Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges, 36035-36057 [2010-15240]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 121 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36035-36057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15240]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
RIN 1018-AV85


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and 
Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter 
(Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei), 
chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace (Phoxinus saylori) 
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's 
protections to these species throughout their ranges, including, 
Cumberland darter in Kentucky and Tennessee, rush darter in Alabama, 
yellowcheek darter in Arkansas, and chucky madtom and laurel dace in 
Tennessee. We have determined that critical habitat for these species 
is prudent, but not determinable at this time.

DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before August 23, 
2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in the ADDRESSES section by August 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Public 
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the 
Cumberland darter, contact Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, J.C. Watts 
Federal Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; 
telephone 502-695-0468; facsimile 502-695-1024. For information 
regarding the rush darter, contact Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field 
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MI 39213; 
telephone 601-965-4900; facsimile 601-965-4340 or Bill Pearson, Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Services 
Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne AL 36526; telephone 251-441-
5181; fax 251-441-6222. For information regarding the yellowcheek 
darter, contact Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, 110 South 
Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; telephone 501-513-4470; 
facsimile 501-513-4480. For information regarding the chucky madtom or 
laurel dace, contact Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal 
Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931-528-6481; facsimile 931-
528-7075. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats;
    (2) Additional information concerning the ranges, distribution, and 
population size of these species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of the species;
    (3) Any additional information on the biological or ecological 
requirements of the species;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the 
species and possible impacts of these activities on the species and 
their habitat;
    (5) Potential effects of climate change on the species and their 
habitats;
    (6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531, 
et seq.), including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh 
threats to the species that designation could cause (e.g., exacerbation 
of existing threats, such as overcollection), such that the designation 
of critical habitat is prudent; and .
    (7) Specific information on:

 What areas contain physical and biological features essential 
for the conservation of the species;
 What areas are essential to the conservation of the species; 
and
 Special management considerations or protection that proposed 
critical habitat may require.

    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species mush be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment, including your personal 
identifying information, on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in your hard copy comments, such as 
your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold this information from 
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your 
comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information 
you include.

[[Page 36036]]

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Background

Species Information

Cumberland darter
    The Cumberland darter, Etheostoma susanae (Jordan and Swain), is a 
medium-sized member of the fish tribe Etheostomatini (Family Percidae) 
that reaches over 5.5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in)) standard length 
(SL) (SL, length from tip of snout to start of the caudal peduncle 
(slender region extending from behind the anal fin to the base of the 
caudal fin)) (Etnier and Starnes 1993, pp. 512). The species has a 
straw-yellow background body color with brown markings that form six 
evenly spaced dorsal (back) saddles and a series of X-, C-, or W-shaped 
markings on its sides (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 510). During 
spawning season, the overall body color of breeding males darkens, and 
the side markings become obscure or appear as a series of blotches 
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 510).
    The Cumberland darter was first reported as Boleosoma susanae by 
Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249-250) from tributaries of the Clear Fork 
of the Cumberland River, Kentucky. Subsequent studies by Kuhne (1939, 
p. 92) and Cole (1967, p. 29) formerly recognized the taxon as a 
subspecies (Etheostoma nigrum susanae) of E. n. nigrum (Johnny darter). 
Starnes and Starnes (1979, p. 427) clarified the subspecific status of 
the Cumberland darter, differentiating it from the Johnny darter by 
several diagnostic characteristics. Strange (1994, p. 14; 1998, p. 101) 
recommended that E. n. susanae be elevated to specific status based on 
the results of mitochondrial DNA analyses of E. n. susanae and E. n. 
nigrum. The Cumberland darter was recognized as a valid species, E. 
susanae (Cumberland darter), by Nelson et al. (2004, p. 233) based on 
the work of Strange (1994, p. 14; 1998, p. 101) and a personal 
communication with W. C. Starnes (May 2000), who suggested the common 
name.
    The Cumberland darter inhabits pools or shallow runs of low to 
moderate gradient sections of streams with stable sand, silt, or sand-
covered bedrock substrates (O'Bara 1988, pp. 10-11; O'Bara 1991, p. 10; 
Thomas 2007, p. 4). Thomas (2007, p. 4) did not encounter the species 
in high-gradient sections of streams or areas dominated by cobble or 
boulder substrates. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported that streams inhabited 
by Cumberland darters were second to fourth order, with widths ranging 
from 4 to 9 meters (m) (11 to 30 feet (ft)) and depths ranging from 20 
to 76 cm (8 to 30 in).
    Little is known regarding the reproductive habits of the Cumberland 
darter. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported the collection of males in 
breeding condition in April and May, with water temperatures ranging 
from 15 to 18\o\ Celsius (C) (59 to 64\o\ Fahrenheit (F)). Extensive 
searches by Thomas (2007, p. 4) produced no evidence of nests or eggs 
at these sites. Species commonly associated with the Cumberland darter 
during surveys by Thomas (2007, pp. 4-5) were creek chub (Semotilus 
atromaculatus), northern hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), stripetail 
darter (Etheostoma kennicotti), and Cumberland arrow darter (Etheostoma 
sagitta sagitta). Thomas (2007, p. 5) collected individuals of the 
Federally threatened blackside dace, Phoxinus cumberlandensis, from 
three streams that also supported Cumberland darters.
    The Cumberland darter is endemic to the upper Cumberland River 
system above Cumberland Falls in Kentucky and Tennessee (O'Bara 1988, 
p. 1; O'Bara 1991, p. 9; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511). The earliest 
known collections of the species were made by Jordan and Swain (1883, 
pp. 249-250), who recorded it as abundant in tributaries of Clear Fork 
of the Cumberland River, Kentucky. The species was later reported from 
Gum Fork, Scott County, Tennessee, by Shoup and Peyton (1940, p. 11), 
and seven additional tributaries of the Cumberland River by Burr and 
Warren (1986, p. 310). More exhaustive surveys by O'Bara (1988, p. 6; 
1991, pp. 9-10) and Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998; pp. 83-233, 303-
408) determined that the Cumberland darter was restricted to short 
reaches of 20 small streams (23 sites) in the upper Cumberland River 
system in Whitley and McCreary Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and 
Scott Counties, Tennessee. These studies suggested the extirpation of 
the species from Little Wolf Creek, Whitley County, Kentucky, and Gum 
Fork, Scott County, Tennessee. Preliminary reports of disjunct 
populations in the Poor Fork Cumberland River and Martins Fork in 
Letcher and Harlan Counties, Kentucky (Starnes and Starnes 1979, p. 
427; O'Bara 1988, p. 6; O'Bara 1991, pp. 9-10), were evaluated 
genetically and determined to be the Johnny darter (Strange 1998, p. 
101). Thomas (2007, p. 3) provided the most recent information on 
status and distribution of the species through completion of a range-
wide status assessment in the upper Cumberland River drainage in 
Kentucky. Between June 2005 and April 2007, a total of 47 sites were 
sampled qualitatively in the upper Cumberland River drainage. All 
Kentucky sites with historic records were surveyed (20 sites), as well 
as 27 others having potentially suitable habitat. Surveys by Thomas 
(2007, p. 3) produced a total of 51 specimens from 13 localities (12 
streams). Only one of the localities represented a new occurrence 
record for the species.
    Currently, the Cumberland darter is known from 14 localities in a 
total of 12 streams in Kentucky (McCreary and Whitley Counties) and 
Tennessee (Campbell and Scott Counties). All 14 extant occurrences of 
the Cumberland darter are restricted to short stream reaches, with the 
majority believed to be restricted to less than 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 
mile (mi)) of stream (O'Bara 1991, pp. 9-10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). These 
occurrences are thought to form six population clusters (Bunches Creek, 
Indian Creek, Marsh Creek, Jellico Creek, Clear Fork, and Youngs 
Creek), which are geographically separated from one another by an 
average distance of 30.5 stream km (19 mi) (O'Bara 1988, p. 12; O'Bara 
1991, p. 10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). Based on collection efforts by O'Bara 
(1991, pp. 9-10), Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998, pp. 83-233, 303-408), 
and Thomas (2007, p. 3), the species appears to be extirpated from 11 
historic collection sites and a total of 9 streams: Cumberland River 
mainstem, near mouth of Bunches Creek and Cumberland Falls (Whitley 
County); Sanders Creek (Whitley County); Brier Creek (Whitley County); 
Kilburn Fork of Indian Creek (McCreary County); Bridge Fork (McCreary 
County); Marsh Creek, near mouth of Big Branch and Caddell Branch 
(McCreary County); Cal Creek (McCreary County), Little Wolf Creek 
(Whitley County); and Gum Fork (Scott County). No population estimates 
or status trends are available for the Cumberland darter; however, 
survey results by Thomas (2007, p. 3) suggest that the species is 
uncommon or occurs in low densities across its range (Thomas (2007, p. 
3).
    The Cumberland darter is ranked by the Kentucky State Nature 
Preserves Commission (2009, p. 38) as a G1G2S1 species: critically 
imperiled or imperiled globally and critically imperiled in Kentucky. 
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources State Wildlife 
Action Plan

