Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) Rule, 60961-60988 [2015-25278]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 195
October 8, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) Rule; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60962
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2015–0132;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d)
Rule
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Kentucky arrow darter
(Etheostoma spilotum), a fish species
from the upper Kentucky River basin in
Kentucky, as a threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we
finalize this rule as proposed, it would
extend the Act’s protections to this
species.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
December 7, 2015. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by November 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2015–0132, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2015–
0132; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite
265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone
502–695–0468, x108; facsimile 502–
695–1024. 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 (Act), if we
find that a species may be an
endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposed rule to list the
species in the Federal Register and
make a final determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species
can only be completed by issuing a rule.
This rule proposes the listing of the
Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma
spilotum) as a threatened species. The
Kentucky arrow darter is a candidate
species for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for
which development of a listing rule has
until now been precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. This
rule assesses all available information
regarding the status of and threats to the
Kentucky arrow darter. Elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register, we propose to
designate critical habitat for the
Kentucky arrow darter under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that the Kentucky
arrow darter warrants listing based on
three of the five factors (A, D, and E).
We will seek peer review. We will seek
comments from independent specialists
to ensure that our listing determination
is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment
on our listing proposal. Because we will
consider all comments and information
we receive during the comment period,
our final determination may differ from
this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The Kentucky arrow darter’s
biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
(4) Whether measures outlined in the
proposed species-specific rule under
section 4(d) of the Act are necessary and
advisable for the conservation and
management of the Kentucky arrow
darter.
(5) Additional provisions that may be
appropriate to except incidental take as
a result of other categories of activities
beyond those covered by this proposed
species-specific rule and, if so, under
what conditions and with what
conservation measures, in order to
conserve, recover, and manage the
Kentucky arrow darter.
(6) Comments and suggestions,
particularly from Federal agencies and
other interested stakeholders that may
be affected by the 4(d), regarding
additional guidance and methods that
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Service could provide or utilize,
respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this 4(d) rule.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests for a
public hearing must be received within
45 days after the date of publication of
this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of five
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that
our listing determination is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. The peer reviewers have
expertise in the Kentucky arrow darter’s
biology, habitat, threats, etc., which will
inform our determination. We will
invite comment from the peer reviewers
during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Action
The Kentucky arrow darter was first
identified as a candidate for protection
under the Act in the November 10,
2010, Federal Register (75 FR 69222).
Candidate species are those fish,
wildlife, and plants for which we have
on file 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.
Candidates are assigned listing priority
numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy
and the magnitude of threats, as well as
the species’ taxonomic status. A lower
LPN corresponds to a higher
conservation priority, and we consider
the LPN when prioritizing and funding
conservation actions. In our 2010
candidate notice of review (CNOR) (75
FR 69222), we identified the species as
having an LPN of 3, in accordance with
our priority guidance published on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An
LPN of 3 reflects a subspecies with
imminent, high magnitude threats. The
Kentucky arrow darter was included in
all of our subsequent annual CNORs (76
FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR
70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR
72450, December 5, 2014). On
November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), we
changed the LPN for the Kentucky
arrow darter from 3 to 2 based on a
change in the species’ taxonomic status
(change from subspecies to species
rank). In our 2014 CNOR (79 FR 72450),
we retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
Background
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
The Kentucky arrow darter,
Etheostoma spilotum Gilbert, is a small
and compressed fish, which reaches a
maximum length of about 120
millimeters (mm) (4.7 inches (in)). It has
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60963
a slender body, elongated snout,
relatively large mouth, and virtually
scaleless head (Kuehne and Barbour
1983, p. 71; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p.
523). The Kentucky arrow darter’s
background color is straw yellow to pale
greenish, and the body is also covered
by a variety of stripes and blotches. The
back is crossed by 5 to 7 weak dorsal
saddles, some of which may fuse with
the 8 to 11 vertical lateral blotches
(Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71; Etnier
and Starnes 1993, p. 523). The blotches
are generally oval with pale centers at
the front of the body but extend
downward and may resemble the letters
N, W, U, or V toward the back of the
body. A dark vertical bar occurs at the
base of the caudal fin, sometimes
separated by two distinct spots. The
belly is pale (Kuehne and Barbour 1983,
p. 71). During the spawning season,
breeding males exhibit vibrant
coloration. Most of the body is bluegreen in color, with scattered scarlet
spots and scarlet to orange vertical bars
laterally; the vertical bars can be
connected ventrally by an orange belly
stripe (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523).
The spinous dorsal fin exhibits a bluegreen central band and a scarlet
marginal band. The soft dorsal and
caudal fins are speckled with scarlet
blotches or bands, and the anal and
pelvic fins are blue-green to black.
Females remain pale straw yellow with
grayish markings (Etnier and Starnes
1993, p. 523). Morphological differences
between the Kentucky arrow darter and
other darters make misidentifications
unlikely. The species can be easily
differentiated by its elongated snout, its
oval or diamond-shaped lateral
blotches, and its large size (for
individuals greater than 100 mm (3.9 in)
total length (TL)).
The Kentucky arrow darter belongs to
the Class Actinopterygii (ray-finned
fishes), Order Perciformes, and Family
Percidae (perches) (Etnier and Starnes
1993, pp. 18–25; Page and Burr 2011, p.
569). The species was described from
the Kentucky River basin (Sturgeon
Creek, Owsley County) as Etheostoma
nianguae spilotum (Gilbert 1887, pp.
53–54), but was later recognized and
accepted as one of two subspecies of the
arrow darter, E. sagitta (Jordan and
Swain) (Bailey 1948, pp. 80–84; Kuehne
and Bailey 1961, pp. 1–5; Kuehne and
Barbour 1983, p. 71; Burr and Warren
1986, p. 316). Thomas and Johansen
(2008, p. 46) questioned the subspecies
status of E. sagitta by arguing that (1) the
two subspecies, E. sagitta sagitta and E.
sagitta spilotum, were distinguishable
based on scale size and development of
the lateral line (see note below); (2) the
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60964
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
two subspecies existed in allopatry
(separate ranges with no overlap); (3)
the two subspecies lacked intergrades
(intermediate forms); and (4)
unpublished genetic data
(mitochondrial DNA) suggested
evolutionary independence of Kentucky
and Cumberland basin populations
(with no recent genetic exchange).
Based on these analyses, the two arrow
darter subspecies have been elevated to
species rank (Page and Burr 2011, p.
569; Eschmeyer 2014, p. 1). The
Cumberland arrow darter, E. sagitta
(Jordan and Swain), is restricted to the
upper Cumberland River basin in
Kentucky and Tennessee, and the
Kentucky arrow darter, E. spilotum
Gilbert, is restricted to the upper
Kentucky River basin in Kentucky.
Habitat and Life History
Kentucky arrow darters typically
inhabit pools or transitional areas
between riffles and pools (glides and
runs) in moderate- to high-gradient,
first- to third-order streams with rocky
substrates (Thomas 2008, p. 6). The
species is most often observed near
some type of cover—boulders, rock
ledges, large cobble, or woody debris
piles. During spawning (April to June),
the species will utilize riffle habitats
with moderate flow (Kuehne and
Barbour 1983, p. 71). Thomas (2008, p.
6) observed Kentucky arrow darters at
depths ranging from 10 to 45
centimeters (cm) (4 to 18 in) and in
streams ranging from 1.5 to 20 meters
(m) (4.9 to 65.6 feet (ft)) wide. Kentucky
arrow darters typically occupy streams
with watersheds of 25.9 square
kilometers (km2) (10 square miles (mi2))
or less, and many of these habitats,
especially those in first-order reaches,
can be intermittent in nature (Thomas
2008, pp. 6–9). During drier periods
(late summer or fall), some Kentucky
arrow darter streams may cease flowing,
but the species appears to survive these
conditions by retreating into shaded,
isolated pools or by dispersing into
larger tributaries (Lotrich 1973, p. 394;
Lowe 1979, p. 26; Etnier and Starnes
1993, p. 523; Service unpublished data).
Lotrich (1973, p. 394) observed riffle
habitats in Clemons Fork (Breathitt
County) that were completely dry by
late summer, but shaded isolated pools
in these habitats continued to support
Kentucky arrow darters.
Male Kentucky arrow darters establish
territories over riffles from March to
May, when they are quite conspicuous
in water 5 to 15 cm (2 to 6 in) deep
(Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71).
Males fan out a depression in the
substrate and defend these sites
vigorously. Initial courtship behavior
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
involves rapid dashes, fin-flaring,
nudging, and quivering motions by the
male followed by similar quivering
responses of the female, who then
precedes the male to the nest. The
female partially buries herself in the
substrate, is mounted by the male, and
spawning occurs (Etnier and Starnes
1993, p. 523). It is assumed that the
male continues to defend the nest until
the eggs have hatched. The spawning
period extends from April to June, but
peak activity occurs when water
temperatures reach 13 degrees Celsius
(°C) (55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)),
typically in mid-April (Bailey 1948, pp.
82–84; Lowe 1979, p. 44). Females
produce between 200 and 600 eggs per
season, with tremendous variation
resulting from size, age, condition of
females, and stream temperature (Rakes
2014, pers. comm.).
Young Kentucky arrow darters can
exceed 25 mm (1 in) TL by mid-June
and can reach 50 mm (2 in) in length by
the end of the first year (Lotrich 1973,
pp. 384–385; Lowe 1979, pp. 44–48;
Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). Oneyear olds are generally sexually mature
and participate in spawning with older
age classes (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p.
523). Lotrich (1973, p. 384) reported a
mean length at age 2 of about 65 mm
(2.6 in) but was unable to differentiate
between older age classes (age 3+). Lowe
(1979, p. 38) reported four age classes
for the closely related Cumberland
arrow darter, but growth was variable
after age 1. Juvenile Kentucky arrow
darters can be found throughout the
channel but are often observed in
shallow water along stream margins
near root mats, rock ledges, or some
other cover. As stream flow lessens and
riffles begin to shrink, most Kentucky
arrow darters move into pools and tend
to remain there even when summer and
autumn rains restore stream flow
(Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71).
Limited information exists with
regard to upstream or downstream
movements of Kentucky arrow darters;
however, preliminary findings from a
movement study at Eastern Kentucky
University (EKU) and a reintroduction
project on the Daniel Boone National
Forest (DBNF) suggest that Kentucky
arrow darters can move considerable
distances (Baxter 2014, pers. comm.;
Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.).
The EKU study is using PIT-tags
(electronic tags placed under the skin)
and placed antenna systems (installed
in the stream bottom) to monitor intraand inter-tributary movement of
Kentucky arrow darters in Gilberts Big
Creek and Elisha Creek, two secondorder tributaries of Red Bird River in
Clay and Leslie Counties (Baxter 2014,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pers. comm.). PIT-tags have been placed
in a total of 126 individuals, and
Kentucky arrow darter movements have
been tracked since December 2013.
Recorded movements have ranged from
134 m (439 ft) (upstream movement) to
4,078 m (13,379 ft or 2.5 mi)
(downstream movement by a female in
Elisha Creek). Intermediate recorded
movements have included 328 m (1,076
ft) (downstream), 351 m (1,151 ft)
(upstream), 900 m (2,952 ft) (upstream/
downstream), 950 m (3,116 ft)
(downstream), 1,282 m (4,028 ft)
(downstream), and 1,708 m (5,603 ft)
(downstream).
Since 2012, the Kentucky Department
of Fish and Wildlife Resources
(KDFWR) has been releasing captivebred Kentucky arrow darters into Long
Fork, a DBNF stream and first-order
tributary to Hector Branch in eastern
Clay County, Kentucky, where the
species had been extirpated. A total of
1,447 captive-spawned KADs (about 50–
55 mm TL) have been tagged and
reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi)
reach of Long Fork. Monitoring has been
conducted on multiple occasions since
the initial release using visual searches
and seining methods. Tagged darters
have been observed during each
monitoring event, with numbers
increasing since the reintroduction
began in 2012. Untagged individuals
began to appear in Long Fork in 2013,
indicating natural reproduction in Long
Fork. In 2015, KDFWR observed five
untagged individuals (47–58 mm TL)
and one tagged individual (90 mm TL)
in Hector Branch, approximately 0.6 km
(0.4 mi) upstream of its confluence with
Long Fork, and they also observed four
untagged individuals (44–52 mm TL) in
Deerlick Branch, a first-order tributary
of Hector Branch, approximately 1.0 km
(0.6 mi) downstream of the confluence
of Long Fork and Hector Branch
(Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.). Based on
these results, it is evident that at least
some Kentucky arrow darters have
moved out of Long Fork into other parts
of the Hector Creek drainage. It is
impossible to determine if the untagged
fish were spawned in Long Fork or
Hector Branch; however, the former
scenario is most likely given the poor
water quality and habitat conditions in
Hector Branch and the lack of collection
records in Hector Branch prior to
reintroduction efforts. Considering the
water quality and habitat conditions in
Hector Branch, it is also plausible that
the individuals captured in Hector
Branch were in transit seeking higher
quality habitat (e.g., small tributaries).
Based on these results, it is clear that
young Kentucky arrow darters can
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
disperse both upstream and downstream
from their place of origin and can move
considerable distances.
Additional insight into possibility of
interstream dispersal can be gained from
the closely related Cumberland arrow
darter. Lowe (1979, pp. 26–27) observed
potential movement behavior for the
Cumberland arrow darter in Tennessee.
During field observations in January and
February 1975, no Cumberland arrow
darters were observed near the mouth of
No Business Creek, a tributary of
Hickory Creek in Campbell County,
Tennessee, and downstream of a
perched culvert. During a subsequent
survey at this location, Lowe observed
a total of 34 Cumberland arrow darters,
a dramatic increase compared to
previous surveys. Lowe (1979, pp. 26–
27) considered it unlikely that the
Cumberland arrow darters originated
from upstream reaches of No Business
Creek because no individuals were
observed upstream of the culvert during
the length of the study and no
individuals had been observed at the
site during the previous week. The only
plausible explanation for the sudden
increase was that the Cumberland arrow
darters had migrated from Hickory
Creek or a nearby tributary of Hickory
Creek (e.g., Laurel Fork).
Kentucky arrow darters feed primarily
on mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera),
which comprised 77 percent of
identifiable food items (420 of 542
items) in 57 Kentucky arrow darter
stomachs from Clemons Fork, Breathitt
County (Lotrich 1973, p. 381). The
families Heptageniidae (genera
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Maccaffertium and Stenonema) and
Baetidae were the dominant mayflies in
examined stomachs of Cumberland
arrow darters in Tennessee (Lowe 1979,
pp. 35–36). Kentucky arrow darters
greater than 70 mm (2.8 in) TL often
feed on small crayfish, as 7 of 8
stomachs examined by Lotrich (1973, p.
381) from Clemons Fork contained
crayfishes ranging in size from 11 to 24
mm (0.4 to 0.9 in). Lotrich (1973, p. 381)
considered this to be noteworthy
because stomachs of small Kentucky
arrow darters (less than 70 mm (2.8 in)
TL) and stomachs of other darter species
did not contain crayfishes. He suggested
that larger individuals were utilizing a
different energy source, thus removing
themselves from direct competition for
food with other fishes in first- and
second-order streams. Lotrich (1973, p.
381) speculated that this would allow
these larger individuals to exploit an
abundant food source and survive in
extreme headwater habitats. Other food
items reported by Lotrich (1973, p. 381)
and Etnier and Starnes (1993, p. 523)
included larval blackflies (family
Simuliidae) and midges
(Chironomidae), with lesser amounts of
caddisfly larvae, stonefly nymphs, and
beetle larvae. Etnier and Starnes (1993,
p. 523) reported that juvenile arrow
darters feed on microcrustaceans and
dipteran larvae.
Common associates of the Kentucky
arrow darter include creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), central
stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum),
white sucker (Catastomus
commersonii), emerald darter
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60965
(Etheostoma baileyi), rainbow darter (E.
caeruleum), fantail darter (E. flabellare),
and Johnny darter (E. nigrum) (Kuehne
1962, p. 609; Lotrich 1973, p. 380;
Thomas 2008, p. 7). Within first-order
streams or headwater reaches, the
species is most commonly associated
with creek chub, central stoneroller, and
fantail darter.
Historical Range and Distribution
The Kentucky arrow darter occurred
historically in at least 74 streams in the
upper Kentucky River basin of eastern
Kentucky (Gilbert 1887, pp. 53–54;
Woolman 1892, pp. 275–281; Kuehne
and Bailey 1961, pp. 3–4; Kuehne 1962,
pp. 608–609; Branson and Batch 1972,
pp. 507–514; Lotrich 1973, p. 380;
Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81–83;
Harker et al. 1979, pp. 523–761;
Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37;
Branson and Batch 1983, pp. 2–13;
Branson and Batch 1984, pp. 4–8;
Kornman 1985, p. 28; Burr and Warren
1986, p. 316; Measel 1997, pp. 1–105;
Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; Stephens
1999, pp. 159–174; Ray and Ceas 2003,
p. 8; Kentucky State Nature Preserves
Commission (KSNPC) unpublished
data). Its distribution spanned portions
of 6 smaller sub-basins or watersheds
(North Fork Kentucky River, Middle
Fork Kentucky River, South Fork
Kentucky River, Silver Creek, Sturgeon
Creek, and Red River) in 10 Kentucky
counties (Breathitt, Clay, Harlan,
Jackson, Knott, Lee, Leslie, Owsley,
Perry, and Wolfe) (Thomas 2008, p. 3)
(Figure 1).
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The Kentucky arrow darter was first
reported from the upper Kentucky River
basin by Gilbert (1887, pp. 53–54), who
collected 12 specimens from Sturgeon
Creek near Travelers Rest, Owsley
County. Woolman (1892, pp. 275–281)
conducted more extensive surveys
throughout the basin in the summer of
1890, reporting the species from seven
additional streams: Big Creek, Cutshin
Creek, Hector Branch, Lotts Creek,
Middle Fork Kentucky River, Red Bird
River, and Troublesome Creek. Kuehne
and Bailey (1961, pp. 3–4) and Kuehne
(1962, pp. 608–614) surveyed additional
portions of the basin from 1954–1959,
observing the species in Sexton Creek,
Troublesome Creek (mainstem), and
nine smaller streams in the
Troublesome Creek watershed: Bear
Branch, Buckhorn Creek, Clemons Fork,
Coles Fork, Laurel Fork, Lewis Fork,
Long Fork, Millseat Branch, and Snag
Ridge Fork. From 1969–1978, biologists
from EKU and KSNPC documented the
species from an additional eight
streams: Buck Creek, Buffalo Creek,
Greasy Creek, Horse Creek, Jacks Creek,
Laurel Creek, Leatherwood Creek, and
Raccoon Creek (Branson and Batch
1972, pp. 507–514; Branson and Batch
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
1974, pp. 81–83; Harker et al. 1979, pp.
523–761; Branson and Batch 1983, pp.
2–13; Branson and Batch 1984, pp. 4–
8; Burr and Warren 1986, p. 316). The
number of known occurrences for the
Kentucky arrow darter increased
considerably during the 1990s (1990–
1999), when EKU, KDFWR, the
Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW),
and KSNPC completed surveys
throughout the basin, documenting the
species’ presence in a total of 46 streams
(Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; Stephens
1999, pp. 159–174; Ray and Ceas 2003,
p. 8; KSNPC unpublished data).
Current Range and Distribution
Based on surveys completed since
2006, extant populations of the
Kentucky arrow darter are known from
47 streams in the upper Kentucky River
basin in eastern Kentucky. These
populations are scattered across 6 subbasins (North Fork Kentucky River,
Middle Fork Kentucky River, South
Fork Kentucky River, Silver Creek,
Sturgeon Creek, and Red River) in 10
Kentucky counties: Breathitt, Clay,
Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Lee, Leslie,
Owsley, Perry, and Wolfe Counties
(Thomas 2008, pp. 3–6; Service
unpublished data). Populations in nine
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of these streams have been discovered
or established since 2006. Current
populations occur in the following
Kentucky River sub-basins (and smaller
watersheds):
• North Fork Kentucky River
(Troublesome, Quicksand, Frozen,
Holly, Lower Devil, Walker, and Hell
Creek watersheds);
• Middle Fork Kentucky River (Big
Laurel, Rockhouse, Hell For Certain
Creek, and Squabble Creek watersheds);
• South Fork Kentucky River (Red
Bird River, Hector Branch, and Goose,
Bullskin, Buffalo, and Lower Buffalo
Creek watersheds);
• Silver Creek;
• Sturgeon Creek (Travis, Wild Dog,
and Granny Dismal Creek watersheds);
and
• Red River (Rock Bridge Fork of
Swift Camp Creek).
Population Estimates and Status
The species’ status in all streams of
historical or recent occurrence is
summarized in Table 1, below, which is
organized by sub-basin, beginning at the
southeastern border (upstream end) of
the basin (North Fork Kentucky River)
and moving downstream. In this
proposed rule, the term ‘‘population’’ is
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
EP08OC15.001</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60966
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
used in a geographical context and not
in a genetic context, and is defined as
all individuals of the species living in
one stream. Using the term in this way
allows the status, trends, and threats to
be discussed comparatively across
streams where the species occurs. In
using this term, we do not imply that
the populations are currently
reproducing and recruiting or that they
are distinct genetic units. We
considered populations of the Kentucky
arrow darter as extant if live specimens
have been observed or collected since
2006, and suitable habitat is present.
We are using the following
generalized sets of criteria to categorize
the relative status of populations of 83
streams (74 historical and 9 nonhistorical discovered or established
since 2006) included in Table 1. The
status of a population is considered
‘‘stable’’ if: (1) There is little evidence of
significant habitat loss or degradation,
(2) darter abundance has remained
relatively constant or increased during
recent surveys, or (3) evidence of
relatively recent recruitment has been
documented since 2006. The status of a
population is considered ‘‘vulnerable’’
if: (1) There is ample evidence of
significant habitat loss or degradation
since the species’ original capture, (2)
there is an obvious decreasing trend in
60967
abundance since the historical
collection, or (3) no evidence of
relatively recent recruitment (since
2006) has been documented. The status
of a population is considered
‘‘extirpated’’ if: (1) All known suitable
habitat has been destroyed or severely
degraded; (2) no live individuals have
been observed since 2006; or (3) live
individuals have been observed since
2006, but habitat conditions do not
appear to be suitable for reproduction to
occur (e.g., elevated conductivity,
siltation) and there is supporting
evidence that the observed individuals
are transients from another stream.
TABLE 1—KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL (74) OR RECENT OCCURRENCE 1 (9;
NOTED IN BOLD) IN THE UPPER KENTUCKY RIVER BASIN
Sub-basin
Sub-basin tributaries
Stream 1
County
Current
status
North Fork .................
Lotts Creek ...............
Lotts Creek ...................................
Left Fork ........................................
Troublesome Creek ......................
Mill Creek ......................................
Laurel Fork (of Balls Fork) ............
Buckhorn Creek (Prince Fork) ......
Eli Fork 1 ......................................
Boughcamp Branch ......................
Coles Fork ....................................
Snag Ridge Fork ...........................
Clemons Fork ...............................
Millseat Branch .............................
Lewis Fork ....................................
Long Fork ......................................
Bear Branch ..................................
Laurel Fork (of Buckhorn) .............
Lost Creek ....................................
Laurel Fork ....................................
Baker Branch ................................
Middle Fork ...................................
Spring Fork 1 ...............................
Wolf Creek ....................................
Hunting Creek ...............................
Leatherwood Creek ......................
Bear Creek ....................................
Smith Branch ................................
Frozen Creek ................................
Clear Fork .....................................
Negro Branch ................................
Davis Creek ..................................
Cope Fork .....................................
Boone Fork ...................................
Holly Creek ...................................
Lower Devil Creek ........................
Little Fork 1 ..................................
Walker Creek ................................
Hell Creek .....................................
Big Laurel Creek ...........................
Greasy Creek ................................
Cutshin Creek ...............................
Middle Fork ...................................
Laurel Creek 1 ..............................
Hell For Certain Creek ..................
Perry .........................
Knott .........................
Perry .........................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Breathitt, Knott .........
Knott .........................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Knott .........................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Breathitt ....................
Wolfe ........................
Lee, Wolfe ................
Lee, Wolfe ................
Lee, Wolfe ................
Lee ...........................
Harlan .......................
Leslie ........................
Leslie ........................
Leslie ........................
Leslie ........................
Leslie ........................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Stable .......................
1890
1890
1890
1995
1995
2011
2011
2011
2011
2008
2013
1976
1959
1959
2015
1976
1997
2014
1994
2013
2013
1995
2013
1982
1969
1995
2013
2008
2008
2008
1995
1998
2007
1998
2011
2013
2013
2009
1970
1890
1890
2013
2013
Squabble Creek ............................
Blue Hole Creek ...........................
Upper Bear Creek .........................
Katies Creek .................................
Spring Creek .................................
Bowen Creek ................................
Perry .........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Leslie ........................
Vulnerable ................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
2015
2008
2013
2007
2007
2009
Quicksand Creek .....
Frozen Creek ...........
Holly Creek ..............
Lower Devil Creek ...
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Middle Fork ...............
Walker Creek ...........
Hell Creek ................
Greasy Creek ...........
South Fork ................
Cutshin Creek ..........
Middle Fork ..............
Rockhouse Creek ....
Hell For Certain
Creek.
Squabble Creek .......
Red Bird River .........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Date of last
observation
60968
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—KENTUCKY ARROW DARTER STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL (74) OR RECENT OCCURRENCE 1 (9;
NOTED IN BOLD) IN THE UPPER KENTUCKY RIVER BASIN—Continued
Stream 1
County
Current
status
Lower Island Creek ..
Cow Creek ...............
Buck Creek ..............
Lower Buffalo Creek
Sub-basin
Elisha Creek .................................
Gilberts Big Creek ........................
Sugar Creek 1 ..............................
Big Double Creek .........................
Little Double Creek .......................
Big Creek ......................................
Jacks Creek ..................................
Hector Branch ...............................
Long Fork (of Hector Br.) 1 ........
Horse Creek ..................................
Laurel Creek .................................
Bullskin Creek ...............................
Laurel Fork ....................................
Cortland Fork 1 ............................
Lucky Fork ....................................
Left Fork ........................................
Right Fork .....................................
Buffalo Creek ................................
Bray Creek ....................................
Robinsons Creek ..........................
Sexton Creek ................................
Lower Island Creek .......................
Right Fork Cow Creek ..................
Buck Creek ...................................
Lower Buffalo Creek .....................
Swift Camp Creek ....
Travis Creek 1 ..............................
Brushy Creek ................................
Little Sturgeon Creek ....................
Wild Dog Creek ............................
Granny Dismal Creek 1 ...............
Cooperas Cave Branch ................
Sturgeon Creek .............................
Rockbridge Fork ...........................
Leslie ........................
Clay, Leslie ..............
Clay, Leslie ..............
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Clay, Leslie ..............
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Clay ..........................
Clay ..........................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Owsley .....................
Lee, Owsley .............
Lee ...........................
Jackson ....................
Jackson, Owsley ......
Owsley .....................
Jackson, Owsley ......
Lee, Owsley .............
Lee ...........................
Lee ...........................
Wolfe ........................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Stable .......................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Stable .......................
Vulnerable ................
Extirpated .................
Extirpated .................
Vulnerable ................
Sub-basin tributaries
Goose Creek ............
Bullskin Creek ..........
Buffalo Creek ...........
Sexton Creek ...........
Silver Creek ..............
Sturgeon Creek ........
Red River ..................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 Non-historical
2014
2013
2008
2014
2008
1890
2009
2015
2014
2013
1970
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2009
1969
1997
1997
1978
1997
1997
1978
2007
2008
2008
1996
1996
2007
2013
1996
1998
2013
occurrence discovered or established since 2006.
From 2007–2012, the Service, KSNPC,
and KDFWR conducted a status review
for the Kentucky arrow darter (Thomas
2008, pp. 1–33; Service 2012, pp. 1–4).
Surveys were conducted qualitatively
using single-pass electrofishing
techniques (Smith-Root backpack
electrofishing unit) within an
approximate 100-m (328-ft) reach.
During these efforts, fish surveys were
conducted at 69 of 74 historical streams,
103 of 119 historical sites, and 40 new
(non-historical) sites (sites correspond
to individual sampling reaches and
more than one may be present on a
given stream). Kentucky arrow darters
were observed at 36 of 69 historical
streams (52 percent), 53 of 103 historical
sites (52 percent), and 4 of 40 new sites
(10 percent). New sites were specifically
selected based on habitat suitability and
the availability of previous collection
records (sites lacking previous
collections were chosen).
