, either publish a final 
regulation, provide notice that the proposed regulation is being 
withdrawn, or provide notice that the 1-year period is being extended 
for up to 6 months because of substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the 
determination. While some commenters disagreed with our interpretation 
of the best available data or our conclusions, we received no new 
substantive data that would indicate the listing proposal should be 
withdrawn or that substantial disagreement existed regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data.
    A ``warranted but precluded'' finding means the Service has enough 
information to list a species as endangered or threatened, but is 
precluded from undertaking the rulemaking process because of other 
actions for species with higher conservation priorities. Given the best 
available scientific data that indicated the Guyandotte River crayfish 
was known only from a single location and was subject to ongoing 
threats to the species' habitat and to individual crayfish, the 
Guyandotte River crayfish was the Service's highest priority at the 
time. In addition, the data for the Big Sandy crayfish indicated that 
it too was in decline and facing threats similar to those faced by the 
Guyandotte River crayfish. Therefore, we appropriately prioritized the 
proposed listing of both species. These determinations were within the 
Service's discretion.
    (21) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that if the Big 
Sandy

[[Page 20455]]

and Guyandotte River crayfishes are listed, various extractive 
industries in the region would be negatively affected or off-road 
vehicle (ORV) trail development would be restricted. The commenters 
believe listing of either or both species would cause economic harm to 
the industries or local communities.
    Our Response: While we appreciate the concerns about the possible 
economic impact of potential management actions that may result from 
listing the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the Act does not 
allow us to factor those concerns into our listing decision. Rather, 
listing decisions under the Act must be made solely on the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial data and in consideration of the five 
factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. That said, we are committed to 
working with industry organizations, State and Federal agencies, local 
communities, ORV groups, and other stakeholders to develop protections 
for the two crayfish species and their habitats while allowing 
continued use of the region's resources.
    (22) Comment: One commenter expressed that all of the information 
the Service relied upon in making the proposed listing should be made 
readily available (i.e., in electronic form) to the public.
    Our Response: When we published the proposed rule and opened the 
public comment period, we included an electronic version of our 
reference list with citations for all of the data we relied upon in 
drafting the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we also provided 
contact information and instructions to allow the public to inspect the 
supporting documentation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Northeast Regional Office. We note that we received no requests to 
review the supporting documentation.
    (23) Comment: Several commenters stated that we did not articulate 
the needed conservation and recovery measures for the two species or 
how listing either species would add to existing conservation efforts.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenters' concern for the 
conservation and recovery of these species. As we discussed under the 
heading Available Conservation Measures in the April 7, 2015, proposed 
rule (80 FR 18710, p. 18736), the general conservation benefits of 
listing include increased public awareness; conservation by Federal, 
State, Tribal, and local agencies and private organizations; and 
prohibitions of certain practices. The Act also encourages cooperation 
between stakeholders and calls for recovery actions for listed species. 
However, articulating these measures or describing how listing will aid 
conservation of the species is not a standard for listing a species 
under the Act, but will be developed through the recovery planning 
process for both species.
    (24) Comment: Several commenters claimed that we did not adequately 
consider the positive effects existing Federal and State environmental 
laws (e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA; 30 U.S.C. 1201 et 
seq.), and others), regulations, and best management practices (BMPs) 
have had on the two species and stated that because of the protections 
afforded by these regulatory mechanisms, listing under the Act is not 
necessary.
    Our Response: We agree that the various Federal and State 
environmental regulations and BMPs, when fully complied with and 
enforced, have resulted in improvements in water and habitat quality 
when compared to conditions prior to enactment of these laws. However, 
as we described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 
18724-18729, 18732) and this final rule, State water quality reports, 
published scientific articles, and expert opinion indicate that the 
aquatic habitat required by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes continues to be degraded despite these regulatory 
mechanisms. The best available scientific data demonstrate that the 
range of the Guyandotte River crayfish has declined since enactment of 
the CWA, the SMCRA, and the various other regulations and BMPs. And 
although we have less temporal data for the Big Sandy crayfish, the 
genetic data and expert opinion strongly suggest that this pattern of 
range reduction is similar for that species. We also emphasize that the 
threats to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes that we 
discuss under Factor E, below, are not addressed by any existing 
regulatory mechanism. Therefore, we conclude that the best available 
data indicate that existing regulations, by themselves, have not been 
sufficient to prevent the continued degradation of the habitat of these 
two species.
    (25) Comment: One commenter stated that because the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes survived through the severe environmental 
degradation that characterized the region's largely unregulated 
industrialization in the early to mid-1900s (see the Historical context 
discussion in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule; 80 FR 18710, pp. 18723-
18724), modern-day regulated activities are much less harmful and do 
not pose a risk to the species.
    Our Response: As we discussed in the proposed rule, the past 
industrialization of the region severely degraded the habitat required 
by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and likely led to 
their extirpation from many streams within their ranges. The crayfish 
subpopulations that survived through this period of widespread 
environmental degradation are now largely isolated from one another 
because of dams or inhospitable intervening habitat (resulting from 
past and ongoing activities) in each river system and individual 
crayfish are found in low numbers at most of the remaining sites. These 
now isolated and generally low-abundance crayfish subpopulations do not 
maintain the same resiliency or redundancy of the original widespread 
and interconnected (at least initially) populations that were subjected 
to the rapid industrialization of the region in the 1900s and are at an 
increased risk of extirpation (see Factor E discussion, below). We, 
therefore, conclude that current regulated activities, while not 
causing widespread degradation on the scale seen in the 1900s, continue 
to pose a risk to the two species as they now exist.
    (26) Comment: Several commenters expressed that the proposed rule 
incorrectly identified or focused on coal mining and timber operations 
as specific threats to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 
and that we ignored other threats, including human development, roads, 
dams, and natural flood events.
    Our Response: As we described in the Factor A discussion under the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in the April 7, 2015, proposed 
rule (80 FR 18710), the primary threat to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes is habitat degradation caused by erosion and 
sedimentation from land-disturbing activities, including coal mining, 
commercial timber operations, road construction, ORV use, oil and gas 
development, and unpaved road surfaces (80 FR 18710, pp. 18722-18731). 
We also identified several contributing factors related to human 
population growth in the area, including wastewater discharges and 
unpermitted stream channel dredging. The best available scientific 
data, including published articles and State water quality reports, 
support our conclusion that these activities degrade the aquatic 
habitat required by these species.

[[Page 20456]]

    In the proposed rule, we did not identify natural flood events as a 
threat to either the Big Sandy or the Guyandotte River crayfishes. 
Because these species evolved to live in the fast-flowing streams and 
rivers in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, where 
episodic flood events are natural and recurring phenomena, we did not 
consider floods as a threat to either species' existence. However, as 
we discussed in the proposed rule, and below in this final rule (see 
``Residential/Commercial Development and Associated Stream 
Modifications'' under the Factor A discussion in Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species), human attempts to modify the streams and rivers 
to control flooding or mitigate flood damage may degrade the habitat 
that these species require. In the proposed rule, we discussed the 
effects of stream dredging or bulldozing on the habitat of these 
species, and while we did not list dams as specific threats, we did 
identify habitat fragmentation, caused at least in part by dams, as a 
threat. Based on input from some peer reviewers and public commenters, 
we have reconsidered the effects of dams on the two species and have 
added new language to this final rule discussing direct historical 
aquatic habitat loss resulting from reservoir creation.
    (27) Comment: Two commenters that expressed concern about our 
finding that forestry is a contributing threat to the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes provided information on the implementation 
rates and effectiveness of forestry BMPs and cited various studies 
purported to demonstrate that forestry BMPs minimize erosion and 
sediment transport to streams below levels that degrade aquatic 
habitats and/or harm aquatic species, including the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes. One of the commenters also expressed that 
our estimate of soil erosion from timber harvesting appears to be too 
high.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenters' support of forestry 
BMPs as a means of protecting water quality, and we concur that when 
properly implemented, forestry BMPs can reduce erosion and 
sedimentation levels, especially as compared to past forestry 
practices. However, as we noted in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 
FR 18710), the best available data indicate that even when forestry 
BMPs are properly implemented, erosion rates at timbered sites, skid 
trails, unpaved haul roads, and stream crossings are significantly 
higher than from undisturbed sites (80 FR 18710, p. 18728).
    We concur that the best available data indicate that Statewide BMP 
implementation rates for commercial forestry operations in Kentucky, 
Virginia, and West Virginia are generally high. However, as we noted in 
the proposed rule, in Kentucky and West Virginia, some categories of 
forestry, such as tree clearing in advance of coal mining, gas 
drilling, or other construction activities, are specifically exempted 
from implementing forestry BMPs. Regardless of specific forestry BMP 
implementation rates or situational efficacies, the State water quality 
monitoring reports (WVDEP 2012; KDOW 2013; VADEQ 2014) list timber 
operations (along with mining, roads, urban development, agriculture, 
and riparian clearing) as contributing excess sediments to streams and 
rivers within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes.
    Although we do not have sufficient data to produce comprehensive 
sediment budgets for each land-disturbing activity, in the proposed 
rule we did use the best available data to estimate the annual erosion 
potential within the ranges of the two species and stated that ``. . . 
if the forest is undisturbed, about 3,906 tonnes (3,828 tons) of 
sediment will erode, while logging the same area will produce perhaps 
67,158 to 149,436 tonnes (65,815 to 146,447 tons) of sediment'' (80 FR 
18710, p. 18730). One commenter indicated these estimates appeared too 
high and used data from much older studies to produce lower estimates. 
This comment led to our discovering two errors in our original 
calculations. However, upon correcting these errors (one transcription 
error and one unit conversion error), we have revised the estimated 
erosion rate from an undisturbed forested site in the southern 
Appalachians from 0.31 tonnes per hectare (ha) per year (yr) (0.12 tons 
per acre (ac) per year (yr)) to 0.47 tonnes/ha/yr (0.21 tons/ac/yr). 
This results in our original estimate of erosion from undisturbed 
forest, ``3,906 tonnes (3,828 tons)'', being corrected to ``5,922 
tonnes (6,456 tons).'' We also corrected a ``tonnes'' to ``tons'' 
conversion error (``65,815 to 146,447 tons'' is in error and should be 
``73,173 to 162,641 tons''). As to the commenter's use of older studies 
(dated 1965 to 1979) to estimate lower erosion potentials, we concluded 
that the data we used (see Hood et al. 2002) rely on an improved 
methodology and constitute the best available data.
    Based on our estimate of annual, ongoing soil erosion from 
rotational forestry within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes, and because these species appear to be particularly 
sensitive to stream sedimentation and bottom embeddedness, we maintain 
that sedimentation resulting from forestry is likely a contributing 
threat to these species. We are also committed to working with State 
and Federal agencies, the timber industry, and landowners to help 
minimize erosion from commercial forestry operations and maintain the 
instream habitat quality for these species.
    (28) Comment: Several commenters questioned our determination that 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes are distinct species or 
expressed concern that the taxonomic change confounds the 
interpretation of earlier survey reports. Commenters stated that prior 
to our making a final listing determination, studies on possible 
interbreeding of the two crayfish populations or on variation in 
demographic traits among conspecific populations should be conducted.
    Our Response: As we described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule 
(80 FR 18710), our determination that the Big Sandy crayfish and the 
Guyandotte River crayfish are distinct species was based upon a peer-
reviewed scientific article, which represented the best available 
scientific data. We did not receive any substantive data during the 
public comment period, nor are we aware of any new data, that 
contradict these genetic and morphological data demonstrating that the 
Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are distinct, 
reproductively isolated species. In addition, one of the peer reviewers 
conducted an independent analysis of the available genetic data and 
concluded that the taxonomic split is valid (see Comment 5, above).
    We do not agree that the taxonomic split of the Big Sandy crayfish 
and the Guyandotte River crayfish confounds the interpretation of 
earlier survey reports. While historically the two species were 
identified collectively as Cambarus veteranus, we have little evidence 
that earlier surveys routinely confused C. veteranus with any other 
crayfish species (we discussed exceptions to this in the April 7, 2015, 
proposed rule, 80 FR 18710, pp. 18715-18716). As we described in the 
proposed rule, independent crayfish experts have examined all known 
museum specimens identified as C. veteranus from both the Big Sandy 
basin and the Upper Guyandotte basin along with more recently collected 
specimens from each river basin. These experts determined that in both 
the museum specimens and recent captures, the morphological 
characteristics that

[[Page 20457]]

distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish from the Guyandotte River crayfish 
were consistent with the geographical location (i.e., Big Sandy basin 
or Upper Guyandotte basin) where the specimens were acquired. As we 
noted in the proposed rule, when discussing the earlier survey work 
(pre-taxonomic revision) we ascribed the appropriate species name based 
on the river basin from which specimens were collected. Therefore, we 
conclude that the best available data identify the appropriate 
taxonomic entity such that we can accurately analyze the two species' 
status.
    (29) Comment: Several commenters questioned our delineation of the 
historical range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and 
asserted that we discounted information that indicated the historical 
range of the two species included river systems outside of the Big 
Sandy and Upper Guyandotte basins, or that the two species co-occurred 
in the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte basins.
    Our Response: We appreciate these commenters' concerns, but do not 
agree that we omitted or improperly analyzed the best available data in 
determining the historical ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. As we described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 
18710), we relied upon Statewide crayfish survey reports, targeted 
survey reports, range maps and descriptions from historical crayfish 
surveys, genetic evidence, data from State wildlife agencies, analysis 
of museum collections, and the best professional judgment of crayfish 
experts to determine the historical range of each species. In the 
proposed rule, we noted several erroneous or dubious crayfish records 
from outside of the Big Sandy or Upper Guyandotte River basins and 
discussed the evidence indicating why these records do not support the 
historical presence of either the Big Sandy or the Guyandotte River 
crayfish outside of these two river basins or the cross-basin presence 
(i.e., Guyandotte River crayfish in the Big Sandy basin or Big Sandy 
crayfish in the Upper Guyandotte basin) of either species.
    In addition, neither the peer reviewers, including two with 
extensive experience surveying for crayfish in the Appalachian region, 
nor the VDGIF or the WVDNR disagreed with our analysis and description 
of the historical ranges of the two species. We did not receive any new 
data during the public comment period that indicated either species 
historically occupied sites outside of their respective river basins. 
Therefore, the best available data indicate that the Big Sandy crayfish 
is endemic to the Big Sandy River basin and the Guyandotte River 
crayfish is endemic to the Upper Guyandotte River basin.
    (30) Comment: Several commenters questioned our conclusions on the 
population status of the Big Sandy crayfish or stated that the map of 
Big Sandy crayfish occurrence locations (figure 4 in the April 7, 2015, 
proposed rule; 80 FR 18710, p. 18719) was confusing and that it 
actually indicated that the Big Sandy crayfish population had increased 
from pre-2006 levels to the present time.
    Our Response: As we noted in the proposed rule and in responses to 
Comments 1 and 10, above, we relied on the best quantitative and 
qualitative data available at that time to determine the status of the 
Big Sandy crayfish, including crayfish surveys and habitat assessments, 
range maps, genetic evidence, analysis of museum specimens, and expert 
scientific opinion. While we agree that quantitative population trend 
data are sparse, these other lines of scientific evidence indicate that 
the range and population of the Big Sandy crayfish is reduced and that 
the existing subpopulations are fragmented from one another. We note 
also that this pattern is consistent with the severe range reduction 
observed in the closely related Guyandotte River crayfish, for which we 
had more data. And as we described under the discussions of Factors A 
and E in the proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 18722-18731, and 18732-
18735, respectively), and discussed below in this final rule, threats 
to the species continue.
    In the proposed rule, figure 4 shows all known survey sites and 
occurrence locations for the Big Sandy crayfish, broken down by time 
period (pre-2006 and 2006 to 2014). We acknowledge that figure 4 could 
be perceived as showing that the range of the Big Sandy crayfish has 
expanded since 2006, but we emphasize that this is only an artifact 
resulting from greatly increased sampling effort since 2006, especially 
outside of the Russell Fork drainage basin. Along with the known 
occurrence locations (pre-2006), the more recent surveys included 
streams throughout the Big Sandy crayfish's range that were identified 
by crayfish experts as being likely to harbor the species. Because 
these new sites are not known to have been surveyed previously, they 
provide no direct evidence that the species' range or population has 
increased or decreased in recent years. Loughman (2015a, entire) 
expanded the survey coverage in the Big Sandy basin, especially in the 
lower Levisa Fork and Tug Fork systems. His work generally confirmed 
the previously known occurrence locations, but did note four new 
occurrence locations in the lower Tug Fork basin (one in the Tug Fork 
mainstem and three in the Pigeon Creek system). These areas had not 
been surveyed previously and provide no direct evidence on population 
trends.
    However, as we described in the proposed rule (see text and Table 
2a; 80 FR 18710, pp.18719-18721), the fact that researchers were unable 
to confirm the species' presence at most locations throughout its 
historical range (displayed as open circles on figure 4 of the proposed 
rule) indicates that the species' range and population is reduced and 
that the existing subpopulations are fragmented from each other. 
Additionally, at many sites where the Big Sandy crayfish does still 
exist, especially outside of the Russell Fork basin, the CPUE data 
indicate the species is found in relatively low numbers (see Population 
Status, below).
    (31) Comment: One commenter provided preliminary results of the 
survey efforts funded by the Service and conducted in the Upper 
Guyandotte and Tug Fork basins of West Virginia.
    (32) Comment: One commenter stated that the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes are sensitive to elevated stream 
sedimentation and substrate embeddedness. Additionally, during the 
reopened comment period (December 15, 2015, to January 14, 2016), this 
commenter submitted an additional letter that supported both species 
receiving Federal protection and provided additional observations from 
the Service-funded 2015 rangewide surveys.
    Our Response: We appreciate these observations regarding the 
preferred habitat and status of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes and have incorporated this new information into this final 
rule.
    (33) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our determination that 
the Big Sandy crayfish population was in decline and described an 
abundance of crayfish on his property near Clintwood, Virginia (Pound 
River/Cranes Nest River drainage). The commenter described these 
crayfish as destroying his property by creating holes in the ground, 
thus presenting a hazard to individuals using his property.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concern, but note that 
these observations appear to describe behavior of a burrowing crayfish 
species. As we described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 
18710), the

[[Page 20458]]

best available data indicate the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes are wholly aquatic species that naturally inhabit the faster 
moving portions of streams and rivers with abundant unembedded slab 
boulders for cover. As ``tertiary burrowers,'' these species are not 
known to construct burrows or dig holes in upland or semi-aquatic 
areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that the commenter's observations are 
related to Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish.
    (34) Comment: Two commenters described the effects of coal mining 
operations on streams adjacent to their properties. Both commenters 
provided anecdotal information on the degradation of water quality as a 
result of mine runoff and noted the disappearance of aquatic species, 
including unspecified crayfish species, following construction of the 
mines.
    Our Response: While we have no data or details on these specific 
examples with which to respond further, the observations of these 
commenters appear similar to some of the findings described in the 
scientific literature on the effects that coal mining can have on 
aquatic resources (see the April 7, 2015, proposed rule's Historical 
context, Current conditions, and Coal mining sections under the Factor 
A discussion in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (80 FR 18710).
    (35) Comment: One commenter noted that we incorrectly implied that 
suitable habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 
includes ``headwater streams,'' which they described as small, 
nonperennial streams.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's observation and agree 
that, as we indicated in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, based on the 
best available data, small, nonperennial streams are not suitable 
habitat for either species of crayfish. In the proposed rule, we 
described the historical range and distribution of the Big Sandy 
crayfish to include ``suitable streams throughout the basin, from the 
Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the headwaters.'' Our use of ``to 
the headwaters'' was intended to convey that the best available data 
suggest that the species likely occupied suitable habitat (i.e., fast-
flowing, medium-sized streams and rivers with an abundance of slab 
boulders on an unembedded bottom substrate) throughout the 
interconnected stream network of the larger river basin, up to, but not 
including the small, sometimes intermittent headwater streams.
    (36) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our conclusion that 
pesticides and herbicides that may be present in the runoff from roads 
could degrade the habitat of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. The commenter requested that we remove this discussion from 
the final rule.
    Our Response: As we noted in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 
FR 18710), the best available data indicate that the primary threat to 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is excessive erosion and 
sedimentation that leads to stream bottom embeddedness. However, the 
data also suggest that other stressors, such as water quality 
degradation, may also contribute to the decline of these species. While 
the commenter correctly noted that we have no specific studies on the 
effects of road runoff contaminants to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes, the best available data do indicate that road runoff 
can contain a complex mixture of contaminants, including pesticides and 
herbicides, metals, organic chemicals, nutrients, and deicing salts and 
that these contaminants, alone or in combination, can degrade receiving 
waters and be detrimental to aquatic organisms (see ``Water Quality 
Degradation'' under the Factor A discussion, below). We note also that 
pesticides and herbicides may be released to roadways as a result of 
accidents or spills or in concentrations or mixtures contrary to U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pesticide registration labeled 
directions. Under such circumstances, these chemicals could pose a 
higher risk to aquatic species, including the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes (Buckler and Granato 1999, entire; Boxall and Maltby 
1997, entire; NAS 2005, pp. 72-75, 82-86).
    (37) Comment: One commenter provided information on the reduction 
of forest cover within the range of the Guyandotte River crayfish 
between 1973 and 2013. The commenter reported that there was a 5.5 
percent loss of forest cover within the Upper Guyandotte basin during 
that period and that the loss of forest cover was largely the result of 
coal mining. The commenter concluded that coal mining likely 
contributed to the decline of the Guyandotte River crayfish.
    Our Response: The data on land use changes documented in the report 
(Arneson 2015) referenced by the commenter support the conclusion that, 
since 1973, coal mining has significantly reduced forest cover in the 
Upper Guyandotte River basin. At the subwatershed scale, Pinnacle Creek 
experienced the greatest loss of forest cover during the period. We 
appreciate this new scientific information that further supports our 
analysis in the proposed rule of land-disturbing activities occurring 
within the current range of the Guyandotte River crayfish.
    (38) Comment: One commenter concurred with our determination that 
the crayfish population has declined (the commenter did not distinguish 
between Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish), but 
disagreed that this decline was caused solely by construction, logging, 
or ORV use. The commenter advocated that plastic litter and/or the 
invasive plant kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) could be causes of 
water contamination and should be investigated. The commenter also 
suggested that similar crayfish from other areas could be introduced to 
areas where Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes (presumably) are 
rare or absent. The commenter also expressed concern that Federal 
listing of these species could cause economic harm to the region or the 
Hatfield-McCoy ORV trail system.
    Our Response: As we described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule 
(80 FR 18710), the best available data indicate the primary threat to 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is excessive erosion and 
sedimentation that leads to stream bottom embeddedness. We also 
described a variety of land-disturbing activities, in addition to those 
listed by the commenter, known to cause erosion and sedimentation 
within the ranges of the species. The commenter did not provide any 
supporting information that kudzu could degrade water quality, and we 
were unable to locate any such data. And, while we acknowledge plastic 
litter is an aesthetic concern that may pose a physical hazard to some 
species (e.g., from entanglement or perhaps ingestion), we found no 
information indicating that plastic debris is related to the decline of 
the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, nor did the commenter 
provide such supporting information.
    While we appreciate the concern about potential management actions 
that may result from listing the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes, the Act does not allow us to factor those economic concerns 
into our listing decision (see our response to Comment 21, above). 
However, we must consider economic impacts into designations of 
critical habitat, should critical habitat be proposed for either or 
both species.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule incorporates appropriate changes to our proposed 
listing based on the comments we received, as discussed above, and 
newly

[[Page 20459]]

available scientific and commercial data. The main substantive change 
is that, based on new data on the Big Sandy crayfish's distribution, 
its habitat, and analysis of the species' redundancy and resiliency, we 
have determined that the Big Sandy crayfish does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species, contrary to our proposed rule 
published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710). Specifically, the 2009 to 
2015 survey data, which became available after the proposed rule was 
published, indicate: The species is known to occur in an additional 
population in the lower Tug Fork subwatershed; some occurrences in all 
four subwatersheds are supported by good quality habitat; and in some 
streams, especially in the Russell Fork, the species likely occurs 
throughout the entire stream rather than only in discrete sections. We 
conclude that the species has additional redundancy above what was 
known when we published the proposed rule. This increase in redundancy 
also contributes to the species' overall resiliency to the ongoing 
threats in its range, all of which indicates that the Big Sandy 
crayfish is not currently in danger of extinction. Therefore, this 
final rule lists the Big Sandy crayfish as a threatened, rather than an 
endangered, species. As in the proposed rule, this final rule lists the 
Guyandotte River crayfish as an endangered species. See the Population 
Status and Determination sections, below, for more detail.
    Other substantive changes include the following: (1) We 
incorporated the results of new crayfish survey efforts, including new 
occurrence records for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River 
crayfish, into this final rule; and (2) we analyzed several additional 
potential threats to both species, including instream projects, dams, 
climate change, unstable streams, and transportation spills.

Background

    The information in the following sections is summarized from the 
proposed listing rule for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte 
River crayfish (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) and its citations are 
incorporated by reference unless otherwise noted. For a complete 
summary of the species' information, please see the proposed listing 
rule.

Species Information

    The Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) and the Guyandotte 
River crayfish (C. veteranus) are freshwater, tertiary burrowing 
crustaceans of the Cambaridae family. Tertiary burrowing crayfish do 
not exhibit complex burrowing behavior; instead, they shelter in 
shallow excavations under loose cobbles and boulders on the stream 
bottom. The two species are closely related and share many basic 
physical characteristics and behaviors. Adult body lengths range from 
75.7 to 101.6 millimeters (mm) (3.0 to 4.0 inches (in)), and the 
cephalothorax (main body section) is streamlined and elongate, and has 
two well-defined cervical spines. The elongate convergent rostrum (the 
beak-like shell extension located between the crayfish's eyes) lacks 
spines or tubercles (bumps). The gonopods (modified legs used for 
reproductive purposes) of Form I males (those in the breeding stage) 
are bent 90 degrees to the gonopod shaft (Loughman 2014, p. 1). 
Diagnostic characteristics that distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish from 
the Guyandotte River crayfish include the former's narrower, more 
elongate rostrum; narrower, more elongate chelea (claw); and lack of a 
well-pronounced lateral impression at the base of the claw's immovable 
finger (Thoma et al. 2014, p. 551).
    Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) reported demographic and life-
history observations for the Big Sandy crayfish in Virginia and 
Kentucky. He concluded that the general life cycle pattern of the 
species is 2 to 3 years of growth, maturation in the third year, and 
first mating in midsummer of the third or fourth year. Following 
midsummer mating, the annual cycle involves egg laying in late summer 
or fall, spring release of young, and late spring/early summer molting. 
Thoma hypothesized the likely lifespan of the Big Sandy crayfish to be 
5 to 7 years, with the possibility of some individuals reaching 10 
years of age. There is less information available specific to the life 
history of the Guyandotte River crayfish, but based on other shared 
characteristics with the Big Sandy crayfish, we conclude the life span 
and age to maturity are similar. The best available data indicate both 
species are opportunistic omnivores, feeding on plant and animal matter 
(Thoma 2009b, pp. 3, 13; Loughman 2014, pp. 20-21).
    The best available data indicate that the historical range of the 
Guyandotte River crayfish is limited to the Upper Guyandotte River 
basin in West Virginia and that the historical range of the Big Sandy 
crayfish is limited to the upper Big Sandy River basin in eastern 
Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia. Both river 
basins are in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, which is 
characterized by rugged, mountainous terrain with steep hills and 
ridges dissected by a network of deeply incised valleys (Ehlke et al. 
1982, pp. 4, 8; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 8). The dominant land cover in 
the two basins is forest, with the natural vegetation community being 
characterized as mixed mesophytic (moderately moist) forest and 
Appalachian oak forest (McNab and Avers 1996, section 221E).
    Suitable habitat for both species is generally described as clean, 
third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 to 66 feet 
(ft))), fast-flowing, permanent streams and rivers with an abundance of 
large, unembedded slab boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock stream 
bottom (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. 21-23; Taylor 
and Shuster 2004, p. 124; Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4, 6; 
Loughman 2013, p. 1; Loughman 2014, pp. 22-23; Loughman 2015a, pp. 1, 
29, 41-43; Loughman 2015b, pp. 1, 9-12, 28-30, 35-36). Under natural 
(i.e., undegraded) conditions, this habitat was common in streams 
throughout the entire upper Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River 
basins, and historically, both species likely occurred throughout their 
respective ranges where this habitat existed. However, by the late 
1800s, commercial logging and coal mining, coupled with rapid human 
population growth and increased development in the narrow valley 
riparian zones, began to severely degrade the aquatic habitat 
throughout both river basins. We conclude, based on the best available 
data, this widespread habitat degradation, most visible as stream 
bottom embeddedness, likely led to each species' decline and their 
eventual extirpation from many streams within much of their respective 
historical ranges.
    Both species appear to be intolerant of excessive sedimentation and 
embeddedness of the stream bottom substrate. This statement is based on 
observed habitat characteristics from sites that either formerly 
supported the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish or from sites 
within either of the species' historical ranges that were predicted to 
be suitable for the species, but where neither of the species (and in 
some cases no crayfish from any species) were observed (Jezerinac et 
al. 1995, p. 171; Channell 2004, pp. 22-23; Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 
2010, pp. 3-4; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2015a, pp. 29, 41-43; 
Loughman 2015b, pp. 28-30, 35-36). See Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, below, for additional information.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    Here, we summarize the two species' distribution, abundance, and 
threats

[[Page 20460]]

information that was previously provided in the proposed rule (80 FR 
18710; April 7, 2015) and has been updated as appropriate from new 
information we received since the proposed rule's publication. Unless 
otherwise noted, citations for the summarized information are from the 
proposed rule and incorporated by reference. See Summary of Changes 
from the Proposed Rule, above, for what has been updated.