[[Page 36037]]

identified the Cumberland darter as a species of Greatest Conservation 
Need (KDFWR 2005, p. 2.2.2). The plan identified several top 
conservation actions for the Cumberland darter and other species in its 
Aquatic Guild (Upland Headwater Streams in Pools): acquisition or 
conservation easements for critical habitat, development of financial 
incentives to protect riparian corridors, development and 
implementation of best management practices, and restoration of 
degraded habitats through various State and Federal programs.
Rush Darter
    The rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), a medium-sized darter in 
the subgenus Fuscatelum, was described by Bart and Taylor in 1999 (pp. 
27-33). The average size of the rush darter is 5 cm (2 in) SL (Bart and 
Taylor 1999, p. 28; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 3). The rush darter 
is closely related to the goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), a 
drab-colored species with a thin golden stripe along the lateral line 
(canal along the side of a fish with sensory capabilities) that is 
surrounded by heavily mottled or stippled sides (Shaw 1996, p. 85). 
However, the distinct golden stripe characteristic of goldstripe 
darters is not well developed in rush darters (Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 
29). Also, the brown pigment on the sides of the rush darter is usually 
not as intense as in the goldstripe darter. Other characteristics of 
the rush darter are described in Bart and Taylor (1999, p. 28).
    Rush darters have been collected from various habitats (Stiles and 
Mills 2008, pp. 1-4; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3-
4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32), 
including root masses of emergent vegetation along the margins of 
spring-fed streams in very shallow, clear, cool, and flowing water; and 
from both small clumps and dense stands of bur reed (Sparganium sp.), 
coontail (Ceratophyllum sp.), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), and 
rush (Juncus sp.) in streams with substrates of silt, sand, sand and 
silt, muck and sand or some gravel with sand, and bedrock. Rush darters 
appear to prefer springs and spring-fed reaches of relatively low-
gradient small streams which are generally influenced by springs 
(Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-4; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1; Bart 2002, 
p. 1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3-4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, 
pp. 1-4; Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32). Rush darters have also been 
collected in wetland pools (Stiles and Mills 2008; pp. 2-3). Water 
depth at collection sites ranged from 3.0 cm to 0.5 m ( 0.1 ft to 1.6 
ft), with moderate water velocity in riffles and no flow or low flow in 
pools. Rush darters have not been found in higher gradient streams with 
bedrock substrates and sparse vegetation (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-
4; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3-4; Stiles and 
Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32).
    Stiles and Mills (2008, p. 2) found gravid rush darter females in 
February and fry (newly hatched larval fish) in late April from a 
wetland pool in the Mill Creek watershed (Winston County, Alabama). 
These pools act as nursery areas for the fry (Stiles and Mills 2008, p. 
5). Even though the life history of the rush darter is poorly known, it 
is likely similar to the closely related goldstripe darter. Spawning of 
the goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs from mid March through June 
(Mettee et al. 1996, p. 655). Goldstripe larvae reared in captivity 
avoid downstream drift (Conservation Fisheries, Inc., 2005, p. 7). This 
behavior alteration may inhibit dispersal capabilities between isolated 
suitable habitat patches, and may reduce the success of captively bred 
individuals in the wild. Preferred food items for the goldstripe darter 
include midges, mayflies, blackflies, beetles, and microcrustaceans 
(Mettee et al. 1996, p. 655). The life span of the goldstripe darter is 
estimated to be 2 to 3 years.
    The rush darter currently has a restricted distribution (Johnston 
and Kleiner 2001, p. 1). All rush darter populations are located above 
the Fall Line (the inland boundary of the Coastal Plain physiographic 
region) and other ``highland regions'' where topography and elevation 
changes are observed presenting a barrier for fish movement (Boshung 
and Mayden 2004, p. 18)) in the Tombigbee-Black Warrior drainage 
(Warren et al. 2000, pp. 9, 10, 24), in portions of the Appalachian 
Plateau, and Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces of Alabama. The 
closely related goldstripe darter in Alabama occurs essentially below 
the Fall Line in all major systems except the Coosa system (Boshung and 
Mayden 2004, p. 550). Reports of goldstripe darters from the 1960s and 
1970s in Winston and Jefferson Counties, Alabama (Caldwell 1965, pp. 
13-14; Barclay 1971, p. 38; Dycus and Howell 1974, pp. 21-24; Mettee et 
al. 1989, pp. 13, 61, 64), which are above the Fall Line, were made 
prior to the description of the rush darter, but are now considered to 
be rush darters (Kuhajda 2008, pers. comm.).
    Historically, rush darters have been found in three distinct 
watersheds in Alabama: Doe Branch, Wildcat Branch, and Mill Creek of 
the Clear Creek drainage in Winston County; an unnamed spring run of 
Beaver Creek and from Penny Springs of the Turkey Creek drainage in 
Jefferson County; and Cove Spring (Little Cove Creek system) and 
Bristow Creek of the Locust Fork drainage in Etowah County.
    Currently, the three rush darter populations occur in the same 
watersheds but in a more limited distribution. One population is 
located in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the Clear Creek drainage in 
Winston County (Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 4); the second is located 
in an unnamed spring run to Beaver Creek and in Penny Springs in the 
Turkey Creek drainage in Jefferson County (Stiles and Blanchard 2001, 
p. 2); and the third is in the Little Cove Creek drainage population. 
The Little Cove Creek population in Etowah County was known from only a 
single specimen collected in Cove Spring in 1975 (Bart and Taylor 1999, 
p. 28) and one specimen from Bristow Creek collected in 1997 (Bart 
2002, p. 7). Kuhajda (2008, pers. comm.) discovered a single specimen 
of the species in 2005, at the confluence of the Cove Spring run where 
it drains into an unnamed swamp.
    Rush darter populations are separated from each other 
geographically, and individual rush darters are only sporadically 
collected at a particular site within their range. Where it occurs, the 
rush darter is apparently an uncommon species that is usually collected 
in low numbers (Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32). Since 1969, approximately 
100 rush darters have been collected or captured and released within 
the species' range (compiled from Bart and Taylor 1999, pp. 31-32; 
Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 2-4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; 
Johnston 2003, pp.1-3; P. Rakes 2010, pers.comm.); however, there are 
no population estimates at this time.
    Cumulatively, the rush darter is only known from localized 
collection sites within approximately 14 km (9 mi ) of streams in the 
Clear Creek, Little Cove and Bristow Creek, and Turkey Creek drainages 
in Winston, Etowah, and Jefferson Counties, respectively. Currently, 
about 3 km (2 mi) of stream, or about 22 percent of the rush darter's 
known range, is not occupied, which may be due to non-point source 
pollution (e.g., sedimentation and chemicals) from agriculture, 
urbanization, and road construction and maintenance.
    Within the Clear Creek drainage, the rush darter has been collected 
in Wildcat Branch, Mill Creek, and Doe Creek, which represents about 13 
km (8 mi) of stream or about 94 percent of the species' total 
cumulative range. Recent