From June to September 2013, KSNPC
and the Service initiated a study that
included quantitative surveys at 80
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Date of last
observation
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
randomly chosen sites within the
species’ historical range (Service
unpublished data). Kentucky arrow
darters were observed at only seven
sites, including two new localities
(Granny Dismal Creek in Owsley County
and Spring Fork Quicksand Creek in
Breathitt County) and one historical
stream (Hunting Creek, Breathitt
County) where the species was not
observed during status surveys by
Thomas (2008, pp. 1–33) and Service
(2012, pp. 1–4).
During 2014–2015, additional
qualitative surveys (single-pass
electrofishing) were completed at over
20 sites within the basin. Kentucky
arrow darters were observed in Bear
Branch, Big Double Creek, Big Laurel
Creek, Bullskin Creek, Clemons Fork,
Coles Fork, Cortland Fork, Laurel Fork
Buffalo Creek, and Squabble Creek.
Based on the poor habitat conditions
observed in Bear Branch (e.g., elevated
conductivity, siltation, and embedded
substrates) and its close proximity to
Robinson Forest, we suspect that the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
few individuals observed in Bear
Branch were transients originating from
Clemons Fork.
Based on historical records and
survey data collected at over 200 sites
since 2006, the Kentucky arrow darter
has declined significantly rangewide
and has been eliminated from large
portions of its former range, including
36 of 74 historical streams (Figure 2)
and large portions of the basin that
would have been occupied historically
by the species (Figure 3). Forty-four
percent of the species’ extirpations (16
streams) have occurred since the mid1990s, and the species has disappeared
completely from several watersheds
(e.g., Sexton Creek, South Fork
Quicksand Creek, Troublesome Creek
headwaters). Of the species’ 47 extant
streams, we consider half of these
populations (23) to be ‘‘vulnerable’’
(Table 1), and most remaining
populations are isolated and restricted
to short stream reaches.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
60969
Map Location
Middle Fork
Kentucky
10
0
0
10
20
20
30
30
40 Kilometers
40 Miles
j
Figure 2. A summary of Kentucky arrow darter survey results at all historical sites
visited between 2007 and 2015. Circles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species
was observed. Triangles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was not
observed. Black lines indicate sub-basin boundaries; grey lines indicate 4th to 6th order
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
EP08OC15.002</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
streams.
60970
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Map Location
Sturgeon
Creek
Fork
Kentucky
South Fork
Kentucky
0
0
Middle Fork
Kentucky
10
10
20
20
30
30
j
40 Miles
40 Kilometers
Figure 3. A summary ofKentucky arrow darter survey results at all sites visited between
2007 and 2014. Circles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was observed.
Triangles indicate survey sites (reaches) where the species was not observed. Black lines
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
A synopsis of the Kentucky arrow
darter’s current range and status is
provided below and is arranged by subbasin, starting at the southeastern border
(upstream end) of the basin and moving
downstream. Within each sub-basin,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
smaller watersheds and streams are
addressed in a hierarchical fashion
(follows the order used in Table 1).
North Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The North Fork Kentucky River arises
in eastern Letcher County, Kentucky,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
near Pine Mountain and flows generally
northwest for approximately 270 km
(168 mi) to its confluence with the
South Fork Kentucky River. Its
watershed encompasses approximately
4,877 km2 (1,883 mi2) in portions of
Breathitt, Knott, Lee, Letcher, Perry, and
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
EP08OC15.003</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
indicate sub-basin boundaries; grey lines indicate 4th to 6th order streams.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Wolfe counties. The Kentucky arrow
darter was known historically from 33
streams in this sub-basin; we now
consider the species to be extant in 17
streams (Thomas 2008, pp. 5–6; KSNPC
unpublished data; Service unpublished
data).
Lotts Creek—Lotts Creek is a tributary
of the North Fork Kentucky River that
flows westerly through east-central
Perry County and southwestern Knott
County. The Kentucky arrow darter was
first reported from Lotts Creek by
Woolman (1892, pp. 275–281), who
described it as uncommon in the stream.
No additional records are available from
the Lotts Creek watershed, and our most
recent survey (2009) was also
unsuccessful (Service 2012, pp. 1–4).
Based on the stream’s poor habitat
conditions (e.g., conductivity greater
than 1,000 micro Siemens (mS)/cm,
embedded substrates) and the lack of
species records over the last 125 years
(Service 2012, pp. 1–4), we do not
consider the species to be extant within
the Lotts Creek watershed.
Troublesome Creek—Troublesome
Creek is a tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River draining portions of
Breathitt, Knott, and Perry Counties.
Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter
was known from 16 streams in the
Troublesome Creek watershed (Table 1)
(Woolman 1892, pp. 275–281; Kuehne
and Bailey 1961, pp. 3–4; Kuehne 1962,
pp. 608–614; Harker et al. 1979, pp.
523–761; Measel 1997, pp. 8–11, 59;
KSNPC unpublished data). The species
has been eliminated from the upper
reaches of Troublesome Creek, portions
of the Buckhorn Creek watershed, and
Lost Creek, but populations continue to
occur in the upper Buckhorn Creek
watershed, specifically Clemons Fork,
Coles Fork, Snag Ridge Fork, Buckhorn
Creek (headwaters, including Prince
Fork), and Eli Fork (of Boughcamp
Branch). The best remaining
populations occur in Clemons Fork and
Coles Fork, both tributaries of Buckhorn
Creek that are located on Robinson
Forest, a 59.9-km2 (14,800-acre (ac))
experimental forest owned and managed
by the University of Kentucky (UK).
These watersheds are intact and densely
forested, with only minor interruption
by logging roads. Both streams are
moderate- to high-gradient, cool, and
dominated by cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates. The species has
been extirpated from most downstream
tributaries of Buckhorn Creek (e.g., Long
Fork) and most of the Buckhorn Creek
mainstem; however, individuals are
sometimes observed in these tributaries
(e.g., Bear Branch, Boughcamp Branch)
or the Buckhorn Creek mainstem where
these habitats are located close to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
occupied reaches. A small population
continues to persist (and reproduce)
within the Buckhorn Creek headwaters
(Prince Fork and Eli Fork), but these
watersheds are isolated from
downstream populations due to severely
degraded habitat and water quality
conditions in the Buckhorn Creek
mainstem and adjacent tributaries
(Appalachian Technical Services (ATS)
2011, pp. 1–17). Surface coal mining has
been practiced extensively within the
Troublesome Creek watershed, and
these activities continue to occur. A
10.9-km (6.8-mi) reach of Buckhorn
Creek has been placed on Kentucky’s
303(d) list of impaired waters due to
siltation and elevated levels of total
dissolved solids (KDOW 2013a, p. 341)
and reported to the Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to section
303 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
Quicksand Creek—Quicksand Creek
is a tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River that drains portions of
Breathitt and Knott Counties. The
Kentucky arrow darter was known from
nine historical streams in the watershed
(Table 1) (Harker et al. 1979, pp. 576–
590; KSNPC unpublished data). The
species has been extirpated from five of
these streams (e.g., Leatherwood Creek),
but extant populations remain in Laurel
Fork, Middle Fork, Spring Fork, and
Hunting Creek. Laurel Fork and Middle
Fork support the best remaining
populations. Both of these watersheds
are sparsely populated and forested,
with favorable water quality and habitat
conditions for the species. The small
Spring Fork population was discovered
in 2013, and appears to be limited to an
approximate 1.6-km (1-mi) headwater
reach. Habitat conditions in Spring Fork
are marginal for the species (e.g., heavy
siltation, bank erosion), and instream
conductivity is elevated (334 mS/cm).
The species was first observed in
Hunting Creek in July 1995 (six
individuals observed), but the species
was not observed during surveys by
KDFWR in May 2007 (Thomas 2008, p.
5). Surveys by the Service in September
2013 produced four individuals, but
habitat conditions continue to be
marginal for the species. Based on these
factors, we consider the Hunting Creek
population to be vulnerable to
extirpation.
Frozen Creek—Frozen Creek is a
tributary of the North Fork Kentucky
River in northern Breathitt County. The
Kentucky arrow darter was known
historically from six streams in the
Frozen Creek watershed: Frozen Creek
(headwaters), Clear Fork, Negro Branch,
Davis Creek, Cope Fork, and Boone Fork
(Kornman 1999, pp. 118–133; KSNPC
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60971
unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 5)
revisited these sites in 2007 and 2008,
and determined that the species was
extant in four streams: Frozen Creek,
Clear Fork, Negro Branch, and Davis
Creek. The most individuals were
observed in Frozen Creek, which also
contained the most favorable habitat
conditions for the species. The species
was less abundant in Clear Fork, Negro
Branch, and Davis Creek, and habitat
conditions were marginal (e.g.,
extensive bedrock areas, substrates
covered by thick layer of algae). Thomas
(2008, pp. 5, 31–32) did not observe the
species in Cope Fork or Boone Fork,
both of which exhibited poor habitat
and water quality conditions (e.g.,
siltation, elevated conductivity).
Sedimentation continues to be a
problem in the Frozen Creek watershed
(KDOW 2013a, p. 329), and a 3.1-km
(1.9-mi) reach of Cope Fork has been
placed on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of
impaired waters due to elevated levels
of total dissolved solids (e.g., elevated
conductivity) (KDOW 2013a, p. 345).
Holly Creek—Holly Creek is a
tributary of the North Fork Kentucky
River in southern Wolfe County.
Kentucky arrow darters were first
observed in Holly Creek (one
individual) in 1998 (Kornman 1999, pp.
118–133). Thomas (2008, p. 5) revisited
the historical site in 2007, and observed
two individuals. Despite the species’
presence, habitat conditions in portions
of the watershed continue to be poor,
and a 10-km (6.2-mi) reach (RM 0–6.2)
of Holly Creek has been placed on
Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired
streams due to sedimentation from
agriculture, stream bank modification,
and riparian habitat loss (KDOW 2013a,
p. 351). Based on these factors and the
population’s apparent small size, we
consider the Holly Creek population to
be vulnerable to extirpation.
Lower Devil Creek—Lower Devil
Creek is a direct tributary of the North
Fork Kentucky River in southern Wolfe
County. The Kentucky arrow darter was
first reported from Lower Devil Creek by
Kornman (1999, pp. 118–133), who
collected one individual in 1998. The
species was not observed during
subsequent surveys in 2007 and 2011
(Thomas 2008, pp. 5; Service
unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 5)
reported a new record for the watershed
based on the collection of one specimen
from Little Fork, a tributary to Lower
Devil Creek. We observed an additional
specimen during surveys in 2011. We
consider the Little Fork population to be
vulnerable to extirpation due to its
apparent small population size and the
stream’s elevated conductivity
(approximately 400 mS/cm).
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60972
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Walker Creek—Walker Creek is a
direct tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River in eastern Lee County.
First discovered in 1996 (KSNPC
unpublished data), this population
continues to be relatively robust. The
species was observed at all historical
sites and one new site during surveys
completed in 2008 and 2013 (KSNPC
and Service unpublished data).
Conductivity values continue to be high
in downstream reaches (approximately
400 mS/cm), but these conditions do not
appear to have reduced Kentucky arrow
darter numbers. Historical land use
within the Walker Creek watershed was
dominated by oil and gas development/
drilling, which may explain the elevated
conductivity values observed during
recent surveys.
Hell Creek—Hell Creek is a direct
tributary of the North Fork Kentucky
River in eastern Lee County. The species
was first observed in Hell Creek (two
individuals) in August 1995 (KSNPC
unpublished data), followed by
observations by Kornman (1999, pp.
118–133) in 1998 (two individuals) and
Thomas (2008, p. 5) in 2007 (seven
individuals). Surveys by KDFWR in July
2014 suggest a possible decline of the
population in Hell Creek (Thomas 2014,
pers. comm.). Kentucky arrow darters
appeared to be less abundant (only two
individuals observed despite exhaustive
searches), and habitat conditions within
Hell Creek had deteriorated (siltation
was prominent) compared to previous
surveys (Thomas 2014, pers. comm.).
Middle Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The Middle Fork Kentucky River
arises in southern Leslie County,
Kentucky, near Pine Mountain and
flows generally north for approximately
169 km (105 mi) to its confluence with
the North Fork Kentucky River. Its
watershed encompasses approximately
1,448 km2 (559 mi2) in portions of
Breathitt, Harlan, Lee, Leslie, and Perry
counties. The Kentucky arrow darter
was formerly known from seven widely
scattered stream segments in the subbasin. We now consider the species to
be extant in four of these streams
(Thomas 2008, pp. 4–5; Service
unpublished data).
Greasy Creek—Greasy Creek is a
tributary of the Middle Fork Kentucky
River that drains southern Leslie county
and a small portion of northern Harlan
County. The Kentucky arrow darter is
known from two historical streams
within the watershed—Greasy Creek
and Big Laurel Creek, a direct tributary
of Greasy Creek (Branson and Batch
1984, pp. 4–8; KSNPC unpublished
data). The species is presumed
extirpated from the Greasy Creek
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
mainstem, but a small population
remains in Big Laurel Creek based on
collections completed in 2009 (Service
2012, pp. 1–4). We consider the Big
Laurel Creek population to be
vulnerable to extirpation due to
sedimentation, channel instability, and
elevated conductivity.
Cutshin Creek—Cutshin Creek is a
tributary of the Middle Fork Kentucky
River draining southeastern Leslie
County. The species was first reported
from Cutshin Creek by Woolman (1892,
pp. 275–281), who observed the species
4.8 km (3 mi) upstream of the Cutshin
Creek and Middle Fork confluence.
Branson and Batch (1984, pp. 4–8) made
the only other observation of the species
in Cutshin Creek. They collected one
specimen at the KY 80 crossing in June
1973. The species has not been observed
in Cutshin Creek since that time.
Middle Fork—Woolman (1892, pp.
275–281) observed the species in the
Middle Fork mainstem during surveys
completed 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Hyden
in August 1890. The species has not
been observed in the Middle Fork since
that time. Based on the size of the
Middle Fork at this location (fourth- or
fifth-order), it is likely that the
specimen(s) observed by Woolman
originated from a nearby tributary such
as Hell For Certain Creek.
Rockhouse Creek—Rockhouse Creek
is a tributary of Middle Fork Kentucky
River in central Leslie County. In March
2013, biologists with KDFWR and DBNF
discovered an unknown population of
Kentucky arrow darter in Laurel Creek,
a second-order tributary of Rockhouse
Creek (Thomas 2013, pers. comm.). One
individual was found in Laurel Creek
after surveys in three separate reaches
(over 4,000 shocking seconds). Laurel
Fork is situated at the western edge of
the Middle Fork sub-basin, and about 90
percent of its watershed is located
within the DBNF (Redbird Ranger
District).
Hell For Certain Creek—Hell For
Certain Creek is a direct, second-order
tributary to the Middle Fork Kentucky
River in northern Leslie County
(upstream of Buckhorn Lake). Kentucky
arrow darters were first recorded from
Hell For Certain Creek in 1994 (KSNPC
unpublished data), and subsequent
surveys in 2011 and 2013 produced
additional specimens (Service
unpublished data). The Hell For Certain
Creek population appears to be at least
moderately robust, and water quality
and habitat conditions are favorable for
the species. About 50 percent of the Hell
For Certain Creek watershed is in public
ownership (DBNF).
Squabble Creek—Squabble Creek is a
tributary to Middle Fork Kentucky River
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in northwestern Perry County. Squabble
Creek enters the Middle Fork just
downstream of Buckhorn Lake Dam in
the community of Buckhorn. Kentucky
arrow darters were first reported from
Squabble Creek in 1996, when KSNPC
biologists observed one individual from
a small bedrock pool in the headwaters
(KSNPC unpublished data). Thomas
(2008, p. 25) resurveyed the historical
collection site in 2008 but did not
observe the species. Thomas (2008, p.
25) noted that sedimentation was
‘‘heavy’’ in the stream. We observed
similar habitat conditions during recent
surveys of Squabble Creek in February
2015, but two juvenile Kentucky arrow
darters were observed near the historical
collection site. Conductivity levels
continue to be relatively low in the
headwaters (130 mS/cm), but siltation/
sedimentation remains a concern and
residential land use continues to be
extensive in the downstream half of the
watershed. About 10 percent of the
watershed is in Federal ownership
(DBNF). Sedimentation and total
dissolved solids have been identified as
problems within Squabble Creek, as
evidenced by the stream’s placement on
Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters (KDOW 2013a, p. 368).
South Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The South Fork Kentucky River is
formed by the confluence of Goose
Creek and the Red Bird River in
northern Clay County, Kentucky, and
flows north for approximately 72 km (45
mi) to its confluence with the North
Fork Kentucky River. Its watershed
encompasses approximately 1,937 km2
(748 mi2) in portions of Bell, Clay,
Jackson, Knox, Lee, Leslie, and Owsley
counties. Historically, the Kentucky
arrow darter was known from 28
streams in this sub-basin. The species
has been extirpated from several
watersheds (total of 9 streams) and is
now considered to be extant in 20
streams (Thomas 2008, p. 4; KSNPC and
Service unpublished data).
Red Bird River—The Red Bird River is
a tributary of the South Fork Kentucky
River that flows northerly through
portions of Bell, Clay, and Leslie
Counties. Historically, Kentucky arrow
darters were known from 12 streams
within the watershed (Woolman 1892,
pp. 275–281; Branson and Batch 1983,
pp. 2–13; KSNPC and Service
unpublished data). The species has been
extirpated from two streams, Big Creek
and Hector Branch, but the Red Bird
River watershed continues to support
the largest concentration of occupied
streams and some of the species’ best
remaining populations. We have recent
records from Blue Hole Creek, Upper
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Bear Creek, Katies Creek, Spring Creek,
Bowen Creek, Elisha Creek, Gilberts Big
Creek, Sugar Creek, Big Double Creek,
Little Double Creek, Jacks Creek, and
Long Fork (of Hector Branch). Public
ownership in these watersheds is
extensive (Redbird Ranger District of
DBNF), and the streams generally have
intact riparian zones with little or no
anthropogenic disturbance, cool
temperatures, low conductivity (near
baseline conditions of less than 100 mS/
cm), and stable channels with clean
cobble/boulder substrates. The presence
of the species in Long Fork (of Hector
Branch) is the result of a reintroduction
effort by KDFWR and Conservation
Fisheries, Inc. (CFI), of Knoxville,
Tennessee (Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23).
Goose Creek—Goose Creek is a
tributary of the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains portions of southern
and western Clay County and
northeastern Knox County. Goose Creek
flows northerly through these counties,
joining with the Red Bird River at
Oneida to create the South Fork
Kentucky River. The Kentucky arrow
darter was known historically from two
Goose Creek tributaries: Horse Creek
and Laurel Creek (Branson and Batch
1983, pp. 1–15). A small population
continues to exist in Horse Creek, but
the species has not been observed in
Laurel Creek since 1970 (Service
unpublished data). Habitat conditions in
both streams are marginal to poor
(Thomas 2008, p. 4), and both streams
have been placed on Kentucky’s 303(d)
list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a,
pp. 352–353).
Bullskin Creek—Bullskin Creek is a
tributary to the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains eastern Clay County.
The Kentucky arrow darter was first
reported from Bullskin Creek in August
1998, when Stephens (1999, pp. 159–
174) collected one individual.
Additional specimens were observed by
KDFWR and the Service in 2007 and
2014, respectively (Thomas 2008, p. 27;
Service unpublished data).
Buffalo Creek—Buffalo Creek is a
tributary to the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains southeastern Owsley
County. Since 1969, the Kentucky arrow
darter has been reported from multiple
stream reaches in both the Left and
Right Forks (Branson and Batch 1983,
pp. 1–15; KSNPC and Service
unpublished data). The species
continues to be extant in both forks, and
the upstream reaches of the Left Fork
(Laurel Fork, Cortland Fork, and Lucky
Fork) appear to be the species’
stronghold within the watershed. Public
ownership (DBNF) is extensive within
the drainage.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Sexton Creek—Sexton Creek is a
tributary to the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains portions of Clay,
Jackson, and Owsley Counties.
Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter
was reported from Bray Creek,
Robinsons Creek, and the Sexton Creek
mainstem (Branson and Batch 1983, pp.
1–15; KSNPC unpublished data). The
species has not been observed in the
Sexton Creek watershed since 1997, and
now appears to be extirpated.
Lower Island Creek—Lower Island
Creek is a tributary to the South Fork
Kentucky River that drains
southwestern Owsley County. The
Kentucky arrow darter was first reported
from Lower Island Creek in 1997
(KSNPC unpublished data), but repeated
surveys in the watershed have failed to
produce additional specimens (Thomas
2008, p. 27; Service unpublished data).
The species is now considered to be
extirpated from the Lower Island Creek
watershed.
Cow Creek—Cow Creek is a tributary
to the South Fork Kentucky River that
drains eastern Owsley County. The
Kentucky arrow darter was first reported
from the watershed in June 1993, when
Burr and Cook (1993, pp. 55–56)
observed two specimens in the
headwaters of Right Fork Cow Creek
near the community of Arnett. KSNPC
surveyed the historical site again in
1997, and observed one individual
(KSNPC unpublished data). Surveys by
the Service in 2009 and 2011 did not
produce additional specimens (Service
2012, pp. 1–4). The species is now
considered to be extirpated from the
Cow Creek watershed.
Buck Creek—Buck Creek is a tributary
to the South Fork Kentucky River in
northern Owsley County. The species
was first reported from the Buck Creek
watershed by Harker et al. (1979, pp.
656–671), who observed one individual
in October 1978. Additional surveys
were completed in May 2008 and June
2011, but the species was not observed
(Service 2012, pp. 1–4). Based on our
recent surveys, habitat conditions
appear to be unfavorable for the species
(e.g., conductivity greater than 400 mS/
cm).
Lower Buffalo Creek—Lower Buffalo
Creek is a tributary to the South Fork
Kentucky River in Lee and Owsley
Counties. The Kentucky arrow darter
was first reported from Lower Buffalo
Creek by Stephens (1999, pp. 159–174),
who observed one individual in August
1998. Thomas (2008, p. 4) observed
three individuals in May 2007, but
described the habitat conditions as poor,
with heavy siltation and eutrophication.
Based on observations made by Thomas
(2008, p. 4), we consider the Lower
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60973
Buffalo Creek population to be
vulnerable to extirpation.
Silver Creek Sub-Basin
Silver Creek is a tributary to the
Kentucky River that drains
approximately 8.5 km2 (3.3 mi2) in
central Lee County, Kentucky. The
Kentucky arrow darter was first
recorded from Silver Creek in 1996,
when KSNPC observed 10 individuals
(2 age classes) near the city limits of
Beattyville (KSNPC unpublished data).
Thomas (2008, p. 31) surveyed the
historical site again in May 2008, and
observed one specimen. A small
population appears to be extant in
Silver Creek, but we consider this
population to be vulnerable to
extirpation.
Sturgeon Creek Sub-Basin
Sturgeon Creek is a tributary to the
Kentucky River that flows northerly
through Jackson, Lee, and Owsley
Counties, draining approximately 287
km2 (111 mi2). The Kentucky arrow
darter was known historically from five
streams within this sub-basin: Brushy
Creek, Cooperas Cave Branch, Little
Sturgeon Creek, Sturgeon Creek
(mainstem), and Wild Dog Creek (Harker
et al. 1979, pp. 607–623; Ray and Ceas
2003, pp. 12–13; KSNPC unpublished
data). We now consider the species to be
extant in one historical stream, Wild
Dog Creek, and two recently
documented streams, Granny Dismal
Creek and Travis Creek (KSNPC and
Service unpublished data). Wild Dog
Creek appears to support the most
robust population within this sub-basin.
Red River Sub-Basin
The Red River is a tributary of the
Kentucky River that arises in eastern
Wolfe County, Kentucky, and flows
generally west for approximately 156
km (97 mi) through portions of Clark,
Estill, Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe
Counties. The Red River watershed
encompasses approximately 1,261 km2
(487 mi2). The Kentucky arrow darter
was not observed within the sub-basin
until 1980, when one individual was
collected from the Swift Camp Creek
watershed in Wolfe County (Greenberg
and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37).
Swift Camp Creek—Swift Camp Creek
is a tributary to the Red River that flows
northerly through northwestern Wolfe
County. The Kentucky arrow darter was
known historically from only one Swift
Camp Creek tributary: Rockbridge Fork
(Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37).
Additional surveys by KDFWR and the
Service in 1998, 2007, 2011, and 2013
demonstrate that the species continues
to occur in Rockbridge Fork (Kornman
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60974
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
1985, p. 28; Thomas 2008, p. 4; Service
unpublished data). Despite its location
in the DBNF, bank erosion and siltation
continue to be problematic in the
watershed (Thomas 2008, p. 4).
Our recent survey data (Thomas 2008,
pp. 25–27; Service 2012, pp. 1–4)
indicate that Kentucky arrow darters
occur in low densities. Sampling
reaches where arrow darters were
observed had an average of only 3
individuals per 100-m (328-ft) reach and
a median of 2 individuals per reach
(range of 1 to 10 individuals). Surveys
in 2011 by the DBNF from Laurel Fork
and Cortland Branch of Left Fork
Buffalo Creek (South Fork Kentucky
River sub-basin) produced slightly
higher capture rates (an average of 5
darters per 100-m (328-ft) sampling
reach) (Mulhall 2014, pers. comm.). The
low abundance values (compared to
other darters) are not surprising since
Kentucky arrow darters generally occur
in low densities, even in those streams
where disturbance has been minimal
(Thomas 2015b, pers. comm.).
Detailed information on population
size is generally lacking for the species,
but estimates have been completed for
three streams: Clemons Fork (Breathitt
County), Elisha Creek (Clay and Leslie
Counties), and Gilberts Big Creek (Clay
and Leslie Counties) (Service
unpublished data). Based on field
surveys completed in 2013 by EKU,
KSNPC, and the Service, population
estimates included 986–2,113
individuals (Clemons Fork), 592–1,429
individuals (Elisha Creek), and 175–358
individuals (Gilberts Big Creek) (ranges
reflect 95 percent confidence intervals).
Based on observed catch rates and
habitat conditions throughout the upper
Kentucky River basin, the most stable
and largest populations of the Kentucky
arrow darter appear to be located in the
following streams:
• Hell For Certain Creek, Leslie
County;
• Laurel and Middle Forks of
Quicksand Creek, Knott County;
• Frozen and Walker Creeks, Breathitt
and Lee Counties;
• Clemons Fork and Coles Fork,
Breathitt and Knott Counties;
• Several direct tributaries (e.g.,
Bowen Creek, Elisha Creek, and Big
Double Creek) of the Red Bird River,
Clay and Leslie Counties; and
• Wild Dog Creek, Jackson and
Owsley Counties.
The Kentucky arrow darter is
considered ‘‘threatened’’ by the State of
Kentucky and has been ranked by
KSNPC as a G2G3/S2S3 species
(imperiled or vulnerable globally and
imperiled or vulnerable within the
State) (KSNPC 2014, p. 40). Kentucky’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (KDFWR 2013, pp. 9–11)
identified the Kentucky arrow darter as
a Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(rare or declining species that requires
conservation actions to improve its
status).
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424, set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we may list a species based on (A)
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Kentucky arrow darter’s habitat
and range have been destroyed,
modified, and curtailed due to a variety
of anthropogenic activities in the upper
Kentucky River drainage. Resource
extraction (e.g., coal mining, logging,
oil/gas well development), land
development, agricultural activities, and
inadequate sewage treatment have all
contributed to the degradation of
streams within the range of the species
(Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 513–516;
Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 82–83;
Thomas 2008, pp. 6–7; KDOW 2010, pp.
70–84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–
376; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). These
land use activities have led to chemical
and physical changes to stream habitats
that have adversely affected the species.
Specific stressors have included inputs
of dissolved solids and elevation of
instream conductivity, sedimentation/
siltation of stream substrates (excess
sediments deposited in a stream),
turbidity, inputs of nutrients and
organic enrichment, and elevation of
stream temperatures (KDOW 2010, p.
84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–
376). KDOW (2013a, pp. 337–376)
provided a summary of specific threats
within the upper Kentucky River
drainage, identifying impaired reaches
in 21 streams within the Kentucky
arrow darter’s historical range (Table 2).
Six of these streams continue to support
populations of the species, but only one
of these populations (Frozen Creek) is
considered to be stable (see Table 1,
above).