Big Sandy Crayfish

    Historically (prior to 2006), the Big Sandy crayfish was known from 
11 stream systems in the 4 larger subwatersheds in the upper Big Sandy 
River watershed: Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, and Russell 
Fork (see figure 1, below). However, pre-2006 survey data for the 
species is sparse, with only 25 surveyed sites in 13 stream systems. 
Most of these records were from the Russell Fork subwatershed (with 
multiple records dating back to 1937), and single records were 
available from the Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork 
subwatersheds (all confirmed between 1999 and 2002).
    The Big Sandy crayfish is currently known from a total of 21 stream 
systems in the same four subwatersheds. However, we emphasize this 
apparent increase in occupied stream systems is an artifact of 
increased sampling effort, and not necessarily an increase in the 
species' redundancy. From 2006 to 2015, a series of surveys were 
conducted that effectively covered the species' historical range, 
including the first comprehensive rangewide survey for the species, 
which was funded by the Service in 2015 (see Loughman 2015a, entire). 
During this period, a total of 276 sites (including all historical 
locations and additional ``semi-random'' locations (e.g., 
appropriately-sized streams for the species)) were surveyed throughout 
the Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork 
watersheds. The Big Sandy crayfish was confirmed at 86 of the surveyed 
sites (31 percent) and in 21 of the 55 surveyed stream systems (38 
percent). A notable result of the 2015 rangewide survey was 
confirmation of the species' presence in the lower Tug Fork basin, 
where a single occurrence was found in the Tug Fork mainstem and three 
occurrences were noted in the Pigeon Creek system.
    While the species is still found in all four subwatersheds, current 
data (2006 to 2015) indicate notable differences in the species' 
distribution in each subwatershed. In the Russell Fork subwatershed, 
the Big Sandy crayfish was found in 92 percent of the stream systems 
surveyed (52 percent of sites). In the other subwatersheds, the species 
was less well distributed. In the Levisa Fork and Upper Levisa Fork 
watersheds, only 13 percent of the surveyed stream systems were 
occupied (19 and 24 percent of sites, respectively) and in the Tug Fork 
subwatershed, 35 percent of surveyed stream systems were occupied (23 
percent of sites) (see figure 1 and tables 1a through 1d, below).

[[Page 20461]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.000

Guyandotte River Crayfish

    In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we indicated that the 
Guyandotte River crayfish was historically known from nine individual 
streams in the Upper Guyandotte River basin (80 FR 18710, pp. 18717-
18720); we have since revised this to be six individual streams (or 
stream systems where their smaller tributaries were also surveyed). 
Based on the best available data at the time of the proposed rule, we 
considered the species' distribution based on its occupancy status in 
each individually named stream. On closer analysis of the watershed, we 
determined that some of these individually named streams were actually 
smaller tributaries connected into a primary tributary stream (i.e., 
the streams that connect directly to the Upper Guyandotte River 
mainstem). Therefore, for the purpose of understanding the species' 
overall distribution, we concluded that primary streams and their 
tributaries should be considered together as a ``stream system.'' 
Previous surveys (see Jezerinac et al. 1995) identified a species 
occurrence in ``Little Indian Creek.'' However, based on the site 
description

[[Page 20462]]

provided in the report and our analysis of the relevant U.S. Geological 
Survey topographic maps, we have determined that this creek is not 
unique, but a misnamed section of Indian Creek. Also, for the purpose 
of assessing the status of the Guyandotte River crayfish, we determined 
that Brier Creek, a tributary to Indian Creek, is more appropriately 
considered part of the larger Indian Creek system. Finally, the two 
museum specimens collected from Little Huff Creek in 1971, and 
previously identified as Cambarus veteranus, were re-examined in 2014, 
and determined to be C. theepiensis (National Museum of Natural History 
http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/iz/; accessed December 21, 2015). 
Therefore, Little Huff Creek is no longer a known occurrence location 
for the Guyandotte River crayfish. Regardless of this revised 
information, multiple survey efforts dating back to 1900 show a 
significant reduction in the number of occupied streams. Rangewide 
surveys in 1988 and 1989 confirmed the species in two stream systems, 
the historical Huff Creek system and a new stream record, Pinnacle 
Creek. In 2002, a study failed to confirm the species at any historical 
site (Channell 2004, pp. 17-18), but a more comprehensive survey in 
2009 did find several individuals in Pinnacle Creek (Loughman 2013, p. 
6) (see figure 2, below).
    The Guyandotte River crayfish is currently known from two disjunct 
stream systems in the Upper Guyandotte River basin. In 2015, the 
Service funded additional rangewide surveys for the species (see 
Loughman 2015b). A total of 71 likely sites (in 21 stream systems) were 
surveyed throughout the Upper Guyandotte River basin, including all 
historical locations and additional ``semi-random'' locations). The 
species was confirmed at 10 individual sites (in two stream systems). 
In Pinnacle Creek, the last known occupied stream, the species was 
found at 4 of 9 sites surveyed. And in Clear Fork, which is a new 
stream record for the species, the Guyandotte River crayfish was found 
at 6 of 9 sites (see figure 2 and table 2, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.001

Population Status

    There are no historical or current total population estimates for 
the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. However, the best 
available data provide information on the distribution and abundance of 
each species. Historical survey information, historical stream 
connectedness, current distribution data, genetic evidence, and expert 
opinion support that these species once occupied most, perhaps all, 
third order or larger stream systems throughout their respective 
ranges. The evidence further supports the conclusion that, under 
natural (i.e., undegraded) conditions, these species likely occur (or 
occurred) along the stream continuum wherever suitable slab boulder 
habitat exists (Appalachian Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) 2010, 
entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; Loughman 2015a, p. 23; 
Loughman 2015b, pp. 9-10). Historically, this slab boulder habitat was 
common throughout most of both

[[Page 20463]]

species' ranges, however it may be naturally patchy in some streams in 
the lower Levisa Fork and Tug Fork subwatersheds in the Big Sandy River 
basin and in some of the lower tributary streams in the Upper 
Guyandotte River basin (Loughman 2015a, pp. 5-29; Loughman 2015b, pp. 
9-25). Currently, suitable slab boulder habitat is limited by 
anthropogenic degradation (discussed below under Factor A).
    Survey data from 1900 (prior to the widespread industrialization of 
the region) and from current occupied streams that maintain high-
quality habitat indicate that unrestricted sampling at a ``healthy'' 
site should produce 20 to 25 individual Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfish specimens (Faxon 1914, pp. 389-390; Thoma 2009a, p. 10; ATS 
2010, entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; Virginia Department 
of Transportation (VDOT) 2014b, entire; VDOT 2015, entire). Between 
2006 and 2015, where possible, survey data were normalized to a common 
metric, ``catch per unit effort'' (CPUE). In general, sites described 
as ``robust'' or ``healthy'' maintained CPUE values of 5 or more 
crayfish per hour (Thoma 2009, pp. 17-18; Thoma 2010, p. 6; Loughman 
2014, p. 15).
    In 2015, 39 sites in the Big Sandy River basin (representing 25 
percent of those surveyed) were positive for the Big Sandy crayfish. 
The actual CPUE values for these occupied sites ranged from 1 to 5 Big 
Sandy crayfish per hour (mean 2.1 crayfish per hour). However, only 
four sites had ``robust'' CPUE values of 5, and approximately half 
(n=19) of occupied sites had a CPUE value of 1, indicating low Big 
Sandy crayfish abundance. The basinwide average CPUE value (including 
occupied and unoccupied sites) was 0.5 Big Sandy crayfish per hour. 
Where data exist to make a temporal comparison, between 2007 and 2015, 
seven stream systems showed a decline in CPUE values and four stream 
systems did not appear to change (see table 3, below).
    In 2015, 10 sites in the Upper Guyandotte River basin (representing 
14 percent of those surveyed) were positive for the Guyandotte River 
crayfish. The actual CPUE values for these occupied sites ranged from 2 
to 15 Guyandotte River crayfish per hour (mean 5.0 crayfish per hour). 
In Pinnacle Creek, none of the occupied sites had a CPUE value 
indicative of a ``robust'' Guyandotte River crayfish population; the 
highest CPUE value in Pinnacle Creek was 4 crayfish per hour (mean 2.8 
crayfish per hour, n=4). In Clear Fork, four of the sites had CPUE 
values indicative of ``robust'' Guyandotte River crayfish populations; 
the highest CPUE value was 15 crayfish per hour (mean 6.5 crayfish per 
hour, n=6). The basinwide average CPUE (including occupied and 
unoccupied sites) was 0.7 Guyandotte River crayfish per hour. The 
temporal data for Pinnacle Creek do not indicate a significant change 
in CPUE values between 2009 and 2015 (see table 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.002

    As with the distribution data discussed above, the 2015 survey data 
indicate differences in CPUE values and overall habitat quality (as 
measured by the standard QHEI) between the four major subwatersheds 
(see tables 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d, below). In the Russell Fork basin, the 
average CPUE value (including occupied and unoccupied sites) was 1.1 
Big Sandy crayfish per hour and the average QHEI score was 74. In the 
Upper Levisa Fork basin, the average CPUE value was 0.7 and the average 
QHEI score was 73. The Tug Fork and Levisa Fork basins appeared to be 
less ``healthy,'' with average CPUE values of 0.4 and 0.2, 
respectively, and average QHEI scores of 65 and 61, respectively.

[[Page 20464]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.003

    Additionally, Big Sandy crayfish relocation surveys conducted in 
the Russell Fork basin between 2009 and 2015 indicate that, in the 
relatively high quality streams of this subwatershed, the species 
appears to occur along significant stream distances, not necessarily 
just discrete locations. During these relocation surveys, the species 
was also collected in high numbers at many sites. Based on these 
relocation survey data and the distribution data that indicated 92 
percent of the streams in the Russell Fork basin are occupied (see 
table 1c, above), we conclude that the population of Big Sandy crayfish 
in the Russell Fork subwatershed is likely more resilient than 
indicated by the data available at the time we published the April 7, 
2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710).

Summary

    The best available data indicate that the distribution and 
abundance of both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River 
crayfish are reduced from their historical levels. The Big Sandy 
crayfish currently occupies approximately 38 percent of the presumed 
historically suitable stream systems within its historical range. 
Within these stream systems, the most recent survey data indicate that 
the species occupies 31 percent of the surveyed sites. However, as 
described above, this percentage varies markedly among the four major 
subwatersheds, with the species being poorly represented in the Levisa 
Fork and Upper Levisa Fork subwatersheds. The Guyandotte River crayfish 
currently occupies only two streams, or approximately 8 percent of the 
presumed historically suitable stream systems within its historical 
range. Within these two streams, the species is currently found at 12 
percent of the individual sites surveyed. The CPUE data also indicate 
that, at currently occupied sites, both species are generally found in 
low numbers, with few sites indicating ``robust'' populations of Big 
Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. It is possible that 
additional occurrences of either species could be found, but not 
probable given the extent of the current survey efforts (see figures 1 
and 2, above) combined with habitat quality information (either natural 
or human mediated conditions) discussed below. In addition to occupying 
fewer streams and sites within streams, the species' stream occurrences 
are fragmented and isolated from each other (see figures 3 and 4, 
below).

[[Page 20465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.004


[[Page 20466]]



Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Within the historical range of both the Big Sandy and the 
Guyandotte River crayfish, the aquatic habitat has been severely 
degraded by past and ongoing human activities (Hunt et al. 1937, p. 7; 
Eller 1982, pp. 162, 184-186; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Channell 
2004, pp. 16-23; Thoma 2009b, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4; Loughman 2013, 
p. 6; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11). Visual 
evidence of habitat degradation, such as excessive bottom 
sedimentation, discolored sediments, or stream channelization and 
dredging, is often obvious, while other water quality issues such as 
changes in pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, high dissolved solids, high 
conductivity, high metals concentrations, and changes in other chemical 
parameters are less visibly obvious. Within the range of each species, 
water quality monitoring reports, most recently from the Kentucky 
Division of Water (KDOW) (2013, entire), the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004, entire), the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality (VADEQ 2012, entire), and the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP 2014, entire), have 
linked these widespread and often interrelated direct and indirect 
stressors to coal mining and abandoned mine land (AML), commercial 
timber harvesting, residential and commercial development, roads, and 
sewage discharges.
    The best available data indicate that the presence and abundance of 
both the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are 
correlated with habitat quality, specifically streams with slab 
boulders and low levels of sedimentation and substrate embeddedness 
(Jezerinac et al. 1995, entire; Channell 2004, pp. 22-24; Thoma 2009b, 
p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3, 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 22-23; Loughman 2015a, 
pp. 29-30; Loughman 2015b, pp. 25-30). In 2015, rangewide surveys for 
both species measured habitat quality using the QHEI that includes 
measures of substrate quality and embeddedness (Loughman 2015a, entire; 
Loughman 2015b, entire). Based on QHEI scores, 31 percent of sites 
occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish (n=39) and 80 percent of sites 
occupied by the Guyandotte River crayfish (n=10) had habitats 
classified as ``Excellent.'' Habitats at all remaining occupied sites 
were classified as ``Good.'' No Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River 
crayfish were collected at sites classified as ``Fair,'' ``Poor,'' or 
``Very Poor.''
Coal Mining
    The past and ongoing effects of coal mining in the Appalachian 
Basin are well documented, and both underground and surface mines are 
reported to degrade water quality and stream habitats (Matter and Ney 
1981, pp. 67-70; Williams et al. 1996, pp. 41-46; Sams and Beer 2000, 
entire; Demchak et al. 2004, entire; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 94-100; 
Pond et al. 2008, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011, entire; Merriam et al. 
2011, entire; Pond 2011, entire; USEPA 2011b, entire; Bernhardt et al. 
2012, entire; Hopkins et al. 2013, entire; Wang et al. 2013, entire; 
Palmer and Hondula 2014, entire). The common physical changes to local 
waterways associated with coal mining include increased erosion and 
sedimentation, changes in flow, and in many cases the complete burial 
of headwater streams (USEPA 1976, pp. 3-11; Matter and Ney 1981, 
entire; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 91-92; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717-718; 
USEPA 2011b, pp. 7-9). These mining-related effects, which can 
contribute to stream bottom embeddedness, are commonly noted in the 
streams and rivers within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the 
Guyandotte River crayfishes (USEPA 2004; WVDEP 2012; KDOW 2013; VADEQ 
2014) and are of particular concern for these species, which, as 
tertiary burrowers, rely on unembedded slab boulders for shelter.
    Underground mining accounts for most of the coal excavated in the 
region, but since the 1970s, surface mining (including ``mountaintop 
removal mining'' or MTR) has become more prevalent. Mountaintop removal 
mining is differentiated from other mining techniques by the shear 
amount of overburden (i.e., rock and other geologic material) that is 
removed to access the coal seams below and the use of ``valley fills'' 
to dispose of the overburden. This practice has occurred and continues 
to occur within the two species' ranges and results in the destruction 
of springs and headwater streams and can lead to water quality 
degradation in downstream reaches (USEPA 2011, pp. 7-10).
    The best available data indicate that much of the residual erosion 
and sedimentation effects from surface coal mining are likely to 
continue indefinitely. The geology of the mountain ridges in the 
Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province makes them resistant to 
erosion. However surface coal mining, and especially MTR mining, breaks 
down this inherently erosion-resistant bedrock into unconsolidated 
``spoil'' material that is much more vulnerable to erosional forces, 
especially flowing water. Through the removal of this stable bedrock 
material in order to access coal seams, and subsequent disposal of the 
unconsolidated mine spoil in adjacent valley fills, surface coal mining 
causes significant geomorphic disturbances with long-term consequences 
for the region's streams (Kite 2009, pp. 4, 6-9).
    The legacy effects of surface coal mining persist long after active 
mining ceases. While post-Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977 (SMCRA) mine reclamation techniques help reduce erosion following 
mine closure, especially as compared to pre-SMCRA conditions, 
comparisons of recently mined and reclaimed watersheds to unmined 
watersheds indicate streams below reclaimed MTR sites can be unstable 
(Fox 2009, pp. 1286-1287; Jaeger 2015, pp. 30-32). For example, 
research indicates that after surface coal mining reclamation is 
complete, the altered geomorphology and hydrology in the watershed 
causes streams to adjust to these new conditions (Fox 2009, pp. 1286-
1287). This adjustment process includes streambank erosion that 
contributes sediments to streams downstream of the mined watersheds. 
Other indicators of unstable streams downstream of mined sites include 
increased maximum stream depth, changes in stream profile, more exposed 
bedrock, and increased frequency of fine sediment loads (Jaeger 2015, 
pp. 30-32).
    The sedimentation effects from stream instability differ from site 
to site, and there is uncertainty as to the time required for streams 
to reach a new equilibrium after surface mining ends. Additionally, 
numerous failures (i.e., major erosion events) of reclaimed slopes have 
been observed following heavy rainfall events, and the long-term 
durability of reclaimed mine land in the absence of active reclamation 
maintenance has not been tested (Kite 2009, pp. 6-7). The historical 
effects of pre-SMCRA mining continue to cause stream instability and 
sedimentation throughout the Appalachian coalfields (Kite 2009, p. 9; 
Witt 2015, entire). In 2015, the Virginia Department of Mines, 
Minerals, and Energy reported a series of debris slides and flows 
originating from mine spoils associated with abandoned, pre-1981, coal 
mines. One of these debris flows in the Upper Levisa basin inundated an 
area of approximately 8,100 square meters (m\2\) (0.8 hectares (ha)) (2 
acres (ac)) and was