[[Page 36038]]

surveys (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-4; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 
3) have documented the absence of the rush darter in Doe Creek, 
possibly indicating a reduction of the species' known range within the 
Clear Creek drainage by about 3 km (2 mi) of stream or 22 percent. Rush 
darters were collected in October 2005 and again in June 2008 and 2009 
in the Little Cove Creek drainage (Cove Spring run), a first since 
1975, despite sporadic surveys over the last 30 years. This rediscovery 
of the species confirms the continued existence of the species in 
Etowah County and Cove Spring. However, the Little Cove Creek drainage 
constitutes an increase of only 0.05 km (0.02 mi) of occupied stream 
habitat or a 1.6 percent addition to the total range of the species. No 
collections of the species have occurred at Bristow Creek since 1997. 
Bristow Creek has since been channelized (straightened and deepened to 
increase water velocity). In the Turkey Creek drainage, rush darters 
have been collected sporadically within Penny Springs and at the type 
locality for the species (an unnamed spring run in Jefferson County, 
Alabama) (Bart and Taylor 1999, pp. 28, 33). This area contains about 
0.5 km (0.3 mi) of occupied stream habitat or approximately 4 percent 
of the rush darter's total range.
    The rush darter is ranked by the Alabama Department of Conservation 
and Natural Resources (2005) as a P1G1S1 species signifying its rarity 
in Alabama and its status as critically imperiled globally. It is also 
considered a species of Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) by the State. 
The rush darter has a High Priority Conservation Actions Needed and Key 
Partnership Opportunities ranking of ``CA 6,'' the highest of any fish 
species listed. The plan states that the species consists of disjoint 
populations and information is needed to determine genetic structuring 
within the populations. Conservation Actions for the species may 
require population augmentation and/or reintroduction of the species to 
suitable habitats to maintain viability.
Yellowcheek Darter
    The yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei) is a small and 
compressed fish which attains a maximum SL of about 64 mm (2.5 in), and 
has a moderately sharp snout, deep body, and deep caudal peduncle 
(Raney and Suttkus 1964, p. 130). The back and sides are grayish brown, 
often with darker brown saddles and lateral bars. Breeding males are 
brightly colored with a bright blue or brilliant turquoise breast, and 
throat and light green belly, while breeding females possess orange and 
red-orange spots but are not brightly colored (Robison and Buchanan 
1988, pp. 427-429). First collected in 1959 from the Devils Fork Little 
Red River, Cleburne County, Arkansas, this species was eventually 
described by Raney and Suttkus in 1964, using 228 specimens from the 
Middle, South, and Devils Forks of the Little Red River (Devils Fork, 
Turkey Fork, and Beech Fork represent one stream with three different 
names and are subsequently referred to in this proposed rule as 
``Devils Fork''). Wood (1996, p. 305) verified the taxonomic status of 
the yellowcheek darter within the subgenus Nothonotus. The yellowcheek 
darter is one of only two members of the subgenus Nothonotus known to 
occur west of the Mississippi River.
    The yellowcheek darter inhabits high-gradient headwater tributaries 
with clear water; permanent flow; moderate to strong riffles; and 
gravel, rubble, and boulder substrates (Robison and Buchanan 1988, p. 
429). Yellowcheek darter prey items include aquatic dipteran larvae, 
stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies (McDaniel 1984, p. 56).
    Male and female yellowcheek darters reach sexual maturity at one 
year of age, and maximum life span is around five years (McDaniel 1984, 
pp. 25, 76). Spawning occurs from late May through June in the swift to 
moderately swift portions of riffles, often around or under the largest 
substrate particles (McDaniel 1984, p. 82), although brooding females 
have been found at the head of riffles in smaller gravel substrate 
(Wine et al. 2000, p. 3). During non-spawning months, there is a 
general movement to portions of the riffle with smaller substrate, such 
as gravel or cobble, and less turbulence (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 3). 
Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 24) observed that the yellowcheek darter 
moved very little during a 1-year migration study. It was noted that 
the yellowcheek darter appears to be a relatively non-mobile species, 
with 19 of 22 recaptured darters found within 9 meters (29.5 feet) of 
their original capture position after periods of several months. A 
number of life history characteristics, including courtship patterns, 
specific spawning behaviors, egg deposition sites, number of eggs per 
nest, degree of nest protection by males, and degree of territoriality 
are unknown at this time; however, researchers have suggested that the 
yellowcheek darter deposit eggs on the undersides of larger rubble in 
swift water (McDaniel 1984, p. 82). Wine and Blumenshine (2002, p. 10) 
noted that during laboratory spawning, female yellowcheek darters bury 
themselves in fine gravel/sand substrates (often behind large cobble or 
boulders) with only their heads and caudal fin exposed. A male 
yellowcheek darter will then position upstream of the buried female and 
fertilize her eggs as she releases them in a vibrating motion. Clutch 
size and nest defense behavior were not observed.
    The yellowcheek darter is endemic to the Devils, Middle, South, and 
Archey Forks of the Little Red River and main stem Little Red River in 
Cleburne, Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, Arkansas (Robison and 
Buchanan 1988, p. 429). In 1962, the construction of a dam on the 
Little Red River to create Greers Ferry Reservoir impounded much of the 
range of this species, including the lower reaches of Devils Fork, 
Middle Fork, South Fork, and portions of the main stem Little Red 
River, thus extirpating the species from these reaches. Yellowcheek 
darter was also extirpated from the Little Red River downstream of 
Greers Ferry Reservoir due to cold tailwater releases. The lake flooded 
optimal habitat for the species, and caused the genetic isolation of 
populations (McDaniel 1984, p. 1). The yellowcheek darter was known to 
historically occur in portions of these streams that maintained 
permanent year-round flows.
    In the 1978-81 study by Robison and Harp (1981, pp. 15-16), 
yellowcheek darter occurred in greatest numbers in the Middle and South 
Forks of the Little Red River, with populations estimated at 36,000 and 
13,500 individuals, respectively, while populations in both Devils Fork 
and Archey Fork were estimated at approximately 10,000 individuals 
(Robison and Harp 1981, pp. 5-11). During this study, the four forks of 
the Little Red River supported an estimated yellowcheek darter 
population of 60,000 individuals, and the species was considered the 
most abundant riffle fish present (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 14). 
Extensive sampling of the first two tributaries of the Little Red River 
below Greers Ferry Dam (both named Big Creek) failed to find any 
yellowcheek darters, and no darters were found in immediately adjacent 
watersheds (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 5).
    Two subsequent studies have failed to observe specimens of 
yellowcheek darter in the Turkey Fork reach of the Devils Fork Little 
Red River (Wine et al. 2000, p. 9; Wine and Blumenshine 2002, p. 11), 
since four individuals were last collected by Arkansas State University 
(ASU) researchers in 1999 (Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 129). They have 
been observed downstream within that system in the Beech Fork reach, 
where flows are more permanent. The reach