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 303(D) LISTED STREAM SEGMENTS WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE KENTUCKY ARROW
DARTER
[KDOW 2013a, pp. 337–376]
County
Buckhorn Creek ....................
Impacted stream
segment
(km (mi))
Breathitt ............
Cope Fork (of Frozen Creek)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Stream
Pollutant source
Pollutant
0–6.8
Abandoned Mine Lands, Unknown
Sources.
Breathitt ............
0–1.9
Cutshin Creek .......................
Leslie ................
9.7–10.7
Frozen Creek * ......................
Breathitt ............
0–13.9
Goose Creek ........................
Clay ..................
0–8.3
Channelization, Riparian Habitat
Loss,
Logging,
Agriculture,
Stream Bank Modification, Surface Coal Mining.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Stream
Bank Modification, Surface Coal
Mining.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Post-Development Erosion and Sedimentation.
Septic Systems ..............................
Fecal Coliform (FC), Sediment/Siltation, Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS).
Sediment/Siltation, TDS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
Sediment/Siltation.
Sediment/Siltation.
FC.
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
60975
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 303(D) LISTED STREAM SEGMENTS WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF THE KENTUCKY ARROW
DARTER—Continued
[KDOW 2013a, pp. 337–376]
Impacted stream
segment
(km (mi))
Stream
County
Hector Branch .......................
Holly Creek * .........................
Clay ..................
Wolfe ................
0–5.5
0–6.2
Horse Creek * .......................
Clay ..................
0–8.3
Laurel Creek .........................
Clay ..................
3.8–4.8
Left Fork Island Creek ..........
Long Fork .............................
Lost Creek ............................
Owsley ..............
Breathitt ............
Breathitt ............
0–5.0
0–4.6
0–8.9
Lotts Creek ...........................
Perry .................
0.4–1.0, 1.2–6
Quicksand Creek ..................
Breathitt ............
0–17.0, 21.7–30.8
Sexton Creek ........................
Clay, Owsley ....
0–17.2
South Fork Quicksand Creek
Breathitt ............
0–16.9
Spring Fork (Quicksand
Creek) *.
Breathitt ............
3.1–6.9
Squabble Creek * ..................
Perry .................
0–4.7
Sturgeon Creek ....................
Lee ...................
8.0–12.2
Swift Camp Creek ................
Troublesome Creek ..............
Wolfe ................
Breathitt ............
0–13.9
0–45.1
Pollutant source
Pollutant
Unknown ........................................
Agriculture, Riparian Habitat Loss,
Stream Bank Modification, Surface Coal Mining.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Managed
Pasture Grazing, Surface Coal
Mining.
Managed Pasture Grazing, Crop
Production.
Crop Production ............................
Surface Coal Mining ......................
Coal Mining, Riparian Habitat
Loss, Logging, Stream Bank
Modification.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Land Development, Surface Coal Mining,
Logging, Stream Bank Modification.
Surface Coal Mining, Riparian
Habitat Loss, Logging, Stream
Bank Modification.
Crop Production, Highway/Road/
Bridge Runoff.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Petroleum/
Natural Gas Production Activities, Surface Coal Mining.
Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive),
Riparian Habitat Loss, Logging,
Stream Bank Modification.
Land Development, Surface Coal
Mining.
Riparian Habitat Loss, Crop Production, Surface Coal Mining.
Unknown ........................................
Surface Coal Mining, Municipal
Point Source Discharges, Petroleum/Natural Gas Activities.
Unknown.
Sediment/Siltation, Unknown.
Sediment/Siltation.
Nutrients/Eutrophication.
Sediment/Siltation.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS.
Fecal Coliform, Sedimentation,
Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS, Turbidity.
FC, Turbidity, Sediment/Siltation,
TDS.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS, Turbidity.
Sediment/Siltation, TDS.
Sediment/Siltation.
Unknown.
Sediment/Siltation, Specific Conductance, TDS, Turbidity.
* Stream segment still occupied by Kentucky arrow darters.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water Quality Degradation
A threat to the Kentucky arrow darter
is water quality degradation caused by
a variety of nonpoint-source pollutants
(contaminants from many diffuse and
unquantifiable sources). Within the
upper Kentucky River drainage, coal
mining has been the most significant
historical source of these pollutants, and
it continues to be practiced throughout
the drainage. As of January 2015, 318
mining permits were associated with
coal removal and production activities
within the upper Kentucky River
drainage (Laird 2015, pers. comm.). Of
these, 136 permits were associated with
active coal removal, encompassing a
combined area of 777 km2 (191,968 ac).
The remaining 196 permits were
classified as temporarily inactive or
were associated with some type of
reclamation activity. Permits associated
with active coal removal consisted of six
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
primary types: access road, loadout
(areas of coal storage, often located away
from the mine site), prep plant (facility
that washes coal prior to transport by
rail or truck), refuse facility (stores noncoal rock, water, and slurry originating
from an underground mine), surface,
and underground. With respect to
permit type, the greatest number of
permits was associated with surface
mines (64 permits), followed by
underground (32), prep plant (20),
access road (13), refuse facility (5), and
loadout (2). With respect to county
distribution, Perry County had the most
permits (59), followed by Leslie (28),
Breathitt (16), Knott (16), Clay (12),
Harlan (2), Owsley (2), and Jackson (1).
No activity was reported for Lee or
Wolfe Counties. Six permits were
located in Kentucky arrow darter
watersheds: Buckhorn Creek (Breathitt
and Knott Counties), Bullskin Creek
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Clay County), and Left Fork Buffalo
Creek (Owsley County).
Annual coal production in eastern
Kentucky (including counties in the
upper Kentucky River drainage) has
declined over the past 2 decades, but
annual production in eastern Kentucky
continues to be relatively high (over 37
million tons produced in 2014) (KEEC
2014, pp. 1–5), recoverable reserves for
the eastern Kentucky portion of the
Appalachian Basin are estimated at 5.8
billion tons (Milici and Dennen 2009,
pp. 8–11), and the species’ distribution
continues to be fragmented and reduced
as a result of previous (legacy) mining
activities within the drainage.
Consequently, the potential remains for
Kentucky arrow darters to continue to
be adversely affected by water quality
degradation associated with surface coal
mining activities.
With regard to specific pollutants,
activities associated with coal mining
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60976
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
have the potential to contribute high
concentrations of dissolved salts,
metals, and other solids that (1) elevate
stream conductivity (a measure of
electrical conductance in the water
column that increases as the
concentration of dissolved solids
increases), (2) increase sulfates (a
common dissolved ion with empirical
formula of SO4¥2), and (3) cause wide
fluctuations in stream pH (a measure of
the acidity or alkalinity of water) (Curtis
1973, pp. 153–155; Dyer and Curtis
1977, pp. 10–13; Dyer 1982, pp. 1–16;
Hren et al. 1984, pp. 5–34; USEPA 2003,
pp. 77–84; Hartman et al. 2005, p. 95;
Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721–723; Palmer
et al. 2010, pp. 148–149; USEPA 2011,
pp. 27–44). As rock strata and excess
rock material (overburden) are exposed
to the atmosphere during the mining
process, precipitation leaches metals
and other solids (e.g., calcium,
magnesium, sulfates, iron, manganese)
from these materials and carries them in
solution to receiving streams (Pond
2004, p. 7; KDOW 2010, p. 85).
Dissolved ions can enter streams
through surface runoff or as
groundwater flowing through fractured
geologic layers. If valley fills (hollowfills) are used as part of the mining
activity, precipitation and groundwater
seep through the fill and dissolve
minerals until they discharge at the toe
of the fill as surface water (Pond et al.
2008, p. 718). All of these scenarios can
result in elevated conductivity, sulfates,
and hardness in the receiving stream.
Stream conductivity in mined
watersheds can be significantly higher
compared to unmined watersheds, and
conductivity values can remain high for
decades (Merricks et al. 2007, pp. 365–
373; Johnson et al. 2010, pp. 1–2).
Elevated levels of metals and other
dissolved solids (i.e., elevated
conductivity) in Appalachian streams
have been shown to negatively impact
biological communities, including
losses of mayfly and caddisfly taxa
(Chambers and Messinger 2001, pp. 34–
51; Pond 2004, p. 7; Hartman et al. 2005,
p. 95; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721–723;
Pond 2010, pp. 189–198) and decreases
in fish diversity (Kuehne 1962, pp. 608–
614; Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 507–
512; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81–
83; Stauffer and Ferreri 2002, pp. 11–21;
Fulk et al. 2003, pp. 55–64; Mattingly et
al. 2005, pp. 59–62; Thomas 2008, pp.
1–9; Service 2012, pp. 1–4; Black et al.
2013, pp. 34–45; Hitt 2014, pp. 5–7, 11–
13; Hitt and Chambers 2014, pp. 919–
924; Daniel et al. 2015, pp. 50–61).
Stauffer and Ferreri (2002, pp. 11–21)
investigated fish assemblages in eastern
Kentucky and West Virginia streams
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
and determined that fish assemblages
downstream of valley fills supported
about half the number of species found
at reference sites. Fulk et al. (2003, pp.
55–64) used the Stauffer and Ferreri
(2002, pp. 11–21) data set to calculate
bioassessment scores and reported
decreased richness of cyprinids
(minnows), decreased richness of
invertivores (species that feed on
invertebrates), and increased
proportions of tolerant individuals in
small watersheds (2–10 km2 (0.77–3.86
mi2)) below valley fills. Hitt and
Chambers (2014, pp. 919–924) observed
lower fish taxonomic and functional
diversity in streams downstream of
valley fills in West Virginia. Exposure
assemblages (those downstream of
valley fills) had fewer species, lower
abundances, and less biomass than
reference assemblages across years and
seasons. Taxonomic differences between
reference and exposure (mined)
assemblages were associated with
conductivity and aqueous selenium
concentrations (Hitt and Chambers
2014, pp. 919–924). Daniel et al. (2015,
pp. 50–61) examined the effects of
mining (coal and mineral) at larger
spatial scales and determined that
mining can be a regional source of
disturbance that negatively impacts fish
communities far downstream. Even in
watersheds with low mine densities
(less than 0.01 mines/km2 (0.004 mines/
mi2)), Daniel et al. (2015, pp. 56–57)
detected significant negative responses
in multiple fish metrics (e.g., diversity,
evenness, percent invertivores).
Compared to other anthropogenic
impacts assessed over large areas
(agriculture, urban land use), mining
had a more pronounced and consistent
impact on fish assemblages (Daniel et al.
2015, p. 58).
Studies in the upper Kentucky River
basin by Branson and Batch (1974, pp.
81–83), Dyer and Curtis (1977, pp. 1–
13), Kuehne (1962, pp. 608–609),
Thomas (2008, pp. 3–6), Pond (2010, pp.
189–198), and the Service (2012, pp. 1–
4) have clearly demonstrated that
surface coal mining activities have
contributed to water quality degradation
(e.g., elevated conductivity) and the
extirpation of Kentucky arrow darter
populations from numerous tributaries
in the Quicksand Creek and Buckhorn
Creek drainages of Breathitt and Knott
Counties. From late 1967 to 1975,
Branson and Batch (1972, pp. 507–518;
1974, pp. 81–83), and Dyer and Curtis
(1977, pp. 1–13) studied the effects of
strip mining activities on water quality
and stream fishes in the Quicksand
Creek (Leatherwood Creek) and
Buckhorn Creek (Bear Branch)
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
watersheds, Breathitt County. Six firstorder watersheds, three in the
Leatherwood Creek watershed and three
in the Bear Branch watershed, were
investigated during the study, beginning
in late summer 1967, prior to the onset
of mining, and continuing until 1975.
One of the six small watersheds, Jenny
Fork, was not mined and served as a
control watershed. Water quality data
from mined watersheds showed
increases in conductivity, sulfate,
magnesium, bicarbonate, and silt
deposition (Dyer and Curtis 1977, pp. 3–
7, 13). Water quality data from the
reference site, Jenny Branch, showed
little variation and remained at baseline
levels. Fish community data from the
Bear Branch and Leatherwood Creek
watersheds showed that fishes were
pushed downstream or eliminated from
the fauna altogether in mined
watersheds (Branson and Batch 1972,
pp. 514–515; Branson and Batch 1974,
pp. 82–83). The only exception to this
was the creek chub, which appeared to
be tolerant of mining impacts. Several
species—silver shiner (Notropis
photogenis), Kentucky arrow darter,
Johnny darter, variegate darter
(Etheostoma variatum), greenside darter
(E. blenniodes), and emerald darter—
were eliminated from Leatherwood
Creek. Two species, northern hogsucker
(Hypentelium nigricans) and blackside
darter (Percina maculata), were
eliminated from both streams. During
the last fish sampling event in
September 1972, Kentucky arrow
darters were observed at the mouth of
Bear Branch (Branson and Batch 1974,
p. 82), but instream conductivity levels
had not peaked. Branson and Batch
(1972, p. 514) also did not observe
young darters and minnows during later
visits (early 1970s), suggesting that
reproduction had been curtailed by the
mining activity. Thomas (2008, p. 5) and
Service (2012, pp. 1–4) resurveyed these
streams in 2008–2009, and found that
conductivity levels had increased since
the 1970s, reaching 845 mS/cm in Bear
Branch and 1008 mS/cm in Leatherwood
Creek. Kentucky arrow darters were not
observed at these sites.
There is a pattern of increasing
conductivity and loss of arrow darter
populations that is evident in the fish
and water quality data from the
Buckhorn Creek basin (1962 to present)
in Breathitt and Knott Counties.
Kentucky arrow darters and other fish
species were first reported from the
basin in 1962 by Kuehne (1962, pp.
608–609), who surveyed sites on the
Buckhorn Creek mainstem and
numerous tributaries: Bear Branch,
Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Laurel Fork,
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lewis Fork, and Long Fork. Kuehne
(1962, pp. 608–609) documented
Kentucky arrow darters at 16 of 22 sites
within the drainage. Since that time, the
majority of these watersheds have been
mined extensively and conductivity
levels have increased. The only
exceptions are two unmined watersheds
on UK’s Robinson Forest (Clemons Fork
and Coles Fork) and two first-order
tributaries in the Buckhorn Creek
headwaters (Eli Branch and Prince
Fork). Thomas (2008, p. 5) and the
Service (2012, pp. 1–4) resurveyed sites
on all historical streams (and most
historical sites) in the Buckhorn Creek
watershed from 2007 to 2010, observing
Kentucky arrow darters in only Clemons
Fork, Coles Fork, and Buckhorn Creek,
upstream of Emory Branch.
Conductivity levels of Clemons Fork,
Coles Fork, and Buckhorn Creek
(upstream of Emory Branch) remained at
or near background levels (50 to 110 mS/
cm), but conductivity levels at other
streams were elevated, with some of
these being exceptionally high (greater
than 2000 mS/cm).
ATS (2011, pp. 1–17) surveyed 27
sites in the Buckhorn Creek headwaters
in 2008, observing similar patterns with
respect to conductivity and Kentucky
arrow darter distributions. ATS (2011,
pp. 1–17) observed a few Kentucky
arrow darters in high conductivity
reaches (e.g., Buckhorn Creek
mainstem); however, all of these fishes
were adults and were observed near low
conductivity reaches (e.g., Prince Fork).
Due to increased levels of dissolved
solids (and elevated conductivity),
portions of two streams in the Buckhorn
Creek watershed, Buckhorn Creek (mile
0–6.8) and Long Fork (mile 0–8.95),
have been placed on Kentucky’s 303(d)
list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a,
pp. 337–376).
As demonstrated above, Kentucky
arrow darters tend to be less abundant
in streams with elevated conductivity
levels (Service 2012, pp. 1–4; Service
2013, p. 9), and are typically excluded
from these streams as conductivity
increases (Branson and Batch 1972, pp.
507–512; Branson and Batch 1974, pp.
81–83; Thomas 2008, p. 3–6). Recent
range-wide surveys of historical sites by
Thomas (2008, pp. 3–6) and the Service
(2012, pp. 1–4) demonstrated that
Kentucky arrow darters are excluded
from watersheds when conductivity
levels exceed about 250 mS/cm. The
species was observed at only two
historical sites where conductivity
values exceeded 250 mS/cm, and average
conductivity values were much lower at
sites where Kentucky arrow darters
were observed (115 mS/cm) than at sites
where the species was not observed (689
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
mS/cm). A similar phenomenon was
reported by Black et al. (2013, pp. 34–
35), who developed and validated a
habitat model for the federally
threatened blackside dace (Chrosomus
cumberlandensis) in the upper
Cumberland River drainage. Hitt (2014,
pp. 5–7, 11–13) used a large presenceabsence data set (511 sites) from the
Service, KDFWR, KSNPC, and KDOW to
evaluate the relationship between
Kentucky arrow darter abundance and
stream conductivity. Hitt (2014, pp. 5–
7, 11–13) reported that conductivity was
a strong predictor of Kentucky arrow
darter abundance, and sharp declines in
abundance were observed at 258 mS/cm
(95 percent confidence intervals of 155–
590 mS/cm). Conductivity was the most
important variable for the species and
was more than twice as important as the
two next-most important variables
(upstream percent of forest and percent
of agricultural land uses). Based on all
the research discussed above, we
believe it is clear that the overall
conductivity level is important in
determining the Kentucky arrow darter’s
presence and vulnerability, but the
species’ presence is more likely tied to
what individual metals or dissolved
solids (e.g., sulfate) are present.
Determination of discrete conductivity
thresholds or the mechanisms through
which fishes are influenced will require
additional study (KSNPC 2010, p. 3).
Mine drainage can also cause
chemical (and some physical) impacts
to streams as a result of the precipitation
of entrained metals and sulfate, which
become unstable in solution (USEPA
2003, pp. 24–65; Pond 2004, p. 7).
Hydroxide precipitants are formed from
iron and aluminum, creating orange or
white sludge (‘‘yellow boy’’) that forms
a thick coating on stream substrates
(Pond 2004, p. 7). Most affected streams
have elevated levels of calcium in
solution, and if pH is elevated, calcium
sulfate (CaSO4) or calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) will precipitate (Pond 2004, p.
7; USEPA 2005, pp. 24–65). These
precipitants accumulate on substrates,
encrusting and cementing stream
sediments, making them unsuitable for
colonization by invertebrates and
rendering them unsuitable as foraging or
spawning habitat for the Kentucky
arrow darter. Acid mine drainage (AMD)
tends to be more of a legacy problem, as
enforcement, newer technology, and
mining methods have mostly eliminated
it in the coal fields of Kentucky and
Tennessee (Pond 2004, p. 6). In the few
streams where the problem persists,
AMD can be highly detrimental to fish
and aquatic insect populations (Henry et
al. 1999, pp. 919–920; Pond 2004, pp.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60977
7–8). Streams affected by AMD tend to
have low pH, high conductivity, and
high metal and sulfate concentrations
(Herlihy et al. 1990, pp. 101–105; Pond
2004, pp. 7–8).
Oil and gas exploration and drilling
activities represent another significant
source of harmful pollutants in the
upper Kentucky River basin (KDOW
2013a, 189–214). Since January 2010,
over 500 oil and gas wells have been
permitted in counties where the species
was known historically (KGS 2015, pp.
1–2), and demand for natural gas
production in Kentucky is expected to
increase in future years (KGS 2002, p. 4;
KGS 2015, pp. 1–2; Weisenfluh 2014,
pp. 1–2). Alternative methods (i.e.,
hydraulic fracturing (‘‘fracking’’) and
horizontal drilling) have allowed for the
expansion of oil and gas drilling into
deposits that were previously
inaccessible (KGS 2015, pp. 1–2;
Papoulias and Velasco 2013, p. 92). This
has led to increased activity within
eastern Kentucky, including portions of
the upper Kentucky River basin. Recent
observations by the Service indicate that
new well sites have been developed
near several Kentucky arrow darter
streams in Breathitt, Clay, Knott, Lee,
and Wolfe Counties (e.g., Hell Creek,
Laurel Fork Quicksand Creek, Little
Fork Lower Devil Creek, Spring Creek,
and Walker Creek).
A variety of chemicals (e.g.,
hydrochloric acid, surfactants,
potassium chloride) are used during the
drilling and fracking process (Colborn et
al. 2011, pp. 1040–1042). Once used,
fluid wastes containing these chemicals
are stored in open pits (retention basins)
or trucked away to treatment plants or
some other storage facility. If spills
occur during transport or releases occur
due to retention basin failure or
overflow, there is a risk for surface and
groundwater contamination. Any such
release can cause significant adverse
effects to water quality and aquatic
organisms that inhabit these watersheds
(Wiseman 2009, pp. 127–142; Kargbo et
al. 2010, pp. 5680–5681; Osborn et al.
2011, pp. 8172–8176; Papoulias and
Velasco 2013, pp. 92–111). In 2007, this
type of event occurred during the
development of four wells along Acorn
Fork in Knox County, Kentucky
(Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 92–
111). Fracking effluent overflowed the
retention pits directly into Acorn Fork,
a known habitat for the federally
threatened blackside dace. The release
affected the entire length of Acorn Fork
downstream of the release points (an
approximate 3.2-km (2-mi) reach),
decimating the fish and
macroinvertebrate communities and
resulting in instream conductivity
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60978
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
readings above 30,000 mS/cm (Papoulias
and Velasco 2013, pp. 92–111). Fishes
exposed to the affected portions of
Acorn fork showed general signs of
stress and had a higher incidence of gill
lesions than unexposed reference fishes.
Gill lesions were consistent with
exposure to low pH and toxic
concentrations of heavy metals
(Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 104–
105). It is unclear how many blackside
dace were killed during the event
because peak mortality was likely
missed before researchers arrived to
document the incident. However, one
dead, one moribund, and several living
but distressed blackside dace were
observed. Because oil and gas
exploration activities are increasing
within eastern Kentucky, events similar
to the Acorn Fork spill have the
potential to occur within the upper
Kentucky River drainage. It is also likely
that these types of incidents would go
unreported given the lack of Federal
oversight and the number and
distribution of oil and gas wells that are
being developed within the range of the
species.
Other nonpoint-source pollutants that
are common within the upper Kentucky
River drainage and have the potential to
affect the Kentucky arrow darter include
domestic sewage (through septic tank
leakage or straight pipe discharges) and
agricultural pollutants such as animal
waste, fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214).
Nonpoint-source pollutants can cause
increased levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus, excessive algal growths,
oxygen deficiencies, and other changes
in water chemistry that can seriously
impact aquatic species (KDOW 2010,
pp. 70–84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214;
KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). Nonpointsource pollution from land surface
runoff can originate from virtually any
land use activity and may be correlated
with impervious surfaces and storm
water runoff (Allan 2004, pp. 266–267).
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 Kentucky arrow
darter are negatively impacted.
Physical Habitat Disturbance
Sedimentation (siltation) has been
listed repeatedly by KDOW as the most
common stressor of aquatic
communities in the upper Kentucky
River basin (KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214; KDOW
2013b, pp. 88–94). Sedimentation comes
from a variety of sources, but KDOW
identified the primary sources of
sediment as loss of riparian habitat,
surface coal mining, legacy coal
extraction, logging, and land
development (KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84;
KDOW 2013b, pp. 88–94). All of these
activities can result in canopy removal,
channel disturbance, and increased
siltation, thereby degrading habitats
used by Kentucky arrow darters for both
feeding and reproduction. The
reduction or loss of riparian vegetation
results in the elevation of stream
temperatures, destabilization of stream
banks and siltation, and removal of
submerged root systems that provide
habitat for fishes and
macroinvertebrates (the food source for
Kentucky arrow darters) (Minshall and
Rugenski 2006, pp. 721–723).
Channelization of streams associated
with residential development and
agriculture has been widespread within
the upper Kentucky River drainage.
Generally, streams are relocated to one
side of the stream valley to provide
space for home sites, livestock, hay
production, or row crops.
Channelization dramatically alters
channel dimensions, gradient, stream
flow, and instream habitats, and these
modified channels are often managed
through vegetation removal and
dredging to improve flood conveyance
(Allan and Castillo 2007, p. 327) and
through placement of quarried stone or
gabion baskets to protect against bank
erosion. All of these activities create
unstable stream segments with shifting
substrates, heavy sedimentation,
eroding banks, and poor to marginal
habitat conditions for the species.
Twenty-one streams within the species’
historical and current range have been
identified as impaired (primarily due to
siltation from mining, logging,
agricultural activities, and land
development) and have been included
on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters (Table 2). The species has been
extirpated from most of these streams
(or watersheds) and is considered to be
stable in only one (Frozen Creek).
Resource extraction activities (e.g.,
surface coal mining, legacy coal
extraction, logging, oil and gas
exploration and drilling) are major
sources of sedimentation in streams
(Paybins et al. 2000, p. 1; Wiley et al.
2001, pp. 1–16; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–
214). Activities associated with surface
coal mining (e.g., land clearing, road
construction, excavation) produce large
areas of bare soil that, if not protected
or controlled through various erosion
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
control practices, can contribute large
amounts of sediment during storm
events. Mining companies are required
to implement erosion control measures
during mining activities, but
sedimentation continues to be a
significant stressor in some mined
watersheds (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–
214). Land use practices such as the
placement of valley fills can affect
sediment and water discharges into
downstream stream reaches, leading to
increased erosion or sedimentation
patterns, destruction or modification of
in-stream habitat and riparian
vegetation, stream bank collapse, and
increased water turbidity and
temperature (Wiley et al. 2001, pp. 1–
16; Messinger 2003, pp. 17–20).
Similarly, logging activities can
adversely affect Kentucky arrow darters
and other fishes through removal of
riparian vegetation, direct channel
disturbance, and sedimentation of
instream habitats (Allan and Castillo
2007, pp. 332–333). During logging
activities, sedimentation occurs as soils
are disturbed, the overlying leaf or litter
layer is removed, and sediment is
carried overland from logging roads,
stream crossings, skid trails, and
riparian zones during storm events.
Logging impacts on sediment
production can be considerable, but
access and haul roads often produce
more sediment than the land harvested
for timber (Brim Box and Mossa 1999,
p. 102). Excess sediment can bury instream habitats used by the species for
foraging, reproduction, and sheltering,
and it can disrupt the dynamic
equilibrium of channel width, depth,
flow velocity, discharge, channel slope,
roughness, sediment load, and sediment
size that maintains stable channel
morphology (Allan 2004, p. 262). The
lack of stream-side vegetation also
promotes bank erosion that alters stream
courses and introduces large quantities
of sediment into the channel. This can
lead to channel instability and further
degradation of in-stream habitats.
Reductions in riparian vegetation can
adversely affect the species through
increased solar radiation, elevated
stream temperatures, loss of
allochthonous (organic material
originating from outside the channel)
food material, and bank instability/
erosion (Allan 2004, p. 262; Hauer and
Lamberti 2006, pp. 721–723). Direct
channel disturbance occurs primarily at
stream crossings during culvert, log, or
rock placement. Severe impacts can
occur when loggers use stream channels
illegally as skid trails (M. Floyd pers.
obs. 2009).
Stormwater runoff from unpaved
roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails,
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and driveways represents a significant
but difficult to quantify source of
sediment that impacts streams in the
upper Kentucky River basin.
Observations made by Service personnel
during field collections suggest that this
is a common and widespread problem
during storm events across the species’
range. Sediment has been shown to
damage and suffocate fish gills and eggs,
larval fishes, bottom-dwelling algae, and
other organisms; reduce aquatic insect
diversity and abundance; and,
ultimately, negatively impact fish
growth, survival, and reproduction
(Berkman and Rabeni 1987, pp. 285–
294; Waters 1995, pp. 5–7; Wood and
Armitage 1997, pp. 211–212; Meyer and
Sutherland 2005, pp. 2–3).
Invasion of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid
The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA)
(Adelges tsugae), an aphid-like insect
native to Asia, represents a potential
threat to the Kentucky arrow darter
because it has the potential to severely
damage stands of eastern hemlocks
(Tsuga canadensis) that occur within
the species’ range. The HWA was
introduced in the Pacific Northwest
during the 1920s, and has since spread
throughout the eastern United States,
reaching eastern Tennessee by 2002,
and Kentucky by 2006. The species
creates an extreme amount of damage to
natural stands of hemlock, specifically
eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock
(Tsuga caroliniana). Loss of hemlocks
along Kentucky arrow darter streams
has the potential to result in increased
solar exposure and subsequent elevated
stream temperatures, bank erosion, and
excessive inputs of woody debris that
will clog streams and cause channel
instability and erosion (Townsend and
Rieske-Kinney 2009, pp. 1–3). We
expect these impacts to occur in some
Kentucky arrow darter watersheds;
however, we do not believe these
impacts will be widespread or severe.