[[Page 20467]]

``actively shedding mud and fine debris'' into a headwater tributary, 
which then caused sedimentation in an amount sufficient to obstruct 
flow in a downstream tributary of Elkins Branch (Witt 2015, entire).
    Of particular concern to the Guyandotte River crayfish are several 
active surface coal mines in the Pinnacle Creek watershed that may pose 
an immediate threat to the continued existence of that subpopulation, 
one of only two known to exist. These mines are located either on 
Pinnacle Creek (e.g., encroaching to within 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.31 
miles (mi)) of the creek) and directly upstream (e.g., within 7.0 km 
(4.4 mi)) of the Guyandotte River crayfish occurrence locations or on 
tributaries that drain into Pinnacle Creek upstream of the occurrence 
locations (WVDEP 2014a; WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 2014c; WVDEP 2014d). Some of 
these mines have reported violations related to mandatory erosion and 
sediment control measures (e.g., 3 to 37 violations) within the last 3 
years (WVDEP 2014a; WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 2014d).
    Historically, coal mining has been ubiquitous within the ranges of 
both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. While coal 
extraction from the southern Appalachian region has declined from the 
historical highs of the 20th century, and is unlikely to ever return to 
those levels (Milici and Dennen 2009, pp. 9-10; McIlmoil et al. 2013, 
pp. 1-8, 49-57), significant mining still occurs within the ranges of 
both species. The U.S. Department of Energy (2013, table 2) reports 
that in 2012, there were 192 active coal mines (119 underground mines 
and 73 surface mines) in the counties that constitute the core ranges 
of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Because of the scale 
of historical coal mining in the region and the magnitude of the 
geomorphological changes in mined areas, we conclude that the erosion 
and sedimentation effects of coal mining will continue indefinitely.
Forestry
    The dominant land cover within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes is forest. Commercial timber harvesting 
occurs throughout the region and, especially in areas directly adjacent 
to, or on the steep slopes above, streams and rivers, has the potential 
to degrade aquatic habitats, primarily by increasing erosion and 
sedimentation (Arthur et al. 1998, entire; Stone and Wallace 1998, 
entire; Stringer and Hilpp 2001, entire; Swank et al. 2001, entire; 
Hood et al. 2002, entire). Based on the best available data (Cooper et 
al. 2011a, p. 27; Cooper et al. 2011b, pp. 26-27; Piva and Cook 2011, 
p. 46), we estimate that within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes, approximately 12,600 ha (30,745 ac) of 
forest are harvested annually, representing approximately 1.9 percent 
of the total forest cover within this area.
    Erosion rates from logged sites in the mountainous terrain of the 
southern Appalachians are significantly higher than from undisturbed 
forest sites (Hood et al. 2002, entire). Applying the erosion rates 
from Hood et al. (2002, entire) to the estimated harvested area above 
indicates that timber harvesting within the ranges of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes could produce 67,158 to 149,436 tonnes 
(73,173 to 162,641 tons) of sediment annually, as compared to an 
estimated 5,922 tonnes (6,456 tons) of sediment from undisturbed forest 
of the same area. Hood et al. (2002, p. 54) provide the caveat that the 
model they used does not account for additional erosion associated with 
forest disturbance, such as gully erosion, landslides, soil creep, 
stream channel erosion, or episodic erosion from single storms, and 
therefore, their estimates of actual sediment transport are low. 
Therefore, our analysis of potential erosion within the ranges of the 
two species likely underestimates actual erosion rates.
    Forestry ``best management practices'' (BMPs) are designed to 
reduce the amount of erosion at logging sites, however the rates of BMP 
adherence and effectiveness at logging sites within the ranges of the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes vary. The best available data 
indicate that BMP implementation rates in the region range from about 
80 to 90 percent; however, we could not locate current data on the 
actual efficacy of BMPs in the steep terrain that characterizes Big 
Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River basins. Additionally, the 
implementation of forestry BMPs is not required for certain timber 
cutting operations. For example, in Kentucky, tree clearing incidental 
to preparing coal mining sites is specifically exempted, and in West 
Virginia, tree-clearing activities incidental to ground-disturbing 
construction activities, including those related to oil and gas 
development, are exempted (Kentucky Division of Forestry undated fact 
sheet, downloaded February 5, 2015; West Virginia Division of Forestry 
2014, pp. 3-4).
    While Hood et al. (2002, entire) found that erosion rates improved 
quickly in subsequent years following logging, Swank, et al. (2001, pp. 
174-176) studied the long-term effects of timber harvesting at a site 
in the Blue Ridge physiographic province in North Carolina, and 
determined that 15 years postharvest, the annual sediment yield was 
still 50 percent above predisturbance levels. While we do not have 
specific information on timber harvesting in areas directly adjacent 
to, or upslope from, streams historically occupied, currently occupied, 
or likely to be occupied by the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfishes, we do know based on past practices that timber harvesting 
occurs year to year on a rotational basis throughout the Big Sandy and 
Upper Guyandotte watersheds. Excess sedimentation from timber harvested 
sites may take decades to flush from area streams. Based on the 
rotational nature of timber harvesting, we conclude that commercial 
timber harvesting in the region is likely relatively constant, ongoing, 
and likely to continue. We also conclude that timber harvesting, 
particularly when harvesters do not use sufficient erosion control 
measures, is likely to continually degrade the aquatic habitat required 
by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Gas and Oil Development
    The Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province is underlain by 
numerous geological formations that contain natural gas and, to a 
lesser extent, oil. The Marcellus shale formation underlies the entire 
range of the Guyandotte River crayfish and a high proportion of the 
range of the Big Sandy crayfish, specifically McDowell County, West 
Virginia, and part of Buchanan County, Virginia (U.S. Department of 
Energy (USDOE) 2011, p. 5), and various formations that make up the 
Devonian Big Sandy shale gas play (e.g., a favorable geographic area 
that has been targeted for exploration) underlie the entire range of 
the Big Sandy crayfish and some of the range of the Guyandotte River 
crayfish (USDOE 2011, p. 9). In addition to these shale gas formations, 
natural gas also occurs in conventional formations and in coal seams 
(referred to as ``coal bed methane'' or CBM) in each of the counties 
making up the ranges of the two species. The intensity of resource 
extraction from these geological formations has varied over time 
depending on market conditions and available technology, but since the 
mid- to late 20th century, many thousands of gas and oil wells have 
been installed within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes (Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS) 2015; Virginia Department 
of Mines, Minerals and

[[Page 20468]]

Energy (VDMME) 2015; West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection (WVDEP) 2015).
    Numerous studies have reported that natural gas development has the 
potential to degrade aquatic habitats (Boelter et al. 1992, pp. 1192-
1195; Adams et al. 2011, pp. 8-10, 18; Drohan and Brittingham, 2012, 
entire; McBroom et al. 2012, pp. 953-956; Olmstead et al. 2013, pp. 
4966-4967; Papoulias and Velasco 2013, entire; Vidic et al. 2013, 
entire; Warner et al. 2013, entire; USEPA 2014, entire; Vegosh et al. 
2014, pp. 8339-8342; Harkness et al. 2015, entire). The construction of 
well pads and related infrastructure (e.g., gas pipelines, compressor 
stations, wastewater pipelines and impoundments, and access roads) can 
increase erosion and sedimentation, and the release of drilling fluids, 
other industrial chemicals, or formation brines can contaminate local 
streams.
    Within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, 
the topography is rugged and the dominant land cover is forest; 
therefore, the construction of new gas wells and related infrastructure 
usually involves timber cutting and significant earth moving to create 
level well pads, access roads, and pipeline rights-of-way, all of which 
increases the potential for erosion. For example, Drohan and 
Brittingham (2012, entire) analyzed the runoff potential for shale gas 
development sites in the Allegheny Plateau region of Pennsylvania, and 
found that 50 to 70 percent of existing or permitted pad sites had 
medium to very high runoff potential and were at an elevated risk of 
soil erosion. McBroom et al. (2012, entire) studied soil erosion from 
two well pads constructed in a forested area in the Gulf Coastal Plain 
of east Texas and determined a significant increase in erosion from the 
well pads as compared to undisturbed forested sites. Based on this 
information, which represents the lower end of the potential risk given 
the less mountainous topography where these studies took place, it is 
reasonable to conclude that erosion from well sites within the ranges 
of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is significantly 
higher than from undisturbed sites, especially when those sites do not 
use sufficient erosion control measures and are directly adjacent to, 
or upslope from, streams occupied or likely to be occupied by either 
species.
    We anticipate the rate of oil and gas development within the ranges 
of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes to increase based on 
projections from a report by IHS Global, Inc. (2013, p. 4), produced 
for the American Petroleum Institute, which indicate that the ``recent 
surge in oil and gas transportation and storage infrastructure 
investment is not a short lived phenomenon. Rather, we find that a 
sustained period of high levels of oil and gas infrastructure 
investment will continue through the end of the decade.'' While this 
projection is generalized across all oil and gas infrastructure within 
the United States, an increase of new infrastructure within the ranges 
of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is also anticipated 
because of the yet untapped Marcellus and Devonian Big Sandy shale 
resources discussed above.
On- and Off-Road Transportation
    Unpaved Roads--Unpaved forest roads (e.g., haul roads, access 
roads, and skid trails constructed by the extractive industries or 
others) can degrade the aquatic habitat required by the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes. In this region, these roads are often 
located on the steep hillsides and are recognized as a major source of 
sediment loading to streams and rivers (Greir et al. 1976, pp. 1-8; 
Stringer and Taylor 1998, entire; Clinton and Vose 2003, entire; 
Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 22-24; MacDonald and Coe 2008, entire; 
Morris et al. 2014, entire; Wade et al. 2012, pp. 408-409; Wang et al. 
2013, entire). In addition to erosion from unpaved road surfaces, 
unpaved road stream crossings can contribute significant sediment 
loading to local waters (Wang et al. 2013, entire). These unpaved roads 
and stream crossings, often associated with mining, forestry, and oil 
and gas activities, are ubiquitous throughout the range of the Big 
Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. We anticipate the number of 
unpaved roads throughout the crayfishes' ranges to remain the same or 
expand as new oil and gas facilities are built, new areas are logged, 
and new off-road vehicle (ORV) trails are constructed.
    Off-road Vehicles--Recreational ORV use contributes to the erosion 
and sedimentation problems associated with unpaved roads and stream 
crossings and has become increasingly popular in the region (see http://www.riderplanet-usa.com, last accessed March 1, 2016). Recreational 
ORV use, which includes the use of unimproved stream crossings, stream 
channel riding, and ``mudding'' (the intentional and repeated use of 
wet or low-lying trail sections that often results in the formation of 
deep ``mud holes''), may cause increased sediment loading to streams 
and possibly kill benthic organisms directly by crushing them (Chin et 
al. 2004, entire; Ayala et al. 2005, entire; Christopher and Visser 
2007, p. 24; YouTube.com 2008; YouTube.com 2010; YouTube.com 2011; 
Switalski and Jones 2012, pp. 14-15; YouTube.com 2013). Nearly all of 
the land within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes is privately owned, and ORV use on private land is largely 
unregulated. We found no comprehensive information on the extent of 
off-road ridership or the effects to local streams. However, the 
Hatfield-McCoy Trail system, which was created in 2000 to promote 
tourism and economic development in southern West Virginia, may provide 
some insight into the scale of ORV recreation within the ranges of the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Pardue et al. 2014, p. 1). 
As of 2014, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail system had eight individual trail 
networks totaling more than 1,127 km (700 mi) of cleared trails, with 
the stated long-term goal being approximately 3,219 km (2,000 mi) of 
accessible trails (Pardue et al. 2014, pp. 4-5), and in 2013, 35,900 
trail permits were sold (Hatfield-McCoy presentation 2013, p. 8). Two 
of the designated Hatfield-McCoy trail networks, Pinnacle Creek and 
Rockhouse, are located in the Upper Guyandotte basin, and one, Buffalo 
Mountain, is in the Tug Fork basin.
    The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, opened in 2004, is located 
entirely within the Pinnacle Creek watershed and may pose a significant 
threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish 
population in this stream. Approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of the Pinnacle 
Creek trail is located in the riparian zone adjacent to the stream 
reach that currently harbors the Guyandotte River crayfish. At several 
locations along this section of trail, riders are known to operate 
their vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent ``mud holes'' (You Tube 
2008; You Tube 2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; Loughman, pers. 
comm., October 24, 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that these 
activities increase erosion and sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and 
degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, the 
instream operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has the potential to crush 
or injure individual crayfish directly.
    Road Construction--The construction of new roads also has the 
potential to further degrade the aquatic habitat in the region, 
primarily by increasing erosion and sedimentation, especially when the 
new roads do not use sufficient erosion control measures and are 
directly adjacent to, or upslope from, streams occupied or likely to be 
occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish or

[[Page 20469]]

Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, roadways are also known to 
introduce contaminants to local streams (see ``Water Quality 
Degradation,'' below). Two new, multi-lane highway projects totaling 
330 km (205 mi), the King Coal Highway and the Coalfields Expressway, 
are in various stages of development within the Big Sandy and Upper 
Guyandotte River watersheds (VDOT 2015; West Virginia Department of 
Transportation (WVDOT) 2015a; WVDOT 2015b) (see figure 5, below). In 
West Virginia, the King Coal Highway right-of-way runs along the 
McDowell and Wyoming County line, the dividing line between the Tug 
Fork and Upper Guyandotte watersheds, and continues into Mingo County 
(which is largely in the Tug Fork watershed). This highway project will 
potentially affect the current occupied habitat of both crayfish 
species, but is of particular concern for the Guyandotte River crayfish 
because of a section that will parallel and cross Pinnacle Creek, one 
of two known locations for the species.
    In West Virginia, the Coalfields Expressway right-of-way crosses 
Wyoming and McDowell Counties roughly perpendicular to the King Coal 
Highway and continues into Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, 
Virginia (see figure 5, below). This project runs through the Upper 
Guyandotte, Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds and has 
the potential to affect the aquatic habitats in each basin. Of 
particular concern are sections of the Coalfields Expressway planned 
through perhaps the most robust Big Sandy crayfish populations in 
Dickenson County, Virginia, especially when those populations are 
directly adjacent to, or downslope from, the construction sites and if 
those construction sites do not use sufficient erosion control 
measures.
    Both highways will also have a yet undetermined number of feeder 
roads connecting completed segments to other existing roadways. Some of 
these feeder roads will further bisect the two species' ranges and will 
likely be a source of additional sedimentation, especially if these 
roads do not use sufficient erosion control measures and are directly 
adjacent to, or upslope from, streams occupied or likely to be occupied 
by the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. Because the 
highways are being built in phases when funding is available, the 
original planned completion schedule of approximately 2018 has been 
delayed, and we anticipate construction will continue until 
approximately 2030 (see http://www.wvkingcoal.com/; http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/bristol/route_121.asp; http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/highways-projects/coalfieldsexpressway/, last accessed March 3, 2016).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07AP16.005

    Instream Construction--Since 2009, the VDGIF has requested 
companies or other agencies undertaking construction activities (e.g., 
pipeline stream crossings, bridge replacements, bank stabilization 
work) in or adjacent to known or suspected Big Sandy crayfish streams 
to conduct crayfish surveys prior to any construction activities (Brian 
Watson, VDGIF 2016, pers. comm.; Va. Code sec. 29.1-563 to 570). If the 
species is discovered within the construction area, agencies are 
required to capture and relocate Big Sandy crayfish to suitable 
habitats outside of the affected area, typically upstream of the 
disturbance. While these efforts likely afford individual crayfish

[[Page 20470]]

protection from the direct effects of the construction activities, it 
is unknown if relocated crayfish survive and successfully establish in 
their new locations.
    Data indicate that between 2009 and 2015, 12 projects were 
conducted in the Russell Fork and upper Levisa Fork subwatersheds of 
Virginia that involved the potential relocation of Big Sandy crayfish 
(Appalachian Energy 2009; ATS 2009, entire; ATS 2010, entire; D.R. 
Allen and Associates 2010, entire; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 2011, 
entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; VDOT 2014a, entire; VDOT 
2014b, entire; VDOT 2014c, entire; VDOT 2014d, entire; VDOT 2015, 
entire). While these data indicate instream projects occur within the 
range of the Big Sandy crayfish, we do not have any information on the 
total number of instream projects within the Kentucky or West Virginia 
areas of the species' range, nor do we have this information for the 
Guyandotte River crayfish, because the two crayfish are not State-
listed species in Kentucky or West Virginia (see further discussion 
below under Factor D). However, existing pipelines, bridges, and 
culverts have scheduled maintenance and replacement schedules, in 
addition to ad hoc work when those structures are damaged. While we do 
not have information to project the scope and magnitude of new instream 
projects within the two species' ranges, the maintenance and repair 
activities of existing infrastructure are expected to continue 
indefinitely.
    Summary of On- and Off-Road Transportation--We conclude that 
erosion and sedimentation from unpaved roads and trails, ORV use, road 
construction projects, and potential injury resulting from instream 
construction projects within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes are ongoing threats to each species.
Residential/Commercial Development and Associated Stream Modifications
    Residential and Commercial Development--Because of the rugged 
topography within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River 
crayfishes, most residential and commercial development and the 
supporting transportation infrastructure is confined to the narrow 
valley floodplains (Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 14; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 
14). The close proximity of this development to the region's streams 
and rivers has historically resulted in the loss of riparian habitat 
and the continued direct discharge of sediments, chemical pollutants, 
sewage, and other refuse into the aquatic systems (WVDEP 2012, entire; 
KDOW 2013, entire; VADEQ 2014, entire), which degrades habitat quality 
and complexity (Merriam et al. 2011, p. 415). The best available data 
indicate that the human population in these areas will continue to 
decrease over the next several decades (University of Louisville 2011, 
entire; University of Virginia 2012, entire; West Virginia University 
2012, entire). However, while the human populations may decline, the 
human population centers are likely to remain in the riparian valleys.
    Stream Channelization and Dredging--Flooding is a recurring problem 
for people living in the southern Appalachians, and many individuals 
and mountain communities have resorted to unpermitted stream dredging 
or bulldozing to deepen channels and/or remove obstructions in an 
attempt to alleviate damage from future floods (West Virginia 
Conservation Agency (WVCA), pp. 4, 36-38, 225-229). In fact, as 
recently as 2009, Loughman (pers. comm., October 24, 2014) observed 
heavy equipment being operated in stream channels in the Upper 
Guyandotte basin. Unfortunately, these unpermitted efforts are rarely 
effective at reducing major flood damage and often cause other problems 
such as streambank erosion, lateral stream migration, channel 
downcutting, and sedimentation (WVCA, pp. 225-229). Stream dredging or 
bulldozing also causes direct damage to the aquatic habitat by removing 
benthic structure, such as slab boulders, and likely kills benthic 
organisms by crushing or burial. Because these dredging and bulldozing 
activities are unpermitted, we have little data on exactly how 
widespread or how often they occur within the ranges of the Big Sandy 
or Guyandotte River crayfishes. However, during their 2009 survey work 
for Cambarus veteranus in the Upper Guyandotte and Tug Fork basins, 
Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. 23) noted that 54 percent of the sites 
they surveyed (these were sites predicted to be suitable to the 
species) appeared to have been dredged, evidenced by monotypic gravel 
or cobble bottoms and a conspicuous absence of large slab boulders. 
These sites were thus rendered unsuitable for occupation by C. 
veteranus and confirmed so by the absence of the species.
    Stream Channel Instability--Under the Factor A discussion in the 
April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 18722-18731), we 
discussed multiple activities that increase erosion and sedimentation 
within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. 
Under the Stream channelization and dredging category, we stated that 
channel modification for flood control activities can cause streambank 
erosion, lateral stream migration, channel downcutting, and 
sedimentation (80 FR 18710, p. 18730). However, such ``stream 
instability'' concerns can also be caused by stream modifications 
associated with residential and commercial development activities and 
by the large-scale topographic alterations resulting from surface coal 
mining.
    As noted above, within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes, most development occurs adjacent to streams and 
rivers within the narrow valleys and can alter the local hydrology and 
lead to increased erosion and sedimentation from disturbed land 
surfaces (80 FR 18710, pp. 18723-18724, 18728; April 7, 2015). Because 
human infrastructure and streams are in close proximity to each other, 
streams are often realigned and/or channelized to increase the amount 
of usable land area or to protect existing structures through the 
aforementioned flood control. These modifications, such as 
straightening, dredging, and armoring stream channels, increases stream 
flow velocities, or stream energy, and often leads to increased bed and 
bank erosion either in the modified stream reach or in downstream 
reaches (Keller 1978, pp. 119, 124-125; Brooker 1985, p. 1; Edwards et 
al. 2015, p. 67). Because these types of historical channel 
modifications are common in both watersheds, the total continual 
sediment contribution from unstable channels is likely considerable 
(Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; WVCA undated, pp. 227-231). For 
example, a proposed stream restoration project on the Cranes Nest River 
(Russell Fork basin) estimated that approximately 3,530 ft (1.1 km) of 
historical stream channelization and resultant bank erosion at a small 
homestead annually contributes 140 tons of excess sediment to the 
Cranes Nest River (U.S. Department of Transportation 2015, entire). In 
addition, documentation from the 2015 Big Sandy crayfish surveys 
indicate that Prater Creek in the Lower Levisa Fork of Kentucky show 
incised and eroding streambanks, and at least 23 surveyed sites in the 
Levisa Fork, as well as in Pigeon Creek of the Tug Fork, were reported 
to have visible bank erosion (Loughman 2015a, entire).
    Summary of Residential/Commercial Development and Associated Stream 
Modification--We conclude that stream channel instability caused by 
historical stream channel modifications associated

[[Page 20471]]

with human development is a source of sediments in the streams and 
rivers within the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. Because of the presumed permanence of human-occupied areas, 
we conclude that these effects will continue indefinitely.
Water Quality Degradation
    While the best available data indicate that erosion and 
sedimentation leading to stream substrate embeddedness is the primary 
threat to both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, other 
pollutants also degrade the streams and rivers within the ranges of 
these species and likely contributed to their decline and continued 
reduced distribution and abundance. As described in the April 7, 2015, 
proposed rule, the best available data indicate widespread water 
quality problems throughout the Big Sandy River basin and the Upper 
Guyandotte River basin (USEPA 2004, entire; WVDEP 2012, pp. 32-33; KDOW 
2013, appendix E; VADEQ 2014, pp. 1098-1124). The pollutants commonly 
cited are metals (e.g., selenium) and pH impairments associated with 
coal mining and bacteria related to sewage discharges. The response of 
aquatic species to these and other pollutants are often observed as a 
shift in a stream's macroinvertebrate (e.g., insect larva or nymphs, 
aquatic worms, snails, clams, crayfish) or fish community structure and 
resultant loss of sensitive taxa and an increase in tolerant taxa 
(Diamond and Serveiss 2001, pp. 4714-4717; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 96-
97; Hitt and Chambers 2014, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011b, p. 1; Matter 
and Ney 1981, pp. 66-67; Pond et al. 2008).
    Mining-related Issues--High salinity, caused by increased 
concentrations of sulfate, calcium, and other ions associated with coal 
mining runoff, is a widespread problem in Appalachian streams (USEPA 
2011a, pp. 35-38). A study of crayfish distributions in the heavily 
mined upper Kanawha River basin in southern West Virginia did not 
determine a relationship between conductivity levels (a measure of 
salinity) and the presence or absence of the species studied (Welsh and 
Loughman 2014, entire). However the author's noted that stream 
conductivity levels can vary seasonally or with flow conditions, making 
assumptions regarding species' presence or absence at the time of 
surveys difficult to correlate with prior ephemeral conductivity 
conditions. In 2015, Service-funded crayfish surveys in the Big Sandy 
and Upper Guyandotte River basins determined electrical conductivity 
levels at each survey site (n=225) (Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 
2015b; entire). While these studies found no correlation between high 
conductivity levels and the absence of the Big Sandy crayfish and a 
statistically weak correlation for the Guyandotte River crayfish, we 
note that 90 percent (n=139) of the sites in the Big Sandy River basin 
and 86 percent (n=61) of the sites in the Upper Guyandotte River basin 
exceeded the USEPA's freshwater aquatic life benchmark for 
conductivity, which is a level intended to protect aquatic life 
specifically in Appalachian streams and rivers (USEPA 2011a, p. xv).
    Species presence/absence may be a poor measure for assessing the 
potential for high salinity levels (measured as conductivity) to affect 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. The studies described 
above provide no data on potential sublethal effects (e.g., reduced 
reproductive success, physiological stress, reduced fitness) or the 
potential lethal effects to the species at various life stages (e.g., 
juvenile survival, survival during ecdysis (molting, a particularly 
vulnerable stage in the animal's lifecycle)). The potential for high 
conductivity levels to be associated with these more subtle effects is 
supported by an Ohio study using juvenile Appalachian brook crayfish 
(Cambarus bartonii cavatus), a stream-dwelling species in the same 
genus as the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. This study 
found that high conductivity levels during ecdysis caused the crayfish 
difficulties in completing their molt, with subsequent increased 
mortality (Gallaway and Hummon 1991, pp. 168-170).
    Based on the best available data, we conclude that elevated 
conductivity levels, which are common throughout the Big Sandy and 
Upper Guyadotte River basins, may cause physiological stress in the Big 
Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. This stress may result in 
subtle, perhaps sublethal, effects that contribute to the decline and 
continued poor distribution and abundance of these species.
    Other common byproducts of coal mining, such as dissolved manganese 
and iron, may also affect the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. Manganese and iron can be absorbed by crayfish through gill 
respiration or ingestion and may cause sublethal effects such as 
reduced reproductive capacity (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 73). Iron 
and manganese also physically bond to crayfish exoskeletons, which may 
interfere with crayfish sensory sensila (e.g., receptors) (Loughman 
2014, p. 27). While manganese encrustations have been found on both 
Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfish specimens, we are uncertain the 
extent to which these deposits occur across the species' ranges or if 
and to what extent the effects of the manganese and iron exposure has 
contributed to the decline of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfishes.
    Ancillary to the coal mines are the processing facilities that use 
various mechanical and hydraulic techniques to separate the coal from 
rock and other geological waste material. This process results in the 
creation of large volumes of ``coal slurry,'' a blend of water, coal 
fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, which is commonly disposed 
of in large impoundments created in the valleys near the coal mines. In 
multiple instances, these impoundments have failed catastrophically and 
caused substantial damage to downstream aquatic habitats (and in some 
cases the loss of human life) (Michalek et al. 1997, entire; Frey et 
al. 2001, entire; National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2002, pp. 23-30; 
Michael et al. 2010, entire). In 2000, a coal slurry impoundment in the 
Tug Fork watershed failed and released approximately 946 million liters 
(250 million gallons) of viscous coal slurry to several tributary 
creeks of the Tug Fork, which ultimately affected 177.5 km (110.3 mi) 
of stream length, including the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork mainstems 
(Frey et al. 2001, entire). The authors reported a complete fish kill 
in 92.8 km (57.7 mi) of stream length, and based on their description 
of the instream conditions following the event, it is reasonable to 
conclude that all aquatic life in these streams was killed, including 
individuals of the Big Sandy crayfish, if they were present at that 
time. Coal slurry impoundments are common throughout the ranges of the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, and releases have been 
documented in each of the States within these ranges (NAS 2002, pp. 25-
30).
    Natural Gas Development--Natural gas well drilling and well 
stimulation, especially the technique of hydraulic fracturing, can also 
degrade aquatic habitats when drilling fluids or other associated 
chemicals or high salinity formation waters (e.g., flowback water and 
produced water) are released, either intentionally or by accident, into 
local surface waters (McBroom et al. 2012, p. 951; Papoulias and 
Velasco 2013, entire; Vidic et al. 2013, entire; Warner et al. 2013, 
entire; USEPA 2014, entire; Harkness et al. 2015, entire). As described 
above, the intensity of oil and gas development is expected to increase 
throughout the species' ranges, which increases the risk of spills of