[[Page 36039]]

downstream of Raccoon Creek is influenced by inundation from Greers 
Ferry Reservoir and no longer supports yellowcheek darter. The U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers channelized approximately 5.6-km (3.5 mi) of 
the lower Archey and South Forks Little Red River located within the 
city limits of Clinton, Arkansas, in 1985 for flood control purposes. 
Yellowcheek darter has not been collected within this 5.6-km (3.5-mi) 
reach since channelization. The yellowcheek darter otherwise inhabits 
most of its historical range, although in greatly reduced numbers in 
the Middle, South, Archey, and Devils Forks of the Little Red River.
    While collecting specimens for the 1999 genetic study, ASU 
researchers discovered that the yellowcheek darter was no longer the 
most abundant riffle fish and was more difficult to find (Wine et al. 
2000, p. 2). Because optimal habitat had been destroyed by the creation 
of Greers Ferry Lake, yellowcheek darters were confined to upper stream 
reaches with lower summer flow, smaller substrate particle size, and 
reduced gradient. A thorough status survey conducted in 2000 found the 
yellowcheek darter in three of four historic forks in greatly reduced 
numbers (Wine et al. 2000, p. 9). Populations in the Middle Fork were 
estimated at approximately 6,000 individuals, the South Fork at 2,300, 
and the Archey Fork at 2,000. Yellowcheek darter was not collected from 
the Devils Fork. Yellowcheek darter was the fifth most abundant riffle 
fish rangewide, while historically it was the most abundant riffle 
fish. Fish community composition was similar from 1978-1981 and 2000 
studies, but the proportion of yellowcheek darter declined from 
approximately 28 percent to 6 percent of the overall composition. Fish 
known to co-exist with yellowcheek darter include the rainbow darter 
(E. caeruleum) and greenside darter (E. blennioides), which can use 
pool habitats during periods of low flow, as evidenced by the 
collection of these two species from pools during electroshocking 
activities. Electroshocking has not revealed yellowcheek darter in 
pools, suggesting perhaps that they are unable to tolerate pool 
conditions (deep, slow-moving water usually devoid of cobble 
substrate). An inability to use pools during low flows would make them 
much more vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations in flows that reduce 
riffle habitat. As a result, researchers have suggested that 
yellowcheek darter declines are more likely a species rather than 
community phenomenon (Wine et al. 2000, p. 11).
    Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 22) estimated yellowcheek darter 
populations within the Middle Fork to be between 15,000 and 40,000 
individuals, and between 13,000 and 17,000 individuals in the South 
Fork. Such increases since the status survey done in 2000 would 
indicate remarkable adaptability to changing environmental conditions. 
However, it should be noted that estimates were based upon mark/
recapture estimates using the Jolly-Seber method which requires high 
numbers of recaptured specimens for accurate estimations. Recaptures 
were extremely low during that study; therefore, population estimates 
were highly variable and confidence in the resulting estimates is low.
    The yellowcheek darter is ranked by the Arkansas Natural Heritage 
Commission (ANHC) (2007, pp. 2-118) as an S1G1 species: extremely rare 
in Arkansas, and critically imperiled globally. The Arkansas Game and 
Fish Commission's Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan assigns the yellowcheek 
darter a score of 100 out of 100, representing a critically imperiled 
species with declining populations (AGFC 2005, pp. 452-454).
Chucky Madtom
    The chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus) is a small catfish, with the 
largest specimen measuring 6.47 cm (2.55 in) SL (Burr et al. 2005, p. 
795). Burr et al. (2005) described the chucky madtom, confirming 
previous analyses (Burr and Eisenhour 1994), which indicated that the 
chucky madtom is a unique species, a member of the Rabida subgenus 
(i.e., the ``mottled'' or ``saddled'' madtoms), and a member of the 
Noturus elegans species complex (i.e., N. elegans, N. albater, and N. 
trautmani) ascribed by Taylor (1969 in Grady and LeGrande 1992). A 
robust madtom, the chucky madtom body is wide at the pectoral fin 
origins, greater than 23 percent of the SL. The dorsum (back) contains 
three dark, nearly black blotches ending abruptly above the lateral 
midline of the body, with a moderately contrasting, oval, pale saddle 
anterior to each blotch (Burr et al. 2005, p. 795).
    The chucky madtom is a rare catfish known from only 15 specimens 
collected from two Tennessee streams. A lone individual was collected 
in 1940 from Dunn Creek (a Little Pigeon River tributary) in Sevier 
County, and 14 specimens have been encountered since 1991 in Little 
Chucky Creek (a Nolichucky River tributary) in Greene County. Only 3 
chucky madtom individuals have been encountered since 2000, 1 in 2000 
(Lang et al. 2001, p. 2) and 2 in 2004 (Conservation Fisheries, Inc. 
2008, unpublished data), despite surveys that have been conducted in 
both historic localities at least twice a year since 2000 (Rakes and 
Shute 2004 pp. 2-3; Weber and Layzer 2007, p. 4 Conservation Fisheries, 
Inc. 2008, unpublished data). In addition, several streams in the 
Nolichucky, Holston, and French Broad River watersheds of the upper 
Tennessee River basin, which are similar in size and character to 
Little Chucky Creek, have been surveyed with no success (Burr and 
Eisenhour 1994 pp. 1-2; Shute et al. 1997 p. 5; Lang et al. 2001, pp. 
2-3; Rakes and Shute 2004 p.1). Conservation Fisheries, Inc., did not 
find chucky madtoms in 2007 after attempting new sampling techniques 
(e.g., PVC ``jug'' traps) (Conservation Fisheries, Inc. 2008, 
unpublished data).
    Originally, museum specimens collected from the Roaring River 
(Cumberland River drainage) and from the Paint Rock River system in 
Alabama (a Tennessee River tributary well downstream of the Nolichucky 
and Little Pigeon River sites) were first identified and catalogued as 
Noturus elegans and thought to be chucky madtoms. The Roaring River 
specimens are now considered to be a member of the N. elegans group, 
but have not been assigned to a species. While the specimens from the 
Paint Rock River system share typical anal ray counts with the chucky 
madtom, they lack the distinctive cheek characteristics, differ in 
pelvic ray counts, and are intermediately shaped between the chucky and 
saddled madtoms, Noturus fasciatus, with respect to body width as a 
proportion of SL (Burr et al. 2005, p. 796). Thus, the Little Chucky 
and Dunn Creek forms are the only forms that are recognized as chucky 
madtoms.
    All of the specimens collected in Little Chucky Creek have been 
found in stream runs with slow to moderate current over pea gravel, 
cobble, or slab-rock substrates (Burr and Eisenhour 1994, p. 2). 
Habitat of these types is sparse in Little Chucky Creek, and the stream 
affords little loose, rocky cover suitable for madtoms (Shute et al. 
1997, p. 8). It is notable that intact riparian buffers are present in 
the locations where chucky madtoms have been found (Shute et al. 1997, 
p. 9).
    No studies to determine the life history and behavior of this 
species have been conducted. While nothing is known specifically about 
chucky madtom reproductive biology, recruitment, growth and longevity, 
food habits, or mobility, available