Eastern hemlocks are not abundant in
all portions of the Kentucky arrow
darter’s range, and we expect hemlocks
to be replaced by other tree species in
areas where hemlocks are more
common. Our review of the available
information indicates that the invasion
of HWA and the subsequent loss of
eastern hemlock in eastern Kentucky
does not pose a threat to the Kentucky
arrow darter, nor is it likely to become
a threat in the future.
In summary, habitat loss and
modification represent threats to the
Kentucky arrow darter. Severe
degradation from contaminants,
sedimentation, and physical habitat
disturbance have contributed to
extirpations of Kentucky arrow darter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
populations, and these threats continue
to impact water quality and habitat
conditions across the species’ range.
Contaminants associated with surface
coal mining (metals, other dissolved
solids), domestic sewage (bacteria,
nutrients), and agriculture (fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, and animal
waste) cause degradation of water
quality and habitats through increased
conductivity and sulfates, instream
oxygen deficiencies, excess
nutrification, and excessive algal
growths. Sedimentation from surface
coal mining, logging, agriculture, and
land development negatively affect the
Kentucky arrow darter by burying or
covering instream habitats used by the
species for foraging, reproduction, and
sheltering. These impacts can cause
reductions in growth rates, disease
tolerance, and gill function; reductions
in spawning habitat, reproductive
success, and egg, larval, and juvenile
development; modifications of
migration patterns; decreased food
availability through reductions in prey;
and reduction of foraging efficiency.
Furthermore, these threats faced by the
Kentucky arrow are the result of
ongoing land uses that are expected to
continue indefinitely.
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Kentucky arrow darter is not
believed to be utilized for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes. Individuals may be collected
occasionally in minnow traps by
recreational anglers and used as live
bait, but we believe these activities are
practiced infrequently and do not
represent a threat to the species. Our
review of the available information does
not indicate that overutilization is a
threat to the Kentucky arrow darter now
or likely to become so in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
No information is available suggesting
that disease is a threat to the Kentucky
arrow darter; therefore, we do not
consider disease to be a factor in the
decline of the species. As to predation,
although the Kentucky arrow darter is
undoubtedly consumed by native
predators (e.g., fishes, amphibians, and
birds), the available information
suggests that this predation is naturally
occurring and a normal aspect of the
species’ population dynamics.
Nonnative rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) represent a
potential predation threat (Etnier and
Starnes 1993, p. 346) as they are
introduced annually by KDFWR into
portions of three Kentucky arrow darter
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60979
streams: Big Double Creek (Clay
County), Sturgeon Creek (Lee County),
and Swift Camp Creek (Wolfe County).
Annual totals of 800 and 1,000 rainbow
trout are introduced into Sturgeon Creek
and Swift Camp Creek, respectively, but
in these watersheds Kentucky arrow
darter populations occupy portions of
small tributaries located outside of
actual stocking locations. Therefore, it is
unlikely that rainbow trout and
Kentucky arrow darters interact in these
watersheds.
Up to 1,000 rainbow trout are stocked
annually by KDFWR within Big Double
Creek, with releases occurring in March,
April, May, and October in habitats
occupied by Kentucky arrow darters.
KDFWR has no specific information on
the feeding habits of rainbow trout in
Big Double Creek, but KDFWR
supported a research project (Brandt
2006, pp. 1–59) investigating the impact
of stocked rainbow trout on native
fishes in Rock Creek, McCreary County,
Kentucky. Brandt (2006, pp 1–59)
examined the guts of 11 introduced
rainbow trout obtained from 32
sampling sites within the Rock Creek
watershed. The majority of stomachs
were empty or contained remains of
macroinvertebrates; however, gut
contents from two individuals included
remains of two native fishes, telescope
shiner (Notropis telescopus) (n=2) and
emerald darter (n=1). Brandt (2006, pp.
1–59) demonstrated that stocked
rainbow trout can be piscivorous in
Kentucky streams, but the magnitude of
this threat was unclear.
Within Big Double Creek, stockings of
rainbow trout have occurred for over 30
years (Williams 2014, pers. comm.), but
the Kentucky arrow darter population in
this stream continues to persist and
appears to be stable (Table 1, above)
based on recent surveys (Thomas 2008,
p. 4; Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). KDFWR
also has no evidence suggesting that
stocked rainbow trout can survive
typical summer temperatures (greater
than 19 °C (66 °F)) within Big Double
Creek (Williams 2014, pers. comm.);
stocked individuals are caught by
anglers or perish once stream
temperatures rise in warmer months. To
assess the potential predation of
rainbow trout on Kentucky arrow
darters or other fishes, the Service and
DBNF surveyed a 2.1-km (1.3-mile)
reach of Big Double Creek on April 21,
2014, 17 days after KDFWR’s April
stocking event (250 trout). A total of
seven rainbow trout were captured, and
the gut contents of these individuals
were examined. Food items were
dominated by Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), with lesser amounts of
Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60980
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(caddisflies), Diptera (flies), Decapoda
(crayfish), and terrestrial Coleoptera
(beetles). No fish remains were
observed. Based on all these factors and
the absence of rainbow trout from the
majority (98 percent) of Kentucky arrow
darter streams, we do not believe that
predation by nonnative rainbow trout
poses a threat to the species. Our review
of available information indicates that
neither disease nor predation is
currently a threat to the species or likely
to become a threat to the Kentucky
arrow darter in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Kentucky arrow darter has been
identified as a threatened species within
Kentucky (KSNPC 2014, p. 40), but this
State designation conveys no legal
protection for the species or its habitat.
Kentucky law prohibits the collection of
the Kentucky arrow darter (or other
fishes) for scientific purposes without a
valid State-issued collecting permit
(Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) sec.
150.183). Enforcement of this permit
requirement is difficult, but as
discussed above under Factor B, we do
not believe that these activities
represent a threat to the species.
Kentucky regulations (301 KAR 1:130,
sec. 1(3)) also allow persons who hold
a valid Kentucky fishing license
(obtained from KDFWR) to collect up to
500 minnows per day (a minnow is
defined as any non-game fish less than
6 inches in length, with the exception
of federally listed species). This
regulation allows for the capture,
holding, and potential use of the
Kentucky arrow darter as a bait species;
however, again as discussed under
Factor B, we believe these activities are
practiced infrequently and do not
represent a threat to the species.
Because activities associated with these
laws and regulations do not represent
threats to the Kentucky arrow darter, we
find that these existing regulatory
mechanisms have been adequate in
protecting the species.
Streams within UK’s Robinson Forest
(Coles Fork, Snag Ridge Fork, and
Clemons Fork) are currently protected
from the effects of surface coal mining
due to a 1990 ‘‘lands unsuitable for
mining’’ designation (405 KAR 24:040).
The Secretary of the Kentucky Energy
and Environment Cabinet (KEEC) has
the authority to designate certain lands
as unsuitable for mining if these
activities will: (1) Be incompatible with
existing State and local land use plans;
(2) affect fragile or historic lands in
which such operations could result in
significant damage to important historic,
cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
and natural systems; (3) affect
renewable resource lands in which such
operations could results in a substantial
loss or reduction of long-range
productivity of water supply or food or
fiber products, and such lands to
include aquifers and aquifer recharge
areas; or (4) affect natural hazard lands
in which such operations could
substantially endanger life and property,
such lands to include areas subject to
frequent flooding and areas of unstable
geology. The designation was made by
the Secretary of the KEEC in response to
a petition from the Sierra Club,
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., and
Kentucky Conservation Foundation. The
Secretary concluded that surface coal
mining and reclamation operations were
incompatible with UK’s existing land
use management plan and that these
activities would significantly damage
important scientific resources within
the petition area.
Portions of 22 of the 47 streams with
extant Kentucky arrow darter
populations are located on the DBNF
and receive management and protection
through DBNF’s land and resource
management plan (LRMP) (USFS 2004,
pp. 7–16). Public ownership in these
watersheds ranges from about 50 to 100
percent. The LRMP is implemented
through a series of project-level
decisions based on appropriate sitespecific analysis and disclosure. It does
not contain a commitment to select any
specific project; rather, it sets up a
framework of desired future conditions
with goals, objectives, and standards to
guide project proposals. Projects are
proposed to solve resource management
problems, move the forest environment
toward desired future conditions, and
supply goods and services to the public
(USFS 2004, pp. 7–16). The LRMP
contains a number of protective
standards that in general are designed to
avoid and minimize potential adverse
effects to the Kentucky arrow darter and
other sensitive species; however, the
DBNF will continue to consult with the
Service when their activities may
adversely affect streams supporting
Kentucky arrow darters. In addition to
conservation benefits provided by the
LRMP, the Service and DBNF signed a
candidate conservation agreement
(CCA) for the Kentucky arrow darter in
August 2015. The CCA is intended to
conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on
the DBNF by (a) protecting known
populations and habitat, (b) reducing
threats to its survival, (c) conserving the
watersheds and ecosystems on which it
depends, and (d) enhancing and/or
restoring degraded habitat (USFWS and
USFS 2015). The DBNF’s ownership
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and management under the LRMP
contributes substantially to the
conservation of the Kentucky arrow
darter. A significant portion (about 38
percent) of the species’ remaining
populations occurs within the DBNF,
and these populations have benefited
from management goals, objectives, and
protective standards included in the
LRMP. Collectively, these streams
contain some of the best remaining
habitats for the species and support
some of the species’ most robust
populations.
The Kentucky arrow darter and its
habitats are afforded some protection
from water quality and habitat
degradation under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1977,
commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); the
Federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C.
1201 et seq.) of 1977; Kentucky’s Forest
Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS secs.
149.330–355); Kentucky’s Agriculture
Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS secs.
224.71–140); and additional Kentucky
laws and regulations regarding natural
resources and environmental protection
(KRS secs. 146.200–360; KRS sec. 224;
401 KAR secs. 5:026, 5:031). While
these laws have undoubtedly resulted in
some improvements in water quality
and stream habitat for aquatic life,
including the Kentucky arrow darter, we
must conclude that they alone have
been inadequate in fully protecting this
species; sedimentation and other
nonpoint-source pollutants continue to
be a pose a threat to the species.
Although water quality has generally
improved since the Clean Water Act and
SMCRA were enacted or amended in
1977, there is continuing, ongoing
degradation of water quality within the
range of the Kentucky arrow darter. The
species has been extirpated from 36 of
its 74 historical streams (49 percent),
and 16 of these extirpations (16 streams)
have occurred since the mid-1990s. A
total of 21 streams (335.8 stream km
(208.7 stream mi)) within the species’
historical range have been identified as
impaired by the KDOW and placed on
the State’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters. Of these 21 streams, only 5
continue to be occupied by Kentucky
arrow darter (see Table 2), 4 of which
are considered ‘‘vulnerable’’ (see Table
1). Resource extraction (e.g., coal
mining, logging, oil/gas well
development), land development,
agricultural activities, stream bank
modification, channelization, riparian
habitat loss, and inadequate sewage
treatment have been identified as
sources of the impairment (Branson and
Batch 1972, pp. 513–516; Branson and
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Batch 1974, pp. 82–83; Thomas 2008,
pp. 6–7; KDOW 2010, pp. 70–84; KDOW
2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–376; KDOW
2013b, pp. 88–94). Identified stressors
(pollutants) include dissolved solids
and elevation of instream conductivity,
sediment/siltation, fecal coliform
bacteria, nutrients/eutrophication, and
turbidity (KDOW 2010, p. 84; KDOW
2013a, pp. 189–214, 337–376). For water
bodies on the 303(d) list, States are
required under the Clean Water Act to
establish a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) for the pollutant of concern that
will improve water quality to meet the
applicable standards. At present, the
KDOW has not established TMDLs for
identified pollutants within portions of
the upper Kentucky River basin
historically occupied by the Kentucky
arrow darter. At present, TMDLs are not
an adequate mechanism to address
chemical pollutants or sedimentation of
aquatic habitats. The Service is also not
aware of any other current or future
changes to State or Federal water quality
or mining laws that will substantially
affect the currently observed
degradation of water quality.
Nonpoint-source pollution,
originating from mine sites, unpaved
roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails,
driveways, logging skid trails, and other
disturbed habitats is considered to be a
continuing threat to Kentucky arrow
darter habitats. Nonpoint-source
pollution is caused by rainfall or
snowmelt moving over and through the
ground as runoff and transporting
natural (sediment) and human-made
pollutants to lakes, rivers, wetlands,
coastal waters, and ground waters.
Current laws do not adequately protect
the Kentucky arrow darter and its
habitats from nonpoint-source pollution
because there is limited compliance
with existing laws to prevent sediment
and other pollutants from entering
waterways. For example, forestry
operations do not have permitting
requirements under the Clean Water Act
because there is a silvicultural
exemption as long as best management
practices (BMPs) are used to help
control nonpoint-source pollution
(Ryder and Edwards 2006, entire). The
Kentucky Forest Conservation Act of
1998 (KRS 149.330–149.355) was
developed to regulate timber harvesting
operations in Kentucky. It requires that
a Master Logger be on-site and in charge
of commercial logging operations, and it
also requires that all timber harvesting
operators use appropriate best
management practices (BMPs) for
protection of water quality (Stringer and
Thompson 2000, pp. 2–3). Without
properly installed BMPs, sedimentation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
occurs as soils are disturbed, the
overlying leaf or litter layer is removed,
and sediment is carried overland from
logging roads, stream crossings, skid
trails, and riparian zones during storm
events.
Compliance monitoring from May
2014 to May 2015 within counties
located in the upper Kentucky River
basin indicated that approximately 19
percent of inspected sites (47 sites out
of a total of 246 inspected sites) had
some kind of compliance issue (e.g.,
poor BMP use), resulting in a written
warning by the Kentucky Division of
Forestry and at least a follow-up visit
(Metzger 2015, pers. comm.). Because
sediment BMPs are not always strictly
applied and logging activities often
result in water quality impairment, the
Kentucky Forest Conservation Act is an
inadequate regulatory mechanism for
the protection of aquatic habitats
supporting the Kentucky arrow darter.
Kentucky State laws and regulations
regarding oil and gas drilling are
generally designed to protect fresh water
resources like the Kentucky arrow
darter’s habitat, but these regulatory
mechanisms do not contain specific
provisions requiring an analysis of
project impacts to fish and wildlife
resources (Kentucky Division of Oil and
Gas et al. 2012, entire). Current
regulations also do not contain or
provide any formal mechanism
requiring coordination with, or input
from, the Service or the KDOW
regarding the presence of federally
endangered, threatened, or candidate
species, or other rare and sensitive
species.
In July of 2015, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM) published in the Federal
Register a Notice of Availability for a
draft environmental impact statement
regarding a proposed Stream Protection
Rule (80 FR 42535; July 17, 2015) and
the proposed Stream Protection Rule (80
FR 44436, July 27, 2015). The proposed
rule states: ‘‘This proposed rule would
better protect streams, fish, wildlife, and
related environmental values from the
adverse impacts of surface coal mining
operations and provide mine operators
with a regulatory framework to avoid
water pollution and the long-term costs
associated with water treatment’’ (80 FR
44436, see SUMMARY). While this
proposed rule may provide benefits for
the Kentucky arrow darter in the future,
until the rule is finalized and
implemented, we are unable to evaluate
its potential effectiveness with regard to
the Kentucky arrow darter and its
habitat.
In summary, degradation of habitat for
the Kentucky arrow darter is ongoing
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60981
despite existing regulatory mechanisms.
These regulatory mechanisms have been
inadequate to reduce or remove the
threats to the Kentucky arrow darter.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Restricted Range and Population Size
The disjunct nature of some Kentucky
arrow darter populations (Figures 2 and
3, above) restricts the natural exchange
of genetic material between populations
and makes natural repopulation
following localized extirpations of the
species arduous without human
intervention. The localized nature and
small size of many populations also
makes them vulnerable to extirpation
from intentional or accidental toxic
chemical spills, habitat modification,
progressive degradation from runoff
(nonpoint-source pollutants), natural
catastrophic changes to their habitat
(e.g., flood scour, drought), and other
stochastic disturbances, such as loss of
´
genetic variation and inbreeding (Soule
1980, pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp.
97–101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp.
117–146). Inbreeding and loss of neutral
genetic variation associated with small
population size can further reduce the
fitness of the population (Reed and
Frankham 2003, pp. 230–237),
subsequently accelerating population
decline (Fagan and Holmes 2006, pp.
51–60).
Species that are restricted in range
and population size are more likely to
suffer loss of genetic diversity due to
genetic drift, potentially increasing their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
decreasing their ability to adapt to
environmental changes, and reducing
´
the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980,
pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002, pp. 97–101;
Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117–
146). It is likely that some of the
Kentucky arrow darter populations are
below the effective population size
required to maintain long-term genetic
´
and population viability (Soule 1980,
pp. 162–164; Hunter 2002, pp. 105–
107). The long-term viability of a
species is founded on the conservation
of numerous local populations
throughout its geographic range (Harris
1984, pp. 93–104). These separate
populations are essential for the species
to recover and adapt to environmental
change (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp.
264–297; Harris 1984, pp. 93–104). The
level of isolation seen in this species
makes natural repopulation following
localized extirpations virtually
impossible without human intervention.
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60982
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is
unequivocal (IPCC 2014, 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 2014, p. 4). Species that
are dependent on specialized habitat
types, limited in distribution, or at the
extreme periphery of their range may be
most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change (see 75 FR 48911,
August 12, 2010); however, while
continued change is certain, the
magnitude and rate of change is
unknown in many cases.
Climate change has the potential to
increase the vulnerability of the
Kentucky arrow darter to random
catastrophic events (McLaughlin et al.
2002, pp. 6060–6074; Thomas et al.
2004, pp. 145–148). An increase in both
severity and variation in climate
patterns is expected, with extreme
floods, strong storms, and droughts
becoming more common (Cook et al.
2004, pp. 1015–1018; Ford et al. 2011,
p. 2065; IPCC 2014, pp. 58–83). Thomas
et al. (2004, pp. 145–148) report that
frequency, duration, and intensity of
droughts are likely to increase in the
Southeast as a result of global climate
change. Predicted impacts of climate
change on fishes include disruption to
their physiology (such as temperature
tolerance, dissolved oxygen needs, and
metabolic rates), life history (such as
timing of reproduction, growth rate),
and distribution (range shifts, migration
of new predators) (Jackson and Mandrak
2002, pp. 89–98; Heino et al. 2009, pp.
41–51; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010, pp.
350–351; Comte et al. 2013, pp. 627–
636). According to Kaushal et al. (2010,
p. 465), stream temperatures in the
Southeast have increased roughly 0.2–
0.4 °C per decade over the past 30 years,
and as air temperature is a strong
predictor of water temperature, stream
temperatures are expected to continue
to rise.
Estimates of the effects of climate
change using available climate models
typically lack the geographic precision
needed to predict the magnitude of
effects at a scale small enough to
discretely apply to the range of a given
species. However, data on recent trends
and predicted changes for Kentucky
(Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1–19), and,
more specifically, the upper Kentucky
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
River drainage (Alder and Hostetler
2013, entire) provide some insight for
evaluating the potential threat of climate
change to the Kentucky arrow darter.
These models provide estimates of
average annual increases in maximum
and minimum temperature,
precipitation, snowfall, and other
variables. Depending on the chosen
model, average annual temperatures for
Kentucky and the upper Kentucky River
drainage are expected to increase by 2.5
to 5 °C (4.5 to 9 °F) by the 2080s (Girvetz
et al. 2009, pp. 1–19; Alder and
Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–9), while
precipitation models predict that
Kentucky will experience a slight
increase in average annual precipitation
(2 cm/day (0.8 in/day) (x 100)) through
2074 (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1–19;
Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 1–9).
There is uncertainty about the specific
effects of climate change (and their
magnitude) on the Kentucky arrow
darter; however, climate change is
almost certain to affect aquatic habitats
in the upper Kentucky River drainage of
Kentucky through increased water
temperatures and more frequent
droughts (Alder and Hostetler 2013,
entire), and species with limited ranges,
fragmented distributions, and small
population size are thought to be
especially vulnerable to the effects of
climate change (Byers and Norris 2011,
p. 18). Thus, we consider climate
change to be a threat to the Kentucky
arrow darter.
In summary, we have determined that
other natural and manmade factors,
such as geographical isolation, small
population size, and climate change, are
threats to remaining populations of the
Kentucky arrow darter across its range.
The severity of these threats is high
because of the species’ reduced range
and population size, which result in a
reduced ability to adapt to
environmental change. Further, our
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information indicates
that these threats are likely to continue
or increase in the future.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Kentucky arrow
darter. As described in detail above, the
Kentucky arrow darter has been
extirpated from about 49 percent of its
historical range (36 of 74 historical
streams), 16 of these extirpations have
occurred since the mid-1990s,
populations in nearly half of the
species’ occupied streams are ranked as
vulnerable (see Table 1, above),
remaining populations are fragmented
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and isolated, and the species continues
to be at risk throughout all of its range
due to the immediacy, severity, and
scope of threats from three of the five
threat factors: habitat degradation and
range curtailment (Factor A),
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D), and other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence (Factor E).
Anthropogenic activities such as
surface coal mining, logging, oil/gas
development, land development,
agriculture, and inadequate sewage
treatment have all contributed to the
degradation of stream habitats within
the species’ range (Factor A). These land
use activities have led to chemical and
physical changes to stream habitats that
continue to affect the species. Specific
stressors include inputs of dissolved
solids and elevation of instream
conductivity, sedimentation/siltation of
stream substrates, turbidity, and inputs
of nutrients and organic enrichment.
These high magnitude stressors,
especially the inputs of dissolved solids
and sedimentation, have had profound
negative effects on Kentucky arrow
darter populations and have been the
primary factor in the species’ decline.
Existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g.,
the Clean Water Act) have provided for
some improvements in water quality
and habitat conditions across the
species’ range, but these laws and
regulations have been inadequate in
protecting the species’ habitat (Factor
D), as evidenced by recent extirpations
(16 streams since the 1990s) and the 21
303(d) listed streams within the species’
historical range. The Kentucky arrow
darter’s vulnerability to these threats is
even greater due to its reduced range,
fragmented populations, and small or
declining population sizes (Factor E)
(Primack 2012, pp. 146–150). The
effects of certain threats, particularly
habitat degradation and loss, increase in
magnitude when population size is
small (Primack 2012, pp. 150–152).
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.’’
We find that the Kentucky arrow darter
meets the definition of a threatened
species based on the immediacy,
severity, and scope of the threats
identified above. The species’ overall
range has been reduced substantially,
most of the species’ historical habitat
has been degraded, and much of the
remaining habitat exists primarily in
fragmented patches. Current Kentucky
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
arrow darter habitats continue to be lost
or degraded due to surface coal mining,
logging, oil/gas development, land
development, agriculture, and
inadequate sewage treatment, and it
appears this trend will continue in the
future. Regulatory mechanisms such as
the Clean Water Act have been
inadequate to reduce or remove these
types of threats to the species. Extant
populations are known from 47 streams,
but these populations continue to be
threatened by small population size,
isolation, fragmentation, climate change,
and the habitat degradation summarized
above. All of these factors make the
species particularly susceptible to
extinction in the future.
We find that endangered status is not
appropriate for the Kentucky arrow
darter because we do not consider the
species’ threats to be so severe that
extinction is imminent. Although
threats to the species are ongoing, often
severe, and occurring across the range,
populations continue to occupy 47
scattered streams, 23 of which appear to
support stable populations (see Table 1,
above). Additionally, a significant
number of extant Kentucky arrow darter
populations (49 percent) occur
primarily on public lands (i.e., DBNF
and Robinson Forest) that are at least
partially managed to protect habitats
used by the species. For example, the
CCA with the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) for DBNF should provide an
elevated level of focused management
and conservation for portions of 20
streams that support populations of the
Kentucky arrow darter. Based on all
these factors, the Kentucky arrow darter
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species. Therefore, on the
basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose
listing the Kentucky arrow darter as a
threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered or
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because
we have determined that the Kentucky
arrow darter is a threatened species
throughout all of its range, no portion of
its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for
purposes of the definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened
species.’’ See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies; private organizations; and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against certain
activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. The plan may be revised 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 reclassification from endangered to
threatened or for 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. If the species is listed, a recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60983
our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Kentucky
Ecological Services Field 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), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands. If
this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the State of Kentucky would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Kentucky
arrow darter. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Kentucky arrow darter
is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in
conservation efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for
conservation planning purposes (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60984
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the USFS;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; construction and
maintenance of gas pipeline and power
line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; Environmental
Protection Agency pesticide registration;
construction and maintenance of roads
or highways by the Federal Highway
Administration; and projects funded
through Federal loan programs which
may include, but are not limited to,
roads and bridges, utilities, recreation
sites, and other forms of development.
Several conservation efforts are
already being undertaken for the
Kentucky arrow darter. The Service, in
cooperation with KDFWR, KSNPC, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), KDOW,
DBNF, CFI, and The Appalachian
Wildlife Foundation, Inc., completed a
conservation strategy for the Kentucky
arrow darter in 2014 (Service 2014,
entire). The strategy was developed as a
guidance document that would assist
the Service and its partners in their
conservation efforts for the species. The
strategy is divided into four major
sections: (1) Biology and status, (2)
listing factors/current threats, (3)
current conservation efforts, and (4)
conservation objectives/actions. The
strategy’s first conservation objective
addresses current informational needs
on the species’ biology, ecology,
viability, and survey methods, while the
remaining three conservation objectives
address specific threats facing the
species (Factors A, D, and E,
respectively).
With respect to the conservation
strategy’s first objective, several research
projects have been initiated that will
provide new information on the species’
biology and threats (see descriptions in
the following paragraphs). These
projects include studies on the species’
distribution, status, and population size;
movement and microhabitat
characteristics; genetics; and response to
changes in water quality (e.g.,
conductivity). Initial efforts to address
objectives 2–4 have included the
development of a CCA with the USFS,
a propagation and reintroduction study
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
by KDFWR and CFI, field investigations
to determine the predatory risk posed by
nonnative trout, and continued informal
discussions with our Federal, State, and
private partners. If implemented,
specific actions identified in the
conservation strategy will help to
reduce current threats to the Kentucky
arrow darter.
As stated above, the Service and
USFS recently signed a CCA for the
Kentucky arrow darter on the DBNF.
About half of the species’ extant streams
occur on lands owned and managed by
the DBNF, so conservation of these
populations is essential to the species’
recovery, and a DBNF-specific
conservation plan is needed to guide
those efforts. The CCA is intended to
conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on
the DBNF by (a) protecting known
populations and habitat, (b) reducing
threats to its survival, (c) conserving the
watersheds and ecosystems on which it
depends, and (d) enhancing and/or
restoring degraded habitat.
In 2005, KDFWR identified the
Kentucky arrow darter as 1 of 251
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN) in its State Wildlife Action Plan
(KDFWR 2005, entire). The species
remains a SGCN in the most recent
version of the plan (KDFWR 2013, pp.
61–62), which identifies conservation
issues (threats), conservation actions,
and monitoring strategies for 301 animal
species belonging to 1 of 20 terrestrial
and aquatic habitat guilds (collection of
species that occur in the same habitat).
In the original plan, KDFWR developed
a priority list of research and survey
needs for Kentucky’s SGCN. In 2008,
KDFWR attempted to address two of
these needs by initiating a propagation
and reintroduction study for the
Kentucky arrow darter through the
Service’s State Wildlife Program (Ruble
et al. 2010, entire). The study was
designed to document details on the
species’ reproductive biology and to
begin conservation actions (e.g.,
propagation followed by reintroduction
or augmentation) that would benefit the
species. The KDFWR partnered with CFI
to develop successful spawning
protocols and produce the offspring
needed to augment populations within
the species’ current range.
From 2009 to 2011, a total of 145
captive-spawned, juvenile Kentucky
arrow darters (originating from brood
stock taken from Big Double Creek) were
produced by CFI, tagged (Northwest
Marine Technologies elastomer tag), and
introduced into Sugar Creek, Leslie
County, a tributary of the Red Bird River
in the DBNF, Redbird District (Thomas
and Brandt 2012, pp. 57–64). Attempts
to relocate tagged darters in August
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2009, October 2009, March 2010,
January 2012, and February 2012, were
unsuccessful, so KDFWR and CFI made
the decision to abandon efforts at Sugar
Creek and begin another reintroduction
effort at Long Fork, another DBNF
stream and tributary of Hector Branch in
Clay County.