[[Page 20472]]

contaminants and degradation of the species' habitat.
    Highway Runoff--Paved roads, coincident with and connecting areas 
of residential and commercial development, generally occur in the 
narrow valley bottoms adjacent to the region's streams and rivers. 
Runoff from these paved roads can include a complex mixture of metals, 
organic chemicals, deicers, nutrients, pesticides and herbicides, and 
sediments that, when washed into local streams, can degrade the aquatic 
habitat and have a detrimental effect on resident organisms (Boxall and 
Maltby 1997, entire; Buckler and Granato 1999, entire; NAS 2005, pp. 
72-75, 82-86). We are not aware of any studies specific to the effects 
of highway runoff on the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes; 
however, one laboratory study from Khan et al. (2006, pp. 515-519) 
evaluated the effects of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc exposure on 
juvenile Orconectes immunis, a species of pond crayfish. These 
particular metals, which are known constituents of highway runoff 
(Sansalone et al. 1996, p. 371), were found to inhibit oxygen 
consumption in O. immunis. We are uncertain to what extent these 
results may be comparable to how Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfishes may react to these contaminants, but it was the only 
relevant study exploring the topic in crayfish. Boxall and Maltby 
(1997, pp. 14-15) studied the effects of roadway contaminants 
(specifically the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs) on Gammarus 
pulex, a freshwater amphipod crustacean commonly used in toxicity 
studies. The authors noted an acute toxic response to some of the PAHs, 
and emphasized that because of possible interactions between the 
various runoff contaminants, including deicing salts and herbicides, 
the toxicity of road runoff likely varies depending on the mixture. We 
are uncertain to what extent these results may be comparable to how Big 
Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes may react to these contaminants. 
However, as discussed above, the number of roads within the species' 
ranges is increasing, thus potentially increasing contaminated runoff 
into the species habitat.
    Summary of Water Quality Degradation--The best available data 
indicate that water quality in much of the Big Sandy and Upper 
Guyandotte River basins is degraded from a variety of sources. While it 
is difficult to attribute the decline or general low abundance of the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes to a specific contaminant, or 
combination of contaminants, it is likely that poor water quality is an 
ongoing stressor to both species throughout much of their existing 
range.
Dams
    In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 18732-18734), 
we discussed the effects of habitat fragmentation caused by dams and 
reservoirs within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes. We did not, however, address the potential for dams to 
cause direct effects to the aquatic habitat, which was brought to our 
attention by a peer reviewer. The most obvious change caused by dam 
construction is the conversion of flowing riverine habitat to 
lacustrine (lake) habitat, thereby making it unsuitable for the Big 
Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes (see our response to Comment 2, 
above). Our analysis indicates that in the upper Big Sandy basin, the 
three major flood control dams created reservoirs that inundated 
approximately 89 km (55 mi) of riverine habitat. The Dewey Dam, in 
Floyd County, Kentucky, was built in 1949, and inundated 29 km (18 mi) 
of Johns Creek (in the Levisa Fork subwatershed). The Fishtrap Dam, in 
Pike County, Kentucky, was built in 1969, and inundated 27 km (16.5 mi) 
of the Levisa Fork. The Flannagan Dam in Dickenson County, Virginia, 
was built in 1964, and inundated an estimated 33 km (20.5 mi) of the 
Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers. In the Upper Guyandotte River basin, the 
R.D. Bailey Dam in Wyoming County, West Virginia, was built in 1980, 
and inundated approximately 13 km (8.1 mi) of the Guyandotte River. 
These estimates of altered habitat are conservative, as they do not 
include any tributary streams inundated or account for changes in 
stream geomorphology and flow conditions directly upstream of the 
reservoir pools or below the dams that likely also make these areas 
less suitable for either crayfish species. Additionally, numerous 
scientific studies note significant ecological and water quality 
changes downstream of dams, including increased or decreased water 
temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated levels of 
certain metals or nutrients, and shifts in fish and macroinvertebrate 
community structure (Power et al. 1996, entire; U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers 1996, p. 12; Baxter 1997, pp. 271-274; Lessard and Hayes 
2003, pp. 90-93; Arnwine et al. 2006, pp. 149-154; Hartfield 2010, pp. 
43-44; Adams 2013, pp. 1324-1330).
    Therefore, we conclude that the past construction of flood control 
dams within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes 
not only fragmented the species' available habitat, but also caused a 
decrease in available habitat within their historical ranges. However, 
we consider the loss-of-habitat effect to be historical and to have 
already influenced the species' current distribution. The fragmentation 
effects are ongoing and contribute to the threat of small population 
sizes addressed below under Factor E.
Summary of Factor A
    The best available data indicate that the primary threats to both 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes throughout their 
respective ranges are land-disturbing activities that increase erosion 
and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both 
species. Identified sources of ongoing erosion and sedimentation that 
occur throughout the ranges of the species include active surface coal 
mining, commercial forestry, unpaved roads, gas and oil development, 
road construction, and stream modifications that cause channel 
instability. These activities are ongoing (e.g., imminent) and expected 
to continue at variable rates into the future. For example, while 
active coal mining may decline, the legacy effects will continue, and 
oil and gas activities and road construction are expected to increase. 
An additional threat specific to the Guyandotte River crayfish is the 
ongoing operation of ORVs in and adjacent to one of only two known 
locations for the species; this ORV use is expected to continue.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we found no information 
indicating that overutilization has led to the loss of populations or a 
significant reduction in numbers of individuals for either the Big 
Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. No new information from 
peer review or public comments indicates that overutilization is a 
concern for either of these species. In addition, when this final 
listing becomes effective (see DATES, above), research and collection 
of these species will be regulated through scientific permits issued 
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we found no information 
indicating that disease or predation has led to the loss of populations 
or a significant reduction in numbers of individuals of the Big Sandy 
crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. No new information from peer

[[Page 20473]]

review or public comments indicates that disease or predation is a 
concern for either of these species.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Few existing Federal or State regulatory mechanisms specifically 
protect the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes or the aquatic 
habitats where they occur. The species' habitats are afforded some 
protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Federal 
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 
1201 et seq.), along with State laws and regulations such as the 
Kentucky regulations for water quality, coal mining, forest 
conservation, and natural gas development (401 KAR, 402 KAR, 405 KAR, 
805 KAR); the Virginia State Water Control Law (Va. Code sec. 62.1-44.2 
et seq.); and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WVSC sec. 
22-11) and Logging and Sediment Control Act (WVSC sec. 19-1B). 
Additionally, the Big Sandy crayfish is listed as endangered by the 
State of Virginia (Va. Code sec. 29.1-563 to 570), which provides that 
species some direct protection within the Virginia portion of its 
range. However, while water quality has generally improved since 1977, 
when the CWA and SMCRA were enacted or amended, there is continuing, 
ongoing degradation of habitat for both species, as detailed in the 
proposed rule (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) and under the Factor A 
discussion, above. Therefore, despite the protections afforded by these 
laws and implementing regulations, both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes continue to be affected by degraded water quality and 
habitat conditions.
    In 1989, 12 years after enactment of the CWA and SMCRA, the 
Guyandotte River crayfish was known to occur in low numbers in Huff 
Creek and Pinnacle Creek (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170). However, 
surveys since 2002 indicate the species has been extirpated from Huff 
Creek and continues to be found only in low numbers in Pinnacle Creek. 
Despite more than 35 years of CWA and SMCRA regulatory protection, the 
range of the Guyandotte River crayfish has declined substantially, and 
the two known populations contain small numbers of individuals (see 
Loughman 2015b, entire). Information about the Big Sandy crayfish 
indicates that the species' current range is reduced from its 
historical range (see Loughman 2015a, entire), and, as discussed above, 
that much of the historical habitat continues to be degraded by 
sediments and other pollutants. In addition, at many of the sites that 
do continue to harbor the species, the Big Sandy crayfish is generally 
found only in low numbers, with individual crayfish often reported to 
be in poor physical condition (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Loughman, pers. comm., 
October 24, 2014; Loughman 2015a, entire). Reduction in the range of 
the Big Sandy crayfish and continued degradation of its habitat lead us 
to conclude that neither the CWA nor the SMCRA has been adequate in 
protecting this species.
    As discussed in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and 
in this rule, erosion and sedimentation caused by various land-
disturbing activities, such as surface coal mining, roads, forestry, 
and oil and gas development, pose an ongoing threat to the Big Sandy 
and Guyandotte River crayfishes. State efforts to address excessive 
erosion and sedimentation involve the implementation of BMPs; however, 
as discussed in detail in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 
18710) and under Factor A, above, BMPs are often not strictly applied, 
are sometimes voluntary, or are situationally ineffective. 
Additionally, studies indicate that, even when BMPs are properly 
applied and effective, erosion rates at disturbed sites are still 
significantly above erosion rates at undisturbed sites (Grant and Wolff 
1991, p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56; Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 
22-24; McBroom et al. 2012, pp. 954-955; Wang et al. 2013, pp. 86-90).
    Although the majority of the land throughout the ranges of the two 
species is privately owned, publicly managed lands in the region 
include a portion of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, and 10 
State wildlife management areas and parks in the remainder of the Big 
Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed (1 in Russell Fork, 3 in Levisa 
Fork, 4 in Tug Fork, 2 in Upper Guyandotte). However, three of these 
parcels surround artificial reservoirs that are no longer suitable 
habitat for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish, 
and six others are not in known occupied crayfish habitat. Only the 
Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in the Russell 
Fork watershed at the Kentucky/Virginia border appear to potentially 
offer additional protections to extant Big Sandy crayfish populations, 
presumably through stricter management of land-disturbing activities 
that cause erosion and sedimentation. However, the extent of publically 
owned land adding to the protection of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes is minimal and not sufficient to offset the rangewide 
threats to either species.
Summary of Factor D
    Degradation of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish habitat 
(Factor A) is ongoing despite existing regulatory mechanisms. While 
these regulatory efforts have led to some improvements in water quality 
and aquatic habitat conditions, the declines of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes within most of their ranges have continued 
to occur. In addition, there are no existing regulatory mechanisms that 
address effects to the species associated with the species' endemism 
and their isolated and small population sizes, as well as the 
contributing stressor of climate change (discussed below under Factor 
E).

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Locally Endemic, Isolated, and Small Population Size
    It is intuitive and generally accepted that the key factors 
governing a species' risk of extinction include small population size, 
reduced habitat size, and fragmented habitat (Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 
757, 774-777; Lande 1993, entire; Hakoyama et al. 2000, pp. 327, 334-
336; Wiegand et al. 2005, entire). Relevant to wholly aquatic species, 
such as the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, Angermeier 
(1995, pp. 153-157) found that fish species that were limited by 
physiographic range or range of waterbody sizes were also more 
vulnerable to extirpation or extinction, especially as suitable 
habitats became more fragmented.
    As detailed in this final rule and in the April 7, 2015, proposed 
rule (80 FR 18710), both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte 
River crayfish are known to exist only in the Appalachian Plateaus 
physiographic province and are limited to certain stream classes and 
habitat types within their respective river basins. Furthermore, the 
extant populations of each species are limited to certain 
subwatersheds, which are physically isolated from the others by steep 
topography, stream distance, human-induced inhospitable intervening 
habitat conditions, and/or physical barriers (e.g., dams and 
reservoirs).
Genetic Fitness
    Species that are restricted in range and population size are more 
likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift, 
potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,

[[Page 20474]]

and reducing the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980, pp. 157-158; 
Hunter 2002, pp. 97-101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146). 
Similarly, the random loss of adaptive genes through genetic drift may 
limit the ability of the Big Sandy crayfish and, especially, the 
Guyandotte River crayfish to respond to changes in their environment 
such as the chronic sedimentation and water quality effects described 
above or catastrophic events (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, p. 61). Small 
population sizes and inhibited gene flow between populations may 
increase the likelihood of local extirpation (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, pp. 32-34). The long-term viability of a species is founded on 
the conservation of numerous local populations throughout its 
geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). These separate populations 
are essential for the species to recover and adapt to environmental 
change (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104; Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264-
297). The populations of the Big Sandy crayfish are isolated from other 
existing populations and known historical habitats by inhospitable 
stream conditions and dams that are barriers to crayfish movement. The 
current population of the Guyandotte River crayfish is restricted to 
two disjunct stream systems that are isolated from other known 
historical habitats by inhospitable stream conditions or by a dam. The 
level of isolation and the restricted ranges seen in each species make 
natural repopulation of historical habitats or other new areas 
following previous localized extirpations virtually impossible without 
human intervention.
    Guyandotte River crayfish--As discussed previously, the historical 
range of the Guyandotte River crayfish has been greatly reduced. Based 
on the Guyandotte River crayfish's original distribution and the 
behavior of other similar stream-dwelling crayfish, it is reasonable to 
surmise that, prior to the widespread habitat degradation in the basin, 
individuals from the various occupied sites were free to move between 
sites or to colonize (or recolonize) suitable vacant sites (Momot 1966, 
entire; Kerby et al. 2005, pp. 407-408). Huff Creek, where the species 
was last noted in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170), is one of the 
few streams in the basin that still appears to maintain habitat 
conducive to the species (Loughman 2013, p. 9; Loughman 2015b, pp. 14-
15). However, Huff Creek is physically isolated from the extant Clear 
Fork and Pinnacle Creek populations by the R.D. Bailey Dam on the 
Guyandotte River near the town of Justice, West Virginia. This physical 
barrier, as well as generally long distances of often marginal habitat 
between potentially suitable sites, makes it unlikely that individuals 
from the extant Clear Fork and Pinnacle Creek populations will 
successfully disperse to recolonize other locations in the basin.
    Also, as noted in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710) 
and above under Factor A, the persistence of Pinnacle Creek 
subpopulation is exceptionally vulnerable to several proximate active 
surface coal mines and ORV use in the Pinnacle Creek watershed. This 
subpopulation lacks significant redundancy (e.g., the ability of a 
species to withstand catastrophic events) and representation (e.g., the 
ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions), 
and has very little resiliency (e.g., the ability of the species to 
withstand stochastic events); therefore, this small subpopulation is at 
an increased risk of extirpation from natural demographic or 
environmental stochasticity, a catastrophic event, or even a modest 
increase in any existing threat at the two known stream occurrences.
    Big Sandy crayfish--Survey work demonstrates that the geographic 
extent of the Big Sandy crayfish's occupied habitat, in the context of 
the species' historical range, is reduced (Thoma 2009b, p. 10; Thoma 
2010, p. 6; Loughman 2013, pp. 7-8; Loughman 2015a, entire). 
Additionally, these best available data indicate that, because of 
widespread habitat degradation, the species is notably absent from many 
individual streams where its presence would otherwise be expected, and 
at most sites where it does still persist, it is generally found in low 
numbers.
    Because the Big Sandy crayfish is wholly aquatic and therefore 
limited in its ability to move from one location to another by the 
basin's complex hydrology, the species' overall distribution and 
abundance must be considered carefully when evaluating its risk of 
extinction. Prior to the significant habitat degradation that began in 
the late 1800s, the Big Sandy crayfish likely occurred in suitable 
stream habitat throughout its range (from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork 
confluence to the headwater streams in the Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, 
and Tug Fork basins) (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 549), and 
individuals were free to move between occupied sites or to colonize (or 
recolonize) suitable vacant sites. The current situation is quite 
different, with the species' occupied subwatersheds being isolated from 
each other, and from large areas of their unoccupied range (e.g., the 
Johns Creek stream system), by linear distance (of downstream and 
upstream segments), inhospitable intervening habitat, dams, or a 
combination of these. Therefore, the status and risk of extirpation of 
each individual subpopulation must be considered in assessing the 
species' risk of extinction.
    Based on habitat connectedness (or lack thereof), we consider there 
to be six existing Big Sandy crayfish subpopulations: lower Tug Fork 
population (Pigeon Creek), upper Tug Fork population, the Upper Levisa 
Fork population (Dismal Creek), the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork population 
(including Shelby Creek), the Pound River population, and the Cranes 
Nest River population (see figure 3, above). While the Pound River and 
Cranes Nest River are in the same subwatershed, they both flow into the 
Flannagan Reservoir, which is unsuitable habitat for the species (see 
our response to Comment 3, above). Therefore, the Big Sandy crayfish 
populations in these streams are not only isolated from other 
populations by the dam and reservoir, but also most likely isolated 
from each other by the inhospitable habitat in the reservoir itself 
(Loughman, pers. comm., December 1, 2014). Also, because the Fishtrap 
Dam physically isolates the upper Levisa Fork (Dismal Creek) population 
from the remainder of the species' range, only the Tug Fork and the 
Russell Fork/Levisa Fork subpopulations still maintain any possible 
connection.
    There are two occurrences that are unlikely to represent viable 
subpopulations. One is an occurrence in the lower Levisa Fork mainstem 
near the town of Auxier, Kentucky. This site was last confirmed (a 
single Big Sandy crayfish was recovered) in 2009 (Thoma 2010, p. 6). 
This location is more than 50 km (31 mi) downstream of the nearest 
other occupied site. In 2009, eight other likely sites in the lower 
Levisa system were surveyed and found negative for the species, and in 
2015, nine additional sites were surveyed and found negative in this 
area of the lower Levisa Fork subwatershed. Therefore, we conclude that 
the lower Levisa Fork system does not represent a viable subpopulation. 
However, because the exact site near Auxier, Kentucky, was not surveyed 
in 2015, and because the Big Sandy crayfish has an estimated lifespan 
of 7 to 10 years, and because we have no evidence that habitat 
conditions have changed, it is reasonable to conclude that this site 
may remain occupied. Secondly, in 2015, a new occurrence location was 
also reported in the lower Tug Fork mainstem, with two Big Sandy 
crayfish captured (one was