[[Page 36040]]

information for other similar members of the Noturus group are known. 
N. hildebrandi may reach sexual maturity at one or more years of age 
(i.e., during their second summer) (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 351). 
Only the largest females of N. albater were found to be sexually 
mature, and males were found to be sexually mature primarily within the 
second age class (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 339). Though, a single large 
male of the first age class showed evidence of sexual maturity (Mayden 
et al. 1980, p. 339). The breeding season in N. hildebrandi and N. 
baileyi was primarily during June through July, though development of 
breeding condition was initiated as early as April in N. hildebrandi 
and May in N. baileyi (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 353; Dinkins and Shute 
1996, p. 56). Fecundity varied among the species for which data were 
available; however, it should be noted that fecundity in madtoms is 
generally lower in comparison to other North American freshwater fishes 
(Breder and Rosen 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 58). Dinkins and 
Shute (1996, p. 58) commented that for N. baileyi the combination of 
relatively large egg size and high level of parental care given to the 
fertilized eggs and larvae reduce early mortality and therefore the 
need to produce a large number of young. Sexual dimorphism (two 
different forms for male and female individuals) has been observed only 
in a single pair of specimens of N. baileyi collected during the month 
of May; the male of this pair had swollen lips and enlarged mandibulae 
(lower jaw) muscles behind the eyes, and the female had a distended 
abdomen (Burr et al. 2005, p. 795).
    Both Noturus baileyi and N. elegans were found to nest under flat 
rocks at or near the head of riffles (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56; 
Burr and Dimmick 1981, p. 116). Shallow pools were also used by N. 
baileyi, which was observed to select rocks of larger dimension for 
nesting than were used for shelter during other times of year (Dinkins 
and Shute 1996, p. 56). Single madtoms were found to guard nests in N. 
baileyi and N. elegans, behavior also exhibited by N. albater and N. 
hildebrandi (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr and Dimmick 1981, p. 
116; Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337; Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 357). Males 
of these species were the nest guardians and many were found to have 
empty stomachs suggesting that they do not feed during nest guarding, 
which can last as long as 3 weeks.
    Conservation Fisheries, Inc., had one male chucky madtom in 
captivity from 2004 through 2008. However, based on information from 
other members of this genus for which longevity data are available, 
Noturus hildebrandi and N. baileyi, it is unlikely that chucky madtoms 
can survive this long in the wild. The shorter lived of these, N. 
hildebrandi reached a maximum age of 18 months, though most individuals 
lived little more than 12 months, dying soon after reproducing (Mayden 
and Walsh 1984, p. 351). Based on length-frequency distributions, N. 
baileyi exhibited a lifespan of 2 years, with two cohorts present in a 
given year (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 53). Collection of two age 
classes together provided evidence that life expectancy exceeds 1 year 
in N. stanauli (Etnier and Jenkins 1980, p. 20). Noturus albater lives 
as long as 3 years (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337).
    Invertebrate taxa form the primary food base for madtoms. 
Chironomid (midge), trichopteran (caddisfly), plecopteran (stonefly), 
and ephemeropteran (mayfly) larvae were frequently encountered in 
stomach contents of Noturus hildebrandi (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 
339). In N. baileyi, ephemeropteran nymphs comprised 70.7 percent of 
stomach contents analyzed, dipterans (flies, mosquitoes, midges, and 
gnats) 2.4 percent, trichopterans 4.4 percent, and plecopterans 1.0 
percent (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 61). Significant daytime feeding 
was observed in N. baileyi.
    The only data on mobility were for Noturus baileyi, which were 
found underneath slabrocks in swift to moderate current during May to 
early November. Habitat use shifted to shallow pools over the course of 
a 1-week period, coinciding with a drop in water temperature to 7 or 
8[deg] C (45 to 46 [deg] F), and persisted from early November to May 
(Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 50).
    The current range of the chucky madtom is believed to be restricted 
to an approximately 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of Little Chucky Creek in 
Greene County, Tennessee. Because this species was also collected from 
Dunn Creek, a stream that is in a different watershed and physiographic 
province than Little Chucky Creek, it is likely that the historic range 
of the chucky madtom encompassed a wider area in the Ridge and Valley 
and the Blue Ridge physiographic provinces in Tennessee than is 
demonstrated by its current distribution. A survey for the chucky 
madtom in Dunn Creek in 1996 was not successful at locating the species 
(Shute et al. 1997, p. 8). The Dunn Creek population may be extirpated 
(Shute et al. 1997, p. 6; Burr et al. 2005, p. 797), because adequate 
habitat and a diverse fish community were present at the time of the 
surveys, but no chucky madtoms were found. There are no population size 
estimates or status trends for the chucky madtom due to low numbers and 
only sporadic collections of specimens.
    The chucky madtom is ranked by the Tennessee Natural Heritage 
Program (Withers 2009, p. 58) as an S1G1 species: extremely rare in 
Tennessee, and critically imperiled globally. In the Tennessee 
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), species of 
Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) were selected based on their Global 
imperilment (G1-G3; critically imperiled globally--very rare or 
restricted throughout their range), knowledge of declining trends or 
vulnerability, or due to significance of an otherwise wide-ranging 
species (TWRA 2005, p. 36). Species of GCN were further prioritized 
into three different tiers to distinguish their status within the State 
and to determine conservation funding availability. The CWCS designated 
the chucky madtom as a Tier 1 GCN species in the State, representing 
species defined as wildlife (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals, 
reptiles, crustaceans, and mollusks) under Tennessee Code Annotated 70-
8-101, and excluding Federally listed species (TWRA 2005, p. 44, 49). 
Tier 1 species were the primary focus of the Tennessee CWCS (TWRA 2005, 
p. 44).
Laurel Dace
    The laurel dace (Phoxinus saylori) has two continuous black lateral 
stripes and black pigment covering the breast and underside of the head 
of nuptial (breeding) males (Skelton 2001, p. 120). While the belly, 
breast, and lower half of the head are typically a whitish-silvery 
color, at any time of the year laurel dace may develop red coloration 
below the lateral stripe that extends from the base of the pectoral 
fins to the base of the caudal fin (Skelton 2001, p. 121).
    Nuptial males often acquire brilliant coloration during the 
breeding season, as the two lateral stripes, breast, and underside of 
head turn intensely black and the entire ventral (lower/abdominal) 
portion of the body, contiguous with the lower black stripe and black 
breast, becomes an intense scarlet color. All of the fins acquire a 
yellow color, which is most intense in the paired fins and less intense 
in the dorsal, anal, and caudal fins. Females also develop most of 
these colors, though of lesser intensity (Skelton 2001, p. 121). 
Broadly rounded pectoral fins of males are easily discerned from the 
broadly pointed fins of females at any time during the year. The 
maximum SL

[[Page 36041]]