Since August 2012, a total of 1,447
captive-spawned KADs (about 50–55
mm TL) have been tagged and
reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi)
reach of Long Fork. Monitoring has been
conducted on 14 occasions since the
initial release using visual searches and
seining methods. Tagged darters have
been observed during each monitoring
event, with numbers increasing from 18
(October 2012) to 86 (August 2013)
(Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). Tagged
darters have been observed throughout
the Long Fork mainstem, both upstream
and downstream of the release points,
and two tagged individuals have been
observed outside of Long Fork—one in
Hector Branch, just downstream of its
confluence with Long Fork, and one at
the mouth of Deerlick Branch, a firstorder tributary of Hector Branch located
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi)
downstream of the confluence of Long
Fork and Hector Branch. The majority of
individuals have been found in pools
(depth of 20–61 cm (8–24 in)) with rock
substrates, exposed bedrock, and some
marginal cover (e.g., tree roots). Surveys
in July, August, and October 2013,
produced a total of 20, untagged youngof-year arrow darters, while surveys in
March, July, August, and October 2013,
produced 25 untagged young-of-year.
These results indicate natural
reproduction in Long Fork. In 2015,
KDFWR observed five untagged
individuals in Hector Branch,
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream
of its confluence with Long Fork, and
four untagged individuals in Deerlick
Branch, approximately 1 km (0.6 mi)
downstream of the confluence of Long
Fork and Hector Branch. Additional
monitoring and releases are planned for
2015.
The Service and KDFWR are working
with EKU on a study that is
investigating Kentucky arrow darter
movements, habitat characteristics, and
population size in two DBNF streams,
Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha Creek, in
Clay and Leslie Counties (Harrel and
Baxter 2013, entire). EKU is using PITtags and placed antenna systems to
monitor intra- and inter-tributary
movement patterns in both streams, and
they have collected seasonal (Spring,
Summer, and Fall of 2013) biotic and
abiotic data from 20 100-m (328-ft)
reaches to determine habitat use and
population density/size for both
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
streams. Preliminary findings include
the following:
• 126 individuals pit-tagged;
• Population estimates for Elisha
Creek: 592–1,429 individuals (summer)
and 661–1,359 (fall) (range here and
below reflects 95 percent confidence
intervals);
• Population estimate for Gilberts Big
Creek: 175–358 (summer);
• Maximum observed movement:
4,078 m (2.5 mi) (female, downstream in
Gilberts Big Creek); and
• Other observed movements (7
individuals): 134 m (439 ft) (upstream),
328 m (1,076 ft) (downstream), 351
(1,151 ft) (upstream), 900 m (2,952 ft)
(upstream/downstream), 950 m (3,116
ft) (downstream), 1,282 m (4,028 ft)
(downstream) and 1,708 m (5,603 ft)
(downstream).
In 2013, KSNPC and the Service
initiated a study to investigate the
distribution, status, population size, and
habitat use of the Kentucky arrow darter
within the upper Kentucky River basin.
One important aspect of the study was
to account for imperfect detection when
surveying for the species. Studies that
do not account for imperfect detection
can often lead to an underestimation of
the true proportion of sites occupied by
a species and can bias assessments and
sampling efforts (MacKenzie et al. 2002,
entire; MacKenzie et al. 2005, entire).
From June to September 2013, KSNPC
and the Service visited 80 randomly
chosen sites (ranging from first- to thirdorder) across the upper Kentucky River
basin in order to address these concerns
and meet project objectives. As
expected, Kentucky arrow darters were
rare during the study and were observed
at only 7 of the 80 sites, including two
new localities (Granny Dismal Creek in
Owsley County and Spring Fork
Quicksand Creek in Breathitt County)
and one historical stream (Hunting
Creek, Breathitt County) where the
species was not observed during status
surveys by Thomas (2008, pp. 1–33) and
Service (2012, pp. 1–4). Presently,
KSNPC and the Service are in the data
analysis stage of this project.
In July 2013, EKU, the Service, and
KSNPC initiated a population estimate
and microhabitat characterization study
on Clemons Fork, Breathitt County. The
study was designed to estimate the
Kentucky arrow darter’s current
population size and average density
within Clemons Fork and to compare
current densities with historical
densities reported by Lotrich (1973).
Additionally, population densities and
habitat parameters will be compared to
data from Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha
Creek (both DBNF) to aid in delineation
of essential habitat characteristics and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
development and implementation of
conservation efforts. Field surveys were
completed in August 2013. Data
analyses are incomplete, but initial
results include a mean density of 9.69
Kentucky arrow darters per sampling
reach and a population estimate of 986
to 2,113 darters in Clemons Fork (95
percent confidence intervals).
Preliminary findings of this study were
presented at the 2013 Southeastern
Fishes Council Meeting, Lake
Guntersville, Alabama (November 14–
15, 2013).
Austin Peay State University is
currently working with KDFWR and the
Service on the first comprehensive
assessment of genetic variation and gene
flow patterns across the range of the
Kentucky arrow darter (Johansen et al.
2013, pp. 1–3). Approximately 25
individuals per population from up to
12 populations across the range of the
species will be genotyped using
microsatellite markers. Resulting data
will be used to generate robust estimates
of effective population sizes and overall
population and species’ variability. This
information is essential to the
development of effective conservation
and recovery measures to ensure the
long-term persistence of the species.
Funding for this project is being
provided through the Service’s section 6
program.
Through Service-USGS Quick
Response funding, the USGS Leetown
Science Center evaluated the
relationship between Kentucky arrow
darter abundance and stream
conductivity in the upper Kentucky
River basin (Hitt 2014, entire).
Nonlinear regression techniques were
used to evaluate significant thresholds
and associated confidence intervals for
Kentucky arrow darter abundance
related to conductivity levels. As a
contrast to Kentucky arrow darter, Dr.
Hitt also evaluated blackside dace
occurrence in this regard. Data for the
study were supplied by the Service’s
Kentucky and Tennessee Field Offices,
KDFWR, and KSNPC. Nonlinear
regressions indicated a distinct decline
in Kentucky arrow darter abundance at
258 mS/cm (95 percent confidence
intervals 155–590 mS/cm), above which
abundances were negligible. Nonlinear
threshold declines for blackside dace
were observed at 343 mS/cm, and 95
percent confidence intervals bounded
this relationship between 123–632 mS/
cm. Boosted regression results indicated
that stream conductivity was the
strongest predictor in separate analyses
of Kentucky arrow darter and blackside
dace abundance. Hitt (2014, pp. 7–8)
concluded that the similar responses of
these ecologically distinct taxa suggest
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60985
the general importance of this water
quality attribute for stream fish ecology
in central Appalachia.
Proposed Special Rule
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 wildlife. We
may also prohibit by regulation, with
respect to threatened wildlife, any act
that is prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of
the Act for endangered wildlife.
Exercising this discretion, the Service
has developed general prohibitions that
are appropriate for most threatened
species at 50 CFR 17.31 and exceptions
to those prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.32.
While most of the prohibitions of 17.31
and 17.32 are appropriate for the
Kentucky arrow darter, we find that
some activities that would normally be
prohibited under 17.31 and 17.32 are
necessary for the conservation of this
species because the species could
benefit from habitat improvements in
first- to third-order streams that are
physically degraded (e.g., unstable
stream channels, eroding banks, no
canopy cover). Therefore, for the
Kentucky arrow darter, the Service has
determined that a species-specific
section 4(d) rule may be appropriate to
promote the conservation of this
species. As discussed in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Species section
of this rule, the primary threat to the
species is the continuing loss and
degradation of habitat. Physical habitat
degradation is widespread within the
species’ range, and sediment has been
identified as the most common stressor
(KDOW 2013a, pp. 189–214; KDOW
2013b, pp. 88–94). Sedimentation may
originate from areas outside of the
stream channel as a result of land use
activities associated with surface coal
mining, legacy coal extraction, logging,
land development, channel relocations,
and riparian clearing. All of these
activities can cause sedimentation, but
they may also lead to canopy removal
clearing of riparian vegetation, and
elevation of stream temperatures,
thereby degrading habitats used by
Kentucky arrow darters for feeding,
sheltering, and reproduction.
Sedimentation may also originate from
areas within the stream channel as a
result of channel instability and bank or
stream bed erosion. Numerous streams
within the species’ current range have
been identified as impaired (primarily
due to siltation) and have been included
on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters (see Table 2, above). Activities
such as stream reconfiguration/riparian
restoration, bridge and culvert
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60986
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
replacement or removal, bank
stabilization, and stream crossing repair
and maintenance, that follow the
provisions of the species specific 4(d)
rule below will improve or restore
physical habitat quality for the
Kentucky arrow darter and will provide
an overall conservation benefit to the
species.
The 4(d) rule, if approved, will not
remove or alter in any way the
consultation requirement under section
7 of the Act. However, we expect the
4(d) rule to provide greater certainty to
Federal agencies and any third parties
(e.g., permit applicants) in the
consultation process for activities
conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the 4(d) rule. The
consultation process may be further
streamlined through programmatic
consultations between Federal agencies
and the Service for these activities. We
ask the public, particularly Federal
agencies and other interested
stakeholders that may be affected by the
4(d) rule, to provide comments and
suggestions regarding additional
guidance and methods that the Service
could provide or utilize, respectively, to
streamline the implementation of this
4(d) rule (see Information Requested).
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would except
from the general prohibitions in 50 CFR
17.32 take incidental to the following
activities when conducted within
habitats currently occupied by the
Kentucky arrow darter. All of the
activities listed below must be
conducted in a manner that (1)
maintains connectivity of suitable
Kentucky arrow darter habitats,
allowing for dispersal between streams;
(2) minimizes instream disturbance by
conducting activities during low-flow
periods when possible; and (3)
maximizes the amount of instream cover
that is available for the species:
(1) Channel reconfiguration or
restoration projects that create natural,
physically stable, ecologically
functioning streams (or stream and
wetland systems) that are reconnected
with their groundwater aquifers (Parola
and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8–13; Parola
and Hansen 2011, pp. 2–7; Floyd et al.
2013, pp. 129–135). These projects can
be accomplished using a variety of
methods, but the desired outcome is a
natural, sinuous channel with low shear
stress (force of water moving against the
channel); low bank heights and
reconnection to the floodplain; a
reconnection of surface and
groundwater systems, resulting in
perennial flows in the channel; riffles
and pools comprised of existing soil,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
rock, and wood instead of large
imported materials; low compaction of
soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
inclusion of riparian wetlands. First- to
third-order, headwater streams
reconstructed in this way would offer
suitable habitats for the Kentucky arrow
darter and contain stable channel
features, such as pools, glides, runs, and
riffles, which could be used by the
species for spawning, rearing, growth,
feeding, migration, and other normal
behaviors.
(2) Bank stabilization projects that
utilize bioengineering methods outlined
in Kentucky Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet and Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116–
128) to replace pre-existing, bare,
eroding stream banks with vegetated,
stable stream banks, thereby reducing
bank erosion and instream
sedimentation and improving habitat
conditions for the species. Following
these methods, stream banks may be
stabilized using live stakes (live,
vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped
into the ground in a manner that allows
the stake to take root and grow), live
fascines (live branch cuttings, usually
willows, bound together into long, cigar
shaped bundles), or brush layering
(cuttings or branches of easily rooted
tree species layered between successive
lifts of soil fill). These methods would
not include the sole use of quarried rock
(rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or
gabion structures.
(3) Bridge and culvert replacement/
removal projects that remove migration
barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or
perched culverts) or generally allow for
improved upstream and downstream
movements of Kentucky arrow darters
while maintaining normal stream flows,
preventing bed and bank erosion, and
improving habitat conditions for the
species.
(4) Repair and maintenance of USFS
concrete plank stream crossings on the
DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage
while maintaining instream habitats,
reducing bank and stream bed erosion
and instream sedimentation, and
improving habitat conditions for the
species. These concrete plank crossings
have been an effective stream crossing
structure on the DBNF and have been
used for decades. Over time, the planks
can be buried by sediment, undercut
during storm events, or simply break
down and decay. If these situations
occur, the DBNF must make repairs or
replace the affected plank.
We believe these actions and
activities, while they may have some
minimal level of mortality, harm, or
disturbance to the Kentucky arrow
darter, are not expected to adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
affect the species’ conservation and
recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they
would have a net beneficial effect on the
species. Across the species’ range,
instream habitats have been degraded
physically by sedimentation and by
direct channel disturbance. The
activities proposed in this rule will
correct some of these problems, creating
more favorable habitat conditions for
the species. Like the proposed listing
rule, this proposed 4(d) rule will not be
finalized until we have reviewed
comments from the public and peer
reviewers.
Based on the rationale above, the
provisions included in this proposed
4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the
Kentucky arrow darter. Nothing in this
proposed 4(d) rule would change in any
way the recovery planning provisions of
section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Act,
or the ability of the Service to enter into
partnerships for the management and
protection of the Kentucky arrow darter.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened
wildlife, a permit may be issued for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
economic hardship, zoological
exhibition, educational purposes, and
for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibited activities, 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 (for this species,
those section 9 prohibitions adopted
through the proposed 4(d) rule). The
intent of this policy is to increase public
awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing
activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. Based on the best
available information, the following
actions are unlikely to result in a
violation of section 9, if these activities
are carried out in accordance with
existing regulations and permit
requirements, although this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Normal agricultural and
silvicultural practices, including
herbicide and pesticide use, which are
carried out in accordance with any
existing regulations, permit and label
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60987
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
requirements, and best management
practices; and
(2) Surface coal mining and
reclamation activities conducted in
accordance with the 1996 Biological
Opinion between the Service and OSM.
However, we believe the following
activities may potentially result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act,
although this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or
handling of the species.
(2) Destruction or alteration of the
habitat of the Kentucky arrow darter
(e.g., unpermitted instream dredging,
impoundment, water diversion or
withdrawal, channelization, discharge
of fill material) that impairs essential
behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, or results in killing or
injuring a Kentucky arrow darter.
(3) Discharges or dumping of toxic
chemicals, contaminants, or other
pollutants into waters supporting the
Kentucky arrow darter that kills or
injures individuals, or otherwise
impairs essential life-sustaining
behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
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).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
Species
Historic range
Common name
*
FISHES
*
*
Darter, Kentucky
arrow.
*
Scientific name
*
Etheostoma
spilotum.
*
*
3. Amend § 17.44 by adding paragraph
(p) to read as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Special rules—fishes.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Kentucky arrow darter
(Etheostoma spilotum).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in
paragraph (p)(2) of this section, all
prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR
17.31 and 17.32 apply to the Kentucky
arrow darter.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
*
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Darter, Kentucky arrow’’ to
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in alphabetical order under
FISHES to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Critical
habitat
NA
*
Special
rules
*
*
........................
*
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
T
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. (i)
All of the activities listed in paragraph
(p)(2)(ii) must be conducted in a manner
that maintains connectivity of suitable
Kentucky arrow darter habitats,
allowing for dispersal between streams;
that minimizes instream disturbance by
conducting activities during low-flow
periods when possible; and that
maximizes the amount of instream cover
that is available for the species.
PO 00000
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the
Kentucky Ecological Services Field
Office.
*
*
Entire .................
*
Authors
When
listed
Status
*
*
U.S.A. (KY) .......
■
§ 17.44
Vertebrate population where
endangered or
threatened
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Kentucky
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
*
17.44(p)
*
(ii) Incidental take of the Kentucky
arrow darter will not be considered a
violation of section 9 of the Act if the
take results from any of the following
when conducted within habitats
currently occupied by the Kentucky
arrow darter:
(A) Channel reconfiguration or
restoration projects that create natural,
physically stable, ecologically
functioning streams (or stream and
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
60988
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
wetland systems) that are reconnected
with their groundwater aquifers (Parola
and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8–13; Parola
and Hansen 2011, pp. 2–7; Floyd et al.
2013, pp. 129–135). These projects can
be accomplished using a variety of
methods, but the desired outcome is a
natural, sinuous channel with low shear
stress (force of water moving against the
channel); low bank heights and
reconnection to the floodplain; a
reconnection of surface and
groundwater systems, resulting in
perennial flows in the channel; riffles
and pools comprised of existing soil,
rock, and wood instead of large
imported materials; low compaction of
soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
inclusion of riparian wetlands. First- to
third-order, headwater streams
reconstructed in this way would offer
suitable habitats for the Kentucky arrow
darter and contain stable channel
features, such as pools, glides, runs, and
riffles, which could be used by the
species for spawning, rearing, growth,
feeding, migration, and other normal
behaviors.
(B) Bank stabilization projects that
utilize bioengineering methods outlined
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
in Kentucky Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet and Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116–
128) to replace pre-existing, bare,
eroding stream banks with vegetated,
stable stream banks, thereby reducing
bank erosion and instream
sedimentation and improving habitat
conditions for the species. Following
these methods, stream banks may be
stabilized using live stakes (live,
vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped
into the ground in a manner that allows
the stake to take root and grow), live
fascines (live branch cuttings, usually
willows, bound together into long, cigar
shaped bundles), or brush layering
(cuttings or branches of easily rooted
tree species layered between successive
lifts of soil fill). These methods would
not include the sole use of quarried rock
(rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or
gabion structures.
(C) Bridge and culvert replacement/
removal projects that remove migration
barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or
perched culverts) or generally allow for
improved upstream and downstream
movements of Kentucky arrow darters
while maintaining normal stream flows,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
preventing bed and bank erosion, and
improving habitat conditions for the
species.
(D) Repair and maintenance of USFS
concrete plank stream crossings on the
DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage
while maintaining instream habitats,
reducing bank and stream bed erosion
and instream sedimentation, and
improving habitat conditions for the
species. These concrete plank crossings
have been an effective stream crossing
structure on the DBNF and have been
used for decades. Over time, the planks
can be buried by sediment, undercut
during storm events, or simply break
down and decay. If these situations
occur, the DBNF must make repairs or
replace the affected plank.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 22, 2015.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–25278 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\08OCP2.SGM
08OCP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60961-60988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25278]
[[Page 60961]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 195
October 8, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) Rule; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60962]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0132; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter With 4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma spilotum), a fish species
from the upper Kentucky River basin in Kentucky, as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this
species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 7, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2015-0132,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2015-0132; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological
Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY
40601; telephone 502-695-0468, x108; facsimile 502-695-1024. 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
(Act), if we find that a species may be an endangered or threatened
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are
required to promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species in the
Federal Register and make a final determination on our proposal within
1 year. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can
only be completed by issuing a rule.
This rule proposes the listing of the Kentucky arrow darter
(Etheostoma spilotum) as a threatened species. The Kentucky arrow
darter is a candidate species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a
listing rule has until now been precluded by other higher priority
listing activities. This rule assesses all available information
regarding the status of and threats to the Kentucky arrow darter.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we propose to designate critical
habitat for the Kentucky arrow darter under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Kentucky arrow darter
warrants listing based on three of the five factors (A, D, and E).
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our listing determination is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite
these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we
will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The Kentucky arrow darter's biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(4) Whether measures outlined in the proposed species-specific rule
under section 4(d) of the Act are necessary and advisable for the
conservation and management of the Kentucky arrow darter.
(5) Additional provisions that may be appropriate to except
incidental take as a result of other categories of activities beyond
those covered by this proposed species-specific rule and, if so, under
what conditions and with what conservation measures, in order to
conserve, recover, and manage the Kentucky arrow darter.
(6) Comments and suggestions, particularly from Federal agencies
and other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the 4(d),
regarding additional guidance and methods that
[[Page 60963]]
the Service could provide or utilize, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this 4(d) rule.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests for a public hearing must be
received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed
rule in the Federal Register. Such requests must be sent to the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce
the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to
obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local
newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of five appropriate and independent specialists regarding this
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the Kentucky arrow
darter's biology, habitat, threats, etc., which will inform our
determination. We will invite comment from the peer reviewers during
this public comment period.
Previous Federal Action
The Kentucky arrow darter was first identified as a candidate for
protection under the Act in the November 10, 2010, Federal Register (75
FR 69222). Candidate species are those fish, wildlife, and plants for
which we have on file 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. Candidates are assigned listing
priority numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy and the magnitude of
threats, as well as the species' taxonomic status. A lower LPN
corresponds to a higher conservation priority, and we consider the LPN
when prioritizing and funding conservation actions. In our 2010
candidate notice of review (CNOR) (75 FR 69222), we identified the
species as having an LPN of 3, in accordance with our priority guidance
published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An LPN of 3 reflects a
subspecies with imminent, high magnitude threats. The Kentucky arrow
darter was included in all of our subsequent annual CNORs (76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November
22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014). On November 22, 2013 (78 FR
70104), we changed the LPN for the Kentucky arrow darter from 3 to 2
based on a change in the species' taxonomic status (change from
subspecies to species rank). In our 2014 CNOR (79 FR 72450), we
retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
Background
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
The Kentucky arrow darter, Etheostoma spilotum Gilbert, is a small
and compressed fish, which reaches a maximum length of about 120
millimeters (mm) (4.7 inches (in)). It has a slender body, elongated
snout, relatively large mouth, and virtually scaleless head (Kuehne and
Barbour 1983, p. 71; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523). The Kentucky
arrow darter's background color is straw yellow to pale greenish, and
the body is also covered by a variety of stripes and blotches. The back
is crossed by 5 to 7 weak dorsal saddles, some of which may fuse with
the 8 to 11 vertical lateral blotches (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71;
Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523). The blotches are generally oval with
pale centers at the front of the body but extend downward and may
resemble the letters N, W, U, or V toward the back of the body. A dark
vertical bar occurs at the base of the caudal fin, sometimes separated
by two distinct spots. The belly is pale (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p.
71). During the spawning season, breeding males exhibit vibrant
coloration. Most of the body is blue-green in color, with scattered
scarlet spots and scarlet to orange vertical bars laterally; the
vertical bars can be connected ventrally by an orange belly stripe
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523). The spinous dorsal fin exhibits a
blue-green central band and a scarlet marginal band. The soft dorsal
and caudal fins are speckled with scarlet blotches or bands, and the
anal and pelvic fins are blue-green to black. Females remain pale straw
yellow with grayish markings (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523).
Morphological differences between the Kentucky arrow darter and other
darters make misidentifications unlikely. The species can be easily
differentiated by its elongated snout, its oval or diamond-shaped
lateral blotches, and its large size (for individuals greater than 100
mm (3.9 in) total length (TL)).
The Kentucky arrow darter belongs to the Class Actinopterygii (ray-
finned fishes), Order Perciformes, and Family Percidae (perches)
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, pp. 18-25; Page and Burr 2011, p. 569). The
species was described from the Kentucky River basin (Sturgeon Creek,
Owsley County) as Etheostoma nianguae spilotum (Gilbert 1887, pp. 53-
54), but was later recognized and accepted as one of two subspecies of
the arrow darter, E. sagitta (Jordan and Swain) (Bailey 1948, pp. 80-
84; Kuehne and Bailey 1961, pp. 1-5; Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71;
Burr and Warren 1986, p. 316). Thomas and Johansen (2008, p. 46)
questioned the subspecies status of E. sagitta by arguing that (1) the
two subspecies, E. sagitta sagitta and E. sagitta spilotum, were
distinguishable based on scale size and development of the lateral line
(see note below); (2) the
[[Page 60964]]
two subspecies existed in allopatry (separate ranges with no overlap);
(3) the two subspecies lacked intergrades (intermediate forms); and (4)
unpublished genetic data (mitochondrial DNA) suggested evolutionary
independence of Kentucky and Cumberland basin populations (with no
recent genetic exchange). Based on these analyses, the two arrow darter
subspecies have been elevated to species rank (Page and Burr 2011, p.
569; Eschmeyer 2014, p. 1). The Cumberland arrow darter, E. sagitta
(Jordan and Swain), is restricted to the upper Cumberland River basin
in Kentucky and Tennessee, and the Kentucky arrow darter, E. spilotum
Gilbert, is restricted to the upper Kentucky River basin in Kentucky.
Habitat and Life History
Kentucky arrow darters typically inhabit pools or transitional
areas between riffles and pools (glides and runs) in moderate- to high-
gradient, first- to third-order streams with rocky substrates (Thomas
2008, p. 6). The species is most often observed near some type of
cover--boulders, rock ledges, large cobble, or woody debris piles.
During spawning (April to June), the species will utilize riffle
habitats with moderate flow (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). Thomas
(2008, p. 6) observed Kentucky arrow darters at depths ranging from 10
to 45 centimeters (cm) (4 to 18 in) and in streams ranging from 1.5 to
20 meters (m) (4.9 to 65.6 feet (ft)) wide. Kentucky arrow darters
typically occupy streams with watersheds of 25.9 square kilometers
(km\2\) (10 square miles (mi\2\)) or less, and many of these habitats,
especially those in first-order reaches, can be intermittent in nature
(Thomas 2008, pp. 6-9). During drier periods (late summer or fall),
some Kentucky arrow darter streams may cease flowing, but the species
appears to survive these conditions by retreating into shaded, isolated
pools or by dispersing into larger tributaries (Lotrich 1973, p. 394;
Lowe 1979, p. 26; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523; Service unpublished
data). Lotrich (1973, p. 394) observed riffle habitats in Clemons Fork
(Breathitt County) that were completely dry by late summer, but shaded
isolated pools in these habitats continued to support Kentucky arrow
darters.
Male Kentucky arrow darters establish territories over riffles from
March to May, when they are quite conspicuous in water 5 to 15 cm (2 to
6 in) deep (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71). Males fan out a depression
in the substrate and defend these sites vigorously. Initial courtship
behavior involves rapid dashes, fin-flaring, nudging, and quivering
motions by the male followed by similar quivering responses of the
female, who then precedes the male to the nest. The female partially
buries herself in the substrate, is mounted by the male, and spawning
occurs (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 523). It is assumed that the male
continues to defend the nest until the eggs have hatched. The spawning
period extends from April to June, but peak activity occurs when water
temperatures reach 13 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (55 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)), typically in mid-April (Bailey 1948, pp. 82-84; Lowe 1979,
p. 44). Females produce between 200 and 600 eggs per season, with
tremendous variation resulting from size, age, condition of females,
and stream temperature (Rakes 2014, pers. comm.).
Young Kentucky arrow darters can exceed 25 mm (1 in) TL by mid-June
and can reach 50 mm (2 in) in length by the end of the first year
(Lotrich 1973, pp. 384-385; Lowe 1979, pp. 44-48; Kuehne and Barbour
1983, p. 71). One-year olds are generally sexually mature and
participate in spawning with older age classes (Etnier and Starnes
1993, p. 523). Lotrich (1973, p. 384) reported a mean length at age 2
of about 65 mm (2.6 in) but was unable to differentiate between older
age classes (age 3+). Lowe (1979, p. 38) reported four age classes for
the closely related Cumberland arrow darter, but growth was variable
after age 1. Juvenile Kentucky arrow darters can be found throughout
the channel but are often observed in shallow water along stream
margins near root mats, rock ledges, or some other cover. As stream
flow lessens and riffles begin to shrink, most Kentucky arrow darters
move into pools and tend to remain there even when summer and autumn
rains restore stream flow (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 71).
Limited information exists with regard to upstream or downstream
movements of Kentucky arrow darters; however, preliminary findings from
a movement study at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) and a
reintroduction project on the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF)
suggest that Kentucky arrow darters can move considerable distances
(Baxter 2014, pers. comm.; Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.).
The EKU study is using PIT-tags (electronic tags placed under the
skin) and placed antenna systems (installed in the stream bottom) to
monitor intra- and inter-tributary movement of Kentucky arrow darters
in Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha Creek, two second-order tributaries of
Red Bird River in Clay and Leslie Counties (Baxter 2014, pers. comm.).
PIT-tags have been placed in a total of 126 individuals, and Kentucky
arrow darter movements have been tracked since December 2013. Recorded
movements have ranged from 134 m (439 ft) (upstream movement) to 4,078
m (13,379 ft or 2.5 mi) (downstream movement by a female in Elisha
Creek). Intermediate recorded movements have included 328 m (1,076 ft)
(downstream), 351 m (1,151 ft) (upstream), 900 m (2,952 ft) (upstream/
downstream), 950 m (3,116 ft) (downstream), 1,282 m (4,028 ft)
(downstream), and 1,708 m (5,603 ft) (downstream).