[[Page 20475]]

described as ``malformed'') from an isolated boulder cluster (Loughman 
2015a, p. 16). Because this site is 35 km (22 mi) downstream of the 
nearest other occupied location (Pigeon Creek) and 11 other lower Tug 
Fork sites were surveyed and found negative for the species, we do not 
consider this a viable subpopulation.
    The six subpopulations differ in their resiliency. The upper Levisa 
Fork, Pound River, and Cranes Nest River populations generally persist 
in single stream reaches. While the species appears to be moderately 
abundant in these streams, the available CPUE data indicate that the 
species has declined in abundance in the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers 
since 2007 (see table 3, above). The fact that they are restricted to 
single streams (versus a network of streams) makes them especially 
susceptible to catastrophic loss (e.g., contaminant spill, stream 
dredging, or other perturbation). The lower Tug Fork population in the 
Pigeon Creek system also appears to be vulnerable, with the three 
occupied sites having a CPUE value of 1 Big Sandy crayfish per hour and 
relatively low stream system QHEI scores (mean 62, n = 9). The upper 
Tug Fork and the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork populations are perhaps more 
secure, with multiple streams being occupied. However, the available 
CPUE data indicate declines in abundance in several of these streams 
(see table 3, above).
    This isolation, caused by habitat fragmentation, reduces the 
resiliency of the species by eliminating the potential movement of 
individuals from one subpopulation to another, or to unoccupied sites 
that could become habitable in the future. This inhibits gene flow in 
the species as a whole and will likely reduce the genetic diversity and 
perhaps the fitness of individuals in the remaining subpopulations. The 
individual subpopulations are also at an increased risk from 
catastrophic events such as spills or to stochastic decline.
Direct Mortality Due to Crushing
    As discussed above under Factor A, ORV use of unpaved trails are a 
source of sedimentation into the aquatic habitats within the range of 
the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition to this habitat degradation, 
there is the potential for direct crayfish mortality as a result of 
crushing when ORVs use stream crossings, or when they deviate from 
designated trails or run over slab boulders that the Guyandotte River 
crayfish use for shelter (Loughman 2014, pp. 30-31).
Interspecific Competition
    A contributing factor to the imperilment of the habitat-specialist 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes may be increased 
interspecific competition brought about by habitat degradation 
(Loughman 2015a, pp. 42-43; Loughman 2015b, p. 36). Both the Big Sandy 
crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are associated with faster 
moving water of riffles and runs with unembedded substrate, while other 
native species such as the spiny stream crayfish (Orconectes 
cristavarius) are typically associated with the lower velocity portions 
of streams and appear to be tolerant of higher levels of sedimentation. 
Because the lower velocity stream habitats suffer the effects of 
increased sedimentation and bottom embeddedness before the effects are 
manifested in the faster moving reaches, the native crayfish using 
these habitats likely migrated into the relatively less affected riffle 
and run habitats that are normally the niche of the Big Sandy or 
Guyandotte River crayfishes (Loughman 2014, pp. 32-33). In the ensuing 
competition between the habitat-specialist Big Sandy and Guyandotte 
River crayfishes and the more generalist species, the former are 
thought to be at a competitive disadvantage (Loughman 2015a, pp. 42-43; 
Loughman 2015b, p. 36). The 2015 survey data indicated generally that 
at degraded sites, species such as O. cristavarius were dominant, with 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish being absent or occurring 
in low numbers. However, at high-quality sites where either the Big 
Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish were present, the other species were 
found in relatively low numbers.
Climate Change
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
the evidence for warming of the global climate system is unequivocal 
(IPCC 2013, p. 3). Numerous long-term climate changes have been 
observed including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread 
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and 
aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, 
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2013, p. 4). 
The general climate trend for North America includes increases in mean 
annual temperatures and precipitation and the increased likelihood of 
extreme weather events by the mid-21st century (IPCC 2014, pp. 1452-
1456). The U.S. National Climate Assessment predicts that over the next 
century, the eastern United States will experience: (1) An increase in 
the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves; (2) a decrease in 
the frequency, intensity, and duration of cold air outbreaks; (3) an 
increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events; (4) an 
increase in the risk of seasonal droughts; and (5) an increase in the 
strength of tropical storms (Melillo et al. 2014, pp. 374, 398-399). 
The U.S. Geological Survey's and individual State's climate predictions 
support a finding that conditions within the ranges of both the Big 
Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes are expected to undergo 
significant temperature and precipitation changes by 2050 (Byers and 
Norris 2011, pp. 19-21; Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 
Strategy (KCWCS) 2013, pp. 12-16; Kane et al. 2013, pp. 11-13; Alder 
and Hostetler 2014, entire).
    An increasingly large body of scientific research indicates climate 
change poses a significant threat to a variety of species and 
ecosystems (Thomas, et al. 2004, entire; Byers and Norris 2011, pp. 7-
17; Kane et al. 2013, pp. 14-48; KCWCS 2013, pp. 17-26; IPCC 2014, 
Chapter 4, entire), with freshwater ecosystems being considered 
especially vulnerable to the direct effects of climate change, such as 
altered thermal regimes and altered precipitation and flow regimes 
(IPCC 2014, pp. 312-314; McDonnell et al. 2015, pp. 14-16). As climate 
change alters freshwater ecosystems, aquatic species will either adapt 
to the new conditions, migrate to waters that maintain suitable 
conditions, or become locally extirpated. Species with small 
geographical ranges or those limited in their ability to disperse 
because of watershed boundaries and fragmented river networks (for 
example by dams and impoundments) may be particularly vulnerable to 
climate change (Eaton and Scheller 1996, p. 1113; Ficke et al. 2007, p. 
602; Capinha et al. 2013, p. 732; Trumbo et al. 2014, pp. 182-185; 
McDonnell et al. 2015, pp. 2, 14-18).
    Perhaps the most obvious and direct effect of climate change to the 
Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is an increase in average 
ambient air temperature, which by 2050 is predicted to rise by 1.9 to 
2.8 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.4 to 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) 
within the ranges of these species (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 20; Alder 
and Hostetler 2013, entire; KCWCS 2013, p. 13). As ambient air 
temperatures increase, stream water temperatures are also expected to 
rise, although the precise relationship between air temperature and 
water temperature may vary based on a variety of factors, such as 
groundwater inflow, riparian

[[Page 20476]]

vegetation, or precipitation rates (Webb and Nobilis 2007, pp. 82-84; 
Kaushal et al. 2010, pp. 464-465; Trumbo et al. 2014, pp. 178-185; 
McDonnell et al. 2015, pp. 12-18). We are unaware of information on the 
specific thermal tolerances of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfishes, but note that Loughman (2015a, p. 28; 2015b, p. 35) 
collected the former species in June, July, and September from waters 
that ranged from 19.0 to 27.3 [deg]C (66.2 to 81.1 [deg]F) with a mean 
temperature of 21.7 [deg]C (71.1 [deg]F), and he collected the latter 
species in May and June from waters that ranged from 14.9 to 23.0 
[deg]C (58.8 to 73.4 [deg]F) with a mean of 19.7 [deg]C (67.5 [deg]F). 
These data and information on the thermal preferences of other stream-
dwelling crayfishes indicate that the likely preferred temperature for 
the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is around 21 to 22 [deg]C 
(71 to 72 [deg]F) (Espina et al. 1993, pp. 37-38; Keller and Hazlett 
2010, p. 619).
    While crayfish are considered relatively tolerant to temperature 
fluctuations, data indicate that the upper incipient lethal temperature 
(the temperature at which 50 percent of the test organisms die) for 
stream-dwelling crayfish is about 29 to 32 [deg]C (84 to 90 [deg]F) 
(Becker et al. 1975, pp. 376-378; Mirenda and Dimock 1985, p. 255; 
Espina et al. 1993, p. 37); however, there may be significant 
variability in thermal tolerance depending on a species' geographic 
distribution and the size, sex, and reproductive status of individual 
crayfish (Becker et al. 1975, pp. 384-386). While important 
information, the upper lethal temperature limit is a poor measure by 
which to assess the potential for climate change to affect the Big 
Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Mirenda and Dimock (1985, p. 
255) studied the acuminate crayfish (Cambarus acuminatus), a more 
generalist species native to the mid-Atlantic coastal plain. The 
authors noted that prolonged exposure (greater than 48 hours) to 
temperatures below that species' upper thermal limit (33 [deg]C (91.4 
[deg]F)), but still within the zone of tolerance, could cause 
incapacitation or loss of condition sufficient to cause population-
level effects to the species. A study of another stream species, the 
common crayfish (Cambarus bartonii bartonii), showed that its tolerance 
to acidic conditions decreased as temperatures approached the maximum 
thermal tolerance for the organism (DiStefano et al. 1991, pp. 1586-
1589). Relatedly, drought conditions (and assumed temperature 
increases) in a north Georgia stream resulted in population declines 
and poor reproductive success in the generalist white tubercled 
crayfish (Procambarus spiculifer) (Taylor 1982, pp. 294-296). 
Therefore, based on the best available data, we conclude that as water 
temperatures increase above the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfishes' assumed preferred temperature of 21 to 22 [deg]C (71 to 72 
[deg]F) and approach the species' assumed maximum thermal threshold of 
28 to 29 [deg]C (82 to 84 [deg]F), individual crayfish will likely 
suffer physiological stress, poor reproductive success, and perhaps 
increased mortality.
    As temperature regimes within the range of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes begin to exceed their thermal optimum, it 
is likely that these species will attempt to adjust their ranges to 
locations that maintain favorable conditions. In general, ambient 
temperatures decrease with increasing elevation and/or latitude; 
therefore, we would expect these crayfishes to attempt to relocate to 
locations higher in elevation or higher in latitude (northerly 
direction in the northern hemisphere) (McDonnell et al. 2015, entire). 
However, because both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes are 
confined in latitude to their respective river basins, and because 
suitable habitats in the lower reaches of each river system are limited 
(primarily as a result of past environmental degradation), both species 
have already been largely restricted to the higher elevation streams 
within each river basin. Additionally, as discussed in the April 7, 
2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 18732-18734), habitat 
fragmentation caused by dams and poor habitat conditions further 
restricts the movement of individual crayfish within their respective 
watersheds.
    An independent assessment of the potential effects of climate 
change on the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes was 
incorporated into an Appalachian climate change vulnerability index 
(Young et al., 2015). This vulnerability index integrates a species' 
predicted exposure to climate change with three sets of factors 
associated with climate change sensitivity, each supported by published 
studies: (1) Indirect exposure to climate change, (2) species-specific 
sensitivity and adaptive capacity factors (including dispersal ability, 
temperature and precipitation sensitivity, physical habitat 
specificity, interspecific interactions, and genetic factors), and (3) 
documented response to climate change. The climate change vulnerability 
index ranked Cambarus veteranus ``highly vulnerable,'' which is defined 
as ``abundance and/or range extent within geographical area assessed 
likely to decrease significantly by 2050.'' We note that this 
vulnerability index was completed prior to the taxonomic split that 
described C. callainus and, therefore, assumed a single crayfish 
species with a geographic range that included both the Big Sandy River 
basin and the Upper Guyandotte River basin. It is probable that if the 
two species were re-evaluated separately, the reduced geographic range 
of each species would produce an increased climate change vulnerability 
score for either or both species.
    The ranking of ``highly vulnerable'' for Cambarus veteranus 
produced by the vulnerability index is supported by two distribution 
models developed for stream crayfish in Europe. A study of the 
potential effects of climate change on the distribution of five 
relatively wide-ranging European crayfish species predicted that, by 
2080, suitable accessible habitat for these species will decrease by 14 
to 75 percent (Capinha et al. 2013, pp. 734-735). This study also 
indicated that the future distribution of native and nonnative crayfish 
species will lead to increased incidences of co-occurrence between 
these species with presumably negative consequences (Capinha et al. 
2013, p. 738). Another European study evaluated the joint effects of 
climate change and the presence of an invasive crayfish on the 
distribution of another wide-ranging but endangered crayfish, the 
white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) (per the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature ``Red List'' at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2430/0). This study predicted a range 
reduction for both species coupled with a decreased incidence of co-
occurrence by 2050 (Gallardo and Aldridge 2013, pp. 230-231).
    While uncertainty exists, the best available scientific data 
indicate that by about 2050, climate change will alter the ambient air 
temperature and precipitation regimes within the already limited ranges 
of both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Such alterations 
will increase the likelihood that streams will experience higher 
incidences of temperatures above the species' thermal optimum, perhaps 
approaching or exceeding their upper thermal limit. Because these 
species have little or no ability to migrate in response to increasing 
stream temperatures (or other climate change-induced perturbations), we 
conclude there is a likelihood that climate change will act as an 
ongoing stressor to each species.