observed is 5.1 cm (2 in) (Skelton 2001, p. 124).
    Laurel dace have been most often collected from pools or slow runs 
from undercut banks or beneath slab boulders, typically in first or 
second order, clear, cool (maximum temperature 26[deg] C or 78.8[deg] 
F) streams. Substrates in streams where laurel dace are found typically 
consist of a mixture of cobble, rubble, and boulders, and the streams 
tend to have a dense riparian zone consisting largely of mountain 
laurel (Skelton 2001, pp. 125-126).
    Skelton (2001, p. 126) reported having collected nuptial 
individuals from late March until mid-June, though Call (Call 2004, 
pers. obs.) observed males in waning nuptial color during surveys on 
July 22, 2004. Laurel dace may be a spawning nest associate where 
syntopic (sharing the same habitat) with nest-building minnow species, 
as has been documented in Phoxinus cumberlandensis (Starnes and Starnes 
1981, p. 366). Soddy Creek is the only location in which Skelton (2001, 
p. 126) has collected a nest-building minnow with laurel dace. Skelton 
(2001, p. 126) reports finding as many as three year classes in some 
collections of laurel dace, though young-of-year fish are uncommon in 
collections. Observations of three year classes indicate that laurel 
dace live as long as 3 years.
    Skelton (2001, p. 126) qualitatively analyzed stomach contents of 
12 laurel dace and found the species eats a mixture of food items, 
dominantly benthic invertebrates, including Trichopteran, Plecopteran, 
and Dipteran larva. Some intestines contained plant material and sand 
grains. Skelton observed that the morphological feeding traits of 
laurel dace, including large mouth, short digestive tract, reduced 
number of pharyngeal (located within the throat) teeth, and primitively 
shaped basioccipital bone (bone that articulates the vertebra) are 
consistent with a diet consisting largely of animal material.
    Laurel dace are known historically from seven streams on the Walden 
Ridge portion of the Cumberland Plateau, where drainages generally 
meander eastward before dropping abruptly down the plateau escarpment 
and draining into the Tennessee River. Specifically, these seven 
streams occur in three independent systems: Soddy Creek; three streams 
that are part of the Sale Creek system (the Horn and Laurel branch 
tributaries to Rock Creek, and the Cupp Creek tributary to Roaring 
Creek); and three streams that are part of the Piney River system 
(Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks). Skelton (2001, p. 126) 
considered collections by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) during a 
rotenone survey of Laurel Branch in 1976 to represent laurel dace that 
were misidentified as southern redbelly dace, as was found to be true 
for specimens collected by TVA from Horn Branch in 1976, but no 
specimens are available for confirmation. In 1991, and in four other 
surveys (in 1995, 1996 and 2004), laurel dace were not collected in 
Laurel Branch, leading Skelton to the conclusion that laurel dace have 
been extirpated from this stream (Skelton 1997, p. 13; 2001, p. 126, 
Skelton 2009, pers. comm.). Skelton (2009, pers. comm.) also noted that 
the site was impacted by silt.
    The current distribution of laurel dace comprises six of the seven 
streams that were historically occupied; the species is considered 
extirpated from Laurel Branch (see above). In these six streams, they 
are known to occupy reaches of approximately 0.3 to 8 km (0.2 to 5 mi) 
in length. The laurel dace is known from a single reach in Soddy Creek, 
and surveys in 2004 produced only a single, juvenile laurel dace 
(Strange and Skelton 2005, pp. 5-6 and Appendices 1 and 2). In Horn 
Branch, laurel dace are known from approximately 900 m (2,953 ft), but 
have become increasingly difficult to collect (Skelton 1997, pp. 13-
14). Skelton (1997, p. 14) reports that minnow traps have been the most 
successful method for collecting live laurel dace from Horn Branch, as 
it is difficult to electroshock due to in-stream rock formations and 
fallen trees. Only a single juvenile was caught in 2004 (Strange and 
Skelton 2005, p. 6). A total of 19 laurel dace were collected from Cupp 
Creek during 1995 and 1996 using an electroshocker (Skelton 1996, p. 
14). However, Skelton found no laurel dace in this stream in 2004, 
despite attempts to collect throughout an approximately 700-m (2,297-
ft) reach (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6).
    Laurel dace were initially found in Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee 
creeks in the Piney River system in 1996 (Skelton 1997, pp. 14-15). 
Sampling in 2004 led to the discovery of additional laurel dace 
localities in Young's and Moccasin creeks, but the locality where 
laurel dace were found in Young's Creek in 1996 was inaccessible due to 
the presence of a locked gate (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6-7). The 
new localities were in the headwaters of these two streams. Persistence 
of laurel dace at the Bumbee Creek locality was confirmed in 2004 by 
surveying from a nearby road using binoculars. Direct surveys were not 
possible because the land had been leased to a hunt club for which 
contact information was not available, and therefore survey permission 
could not be obtained (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 7). Nuptial males 
are easily identified from other species present in Bumbee Creek due to 
their brilliant coloration during the breeding season, as the two 
lateral stripes, breast, and underside of head turn intensely black and 
the entire ventral (lower/abdominal) portion of the body, contiguous 
with the lower black stripe and black breast, becomes an intense 
scarlet color. This brilliant coloration is easily seen through 
binoculars at short distances by trained individuals.
    No population estimates are available for laurel dace. However, 
based on trends observed in surveys and collections since 1991, Strange 
and Skelton (2005, p. 8) concluded that this species is persisting in 
Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks in the Piney River watershed, but 
is at risk of extirpation from the southern part of Walden Ridge in 
Soddy Creek, and in the Horn Branch and Cupp Creek areas that are 
tributaries to Sale Creek. As noted above, the species is considered to 
be extirpated from Laurel Branch, which is part of the Sale Creek 
system.
    The laurel dace is ranked by the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program 
(Withers 2009, p. 60) as an S1G1 species: extremely rare in Tennessee, 
and critically imperiled globally.
    In the Tennessee CWCS, species of GCN were selected based on their 
Global imperilment (G1-G3; critically imperiled globally--very rare or 
restricted throughout their range), knowledge of declining trends or 
vulnerability, or due to significance of an otherwise wide-ranging 