Since 2012, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
(KDFWR) has been releasing captive-bred Kentucky arrow darters into
Long Fork, a DBNF stream and first-order tributary to Hector Branch in
eastern Clay County, Kentucky, where the species had been extirpated. A
total of 1,447 captive-spawned KADs (about 50-55 mm TL) have been
tagged and reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi) reach of Long Fork.
Monitoring has been conducted on multiple occasions since the initial
release using visual searches and seining methods. Tagged darters have
been observed during each monitoring event, with numbers increasing
since the reintroduction began in 2012. Untagged individuals began to
appear in Long Fork in 2013, indicating natural reproduction in Long
Fork. In 2015, KDFWR observed five untagged individuals (47-58 mm TL)
and one tagged individual (90 mm TL) in Hector Branch, approximately
0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream of its confluence with Long Fork, and they
also observed four untagged individuals (44-52 mm TL) in Deerlick
Branch, a first-order tributary of Hector Branch, approximately 1.0 km
(0.6 mi) downstream of the confluence of Long Fork and Hector Branch
(Thomas 2015a, pers. comm.). Based on these results, it is evident that
at least some Kentucky arrow darters have moved out of Long Fork into
other parts of the Hector Creek drainage. It is impossible to determine
if the untagged fish were spawned in Long Fork or Hector Branch;
however, the former scenario is most likely given the poor water
quality and habitat conditions in Hector Branch and the lack of
collection records in Hector Branch prior to reintroduction efforts.
Considering the water quality and habitat conditions in Hector Branch,
it is also plausible that the individuals captured in Hector Branch
were in transit seeking higher quality habitat (e.g., small
tributaries). Based on these results, it is clear that young Kentucky
arrow darters can
[[Page 60965]]
disperse both upstream and downstream from their place of origin and
can move considerable distances.
Additional insight into possibility of interstream dispersal can be
gained from the closely related Cumberland arrow darter. Lowe (1979,
pp. 26-27) observed potential movement behavior for the Cumberland
arrow darter in Tennessee. During field observations in January and
February 1975, no Cumberland arrow darters were observed near the mouth
of No Business Creek, a tributary of Hickory Creek in Campbell County,
Tennessee, and downstream of a perched culvert. During a subsequent
survey at this location, Lowe observed a total of 34 Cumberland arrow
darters, a dramatic increase compared to previous surveys. Lowe (1979,
pp. 26-27) considered it unlikely that the Cumberland arrow darters
originated from upstream reaches of No Business Creek because no
individuals were observed upstream of the culvert during the length of
the study and no individuals had been observed at the site during the
previous week. The only plausible explanation for the sudden increase
was that the Cumberland arrow darters had migrated from Hickory Creek
or a nearby tributary of Hickory Creek (e.g., Laurel Fork).
Kentucky arrow darters feed primarily on mayflies (Order
Ephemeroptera), which comprised 77 percent of identifiable food items
(420 of 542 items) in 57 Kentucky arrow darter stomachs from Clemons
Fork, Breathitt County (Lotrich 1973, p. 381). The families
Heptageniidae (genera Maccaffertium and Stenonema) and Baetidae were
the dominant mayflies in examined stomachs of Cumberland arrow darters
in Tennessee (Lowe 1979, pp. 35-36). Kentucky arrow darters greater
than 70 mm (2.8 in) TL often feed on small crayfish, as 7 of 8 stomachs
examined by Lotrich (1973, p. 381) from Clemons Fork contained
crayfishes ranging in size from 11 to 24 mm (0.4 to 0.9 in). Lotrich
(1973, p. 381) considered this to be noteworthy because stomachs of
small Kentucky arrow darters (less than 70 mm (2.8 in) TL) and stomachs
of other darter species did not contain crayfishes. He suggested that
larger individuals were utilizing a different energy source, thus
removing themselves from direct competition for food with other fishes
in first- and second-order streams. Lotrich (1973, p. 381) speculated
that this would allow these larger individuals to exploit an abundant
food source and survive in extreme headwater habitats. Other food items
reported by Lotrich (1973, p. 381) and Etnier and Starnes (1993, p.
523) included larval blackflies (family Simuliidae) and midges
(Chironomidae), with lesser amounts of caddisfly larvae, stonefly
nymphs, and beetle larvae. Etnier and Starnes (1993, p. 523) reported
that juvenile arrow darters feed on microcrustaceans and dipteran
larvae.
Common associates of the Kentucky arrow darter include creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum),
white sucker (Catastomus commersonii), emerald darter (Etheostoma
baileyi), rainbow darter (E. caeruleum), fantail darter (E.
flabellare), and Johnny darter (E. nigrum) (Kuehne 1962, p. 609;
Lotrich 1973, p. 380; Thomas 2008, p. 7). Within first-order streams or
headwater reaches, the species is most commonly associated with creek
chub, central stoneroller, and fantail darter.
Historical Range and Distribution
The Kentucky arrow darter occurred historically in at least 74
streams in the upper Kentucky River basin of eastern Kentucky (Gilbert
1887, pp. 53-54; Woolman 1892, pp. 275-281; Kuehne and Bailey 1961, pp.
3-4; Kuehne 1962, pp. 608-609; Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 507-514;
Lotrich 1973, p. 380; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81-83; Harker et al.
1979, pp. 523-761; Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37; Branson and
Batch 1983, pp. 2-13; Branson and Batch 1984, pp. 4-8; Kornman 1985, p.
28; Burr and Warren 1986, p. 316; Measel 1997, pp. 1-105; Kornman 1999,
pp. 118-133; Stephens 1999, pp. 159-174; Ray and Ceas 2003, p. 8;
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) unpublished data).
Its distribution spanned portions of 6 smaller sub-basins or watersheds
(North Fork Kentucky River, Middle Fork Kentucky River, South Fork
Kentucky River, Silver Creek, Sturgeon Creek, and Red River) in 10
Kentucky counties (Breathitt, Clay, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Lee,
Leslie, Owsley, Perry, and Wolfe) (Thomas 2008, p. 3) (Figure 1).
[[Page 60966]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC15.001
The Kentucky arrow darter was first reported from the upper
Kentucky River basin by Gilbert (1887, pp. 53-54), who collected 12
specimens from Sturgeon Creek near Travelers Rest, Owsley County.
Woolman (1892, pp. 275-281) conducted more extensive surveys throughout
the basin in the summer of 1890, reporting the species from seven
additional streams: Big Creek, Cutshin Creek, Hector Branch, Lotts
Creek, Middle Fork Kentucky River, Red Bird River, and Troublesome
Creek. Kuehne and Bailey (1961, pp. 3-4) and Kuehne (1962, pp. 608-614)
surveyed additional portions of the basin from 1954-1959, observing the
species in Sexton Creek, Troublesome Creek (mainstem), and nine smaller
streams in the Troublesome Creek watershed: Bear Branch, Buckhorn
Creek, Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Laurel Fork, Lewis Fork, Long Fork,
Millseat Branch, and Snag Ridge Fork. From 1969-1978, biologists from
EKU and KSNPC documented the species from an additional eight streams:
Buck Creek, Buffalo Creek, Greasy Creek, Horse Creek, Jacks Creek,
Laurel Creek, Leatherwood Creek, and Raccoon Creek (Branson and Batch
1972, pp. 507-514; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81-83; Harker et al.
1979, pp. 523-761; Branson and Batch 1983, pp. 2-13; Branson and Batch
1984, pp. 4-8; Burr and Warren 1986, p. 316). The number of known
occurrences for the Kentucky arrow darter increased considerably during
the 1990s (1990-1999), when EKU, KDFWR, the Kentucky Division of Water
(KDOW), and KSNPC completed surveys throughout the basin, documenting
the species' presence in a total of 46 streams (Kornman 1999, pp. 118-
133; Stephens 1999, pp. 159-174; Ray and Ceas 2003, p. 8; KSNPC
unpublished data).
Current Range and Distribution
Based on surveys completed since 2006, extant populations of the
Kentucky arrow darter are known from 47 streams in the upper Kentucky
River basin in eastern Kentucky. These populations are scattered across
6 sub-basins (North Fork Kentucky River, Middle Fork Kentucky River,
South Fork Kentucky River, Silver Creek, Sturgeon Creek, and Red River)
in 10 Kentucky counties: Breathitt, Clay, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Lee,
Leslie, Owsley, Perry, and Wolfe Counties (Thomas 2008, pp. 3-6;
Service unpublished data). Populations in nine of these streams have
been discovered or established since 2006. Current populations occur in
the following Kentucky River sub-basins (and smaller watersheds):
North Fork Kentucky River (Troublesome, Quicksand, Frozen,
Holly, Lower Devil, Walker, and Hell Creek watersheds);
Middle Fork Kentucky River (Big Laurel, Rockhouse, Hell
For Certain Creek, and Squabble Creek watersheds);
South Fork Kentucky River (Red Bird River, Hector Branch,
and Goose, Bullskin, Buffalo, and Lower Buffalo Creek watersheds);
Silver Creek;
Sturgeon Creek (Travis, Wild Dog, and Granny Dismal Creek
watersheds); and
Red River (Rock Bridge Fork of Swift Camp Creek).
Population Estimates and Status
The species' status in all streams of historical or recent
occurrence is summarized in Table 1, below, which is organized by sub-
basin, beginning at the southeastern border (upstream end) of the basin
(North Fork Kentucky River) and moving downstream. In this proposed
rule, the term ``population'' is
[[Page 60967]]
used in a geographical context and not in a genetic context, and is
defined as all individuals of the species living in one stream. Using
the term in this way allows the status, trends, and threats to be
discussed comparatively across streams where the species occurs. In
using this term, we do not imply that the populations are currently
reproducing and recruiting or that they are distinct genetic units. We
considered populations of the Kentucky arrow darter as extant if live
specimens have been observed or collected since 2006, and suitable
habitat is present.
We are using the following generalized sets of criteria to
categorize the relative status of populations of 83 streams (74
historical and 9 non-historical discovered or established since 2006)
included in Table 1. The status of a population is considered
``stable'' if: (1) There is little evidence of significant habitat loss
or degradation, (2) darter abundance has remained relatively constant
or increased during recent surveys, or (3) evidence of relatively
recent recruitment has been documented since 2006. The status of a
population is considered ``vulnerable'' if: (1) There is ample evidence
of significant habitat loss or degradation since the species' original
capture, (2) there is an obvious decreasing trend in abundance since
the historical collection, or (3) no evidence of relatively recent
recruitment (since 2006) has been documented. The status of a
population is considered ``extirpated'' if: (1) All known suitable
habitat has been destroyed or severely degraded; (2) no live
individuals have been observed since 2006; or (3) live individuals have
been observed since 2006, but habitat conditions do not appear to be
suitable for reproduction to occur (e.g., elevated conductivity,
siltation) and there is supporting evidence that the observed
individuals are transients from another stream.
Table 1--Kentucky Arrow Darter Status in All Streams of Historical (74) or Recent Occurrence \1\ (9; noted in
bold) in the Upper Kentucky River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
Sub-basin Sub-basin Stream \1\ County Current status last
tributaries observation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Fork................... Lotts Creek..... Lotts Creek..... Perry.......... Extirpated..... 1890
Left Fork....... Knott.......... Extirpated..... 1890
Troublesome Perry.......... Extirpated..... 1890
Creek.
Mill Creek...... Knott.......... Extirpated..... 1995
Laurel Fork (of Knott.......... Extirpated..... 1995
Balls Fork).
Buckhorn Creek Knott.......... Vulnerable..... 2011
(Prince Fork).
Eli Fork \1\.... Knott.......... Vulnerable..... 2011
Boughcamp Branch Knott.......... Extirpated..... 2011
Coles Fork...... Breathitt, Stable......... 2011
Knott.
Snag Ridge Fork. Knott.......... Stable......... 2008
Clemons Fork.... Breathitt...... Stable......... 2013
Millseat Branch. Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1976
Lewis Fork...... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1959
Long Fork....... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1959
Bear Branch..... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 2015
Laurel Fork (of Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1976
Buckhorn).
Lost Creek...... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1997
Quicksand Creek. Laurel Fork..... Knott.......... Stable......... 2014
Baker Branch.... Knott.......... Extirpated..... 1994
Middle Fork..... Knott.......... Stable......... 2013
Spring Fork \1\. Breathitt...... Vulnerable..... 2013
Wolf Creek...... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1995
Hunting Creek... Breathitt...... Vulnerable..... 2013
Leatherwood Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1982
Creek.
Bear Creek...... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1969
Smith Branch.... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1995
Frozen Creek.... Frozen Creek.... Breathitt...... Stable......... 2013
Clear Fork...... Breathitt...... Vulnerable..... 2008
Negro Branch.... Breathitt...... Vulnerable..... 2008
Davis Creek..... Breathitt...... Vulnerable..... 2008
Cope Fork....... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1995
Boone Fork...... Breathitt...... Extirpated..... 1998
Holly Creek..... Holly Creek..... Wolfe.......... Vulnerable..... 2007
Lower Devil Lower Devil Lee, Wolfe..... Extirpated..... 1998
Creek. Creek.
Little Fork \1\. Lee, Wolfe..... Vulnerable..... 2011
Walker Creek.... Walker Creek.... Lee, Wolfe..... Stable......... 2013
Hell Creek...... Hell Creek...... Lee............ Vulnerable..... 2013
Middle Fork.................. Greasy Creek.... Big Laurel Creek Harlan......... Vulnerable..... 2009
Greasy Creek.... Leslie......... Extirpated..... 1970
Cutshin Creek... Cutshin Creek... Leslie......... Extirpated..... 1890
Middle Fork..... Middle Fork..... Leslie......... Extirpated..... 1890
Rockhouse Creek. Laurel Creek \1\ Leslie......... Vulnerable..... 2013
Hell For Certain Hell For Certain Leslie......... Stable......... 2013
Creek. Creek.
Squabble Creek.. Squabble Creek.. Perry.......... Vulnerable..... 2015
South Fork................... Red Bird River.. Blue Hole Creek. Clay........... Stable......... 2008
Upper Bear Creek Clay........... Stable......... 2013
Katies Creek.... Clay........... Stable......... 2007
Spring Creek.... Clay........... Stable......... 2007
Bowen Creek..... Leslie......... Stable......... 2009
[[Page 60968]]
Elisha Creek.... Leslie......... Stable......... 2014
Gilberts Big Clay, Leslie... Stable......... 2013
Creek.
Sugar Creek \1\. Clay, Leslie... Stable......... 2008
Big Double Creek Clay........... Stable......... 2014
Little Double Clay........... Stable......... 2008
Creek.
Big Creek....... Clay........... Extirpated..... 1890
Jacks Creek..... Clay........... Vulnerable..... 2009
Hector Branch... Clay........... Extirpated..... 2015
Long Fork (of Clay........... Stable......... 2014
Hector Br.) \1\.
Goose Creek..... Horse Creek..... Clay........... Vulnerable..... 2013
Laurel Creek.... Clay........... Extirpated..... 1970
Bullskin Creek.. Bullskin Creek.. Clay, Leslie... Vulnerable..... 2014
Buffalo Creek... Laurel Fork..... Owsley......... Stable......... 2014
Cortland Fork Owsley......... Vulnerable..... 2014
\1\.
Lucky Fork...... Owsley......... Stable......... 2014
Left Fork....... Owsley......... Stable......... 2014
Right Fork...... Owsley......... Vulnerable..... 2009
Buffalo Creek... Owsley......... Vulnerable..... 1969
Sexton Creek.... Bray Creek...... Clay........... Extirpated..... 1997
Robinsons Creek. Clay........... Extirpated..... 1997
Sexton Creek.... Owsley......... Extirpated..... 1978
Lower Island Lower Island Owsley......... Extirpated..... 1997
Creek. Creek.
Cow Creek....... Right Fork Cow Owsley......... Extirpated..... 1997
Creek.
Buck Creek...... Buck Creek...... Owsley......... Extirpated..... 1978
Lower Buffalo Lower Buffalo Lee, Owsley.... Vulnerable..... 2007
Creek. Creek.
Silver Creek................. Lee............ Vulnerable..... 2008
Sturgeon Creek............... Travis Creek \1\ Jackson........ Vulnerable..... 2008
Brushy Creek.... Jackson, Owsley Extirpated..... 1996
Little Sturgeon Owsley......... Extirpated..... 1996
Creek.
Wild Dog Creek.. Jackson, Owsley Stable......... 2007
Granny Dismal Lee, Owsley.... Vulnerable..... 2013
Creek \1\.
Cooperas Cave Lee............ Extirpated..... 1996
Branch.
Sturgeon Creek.. Lee............ Extirpated..... 1998
Red River.................... Swift Camp Creek Rockbridge Fork. Wolfe.......... Vulnerable..... 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-historical occurrence discovered or established since 2006.
From 2007-2012, the Service, KSNPC, and KDFWR conducted a status
review for the Kentucky arrow darter (Thomas 2008, pp. 1-33; Service
2012, pp. 1-4). Surveys were conducted qualitatively using single-pass
electrofishing techniques (Smith-Root backpack electrofishing unit)
within an approximate 100-m (328-ft) reach. During these efforts, fish
surveys were conducted at 69 of 74 historical streams, 103 of 119
historical sites, and 40 new (non-historical) sites (sites correspond
to individual sampling reaches and more than one may be present on a
given stream). Kentucky arrow darters were observed at 36 of 69
historical streams (52 percent), 53 of 103 historical sites (52
percent), and 4 of 40 new sites (10 percent). New sites were
specifically selected based on habitat suitability and the availability
of previous collection records (sites lacking previous collections were
chosen).
From June to September 2013, KSNPC and the Service initiated a
study that included quantitative surveys at 80 randomly chosen sites
within the species' historical range (Service unpublished data).
Kentucky arrow darters were observed at only seven sites, including two
new localities (Granny Dismal Creek in Owsley County and Spring Fork
Quicksand Creek in Breathitt County) and one historical stream (Hunting
Creek, Breathitt County) where the species was not observed during
status surveys by Thomas (2008, pp. 1-33) and Service (2012, pp. 1-4).
During 2014-2015, additional qualitative surveys (single-pass
electrofishing) were completed at over 20 sites within the basin.
Kentucky arrow darters were observed in Bear Branch, Big Double Creek,
Big Laurel Creek, Bullskin Creek, Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Cortland
Fork, Laurel Fork Buffalo Creek, and Squabble Creek. Based on the poor
habitat conditions observed in Bear Branch (e.g., elevated
conductivity, siltation, and embedded substrates) and its close
proximity to Robinson Forest, we suspect that the few individuals
observed in Bear Branch were transients originating from Clemons Fork.
Based on historical records and survey data collected at over 200
sites since 2006, the Kentucky arrow darter has declined significantly
rangewide and has been eliminated from large portions of its former
range, including 36 of 74 historical streams (Figure 2) and large
portions of the basin that would have been occupied historically by the
species (Figure 3). Forty-four percent of the species' extirpations (16
streams) have occurred since the mid-1990s, and the species has
disappeared completely from several watersheds (e.g., Sexton Creek,
South Fork Quicksand Creek, Troublesome Creek headwaters). Of the
species' 47 extant streams, we consider half of these populations (23)
to be ``vulnerable'' (Table 1), and most remaining populations are
isolated and restricted to short stream reaches.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 60969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC15.002
[[Page 60970]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC15.003
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
A synopsis of the Kentucky arrow darter's current range and status
is provided below and is arranged by sub-basin, starting at the
southeastern border (upstream end) of the basin and moving downstream.
Within each sub-basin, smaller watersheds and streams are addressed in
a hierarchical fashion (follows the order used in Table 1).
North Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The North Fork Kentucky River arises in eastern Letcher County,
Kentucky, near Pine Mountain and flows generally northwest for
approximately 270 km (168 mi) to its confluence with the South Fork
Kentucky River. Its watershed encompasses approximately 4,877 km\2\
(1,883 mi\2\) in portions of Breathitt, Knott, Lee, Letcher, Perry, and
[[Page 60971]]
Wolfe counties. The Kentucky arrow darter was known historically from
33 streams in this sub-basin; we now consider the species to be extant
in 17 streams (Thomas 2008, pp. 5-6; KSNPC unpublished data; Service
unpublished data).
Lotts Creek--Lotts Creek is a tributary of the North Fork Kentucky
River that flows westerly through east-central Perry County and
southwestern Knott County. The Kentucky arrow darter was first reported
from Lotts Creek by Woolman (1892, pp. 275-281), who described it as
uncommon in the stream. No additional records are available from the
Lotts Creek watershed, and our most recent survey (2009) was also
unsuccessful (Service 2012, pp. 1-4). Based on the stream's poor
habitat conditions (e.g., conductivity greater than 1,000 micro Siemens
([micro]S)/cm, embedded substrates) and the lack of species records
over the last 125 years (Service 2012, pp. 1-4), we do not consider the
species to be extant within the Lotts Creek watershed.
Troublesome Creek--Troublesome Creek is a tributary of the North
Fork Kentucky River draining portions of Breathitt, Knott, and Perry
Counties. Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter was known from 16
streams in the Troublesome Creek watershed (Table 1) (Woolman 1892, pp.
275-281; Kuehne and Bailey 1961, pp. 3-4; Kuehne 1962, pp. 608-614;
Harker et al. 1979, pp. 523-761; Measel 1997, pp. 8-11, 59; KSNPC
unpublished data). The species has been eliminated from the upper
reaches of Troublesome Creek, portions of the Buckhorn Creek watershed,
and Lost Creek, but populations continue to occur in the upper Buckhorn
Creek watershed, specifically Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Snag Ridge
Fork, Buckhorn Creek (headwaters, including Prince Fork), and Eli Fork
(of Boughcamp Branch). The best remaining populations occur in Clemons
Fork and Coles Fork, both tributaries of Buckhorn Creek that are
located on Robinson Forest, a 59.9-km\2\ (14,800-acre (ac))
experimental forest owned and managed by the University of Kentucky
(UK). These watersheds are intact and densely forested, with only minor
interruption by logging roads. Both streams are moderate- to high-
gradient, cool, and dominated by cobble, boulder, and bedrock
substrates. The species has been extirpated from most downstream
tributaries of Buckhorn Creek (e.g., Long Fork) and most of the
Buckhorn Creek mainstem; however, individuals are sometimes observed in
these tributaries (e.g., Bear Branch, Boughcamp Branch) or the Buckhorn
Creek mainstem where these habitats are located close to occupied
reaches. A small population continues to persist (and reproduce) within
the Buckhorn Creek headwaters (Prince Fork and Eli Fork), but these
watersheds are isolated from downstream populations due to severely
degraded habitat and water quality conditions in the Buckhorn Creek
mainstem and adjacent tributaries (Appalachian Technical Services (ATS)
2011, pp. 1-17). Surface coal mining has been practiced extensively
within the Troublesome Creek watershed, and these activities continue
to occur. A 10.9-km (6.8-mi) reach of Buckhorn Creek has been placed on
Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters due to siltation and elevated
levels of total dissolved solids (KDOW 2013a, p. 341) and reported to
the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 303 of the 1972
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
Quicksand Creek--Quicksand Creek is a tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River that drains portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties.
The Kentucky arrow darter was known from nine historical streams in the
watershed (Table 1) (Harker et al. 1979, pp. 576-590; KSNPC unpublished
data). The species has been extirpated from five of these streams
(e.g., Leatherwood Creek), but extant populations remain in Laurel
Fork, Middle Fork, Spring Fork, and Hunting Creek. Laurel Fork and
Middle Fork support the best remaining populations. Both of these
watersheds are sparsely populated and forested, with favorable water
quality and habitat conditions for the species. The small Spring Fork
population was discovered in 2013, and appears to be limited to an
approximate 1.6-km (1-mi) headwater reach. Habitat conditions in Spring
Fork are marginal for the species (e.g., heavy siltation, bank
erosion), and instream conductivity is elevated (334 [micro]S/cm). The
species was first observed in Hunting Creek in July 1995 (six
individuals observed), but the species was not observed during surveys
by KDFWR in May 2007 (Thomas 2008, p. 5). Surveys by the Service in
September 2013 produced four individuals, but habitat conditions
continue to be marginal for the species. Based on these factors, we
consider the Hunting Creek population to be vulnerable to extirpation.
Frozen Creek--Frozen Creek is a tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River in northern Breathitt County. The Kentucky arrow darter
was known historically from six streams in the Frozen Creek watershed:
Frozen Creek (headwaters), Clear Fork, Negro Branch, Davis Creek, Cope
Fork, and Boone Fork (Kornman 1999, pp. 118-133; KSNPC unpublished
data). Thomas (2008, p. 5) revisited these sites in 2007 and 2008, and
determined that the species was extant in four streams: Frozen Creek,
Clear Fork, Negro Branch, and Davis Creek. The most individuals were
observed in Frozen Creek, which also contained the most favorable
habitat conditions for the species. The species was less abundant in
Clear Fork, Negro Branch, and Davis Creek, and habitat conditions were
marginal (e.g., extensive bedrock areas, substrates covered by thick
layer of algae). Thomas (2008, pp. 5, 31-32) did not observe the
species in Cope Fork or Boone Fork, both of which exhibited poor
habitat and water quality conditions (e.g., siltation, elevated
conductivity). Sedimentation continues to be a problem in the Frozen
Creek watershed (KDOW 2013a, p. 329), and a 3.1-km (1.9-mi) reach of
Cope Fork has been placed on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters
due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids (e.g., elevated
conductivity) (KDOW 2013a, p. 345).
Holly Creek--Holly Creek is a tributary of the North Fork Kentucky
River in southern Wolfe County. Kentucky arrow darters were first
observed in Holly Creek (one individual) in 1998 (Kornman 1999, pp.
118-133). Thomas (2008, p. 5) revisited the historical site in 2007,
and observed two individuals. Despite the species' presence, habitat
conditions in portions of the watershed continue to be poor, and a 10-
km (6.2-mi) reach (RM 0-6.2) of Holly Creek has been placed on
Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired streams due to sedimentation from
agriculture, stream bank modification, and riparian habitat loss (KDOW
2013a, p. 351). Based on these factors and the population's apparent
small size, we consider the Holly Creek population to be vulnerable to
extirpation.
Lower Devil Creek--Lower Devil Creek is a direct tributary of the
North Fork Kentucky River in southern Wolfe County. The Kentucky arrow
darter was first reported from Lower Devil Creek by Kornman (1999, pp.
118-133), who collected one individual in 1998. The species was not
observed during subsequent surveys in 2007 and 2011 (Thomas 2008, pp.
5; Service unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 5) reported a new record
for the watershed based on the collection of one specimen from Little
Fork, a tributary to Lower Devil Creek. We observed an additional
specimen during surveys in 2011. We consider the Little Fork population
to be vulnerable to extirpation due to its apparent small population
size and the stream's elevated conductivity (approximately 400
[micro]S/cm).
[[Page 60972]]
Walker Creek--Walker Creek is a direct tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River in eastern Lee County. First discovered in 1996 (KSNPC
unpublished data), this population continues to be relatively robust.
The species was observed at all historical sites and one new site
during surveys completed in 2008 and 2013 (KSNPC and Service
unpublished data). Conductivity values continue to be high in
downstream reaches (approximately 400 [micro]S/cm), but these
conditions do not appear to have reduced Kentucky arrow darter numbers.
Historical land use within the Walker Creek watershed was dominated by
oil and gas development/drilling, which may explain the elevated
conductivity values observed during recent surveys.
Hell Creek--Hell Creek is a direct tributary of the North Fork
Kentucky River in eastern Lee County. The species was first observed in
Hell Creek (two individuals) in August 1995 (KSNPC unpublished data),
followed by observations by Kornman (1999, pp. 118-133) in 1998 (two
individuals) and Thomas (2008, p. 5) in 2007 (seven individuals).
Surveys by KDFWR in July 2014 suggest a possible decline of the
population in Hell Creek (Thomas 2014, pers. comm.). Kentucky arrow
darters appeared to be less abundant (only two individuals observed
despite exhaustive searches), and habitat conditions within Hell Creek
had deteriorated (siltation was prominent) compared to previous surveys
(Thomas 2014, pers. comm.).
Middle Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The Middle Fork Kentucky River arises in southern Leslie County,
Kentucky, near Pine Mountain and flows generally north for
approximately 169 km (105 mi) to its confluence with the North Fork
Kentucky River. Its watershed encompasses approximately 1,448 km\2\
(559 mi\2\) in portions of Breathitt, Harlan, Lee, Leslie, and Perry
counties. The Kentucky arrow darter was formerly known from seven
widely scattered stream segments in the sub-basin. We now consider the
species to be extant in four of these streams (Thomas 2008, pp. 4-5;
Service unpublished data).