[[Page 20477]]

Transportation Spills
    There are numerous active freight rail lines in the Big Sandy and 
Upper Guyandotte River basins (Virginia Department of Rail and Public 
Transportation (VDRPT) 2013, p. 3-7; West Virginia Department of 
Transportation (WVDOT) 2013, p. 2-3; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 
(KTC) 2015, p. 2-5). These lines were built primarily to haul locally-
mined coal to outside markets, but data indicate a shift to more 
freight traffic through the region, crude oil shipments from Midwest 
shale oil fields to eastern refineries or ports, and increased rail 
traffic associated with shale gas development in West Virginia (VDRPT 
2013, p. 5-14; WVDOT 2013, pp. 2-57- 2-59; KTC 2015, pp. 2-23-2-24). 
Rail traffic in and through the region will likely vary in the short 
term as overall economic conditions fluctuate, but in the long term, 
rail traffic is expected to increase.
    As described previously, because of the rugged topography of the 
region, these rail lines generally follow the mountain valleys and run 
immediately adjacent to streams and rivers, including those with 
current or historical records of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 
crayfish occupation. This characteristic of the rail infrastructure 
increases the risk to aquatic habitats in the event of accidental 
spills of petroleum or other hazardous materials. Between 2003 and 
2012, Virginia and West Virginia reported a Statewide average of 41 and 
25 train accidents per year, respectively (VDRPT 2013, p. 3-36; WVDOT 
2013, p. 2-30). We do not have fine-scale (e.g., county-level) data on 
rail safety and note also that some categories of accidents are not 
required to be reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
(see https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0037); therefore, accident risk is 
difficult to assess. However, several recent incidents in or near the 
Big Sandy River and Upper Guyandotte River basins illustrate the 
potential risk:
     On March 23, 2013, a derailment in Dickenson County, 
Virginia, left four train cars in the Russell Fork River (which is 
known to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish). One of the cars 
reportedly leaked propionic acid, but it was not reported whether any 
aquatic species were affected (Morabito 2013, entire).
     On December 27, 2013, 16 train cars derailed in McDowell 
County, West Virginia. At least one tank car reportedly ruptured and 
leaked ``tar'' into Elkhorn Creek (an upper Tug Fork tributary not 
known to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish). It was not reported 
whether any aquatic species were affected (Associated Press 2013, 
entire).
     On April 30, 2014, 15 crude oil tank cars derailed in 
Lynchburg, Virginia (approximately 180 km (112 mi) east of the Upper 
Guyandotte River and Big Sandy River basins). Three tank cars slid into 
the James River, and at least one car ruptured and released 
approximately 29,740 gallons of oil, most of which reportedly burned. 
It was not reported whether any aquatic species were affected (Roanoke 
Times 2014, entire; VADEQ 2015, entire).
     On March 5, 2015, a train locomotive struck a boulder in 
Dickenson County, Virginia, causing a rupture to the locomotive's fuel 
tank. No fuel reportedly reached the Russell Fork (Sorrell 2015, 
entire).
     On February 16, 2015, a train hauling crude oil derailed 
near Mount Carbon, West Virginia (approximately 43 km (27 mi) north of 
the Upper Guyandotte River basin), and 27 tank cars derailed. 
Approximately 378,000 gallons of crude oil were released during the 
incident, but it is unclear how much oil entered the Kanawha River 
(most of it apparently burned). It was not reported whether any aquatic 
species were affected (USEPA 2015, entire; FRA 2015, entire).
    While the above reports do not indicate whether aquatic species 
were injured, a spill report from Pennsylvania did document mortality 
of aquatic invertebrates. On June 30, 2006, a derailment in McKeon 
County, Pennsylvania, resulted in three tank cars releasing 42,000 
gallons of sodium hydroxide adjacent to Sinnemahoning Portage Creek. 
The resulting investigation determined that 63 to 98 percent of the 
aquatic invertebrates were estimated to be killed over 17.7 km (11.0 
mi) of Sinnemahoning Portage Creek (Hartel 2006, p.18). While this 
report is from outside the ranges of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River 
crayfishes, it is indicative of the scale of potential lethal injury 
that can result from transportation spills in areas where rail lines 
are in close proximity to streams and rivers.
    Therefore, while there is uncertainty as to the likelihood or 
magnitude of effects of railroad accidents, based on the best available 
data regarding past events coupled with estimates of future rail 
traffic, we conclude that railroad accidents that result in the release 
of petroleum or other hazardous material into streams and rivers 
occupied by Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish pose an ongoing 
risk to each species and that this risk is expected to stay the same or 
increase.
Summary of Factor E
    The habitat of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is 
highly fragmented, thereby isolating the remaining populations of each 
species from each other. The remaining individuals are generally found 
in low numbers at most locations where they still exist. The level of 
isolation and the restricted ranges seen in each species make natural 
repopulation of historical habitats or other new areas following 
previous localized extirpations highly improbable, or perhaps 
impossible, without human intervention. This reduction in redundancy 
and representation significantly impairs the resiliency of each species 
and poses a threat to their continued existence. In addition, direct 
mortality due to crushing may have a significant effect on the 
Guyandotte River crayfish. Interspecific competition from other native 
crayfish species that are more adapted to degraded stream conditions 
may also act as a contributing threat to both species, as might climate 
change.

Cumulative Effects From Factors A through E

    Based on the risk factors described above, the Big Sandy crayfish 
and the Guyandotte River crayfish are at an increased risk of 
extinction primarily due to land-disturbing activities that increase 
erosion and sedimentation, and subsequently degrade the stream habitat 
required by both species (Factor A), and due to the effects of small 
population size (Factor E). Other contributing factors are degraded 
water quality and unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). Additional 
likely contributing factors are competition from other crayfish, toxic 
spills, and climate change (Factor E). While events such as collection 
(Factor B) or disease and predation (Factor C) are not currently known 
to affect either species, any future incidences will further reduce the 
resiliency of the Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfishes.

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E)

[[Page 20478]]

other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 
Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above factors, 
singly or in combination.
    As discussed above, we have carefully assessed the best scientific 
and commercial information and data available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats to the Big Sandy crayfish and the 
Guyandotte River crayfish. The primary threat of rangewide habitat loss 
and degradation (Factor A) is occurring from land-disturbing activities 
that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream 
habitat required by both species. Identified sources of ongoing erosion 
include active surface coal mining, commercial forestry, unstable 
stream channels, unpaved roads, gas and oil development, and road 
construction. An additional primary threat specific to the Guyandotte 
River crayfish is the operation of ORVs in and adjacent to Pinnacle 
Creek, one of only two known stream locations for the species.
    Contributing threats to both species include water quality 
degradation (Factor A) resulting from abandoned coal mine drainage; 
untreated (or poorly treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; 
unpermitted stream dredging; and potential catastrophic spills of coal 
slurry, fluids associated with gas well development, or other 
contaminants. The effects of habitat loss have resulted in a 
significant range contraction for the Guyandotte River crayfish and a 
reduction in abundance and distribution within the fragmented range for 
both species, as evidenced by the results from multiple survey efforts. 
While the 2015 surveys did document two additional occurrences of the 
Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Tug Fork, those occurrences are 
isolated from other occurrences of the species. Occurrences of both 
species are correlated with higher quality habitat conditions that are 
fragmented by natural and human-mediated areas of lower quality 
habitat.
    Despite the existing State wildlife laws and Federal regulations 
such as the CWA and SMCRA, habitat threats continue to effect these 
species (Factor D). Additionally, the habitat of the Big Sandy and 
Guyandotte River crayfishes is highly fragmented by natural and human-
mediated conditions, thereby isolating the remaining populations of 
each species (Factor E) from each other. The remaining individuals are 
found in low numbers at most locations where they still exist; however, 
there are some occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell 
Fork with higher levels of documented individuals and catch-per-unit-
effort (CPUE) results that are indicative of more robust populations. 
The two populations of the Guyandotte River crayfish have limited 
redundancy, with the Pinnacle Creek location being highly imperiled by 
ORV use and upstream mining operations, and significantly reduced 
representation. The level of isolation and the restricted range of each 
species make natural repopulation of historical habitats or other new 
areas following previous localized extirpations virtually impossible 
without human intervention. The reduction in redundancy and 
representation for each species impairs the Big Sandy crayfish's 
resiliency and significantly impairs the Guyandotte River crayfish's 
resiliency, and poses a threat to both species' continued existence. 
The interspecific competition (Factor E) from other native crayfish 
species (that are more adapted to degraded stream conditions) and 
climate change (Factor E) may act as additional stressors to the Big 
Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. These Factor A and Factor E 
threats are rangewide and are not likely to be reduced in the future. 
Several of the Factor A and Factor E threats are likely to increase. 
For Factor A, these threats include oil and gas development and road 
construction, and for Factor E, these include extirpation and further 
isolation of populations. In combination, these ongoing and increasing 
threats are significant because they further restrict limited available 
habitat and decrease the resiliency of the Big Sandy crayfish and 
Guyandotte River crayfish within those habitats.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' As discussed above, we find that the 
Big Sandy crayfish is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout its entire range, and the Guyandotte River crayfish 
is in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on the 
severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting these species.
    For the Big Sandy crayfish, although the species still occupies 
sites located throughout the breadth of its historical range, the 
remaining sites are reduced to primarily the higher elevations within 
the watersheds; the remaining habitat and most populations are 
threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to reduce the 
overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is foreseeable 
because most of the remaining populations are small and isolated, and 
there is limited potential for recolonization.
    For the Guyandotte River crayfish, the species has been reduced to 
two locations, and its habitat and population are threatened by a 
variety of factors acting in combination to create an imminent risk of 
extirpation of one of the locations, thereby reducing the overall 
viability of the species. The risk of extinction is high because the 
two populations are severely reduced and isolated, and have essentially 
no potential to be recolonized following extirpation.
    Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we are listing the Big Sandy crayfish as a 
threatened species and the Guyandotte River crayfish as an endangered 
species in accordance with sections 3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, all of these factors combined 
lead us to conclude that the danger of extinction is high and 
immediate, thus warranting a determination as an endangered species 
rather than a threatened species. In contrast, for the Big Sandy 
crayfish, all of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the 
danger of extinction is foreseeable rather than immediate, thus 
warranting a determination as a threatened species.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are threatened and 
endangered, respectively, throughout all of their ranges, no portion of 
their ranges can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Final Policy 
on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

Available Conservation Measures

    Listing a species as endangered or threatened under the Act 
increases recognition by Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; 
private organizations; and individuals that the species requires 
additional conservation measures. These measures include recovery 
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against 
certain practices. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and 
other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for 
listed species. The

[[Page 20479]]

protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against 
certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and a 
final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from the Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation, removal of 
sedimentation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and 
outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be 
accomplished solely on Federal lands because they may occur primarily 
or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species 
requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal 
lands. We also recognize that for some species, measures needed to help 
achieve recovery may include some that are of a type, scope, or scale 
that is independent of land ownership status and beyond the control of 
cooperating landowners.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, additional 
funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of 
sources, including Federal budgets; State programs; and cost share 
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and 
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of 
the Act, the States of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Big Sandy crayfish, and the State of 
West Virginia will be eligible for Federal funds to implement 
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the 
Guyandotte River crayfish. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River 
crayfish. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on 
these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may 
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the any endangered or 
threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. 
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation 
with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include land 
management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of 
Land Management. Or a Federal agency may have regulatory oversight, 
such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a section 404 CWA permit 
is issued; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement 
when a coal mining permit is issued or overseen; or the Federal Highway 
Administration when they assist with the funding or construction and 
maintenance of roads, bridges, or highways.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and 
threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, 
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 17.31 for 
threatened wildlife, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to 
attempt any of these) endangered or threatened wildlife within the 
United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to 
import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed 
species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and 
State conservation agencies.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. As discussed in the previous 
paragraph, the general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to 
threatened wildlife will apply to the Big Sandy crayfish upon the 
effective date of this final rule (see DATES). However, we may revise 
these general prohibitions and exceptions as they apply to the Big 
Sandy crayfish by promulgating a species-specific rule under section 
4(d) of the Act detailing the prohibitions and exceptions that are 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Therefore, 
we are investigating what specific prohibitions and exceptions to those 
prohibitions may be necessary and advisable for the Big Sandy 
crayfish's conservation and intend to publish, as appropriate, a 
proposed 4(d) rule for public review and comment in the future. 
Activities we are considering for

[[Page 20480]]

potential exemption under a 4(d) rule include, but are not necessarily 
limited to, exceptions for (1) specific habitat restoration activities 
that will benefit the Big Sandy crayfish, and (2) sustainable forestry 
practices that primarily occur directly adjacent to, or upslope from, 
streams occupied or likely to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish and 
that are implemented according to well-defined and enforceable best 
management practices (e.g., Sustainable Forestry Initiative or Forest 
Stewardship Council) or other such approved guidelines.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are 
codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and for threatened species at 50 CFR 17.32. 
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory 
exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 
of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the ranges of species we are 
listing. Based on the best available information, the following actions 
are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities 
are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit 
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
     Normal agricultural practices, such as herbicide and 
pesticide use, that are carried out in accordance with any existing 
regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management 
practices.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list 
is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized operation of motorized equipment in stream 
habitats such that the operation compacts the stream bottom habitat 
(e.g., driving or riding an ORV in the stream), resulting in killing or 
injuring a Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish.
    (2) Unlawful destruction or alteration of the habitat of the Big 
Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish (e.g., unpermitted instream 
dredging, impoundment, water diversion or withdrawal, channelization, 
discharge of fill material) that impairs essential behaviors such as 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering, or that results in killing or 
injuring a Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish.
    (3) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other 
pollutants into waters supporting the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte 
River crayfish that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs 
essential life-sustaining behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or 
finding shelter.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the appropriate 
office:
     Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West 
Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468; 
facsimile (502) 695-1024.
     Southwest Virginia Ecological Services Field Office, 330 
Cummings Street, Abingdon, VA 24210; telephone (276) 623-1233; 
facsimile (276) 623-1185.
     West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 
26241; telephone (304) 636-6586; facsimile (304) 636-7824.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with 
listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    We are not aware of any Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River 
crayfish populations on tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the 
Northeast Regional Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Crayfish, Big Sandy'' 
and ``Crayfish, Guyandotte River'' to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS to read as 
set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 20481]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                   population where                                         Critical
                                                  Historic range     endangered or        Status         When listed        habitat       Special rules
         Common name            Scientific name                       threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
CRUSTACEANS..................
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Crayfish, Big Sandy..........  Cambarus          U.S.A. (KY, VA,   Entire..........  T...............  864............  NA.............  NA
                                callainus.        WV).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Crayfish, Guyandotte River...  Cambarus          U.S.A. (WV).....  Entire..........  E...............  865............  NA.............  NA
                                veteranus.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: March 28, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07744 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P