species (TWRA 2005, p. 36). Species of GCN were further prioritized 
into three different tiers to distinguish their status within the State 
and to determine conservation funding availability. The CWCS designated 
the laurel dace as a Tier-1 GCN species in the State, representing 
species defined as wildlife (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals, 
reptiles, crustaceans, and mollusks) under Tennessee Code Annotated 70-
8-101, and excluding federally listed species (TWRA 2005, p. 44, 49). 
Tier 1 species were the primary focus of the Tennessee CWCS(TWRA 2005, 
p. 44).

Previous Federal Action

Cumberland Darter
    On September 18, 1985, the Service announced that the Cumberland 
darter was being considered for possible addition to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 FR 37958). It was assigned a 
Category 2 status, which was given to those species for which the 
Service possessed information

[[Page 36042]]

indicating that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was 
possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological 
vulnerability and threat was not currently available to support 
proposed rules. In the 1989, 1991, and 1994 Candidate Notices of 
Review, the Cumberland darter was again assigned a Category 2 status 
(54 FR 554, 56 FR 58804, 59 FR 58982).
    Assigning categories to candidate species was discontinued in 1996, 
and only species for which the Service had sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed 
rule were regarded as candidate species (61 FR 7596). Candidate species 
were also assigned listing priority numbers based on immediacy and the 
magnitude of threat, as well as their taxonomic status. In the 1999, 
2001, 2002, and 2004 Candidate Notices of Review, the Cumberland darter 
was identified as a listing priority 6 candidate species (64 FR 57533, 
66 FR 54807, 67 FR 40657, 69 FR 24875). We published a petition finding 
for Cumberland darter in the 2005 Candidate Notice of Review (70 FR 
24869) in response to a petition received on May 11, 2004. We continued 
to assign the Cumberland darter a listing priority number of 6, 
reflecting a threat magnitude and immediacy of high and non-imminent, 
respectively. In the 2006 Candidate Notice of Review, we changed the 
listing priority number for Cumberland darter from 6 to 5, because it 
was formally described as a distinct species (71 FR 53755). Based on 
new molecular evidence, the subspecies Etheostoma nigrum susanae was 
elevated to specific status, Etheostoma susanae. The Cumberland darter 
continued to be recognized as a listing priority 5 candidate in the 
2009 Candidate Notice of Review (74 FR 57869).
Rush Darter
    We first identified the rush darter as a candidate for listing in 
the 2002 Candidate Notice of Review (67 FR 40657). The rush darter was 
assigned a listing priority number of 5. In the 2004 (69 FR 24875) and 
2005 (70 FR 24869) Candidate Notice of Review, the rush darter retained 
a listing priority number of 5. We published a petition finding for 
rush darter in the 2005 Candidate Notice of Review (70 FR 24869) in 
response to a petition received on May 11, 2004. The rush darter 
retained a listing priority number of 5 in the 2005 Candidate Notice of 
Review (70 FR 24869), in accordance with our priority guidance 
published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098).
    In 2006, we changed the listing priority number of the rush darter 
from 5 to 2 based on the imminent threat of water quality deterioration 
(i.e., increased sedimentation due to urbanization, road maintenance, 
and silviculture practices) (71 FR 53755). In the 2009 Candidate Notice 
of Review (74 FR 57869), the rush darter retained a listing priority of 
2.
Yellowcheek Darter
    We first identified the yellowcheek darter as a candidate for 
listing in the 2001 Candidate Notice of Review (66 FR 54807). The 
yellowcheek darter was assigned a listing priority number of 2 and has 
retained that status in the 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 
2009 Candidate Notices of Review (67 FR 40657, 69 FR 24875, 70 FR 
24869, 71 FR 53755, 72 FR 69073, 73 FR 75175). We published a petition 
finding for yellowcheek darter in the 2005 Candidate Notice of Review 
in response to a petition received on May 11, 2004 (70 FR 24869). The 
yellowcheek darter is covered by a 2007 programmatic Candidate 
Conservation Agreement with Assurances (71 FR 53129) that covers the 
entire range of the species.
Chucky Madtom
    We first identified the chucky madtom as a possible candidate for 
listing in the 1994 Candidate Notice of Review (59 FR 58982). It was 
assigned a Category 2 status, which was given to those species for 
which the Service possessed information indicating that proposing to 
list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for 
which persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat was not 
currently available to support proposed rules. In the 2002, 2004, 2005, 
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Candidate Notices of Review, the chucky 
madtom was again identified as a listing priority 2 candidate species 
(67 FR 40657, 69 FR 24875, 70 FR 24869, 71 FR 53755, 72 FR 69033, 73 FR 
75236, 74 FR 57869).
    We published a petition finding for chucky madtom in the 2005 
Candidate Notice of Review (70 FR 24869) in response to a petition 
received on May 11, 2004, stating the chucky madtom would retain a 
listing priority of 2.
    In 1994, the chucky madtom was first added to the candidate list as 
Noturus sp. (59 FR 58982). Subsequently, and based on morphological and 
molecular evidence, the chucky madtom was formally described as a 
distinct species, Noturus crypticus (Burr et al. 2005). We included 
this new information in the 2006 Candidate Notice of Review (71 FR 
53755).
Laurel Dace
    We first identified the laurel dace as a new candidate for listing 
in the 2007 Candidate Notice of Review (72 FR 69036). New candidates 
are those taxa for which we have sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, 
but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other 
higher priority listing activities.
    In the 2007 Candidate Notice of Review, we assigned the laurel dace 
a listing priority of 5 (72 FR 69036), and it was again identified as a 
listing priority 5 candidate species in the 2008 and 2009 Candidate 
Notices of Review (73 FR 75236, 74 FR 57869). This number reflects the 
high magnitude and non-imminence of threats to the species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C 1533), and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR Part 424), set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. We may determine a species to be endangered or threatened due 
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. The five listing factors are: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