Greasy Creek--Greasy Creek is a tributary of the Middle Fork
Kentucky River that drains southern Leslie county and a small portion
of northern Harlan County. The Kentucky arrow darter is known from two
historical streams within the watershed--Greasy Creek and Big Laurel
Creek, a direct tributary of Greasy Creek (Branson and Batch 1984, pp.
4-8; KSNPC unpublished data). The species is presumed extirpated from
the Greasy Creek mainstem, but a small population remains in Big Laurel
Creek based on collections completed in 2009 (Service 2012, pp. 1-4).
We consider the Big Laurel Creek population to be vulnerable to
extirpation due to sedimentation, channel instability, and elevated
conductivity.
Cutshin Creek--Cutshin Creek is a tributary of the Middle Fork
Kentucky River draining southeastern Leslie County. The species was
first reported from Cutshin Creek by Woolman (1892, pp. 275-281), who
observed the species 4.8 km (3 mi) upstream of the Cutshin Creek and
Middle Fork confluence. Branson and Batch (1984, pp. 4-8) made the only
other observation of the species in Cutshin Creek. They collected one
specimen at the KY 80 crossing in June 1973. The species has not been
observed in Cutshin Creek since that time.
Middle Fork--Woolman (1892, pp. 275-281) observed the species in
the Middle Fork mainstem during surveys completed 6.4 km (4 mi) north
of Hyden in August 1890. The species has not been observed in the
Middle Fork since that time. Based on the size of the Middle Fork at
this location (fourth- or fifth-order), it is likely that the
specimen(s) observed by Woolman originated from a nearby tributary such
as Hell For Certain Creek.
Rockhouse Creek--Rockhouse Creek is a tributary of Middle Fork
Kentucky River in central Leslie County. In March 2013, biologists with
KDFWR and DBNF discovered an unknown population of Kentucky arrow
darter in Laurel Creek, a second-order tributary of Rockhouse Creek
(Thomas 2013, pers. comm.). One individual was found in Laurel Creek
after surveys in three separate reaches (over 4,000 shocking seconds).
Laurel Fork is situated at the western edge of the Middle Fork sub-
basin, and about 90 percent of its watershed is located within the DBNF
(Redbird Ranger District).
Hell For Certain Creek--Hell For Certain Creek is a direct, second-
order tributary to the Middle Fork Kentucky River in northern Leslie
County (upstream of Buckhorn Lake). Kentucky arrow darters were first
recorded from Hell For Certain Creek in 1994 (KSNPC unpublished data),
and subsequent surveys in 2011 and 2013 produced additional specimens
(Service unpublished data). The Hell For Certain Creek population
appears to be at least moderately robust, and water quality and habitat
conditions are favorable for the species. About 50 percent of the Hell
For Certain Creek watershed is in public ownership (DBNF).
Squabble Creek--Squabble Creek is a tributary to Middle Fork
Kentucky River in northwestern Perry County. Squabble Creek enters the
Middle Fork just downstream of Buckhorn Lake Dam in the community of
Buckhorn. Kentucky arrow darters were first reported from Squabble
Creek in 1996, when KSNPC biologists observed one individual from a
small bedrock pool in the headwaters (KSNPC unpublished data). Thomas
(2008, p. 25) resurveyed the historical collection site in 2008 but did
not observe the species. Thomas (2008, p. 25) noted that sedimentation
was ``heavy'' in the stream. We observed similar habitat conditions
during recent surveys of Squabble Creek in February 2015, but two
juvenile Kentucky arrow darters were observed near the historical
collection site. Conductivity levels continue to be relatively low in
the headwaters (130 [micro]S/cm), but siltation/sedimentation remains a
concern and residential land use continues to be extensive in the
downstream half of the watershed. About 10 percent of the watershed is
in Federal ownership (DBNF). Sedimentation and total dissolved solids
have been identified as problems within Squabble Creek, as evidenced by
the stream's placement on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters
(KDOW 2013a, p. 368).
South Fork Kentucky River Sub-Basin
The South Fork Kentucky River is formed by the confluence of Goose
Creek and the Red Bird River in northern Clay County, Kentucky, and
flows north for approximately 72 km (45 mi) to its confluence with the
North Fork Kentucky River. Its watershed encompasses approximately
1,937 km\2\ (748 mi\2\) in portions of Bell, Clay, Jackson, Knox, Lee,
Leslie, and Owsley counties. Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter
was known from 28 streams in this sub-basin. The species has been
extirpated from several watersheds (total of 9 streams) and is now
considered to be extant in 20 streams (Thomas 2008, p. 4; KSNPC and
Service unpublished data).
Red Bird River--The Red Bird River is a tributary of the South Fork
Kentucky River that flows northerly through portions of Bell, Clay, and
Leslie Counties. Historically, Kentucky arrow darters were known from
12 streams within the watershed (Woolman 1892, pp. 275-281; Branson and
Batch 1983, pp. 2-13; KSNPC and Service unpublished data). The species
has been extirpated from two streams, Big Creek and Hector Branch, but
the Red Bird River watershed continues to support the largest
concentration of occupied streams and some of the species' best
remaining populations. We have recent records from Blue Hole Creek,
Upper
[[Page 60973]]
Bear Creek, Katies Creek, Spring Creek, Bowen Creek, Elisha Creek,
Gilberts Big Creek, Sugar Creek, Big Double Creek, Little Double Creek,
Jacks Creek, and Long Fork (of Hector Branch). Public ownership in
these watersheds is extensive (Redbird Ranger District of DBNF), and
the streams generally have intact riparian zones with little or no
anthropogenic disturbance, cool temperatures, low conductivity (near
baseline conditions of less than 100 [micro]S/cm), and stable channels
with clean cobble/boulder substrates. The presence of the species in
Long Fork (of Hector Branch) is the result of a reintroduction effort
by KDFWR and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (CFI), of Knoxville,
Tennessee (Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23).
Goose Creek--Goose Creek is a tributary of the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains portions of southern and western Clay County and
northeastern Knox County. Goose Creek flows northerly through these
counties, joining with the Red Bird River at Oneida to create the South
Fork Kentucky River. The Kentucky arrow darter was known historically
from two Goose Creek tributaries: Horse Creek and Laurel Creek (Branson
and Batch 1983, pp. 1-15). A small population continues to exist in
Horse Creek, but the species has not been observed in Laurel Creek
since 1970 (Service unpublished data). Habitat conditions in both
streams are marginal to poor (Thomas 2008, p. 4), and both streams have
been placed on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a,
pp. 352-353).
Bullskin Creek--Bullskin Creek is a tributary to the South Fork
Kentucky River that drains eastern Clay County. The Kentucky arrow
darter was first reported from Bullskin Creek in August 1998, when
Stephens (1999, pp. 159-174) collected one individual. Additional
specimens were observed by KDFWR and the Service in 2007 and 2014,
respectively (Thomas 2008, p. 27; Service unpublished data).
Buffalo Creek--Buffalo Creek is a tributary to the South Fork
Kentucky River that drains southeastern Owsley County. Since 1969, the
Kentucky arrow darter has been reported from multiple stream reaches in
both the Left and Right Forks (Branson and Batch 1983, pp. 1-15; KSNPC
and Service unpublished data). The species continues to be extant in
both forks, and the upstream reaches of the Left Fork (Laurel Fork,
Cortland Fork, and Lucky Fork) appear to be the species' stronghold
within the watershed. Public ownership (DBNF) is extensive within the
drainage.
Sexton Creek--Sexton Creek is a tributary to the South Fork
Kentucky River that drains portions of Clay, Jackson, and Owsley
Counties. Historically, the Kentucky arrow darter was reported from
Bray Creek, Robinsons Creek, and the Sexton Creek mainstem (Branson and
Batch 1983, pp. 1-15; KSNPC unpublished data). The species has not been
observed in the Sexton Creek watershed since 1997, and now appears to
be extirpated.
Lower Island Creek--Lower Island Creek is a tributary to the South
Fork Kentucky River that drains southwestern Owsley County. The
Kentucky arrow darter was first reported from Lower Island Creek in
1997 (KSNPC unpublished data), but repeated surveys in the watershed
have failed to produce additional specimens (Thomas 2008, p. 27;
Service unpublished data). The species is now considered to be
extirpated from the Lower Island Creek watershed.
Cow Creek--Cow Creek is a tributary to the South Fork Kentucky
River that drains eastern Owsley County. The Kentucky arrow darter was
first reported from the watershed in June 1993, when Burr and Cook
(1993, pp. 55-56) observed two specimens in the headwaters of Right
Fork Cow Creek near the community of Arnett. KSNPC surveyed the
historical site again in 1997, and observed one individual (KSNPC
unpublished data). Surveys by the Service in 2009 and 2011 did not
produce additional specimens (Service 2012, pp. 1-4). The species is
now considered to be extirpated from the Cow Creek watershed.
Buck Creek--Buck Creek is a tributary to the South Fork Kentucky
River in northern Owsley County. The species was first reported from
the Buck Creek watershed by Harker et al. (1979, pp. 656-671), who
observed one individual in October 1978. Additional surveys were
completed in May 2008 and June 2011, but the species was not observed
(Service 2012, pp. 1-4). Based on our recent surveys, habitat
conditions appear to be unfavorable for the species (e.g., conductivity
greater than 400 [micro]S/cm).
Lower Buffalo Creek--Lower Buffalo Creek is a tributary to the
South Fork Kentucky River in Lee and Owsley Counties. The Kentucky
arrow darter was first reported from Lower Buffalo Creek by Stephens
(1999, pp. 159-174), who observed one individual in August 1998. Thomas
(2008, p. 4) observed three individuals in May 2007, but described the
habitat conditions as poor, with heavy siltation and eutrophication.
Based on observations made by Thomas (2008, p. 4), we consider the
Lower Buffalo Creek population to be vulnerable to extirpation.
Silver Creek Sub-Basin
Silver Creek is a tributary to the Kentucky River that drains
approximately 8.5 km\2\ (3.3 mi\2\) in central Lee County, Kentucky.
The Kentucky arrow darter was first recorded from Silver Creek in 1996,
when KSNPC observed 10 individuals (2 age classes) near the city limits
of Beattyville (KSNPC unpublished data). Thomas (2008, p. 31) surveyed
the historical site again in May 2008, and observed one specimen. A
small population appears to be extant in Silver Creek, but we consider
this population to be vulnerable to extirpation.
Sturgeon Creek Sub-Basin
Sturgeon Creek is a tributary to the Kentucky River that flows
northerly through Jackson, Lee, and Owsley Counties, draining
approximately 287 km\2\ (111 mi\2\). The Kentucky arrow darter was
known historically from five streams within this sub-basin: Brushy
Creek, Cooperas Cave Branch, Little Sturgeon Creek, Sturgeon Creek
(mainstem), and Wild Dog Creek (Harker et al. 1979, pp. 607-623; Ray
and Ceas 2003, pp. 12-13; KSNPC unpublished data). We now consider the
species to be extant in one historical stream, Wild Dog Creek, and two
recently documented streams, Granny Dismal Creek and Travis Creek
(KSNPC and Service unpublished data). Wild Dog Creek appears to support
the most robust population within this sub-basin.
Red River Sub-Basin
The Red River is a tributary of the Kentucky River that arises in
eastern Wolfe County, Kentucky, and flows generally west for
approximately 156 km (97 mi) through portions of Clark, Estill,
Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties. The Red River watershed
encompasses approximately 1,261 km\2\ (487 mi\2\). The Kentucky arrow
darter was not observed within the sub-basin until 1980, when one
individual was collected from the Swift Camp Creek watershed in Wolfe
County (Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37).
Swift Camp Creek--Swift Camp Creek is a tributary to the Red River
that flows northerly through northwestern Wolfe County. The Kentucky
arrow darter was known historically from only one Swift Camp Creek
tributary: Rockbridge Fork (Greenberg and Steigerwald 1981, p. 37).
Additional surveys by KDFWR and the Service in 1998, 2007, 2011, and
2013 demonstrate that the species continues to occur in Rockbridge Fork
(Kornman
[[Page 60974]]
1985, p. 28; Thomas 2008, p. 4; Service unpublished data). Despite its
location in the DBNF, bank erosion and siltation continue to be
problematic in the watershed (Thomas 2008, p. 4).
Our recent survey data (Thomas 2008, pp. 25-27; Service 2012, pp.
1-4) indicate that Kentucky arrow darters occur in low densities.
Sampling reaches where arrow darters were observed had an average of
only 3 individuals per 100-m (328-ft) reach and a median of 2
individuals per reach (range of 1 to 10 individuals). Surveys in 2011
by the DBNF from Laurel Fork and Cortland Branch of Left Fork Buffalo
Creek (South Fork Kentucky River sub-basin) produced slightly higher
capture rates (an average of 5 darters per 100-m (328-ft) sampling
reach) (Mulhall 2014, pers. comm.). The low abundance values (compared
to other darters) are not surprising since Kentucky arrow darters
generally occur in low densities, even in those streams where
disturbance has been minimal (Thomas 2015b, pers. comm.).
Detailed information on population size is generally lacking for
the species, but estimates have been completed for three streams:
Clemons Fork (Breathitt County), Elisha Creek (Clay and Leslie
Counties), and Gilberts Big Creek (Clay and Leslie Counties) (Service
unpublished data). Based on field surveys completed in 2013 by EKU,
KSNPC, and the Service, population estimates included 986-2,113
individuals (Clemons Fork), 592-1,429 individuals (Elisha Creek), and
175-358 individuals (Gilberts Big Creek) (ranges reflect 95 percent
confidence intervals).
Based on observed catch rates and habitat conditions throughout the
upper Kentucky River basin, the most stable and largest populations of
the Kentucky arrow darter appear to be located in the following
streams:
Hell For Certain Creek, Leslie County;
Laurel and Middle Forks of Quicksand Creek, Knott County;
Frozen and Walker Creeks, Breathitt and Lee Counties;
Clemons Fork and Coles Fork, Breathitt and Knott Counties;
Several direct tributaries (e.g., Bowen Creek, Elisha
Creek, and Big Double Creek) of the Red Bird River, Clay and Leslie
Counties; and
Wild Dog Creek, Jackson and Owsley Counties.
The Kentucky arrow darter is considered ``threatened'' by the State
of Kentucky and has been ranked by KSNPC as a G2G3/S2S3 species
(imperiled or vulnerable globally and imperiled or vulnerable within
the State) (KSNPC 2014, p. 40). Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (KDFWR 2013, pp. 9-11) identified the Kentucky
arrow darter as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (rare or
declining species that requires conservation actions to improve its
status).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Kentucky arrow darter's habitat and range have been destroyed,
modified, and curtailed due to a variety of anthropogenic activities in
the upper Kentucky River drainage. Resource extraction (e.g., coal
mining, logging, oil/gas well development), land development,
agricultural activities, and inadequate sewage treatment have all
contributed to the degradation of streams within the range of the
species (Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 513-516; Branson and Batch 1974,
pp. 82-83; Thomas 2008, pp. 6-7; KDOW 2010, pp. 70-84; KDOW 2013a, pp.
189-214, 337-376; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88-94). These land use activities
have led to chemical and physical changes to stream habitats that have
adversely affected the species. Specific stressors have included inputs
of dissolved solids and elevation of instream conductivity,
sedimentation/siltation of stream substrates (excess sediments
deposited in a stream), turbidity, inputs of nutrients and organic
enrichment, and elevation of stream temperatures (KDOW 2010, p. 84;
KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214, 337-376). KDOW (2013a, pp. 337-376) provided a
summary of specific threats within the upper Kentucky River drainage,
identifying impaired reaches in 21 streams within the Kentucky arrow
darter's historical range (Table 2). Six of these streams continue to
support populations of the species, but only one of these populations
(Frozen Creek) is considered to be stable (see Table 1, above).
Table 2--Summary of 303(d) Listed Stream Segments Within the Historical Range of the Kentucky Arrow Darter
[KDOW 2013a, pp. 337-376]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacted stream
Stream County segment (km (mi)) Pollutant source Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckhorn Creek................ Breathitt............. 0-6.8 Abandoned Mine Fecal Coliform
Lands, Unknown (FC), Sediment/
Sources. Siltation, Total
Dissolved Solids
(TDS).
Cope Fork (of Frozen Creek)... Breathitt............. 0-1.9 Channelization, Sediment/
Riparian Habitat Siltation, TDS.
Loss, Logging,
Agriculture,
Stream Bank
Modification,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Cutshin Creek................. Leslie................ 9.7-10.7 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Stream Siltation.
Bank
Modification,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Frozen Creek *................ Breathitt............. 0-13.9 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Post- Siltation.
Development
Erosion and
Sedimentation.
Goose Creek................... Clay.................. 0-8.3 Septic Systems... FC.
[[Page 60975]]
Hector Branch................. Clay.................. 0-5.5 Unknown.......... Unknown.
Holly Creek *................. Wolfe................. 0-6.2 Agriculture, Sediment/
Riparian Habitat Siltation,
Loss, Stream Unknown.
Bank
Modification,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Horse Creek *................. Clay.................. 0-8.3 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Managed Siltation.
Pasture Grazing,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Laurel Creek.................. Clay.................. 3.8-4.8 Managed Pasture Nutrients/
Grazing, Crop Eutrophication.
Production.
Left Fork Island Creek........ Owsley................ 0-5.0 Crop Production.. Sediment/
Siltation.
Long Fork..................... Breathitt............. 0-4.6 Surface Coal Sediment/
Mining. Siltation, TDS.
Lost Creek.................... Breathitt............. 0-8.9 Coal Mining, Fecal Coliform,
Riparian Habitat Sedimentation,
Loss, Logging, Total Dissolved
Stream Bank Solids,
Modification. Turbidity.
Lotts Creek................... Perry................. 0.4-1.0, 1.2-6 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Land Siltation, TDS,
Development, Turbidity.
Surface Coal
Mining, Logging,
Stream Bank
Modification.
Quicksand Creek............... Breathitt............. 0-17.0, 21.7-30.8 Surface Coal FC, Turbidity,
Mining, Riparian Sediment/
Habitat Loss, Siltation, TDS.
Logging, Stream
Bank
Modification.
Sexton Creek.................. Clay, Owsley.......... 0-17.2 Crop Production, Sediment/
Highway/Road/ Siltation, TDS.
Bridge Runoff.
South Fork Quicksand Creek.... Breathitt............. 0-16.9 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Petroleum/ Siltation, TDS.
Natural Gas
Production
Activities,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Spring Fork (Quicksand Creek) Breathitt............. 3.1-6.9 Abandoned Mine Sediment/
*. Lands Siltation, TDS,
(Inactive), Turbidity.
Riparian Habitat
Loss, Logging,
Stream Bank
Modification.
Squabble Creek *.............. Perry................. 0-4.7 Land Development, Sediment/
Surface Coal Siltation, TDS.
Mining.
Sturgeon Creek................ Lee................... 8.0-12.2 Riparian Habitat Sediment/
Loss, Crop Siltation.
Production,
Surface Coal
Mining.
Swift Camp Creek.............. Wolfe................. 0-13.9 Unknown.......... Unknown.
Troublesome Creek............. Breathitt............. 0-45.1 Surface Coal Sediment/
Mining, Siltation,
Municipal Point Specific
Source Conductance,
Discharges, TDS, Turbidity.
Petroleum/
Natural Gas
Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stream segment still occupied by Kentucky arrow darters.
Water Quality Degradation
A threat to the Kentucky arrow darter is water quality degradation
caused by a variety of nonpoint-source pollutants (contaminants from
many diffuse and unquantifiable sources). Within the upper Kentucky
River drainage, coal mining has been the most significant historical
source of these pollutants, and it continues to be practiced throughout
the drainage. As of January 2015, 318 mining permits were associated
with coal removal and production activities within the upper Kentucky
River drainage (Laird 2015, pers. comm.). Of these, 136 permits were
associated with active coal removal, encompassing a combined area of
777 km\2\ (191,968 ac). The remaining 196 permits were classified as
temporarily inactive or were associated with some type of reclamation
activity. Permits associated with active coal removal consisted of six
primary types: access road, loadout (areas of coal storage, often
located away from the mine site), prep plant (facility that washes coal
prior to transport by rail or truck), refuse facility (stores non-coal
rock, water, and slurry originating from an underground mine), surface,
and underground. With respect to permit type, the greatest number of
permits was associated with surface mines (64 permits), followed by
underground (32), prep plant (20), access road (13), refuse facility
(5), and loadout (2). With respect to county distribution, Perry County
had the most permits (59), followed by Leslie (28), Breathitt (16),
Knott (16), Clay (12), Harlan (2), Owsley (2), and Jackson (1). No
activity was reported for Lee or Wolfe Counties. Six permits were
located in Kentucky arrow darter watersheds: Buckhorn Creek (Breathitt
and Knott Counties), Bullskin Creek (Clay County), and Left Fork
Buffalo Creek (Owsley County).
Annual coal production in eastern Kentucky (including counties in
the upper Kentucky River drainage) has declined over the past 2
decades, but annual production in eastern Kentucky continues to be
relatively high (over 37 million tons produced in 2014) (KEEC 2014, pp.
1-5), recoverable reserves for the eastern Kentucky portion of the
Appalachian Basin are estimated at 5.8 billion tons (Milici and Dennen
2009, pp. 8-11), and the species' distribution continues to be
fragmented and reduced as a result of previous (legacy) mining
activities within the drainage. Consequently, the potential remains for
Kentucky arrow darters to continue to be adversely affected by water
quality degradation associated with surface coal mining activities.
With regard to specific pollutants, activities associated with coal
mining
[[Page 60976]]
have the potential to contribute high concentrations of dissolved
salts, metals, and other solids that (1) elevate stream conductivity (a
measure of electrical conductance in the water column that increases as
the concentration of dissolved solids increases), (2) increase sulfates
(a common dissolved ion with empirical formula of
SO4-\2\), and (3) cause wide fluctuations in
stream pH (a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of water) (Curtis
1973, pp. 153-155; Dyer and Curtis 1977, pp. 10-13; Dyer 1982, pp. 1-
16; Hren et al. 1984, pp. 5-34; USEPA 2003, pp. 77-84; Hartman et al.
2005, p. 95; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721-723; Palmer et al. 2010, pp.
148-149; USEPA 2011, pp. 27-44). As rock strata and excess rock
material (overburden) are exposed to the atmosphere during the mining
process, precipitation leaches metals and other solids (e.g., calcium,
magnesium, sulfates, iron, manganese) from these materials and carries
them in solution to receiving streams (Pond 2004, p. 7; KDOW 2010, p.
85). Dissolved ions can enter streams through surface runoff or as
groundwater flowing through fractured geologic layers. If valley fills
(hollow-fills) are used as part of the mining activity, precipitation
and groundwater seep through the fill and dissolve minerals until they
discharge at the toe of the fill as surface water (Pond et al. 2008, p.
718). All of these scenarios can result in elevated conductivity,
sulfates, and hardness in the receiving stream. Stream conductivity in
mined watersheds can be significantly higher compared to unmined
watersheds, and conductivity values can remain high for decades
(Merricks et al. 2007, pp. 365-373; Johnson et al. 2010, pp. 1-2).
Elevated levels of metals and other dissolved solids (i.e.,
elevated conductivity) in Appalachian streams have been shown to
negatively impact biological communities, including losses of mayfly
and caddisfly taxa (Chambers and Messinger 2001, pp. 34-51; Pond 2004,
p. 7; Hartman et al. 2005, p. 95; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 721-723; Pond
2010, pp. 189-198) and decreases in fish diversity (Kuehne 1962, pp.
608-614; Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 507-512; Branson and Batch 1974,
pp. 81-83; Stauffer and Ferreri 2002, pp. 11-21; Fulk et al. 2003, pp.
55-64; Mattingly et al. 2005, pp. 59-62; Thomas 2008, pp. 1-9; Service
2012, pp. 1-4; Black et al. 2013, pp. 34-45; Hitt 2014, pp. 5-7, 11-13;
Hitt and Chambers 2014, pp. 919-924; Daniel et al. 2015, pp. 50-61).
Stauffer and Ferreri (2002, pp. 11-21) investigated fish assemblages in
eastern Kentucky and West Virginia streams and determined that fish
assemblages downstream of valley fills supported about half the number
of species found at reference sites. Fulk et al. (2003, pp. 55-64) used
the Stauffer and Ferreri (2002, pp. 11-21) data set to calculate
bioassessment scores and reported decreased richness of cyprinids
(minnows), decreased richness of invertivores (species that feed on
invertebrates), and increased proportions of tolerant individuals in
small watersheds (2-10 km\2\ (0.77-3.86 mi\2\)) below valley fills.
Hitt and Chambers (2014, pp. 919-924) observed lower fish taxonomic and
functional diversity in streams downstream of valley fills in West
Virginia. Exposure assemblages (those downstream of valley fills) had
fewer species, lower abundances, and less biomass than reference
assemblages across years and seasons. Taxonomic differences between
reference and exposure (mined) assemblages were associated with
conductivity and aqueous selenium concentrations (Hitt and Chambers
2014, pp. 919-924). Daniel et al. (2015, pp. 50-61) examined the
effects of mining (coal and mineral) at larger spatial scales and
determined that mining can be a regional source of disturbance that
negatively impacts fish communities far downstream. Even in watersheds
with low mine densities (less than 0.01 mines/km\2\ (0.004 mines/
mi\2\)), Daniel et al. (2015, pp. 56-57) detected significant negative
responses in multiple fish metrics (e.g., diversity, evenness, percent
invertivores). Compared to other anthropogenic impacts assessed over
large areas (agriculture, urban land use), mining had a more pronounced
and consistent impact on fish assemblages (Daniel et al. 2015, p. 58).
Studies in the upper Kentucky River basin by Branson and Batch
(1974, pp. 81-83), Dyer and Curtis (1977, pp. 1-13), Kuehne (1962, pp.
608-609), Thomas (2008, pp. 3-6), Pond (2010, pp. 189-198), and the
Service (2012, pp. 1-4) have clearly demonstrated that surface coal
mining activities have contributed to water quality degradation (e.g.,
elevated conductivity) and the extirpation of Kentucky arrow darter
populations from numerous tributaries in the Quicksand Creek and
Buckhorn Creek drainages of Breathitt and Knott Counties. From late
1967 to 1975, Branson and Batch (1972, pp. 507-518; 1974, pp. 81-83),
and Dyer and Curtis (1977, pp. 1-13) studied the effects of strip
mining activities on water quality and stream fishes in the Quicksand
Creek (Leatherwood Creek) and Buckhorn Creek (Bear Branch) watersheds,
Breathitt County. Six first-order watersheds, three in the Leatherwood
Creek watershed and three in the Bear Branch watershed, were
investigated during the study, beginning in late summer 1967, prior to
the onset of mining, and continuing until 1975. One of the six small
watersheds, Jenny Fork, was not mined and served as a control
watershed. Water quality data from mined watersheds showed increases in
conductivity, sulfate, magnesium, bicarbonate, and silt deposition
(Dyer and Curtis 1977, pp. 3-7, 13). Water quality data from the
reference site, Jenny Branch, showed little variation and remained at
baseline levels. Fish community data from the Bear Branch and
Leatherwood Creek watersheds showed that fishes were pushed downstream
or eliminated from the fauna altogether in mined watersheds (Branson
and Batch 1972, pp. 514-515; Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 82-83). The
only exception to this was the creek chub, which appeared to be
tolerant of mining impacts. Several species--silver shiner (Notropis
photogenis), Kentucky arrow darter, Johnny darter, variegate darter
(Etheostoma variatum), greenside darter (E. blenniodes), and emerald
darter--were eliminated from Leatherwood Creek. Two species, northern
hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans) and blackside darter (Percina
maculata), were eliminated from both streams. During the last fish
sampling event in September 1972, Kentucky arrow darters were observed
at the mouth of Bear Branch (Branson and Batch 1974, p. 82), but
instream conductivity levels had not peaked. Branson and Batch (1972,
p. 514) also did not observe young darters and minnows during later
visits (early 1970s), suggesting that reproduction had been curtailed
by the mining activity. Thomas (2008, p. 5) and Service (2012, pp. 1-4)
resurveyed these streams in 2008-2009, and found that conductivity
levels had increased since the 1970s, reaching 845 [mu]S/cm in Bear
Branch and 1008 [mu]S/cm in Leatherwood Creek. Kentucky arrow darters
were not observed at these sites.