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

    The primary threat to the Cumberland darter, rush darter, 
yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace is physical habitat 
destruction/modification resulting from a variety of human-induced 
impacts such as siltation, disturbance of riparian corridors, and 
changes in channel morphology (Waters 1995, pp. 2-3; Skelton 1997, pp. 
17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5). The most significant of these impacts is 
siltation (excess sediments suspended or deposited in a stream) caused 
by excessive releases of sediment from activities such as resource 
extraction (e.g., coal mining, silviculture, natural gas development), 
agriculture, road construction, and

[[Page 36043]]

urban development (Waters 1995, pp. 2-3; KDOW 2006, pp. 178-185; 
Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5).
    Land use practices that affect sediment and water discharges into a 
stream can also increase the erosion or sedimentation pattern of the 
stream, which can lead to the destruction or modification of in-stream 
habitat and riparian vegetation, stream bank collapse, and increased 
water turbidity and temperature. Sediment has been shown to abrade and 
or suffocate bottom-dwelling algae and other organisms by clogging 
gills; reducing aquatic insect diversity and abundance; impairing fish 
feeding behavior by altering prey base and reducing visibility of prey; 
impairing reproduction due to burial of nests; and, ultimately, 
negatively impacting fish growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters 
1995, pp. 5-7, 55-62; Knight and Welch 2001, pp. 134-136). Wood and 
Armitage (1997, pp. 211-212) identified at least five impacts of 
sedimentation on fish, including (1) reduction of growth rate, disease 
tolerance, and gill function; (2) reduction of spawning habitat and 
egg, larvae, and juvenile development; (3) modification of migration 
patterns; (4) reduction of food availability through the blockage of 
primary production; and (5) reduction of foraging efficiency. The 
effects of these types of threats will likely increase as development 
increases in these watersheds.
    Non-point source pollution from land surface runoff can originate 
from virtually any land use activity and may be correlated with 
impervious surfaces and storm water runoff. Pollutants may include 
sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic 
tank and gray water leakage, pharmaceuticals, and petroleum products. 
These pollutants tend to increase concentrations of nutrients and 
toxins in the water and alter the chemistry of affected streams such 
that the habitat and food sources for species like the Cumberland 
darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace 
are negatively impacted. Construction and road maintenance activities 
associated with urban development typically involve earth-moving 
activities that increase sediment loads into nearby streams. Other 
siltation sources, including timber harvesting, natural gas development 
activities, clearing of riparian vegetation, mining, and agricultural 
practices, allow exposed earth to enter streams during or after 
precipitation events. These activities result in canopy removal, 
elevated stream temperatures, and increased siltation, thereby 
degrading habitats used by fishes for both feeding and reproduction 
(Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). Undisturbed riparian corridors are 
important because they prevent elevated stream temperatures due to 
solar heating, serve as buffers against non-point source pollutants, 
provide submerged root materials for cover and feeding, and help to 
stabilize stream banks (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5).
Cumberland Darter
    The Cumberland darter's preferred habitat characteristics (i.e., 
low- to moderate-gradient, low current velocity, backwater nature) make 
it extremely susceptible to the effects of siltation (O'Bara 1991, p. 
11). Sediment (siltation) has been listed repeatedly by the Kentucky 
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (Division of 
Water) as the most common stressor of aquatic communities in the upper 
Cumberland River basin (KDOW 1996, pp. 50-53, 71-75; 2002, pp. 39-40; 
2006, pp. 178-185). The primary source of sediment was identified as 
resource extraction (e.g., coal mining, logging). The streams within 
the Cumberland darter's current range that are identified as impaired 
(due to siltation from mining, logging, and agricultural activities) 
and have been included on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters 
(KDOW 2007, pp. 155-166) include Jenneys Branch (Indian Creek basin), 
an unnamed tributary of Jenneys Branch (Indian Creek basin), Ryans 
Creek (Jellico Creek basin), Marsh Creek, and Wolf Creek (Clear Fork 
basin).
    Siltation can also occur in the Cumberland darter's known habitat 
as a result of construction activities for human development. For 
example, during the fall of 2007, an 8.4-km (5.2-mi) reach of Barren 
Fork in McCreary County, Kentucky, was subjected to a severe 
sedimentation event (Floyd 2008, pers. obs.). This event occurred 
despite the fact that approximately 95 percent of the Barren Fork 
watershed is under Federal ownership within the Daniel Boone National 
Forest (DBNF). Construction activities associated with the development 
of a 40.47-hectare (100-acre) park site caused excessive sedimentation 
of two unnamed headwater tributaries of B