There is a pattern of increasing conductivity and loss of arrow
darter populations that is evident in the fish and water quality data
from the Buckhorn Creek basin (1962 to present) in Breathitt and Knott
Counties. Kentucky arrow darters and other fish species were first
reported from the basin in 1962 by Kuehne (1962, pp. 608-609), who
surveyed sites on the Buckhorn Creek mainstem and numerous tributaries:
Bear Branch, Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, Laurel Fork,
[[Page 60977]]
Lewis Fork, and Long Fork. Kuehne (1962, pp. 608-609) documented
Kentucky arrow darters at 16 of 22 sites within the drainage. Since
that time, the majority of these watersheds have been mined extensively
and conductivity levels have increased. The only exceptions are two
unmined watersheds on UK's Robinson Forest (Clemons Fork and Coles
Fork) and two first-order tributaries in the Buckhorn Creek headwaters
(Eli Branch and Prince Fork). Thomas (2008, p. 5) and the Service
(2012, pp. 1-4) resurveyed sites on all historical streams (and most
historical sites) in the Buckhorn Creek watershed from 2007 to 2010,
observing Kentucky arrow darters in only Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, and
Buckhorn Creek, upstream of Emory Branch. Conductivity levels of
Clemons Fork, Coles Fork, and Buckhorn Creek (upstream of Emory Branch)
remained at or near background levels (50 to 110 [mu]S/cm), but
conductivity levels at other streams were elevated, with some of these
being exceptionally high (greater than 2000 [mu]S/cm).
ATS (2011, pp. 1-17) surveyed 27 sites in the Buckhorn Creek
headwaters in 2008, observing similar patterns with respect to
conductivity and Kentucky arrow darter distributions. ATS (2011, pp. 1-
17) observed a few Kentucky arrow darters in high conductivity reaches
(e.g., Buckhorn Creek mainstem); however, all of these fishes were
adults and were observed near low conductivity reaches (e.g., Prince
Fork). Due to increased levels of dissolved solids (and elevated
conductivity), portions of two streams in the Buckhorn Creek watershed,
Buckhorn Creek (mile 0-6.8) and Long Fork (mile 0-8.95), have been
placed on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters (KDOW 2013a, pp.
337-376).
As demonstrated above, Kentucky arrow darters tend to be less
abundant in streams with elevated conductivity levels (Service 2012,
pp. 1-4; Service 2013, p. 9), and are typically excluded from these
streams as conductivity increases (Branson and Batch 1972, pp. 507-512;
Branson and Batch 1974, pp. 81-83; Thomas 2008, p. 3-6). Recent range-
wide surveys of historical sites by Thomas (2008, pp. 3-6) and the
Service (2012, pp. 1-4) demonstrated that Kentucky arrow darters are
excluded from watersheds when conductivity levels exceed about 250
[mu]S/cm. The species was observed at only two historical sites where
conductivity values exceeded 250 [mu]S/cm, and average conductivity
values were much lower at sites where Kentucky arrow darters were
observed (115 [mu]S/cm) than at sites where the species was not
observed (689 [mu]S/cm). A similar phenomenon was reported by Black et
al. (2013, pp. 34-35), who developed and validated a habitat model for
the federally threatened blackside dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis) in
the upper Cumberland River drainage. Hitt (2014, pp. 5-7, 11-13) used a
large presence-absence data set (511 sites) from the Service, KDFWR,
KSNPC, and KDOW to evaluate the relationship between Kentucky arrow
darter abundance and stream conductivity. Hitt (2014, pp. 5-7, 11-13)
reported that conductivity was a strong predictor of Kentucky arrow
darter abundance, and sharp declines in abundance were observed at 258
[micro]S/cm (95 percent confidence intervals of 155-590 [micro]S/cm).
Conductivity was the most important variable for the species and was
more than twice as important as the two next-most important variables
(upstream percent of forest and percent of agricultural land uses).
Based on all the research discussed above, we believe it is clear that
the overall conductivity level is important in determining the Kentucky
arrow darter's presence and vulnerability, but the species' presence is
more likely tied to what individual metals or dissolved solids (e.g.,
sulfate) are present. Determination of discrete conductivity thresholds
or the mechanisms through which fishes are influenced will require
additional study (KSNPC 2010, p. 3).
Mine drainage can also cause chemical (and some physical) impacts
to streams as a result of the precipitation of entrained metals and
sulfate, which become unstable in solution (USEPA 2003, pp. 24-65; Pond
2004, p. 7). Hydroxide precipitants are formed from iron and aluminum,
creating orange or white sludge (``yellow boy'') that forms a thick
coating on stream substrates (Pond 2004, p. 7). Most affected streams
have elevated levels of calcium in solution, and if pH is elevated,
calcium sulfate (CaSO4) or calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) will precipitate (Pond 2004, p. 7; USEPA 2005, pp.
24-65). These precipitants accumulate on substrates, encrusting and
cementing stream sediments, making them unsuitable for colonization by
invertebrates and rendering them unsuitable as foraging or spawning
habitat for the Kentucky arrow darter. Acid mine drainage (AMD) tends
to be more of a legacy problem, as enforcement, newer technology, and
mining methods have mostly eliminated it in the coal fields of Kentucky
and Tennessee (Pond 2004, p. 6). In the few streams where the problem
persists, AMD can be highly detrimental to fish and aquatic insect
populations (Henry et al. 1999, pp. 919-920; Pond 2004, pp. 7-8).
Streams affected by AMD tend to have low pH, high conductivity, and
high metal and sulfate concentrations (Herlihy et al. 1990, pp. 101-
105; Pond 2004, pp. 7-8).
Oil and gas exploration and drilling activities represent another
significant source of harmful pollutants in the upper Kentucky River
basin (KDOW 2013a, 189-214). Since January 2010, over 500 oil and gas
wells have been permitted in counties where the species was known
historically (KGS 2015, pp. 1-2), and demand for natural gas production
in Kentucky is expected to increase in future years (KGS 2002, p. 4;
KGS 2015, pp. 1-2; Weisenfluh 2014, pp. 1-2). Alternative methods
(i.e., hydraulic fracturing (``fracking'') and horizontal drilling)
have allowed for the expansion of oil and gas drilling into deposits
that were previously inaccessible (KGS 2015, pp. 1-2; Papoulias and
Velasco 2013, p. 92). This has led to increased activity within eastern
Kentucky, including portions of the upper Kentucky River basin. Recent
observations by the Service indicate that new well sites have been
developed near several Kentucky arrow darter streams in Breathitt,
Clay, Knott, Lee, and Wolfe Counties (e.g., Hell Creek, Laurel Fork
Quicksand Creek, Little Fork Lower Devil Creek, Spring Creek, and
Walker Creek).
A variety of chemicals (e.g., hydrochloric acid, surfactants,
potassium chloride) are used during the drilling and fracking process
(Colborn et al. 2011, pp. 1040-1042). Once used, fluid wastes
containing these chemicals are stored in open pits (retention basins)
or trucked away to treatment plants or some other storage facility. If
spills occur during transport or releases occur due to retention basin
failure or overflow, there is a risk for surface and groundwater
contamination. Any such release can cause significant adverse effects
to water quality and aquatic organisms that inhabit these watersheds
(Wiseman 2009, pp. 127-142; Kargbo et al. 2010, pp. 5680-5681; Osborn
et al. 2011, pp. 8172-8176; Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 92-111). In
2007, this type of event occurred during the development of four wells
along Acorn Fork in Knox County, Kentucky (Papoulias and Velasco 2013,
pp. 92-111). Fracking effluent overflowed the retention pits directly
into Acorn Fork, a known habitat for the federally threatened blackside
dace. The release affected the entire length of Acorn Fork downstream
of the release points (an approximate 3.2-km (2-mi) reach), decimating
the fish and macroinvertebrate communities and resulting in instream
conductivity
[[Page 60978]]
readings above 30,000 [micro]S/cm (Papoulias and Velasco 2013, pp. 92-
111). Fishes exposed to the affected portions of Acorn fork showed
general signs of stress and had a higher incidence of gill lesions than
unexposed reference fishes. Gill lesions were consistent with exposure
to low pH and toxic concentrations of heavy metals (Papoulias and
Velasco 2013, pp. 104-105). It is unclear how many blackside dace were
killed during the event because peak mortality was likely missed before
researchers arrived to document the incident. However, one dead, one
moribund, and several living but distressed blackside dace were
observed. Because oil and gas exploration activities are increasing
within eastern Kentucky, events similar to the Acorn Fork spill have
the potential to occur within the upper Kentucky River drainage. It is
also likely that these types of incidents would go unreported given the
lack of Federal oversight and the number and distribution of oil and
gas wells that are being developed within the range of the species.
Other nonpoint-source pollutants that are common within the upper
Kentucky River drainage and have the potential to affect the Kentucky
arrow darter include domestic sewage (through septic tank leakage or
straight pipe discharges) and agricultural pollutants such as animal
waste, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-
214). Nonpoint-source pollutants can cause increased levels of nitrogen
and phosphorus, excessive algal growths, oxygen deficiencies, and other
changes in water chemistry that can seriously impact aquatic species
(KDOW 2010, pp. 70-84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88-94).
Nonpoint-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 (Allan 2004, pp. 266-267). 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
Kentucky arrow darter are negatively impacted.
Physical Habitat Disturbance
Sedimentation (siltation) has been listed repeatedly by KDOW as the
most common stressor of aquatic communities in the upper Kentucky River
basin (KDOW 2010, pp. 70-84; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214; KDOW 2013b, pp.
88-94). Sedimentation comes from a variety of sources, but KDOW
identified the primary sources of sediment as loss of riparian habitat,
surface coal mining, legacy coal extraction, logging, and land
development (KDOW 2010, pp. 70-84; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88-94). All of these
activities can result in canopy removal, channel disturbance, and
increased siltation, thereby degrading habitats used by Kentucky arrow
darters for both feeding and reproduction. The reduction or loss of
riparian vegetation results in the elevation of stream temperatures,
destabilization of stream banks and siltation, and removal of submerged
root systems that provide habitat for fishes and macroinvertebrates
(the food source for Kentucky arrow darters) (Minshall and Rugenski
2006, pp. 721-723). Channelization of streams associated with
residential development and agriculture has been widespread within the
upper Kentucky River drainage. Generally, streams are relocated to one
side of the stream valley to provide space for home sites, livestock,
hay production, or row crops. Channelization dramatically alters
channel dimensions, gradient, stream flow, and instream habitats, and
these modified channels are often managed through vegetation removal
and dredging to improve flood conveyance (Allan and Castillo 2007, p.
327) and through placement of quarried stone or gabion baskets to
protect against bank erosion. All of these activities create unstable
stream segments with shifting substrates, heavy sedimentation, eroding
banks, and poor to marginal habitat conditions for the species. Twenty-
one streams within the species' historical and current range have been
identified as impaired (primarily due to siltation from mining,
logging, agricultural activities, and land development) and have been
included on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters (Table 2). The
species has been extirpated from most of these streams (or watersheds)
and is considered to be stable in only one (Frozen Creek).
Resource extraction activities (e.g., surface coal mining, legacy
coal extraction, logging, oil and gas exploration and drilling) are
major sources of sedimentation in streams (Paybins et al. 2000, p. 1;
Wiley et al. 2001, pp. 1-16; KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214). Activities
associated with surface coal mining (e.g., land clearing, road
construction, excavation) produce large areas of bare soil that, if not
protected or controlled through various erosion control practices, can
contribute large amounts of sediment during storm events. Mining
companies are required to implement erosion control measures during
mining activities, but sedimentation continues to be a significant
stressor in some mined watersheds (KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214). Land use
practices such as the placement of valley fills can affect sediment and
water discharges into downstream stream reaches, leading to increased
erosion or sedimentation patterns, destruction or modification of in-
stream habitat and riparian vegetation, stream bank collapse, and
increased water turbidity and temperature (Wiley et al. 2001, pp. 1-16;
Messinger 2003, pp. 17-20).
Similarly, logging activities can adversely affect Kentucky arrow
darters and other fishes through removal of riparian vegetation, direct
channel disturbance, and sedimentation of instream habitats (Allan and
Castillo 2007, pp. 332-333). During logging activities, sedimentation
occurs as soils are disturbed, the overlying leaf or litter layer is
removed, and sediment is carried overland from logging roads, stream
crossings, skid trails, and riparian zones during storm events. Logging
impacts on sediment production can be considerable, but access and haul
roads often produce more sediment than the land harvested for timber
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Excess sediment can bury in-stream
habitats used by the species for foraging, reproduction, and
sheltering, and it can disrupt the dynamic equilibrium of channel
width, depth, flow velocity, discharge, channel slope, roughness,
sediment load, and sediment size that maintains stable channel
morphology (Allan 2004, p. 262). The lack of stream-side vegetation
also promotes bank erosion that alters stream courses and introduces
large quantities of sediment into the channel. This can lead to channel
instability and further degradation of in-stream habitats. Reductions
in riparian vegetation can adversely affect the species through
increased solar radiation, elevated stream temperatures, loss of
allochthonous (organic material originating from outside the channel)
food material, and bank instability/erosion (Allan 2004, p. 262; Hauer
and Lamberti 2006, pp. 721-723). Direct channel disturbance occurs
primarily at stream crossings during culvert, log, or rock placement.
Severe impacts can occur when loggers use stream channels illegally as
skid trails (M. Floyd pers. obs. 2009).
Stormwater runoff from unpaved roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV)
trails,
[[Page 60979]]
and driveways represents a significant but difficult to quantify source
of sediment that impacts streams in the upper Kentucky River basin.
Observations made by Service personnel during field collections suggest
that this is a common and widespread problem during storm events across
the species' range. Sediment has been shown to damage and suffocate
fish gills and eggs, larval fishes, bottom-dwelling algae, and other
organisms; reduce aquatic insect diversity and abundance; and,
ultimately, negatively impact fish growth, survival, and reproduction
(Berkman and Rabeni 1987, pp. 285-294; Waters 1995, pp. 5-7; Wood and
Armitage 1997, pp. 211-212; Meyer and Sutherland 2005, pp. 2-3).
Invasion of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid
The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) (Adelges tsugae), an aphid-like
insect native to Asia, represents a potential threat to the Kentucky
arrow darter because it has the potential to severely damage stands of
eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) that occur within the species'
range. The HWA was introduced in the Pacific Northwest during the
1920s, and has since spread throughout the eastern United States,
reaching eastern Tennessee by 2002, and Kentucky by 2006. The species
creates an extreme amount of damage to natural stands of hemlock,
specifically eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana).
Loss of hemlocks along Kentucky arrow darter streams has the potential
to result in increased solar exposure and subsequent elevated stream
temperatures, bank erosion, and excessive inputs of woody debris that
will clog streams and cause channel instability and erosion (Townsend
and Rieske-Kinney 2009, pp. 1-3). We expect these impacts to occur in
some Kentucky arrow darter watersheds; however, we do not believe these
impacts will be widespread or severe. Eastern hemlocks are not abundant
in all portions of the Kentucky arrow darter's range, and we expect
hemlocks to be replaced by other tree species in areas where hemlocks
are more common. Our review of the available information indicates that
the invasion of HWA and the subsequent loss of eastern hemlock in
eastern Kentucky does not pose a threat to the Kentucky arrow darter,
nor is it likely to become a threat in the future.
In summary, habitat loss and modification represent threats to the
Kentucky arrow darter. Severe degradation from contaminants,
sedimentation, and physical habitat disturbance have contributed to
extirpations of Kentucky arrow darter populations, and these threats
continue to impact water quality and habitat conditions across the
species' range. Contaminants associated with surface coal mining
(metals, other dissolved solids), domestic sewage (bacteria,
nutrients), and agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
animal waste) cause degradation of water quality and habitats through
increased conductivity and sulfates, instream oxygen deficiencies,
excess nutrification, and excessive algal growths. Sedimentation from
surface coal mining, logging, agriculture, and land development
negatively affect the Kentucky arrow darter by burying or covering
instream habitats used by the species for foraging, reproduction, and
sheltering. These impacts can cause reductions in growth rates, disease
tolerance, and gill function; reductions in spawning habitat,
reproductive success, and egg, larval, and juvenile development;
modifications of migration patterns; decreased food availability
through reductions in prey; and reduction of foraging efficiency.
Furthermore, these threats faced by the Kentucky arrow are the result
of ongoing land uses that are expected to continue indefinitely.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Kentucky arrow darter is not believed to be utilized for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Individuals may be collected occasionally in minnow traps by
recreational anglers and used as live bait, but we believe these
activities are practiced infrequently and do not represent a threat to
the species. Our review of the available information does not indicate
that overutilization is a threat to the Kentucky arrow darter now or
likely to become so in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
No information is available suggesting that disease is a threat to
the Kentucky arrow darter; therefore, we do not consider disease to be
a factor in the decline of the species. As to predation, although the
Kentucky arrow darter is undoubtedly consumed by native predators
(e.g., fishes, amphibians, and birds), the available information
suggests that this predation is naturally occurring and a normal aspect
of the species' population dynamics. Nonnative rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) represent a potential predation threat (Etnier
and Starnes 1993, p. 346) as they are introduced annually by KDFWR into
portions of three Kentucky arrow darter streams: Big Double Creek (Clay
County), Sturgeon Creek (Lee County), and Swift Camp Creek (Wolfe
County). Annual totals of 800 and 1,000 rainbow trout are introduced
into Sturgeon Creek and Swift Camp Creek, respectively, but in these
watersheds Kentucky arrow darter populations occupy portions of small
tributaries located outside of actual stocking locations. Therefore, it
is unlikely that rainbow trout and Kentucky arrow darters interact in
these watersheds.
Up to 1,000 rainbow trout are stocked annually by KDFWR within Big
Double Creek, with releases occurring in March, April, May, and October
in habitats occupied by Kentucky arrow darters. KDFWR has no specific
information on the feeding habits of rainbow trout in Big Double Creek,
but KDFWR supported a research project (Brandt 2006, pp. 1-59)
investigating the impact of stocked rainbow trout on native fishes in
Rock Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Brandt (2006, pp 1-59) examined
the guts of 11 introduced rainbow trout obtained from 32 sampling sites
within the Rock Creek watershed. The majority of stomachs were empty or
contained remains of macroinvertebrates; however, gut contents from two
individuals included remains of two native fishes, telescope shiner
(Notropis telescopus) (n=2) and emerald darter (n=1). Brandt (2006, pp.
1-59) demonstrated that stocked rainbow trout can be piscivorous in
Kentucky streams, but the magnitude of this threat was unclear.
Within Big Double Creek, stockings of rainbow trout have occurred
for over 30 years (Williams 2014, pers. comm.), but the Kentucky arrow
darter population in this stream continues to persist and appears to be
stable (Table 1, above) based on recent surveys (Thomas 2008, p. 4;
Thomas et al. 2014, p. 23). KDFWR also has no evidence suggesting that
stocked rainbow trout can survive typical summer temperatures (greater
than 19 [deg]C (66 [deg]F)) within Big Double Creek (Williams 2014,
pers. comm.); stocked individuals are caught by anglers or perish once
stream temperatures rise in warmer months. To assess the potential
predation of rainbow trout on Kentucky arrow darters or other fishes,
the Service and DBNF surveyed a 2.1-km (1.3-mile) reach of Big Double
Creek on April 21, 2014, 17 days after KDFWR's April stocking event
(250 trout). A total of seven rainbow trout were captured, and the gut
contents of these individuals were examined. Food items were dominated
by Ephemeroptera (mayflies), with lesser amounts of Plecoptera
(stoneflies), Trichoptera
[[Page 60980]]
(caddisflies), Diptera (flies), Decapoda (crayfish), and terrestrial
Coleoptera (beetles). No fish remains were observed. Based on all these
factors and the absence of rainbow trout from the majority (98 percent)
of Kentucky arrow darter streams, we do not believe that predation by
nonnative rainbow trout poses a threat to the species. Our review of
available information indicates that neither disease nor predation is
currently a threat to the species or likely to become a threat to the
Kentucky arrow darter in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Kentucky arrow darter has been identified as a threatened
species within Kentucky (KSNPC 2014, p. 40), but this State designation
conveys no legal protection for the species or its habitat. Kentucky
law prohibits the collection of the Kentucky arrow darter (or other
fishes) for scientific purposes without a valid State-issued collecting
permit (Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) sec. 150.183). Enforcement of
this permit requirement is difficult, but as discussed above under
Factor B, we do not believe that these activities represent a threat to
the species. Kentucky regulations (301 KAR 1:130, sec. 1(3)) also allow
persons who hold a valid Kentucky fishing license (obtained from KDFWR)
to collect up to 500 minnows per day (a minnow is defined as any non-
game fish less than 6 inches in length, with the exception of federally
listed species). This regulation allows for the capture, holding, and
potential use of the Kentucky arrow darter as a bait species; however,
again as discussed under Factor B, we believe these activities are
practiced infrequently and do not represent a threat to the species.
Because activities associated with these laws and regulations do not
represent threats to the Kentucky arrow darter, we find that these
existing regulatory mechanisms have been adequate in protecting the
species.
Streams within UK's Robinson Forest (Coles Fork, Snag Ridge Fork,
and Clemons Fork) are currently protected from the effects of surface
coal mining due to a 1990 ``lands unsuitable for mining'' designation
(405 KAR 24:040). The Secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet (KEEC) has the authority to designate certain lands as
unsuitable for mining if these activities will: (1) Be incompatible
with existing State and local land use plans; (2) affect fragile or
historic lands in which such operations could result in significant
damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, and aesthetic
values, and natural systems; (3) affect renewable resource lands in
which such operations could results in a substantial loss or reduction
of long-range productivity of water supply or food or fiber products,
and such lands to include aquifers and aquifer recharge areas; or (4)
affect natural hazard lands in which such operations could
substantially endanger life and property, such lands to include areas
subject to frequent flooding and areas of unstable geology. The
designation was made by the Secretary of the KEEC in response to a
petition from the Sierra Club, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., and
Kentucky Conservation Foundation. The Secretary concluded that surface
coal mining and reclamation operations were incompatible with UK's
existing land use management plan and that these activities would
significantly damage important scientific resources within the petition
area.
Portions of 22 of the 47 streams with extant Kentucky arrow darter
populations are located on the DBNF and receive management and
protection through DBNF's land and resource management plan (LRMP)
(USFS 2004, pp. 7-16). Public ownership in these watersheds ranges from
about 50 to 100 percent. The LRMP is implemented through a series of
project-level decisions based on appropriate site-specific analysis and
disclosure. It does not contain a commitment to select any specific
project; rather, it sets up a framework of desired future conditions
with goals, objectives, and standards to guide project proposals.
Projects are proposed to solve resource management problems, move the
forest environment toward desired future conditions, and supply goods
and services to the public (USFS 2004, pp. 7-16). The LRMP contains a
number of protective standards that in general are designed to avoid
and minimize potential adverse effects to the Kentucky arrow darter and
other sensitive species; however, the DBNF will continue to consult
with the Service when their activities may adversely affect streams
supporting Kentucky arrow darters. In addition to conservation benefits
provided by the LRMP, the Service and DBNF signed a candidate
conservation agreement (CCA) for the Kentucky arrow darter in August
2015. The CCA is intended to conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on the
DBNF by (a) protecting known populations and habitat, (b) reducing
threats to its survival, (c) conserving the watersheds and ecosystems
on which it depends, and (d) enhancing and/or restoring degraded
habitat (USFWS and USFS 2015). The DBNF's ownership and management
under the LRMP contributes substantially to the conservation of the
Kentucky arrow darter. A significant portion (about 38 percent) of the
species' remaining populations occurs within the DBNF, and these
populations have benefited from management goals, objectives, and
protective standards included in the LRMP. Collectively, these streams
contain some of the best remaining habitats for the species and support
some of the species' most robust populations.
The Kentucky arrow darter and its habitats are afforded some
protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); the Federal Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) of 1977;
Kentucky's Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS secs. 149.330-355);
Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS secs. 224.71-
140); and additional Kentucky laws and regulations regarding natural
resources and environmental protection (KRS secs. 146.200-360; KRS sec.
224; 401 KAR secs. 5:026, 5:031). While these laws have undoubtedly
resulted in some improvements in water quality and stream habitat for
aquatic life, including the Kentucky arrow darter, we must conclude
that they alone have been inadequate in fully protecting this species;
sedimentation and other nonpoint-source pollutants continue to be a
pose a threat to the species.
Although water quality has generally improved since the Clean Water
Act and SMCRA were enacted or amended in 1977, there is continuing,
ongoing degradation of water quality within the range of the Kentucky
arrow darter. The species has been extirpated from 36 of its 74
historical streams (49 percent), and 16 of these extirpations (16
streams) have occurred since the mid-1990s. A total of 21 streams
(335.8 stream km (208.7 stream mi)) within the species' historical
range have been identified as impaired by the KDOW and placed on the
State's 303(d) list of impaired waters. Of these 21 streams, only 5
continue to be occupied by Kentucky arrow darter (see Table 2), 4 of
which are considered ``vulnerable'' (see Table 1). Resource extraction
(e.g., coal mining, logging, oil/gas well development), land
development, agricultural activities, stream bank modification,
channelization, riparian habitat loss, and inadequate sewage treatment
have been identified as sources of the impairment (Branson and Batch
1972, pp. 513-516; Branson and
[[Page 60981]]
Batch 1974, pp. 82-83; Thomas 2008, pp. 6-7; KDOW 2010, pp. 70-84; KDOW
2013a, pp. 189-214, 337-376; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88-94). Identified
stressors (pollutants) include dissolved solids and elevation of
instream conductivity, sediment/siltation, fecal coliform bacteria,
nutrients/eutrophication, and turbidity (KDOW 2010, p. 84; KDOW 2013a,
pp. 189-214, 337-376). For water bodies on the 303(d) list, States are
required under the Clean Water Act to establish a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) for the pollutant of concern that will improve water
quality to meet the applicable standards. At present, the KDOW has not
established TMDLs for identified pollutants within portions of the
upper Kentucky River basin historically occupied by the Kentucky arrow
darter. At present, TMDLs are not an adequate mechanism to address
chemical pollutants or sedimentation of aquatic habitats. The Service
is also not aware of any other current or future changes to State or
Federal water quality or mining laws that will substantially affect the
currently observed degradation of water quality.
Nonpoint-source pollution, originating from mine sites, unpaved
roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, driveways, logging skid
trails, and other disturbed habitats is considered to be a continuing
threat to Kentucky arrow darter habitats. Nonpoint-source pollution is
caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground as
runoff and transporting natural (sediment) and human-made pollutants to
lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. Current
laws do not adequately protect the Kentucky arrow darter and its
habitats from nonpoint-source pollution because there is limited
compliance with existing laws to prevent sediment and other pollutants
from entering waterways. For example, forestry operations do not have
permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act because there is a
silvicultural exemption as long as best management practices (BMPs) are
used to help control nonpoint-source pollution (Ryder and Edwards 2006,
entire). The Kentucky Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS 149.330-
149.355) was developed to regulate timber harvesting operations in
Kentucky. It requires that a Master Logger be on-site and in charge of
commercial logging operations, and it also requires that all timber
harvesting operators use appropriate best management practices (BMPs)
for protection of water quality (Stringer and Thompson 2000, pp. 2-3).
Without properly installed BMPs, sedimentation occurs as soils are
disturbed, the overlying leaf or litter layer is removed, and sediment
is carried overland from logging roads, stream crossings, skid trails,
and riparian zones during storm events.
Compliance monitoring from May 2014 to May 2015 within counties
located in the upper Kentucky River basin indicated that approximately
19 percent of inspected sites (47 sites out of a total of 246 inspected
sites) had some kind of compliance issue (e.g., poor BMP use),
resulting in a written warning by the Kentucky Division of Forestry and
at least a follow-up visit (Metzger 2015, pers. comm.). Because
sediment BMPs are not always strictly applied and logging activities
often result in water quality impairment, the Kentucky Forest
Conservation Act is an inadequate regulatory mechanism for the
protection of aquatic habitats supporting the Kentucky arrow darter.
Kentucky State laws and regulations regarding oil and gas drilling
are generally designed to protect fresh water resources like the
Kentucky arrow darter's habitat, but these regulatory mechanisms do not
contain specific provisions requiring an analysis of project impacts to
fish and wildlife resources (Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas et al.
2012, entire). Current regulations also do not contain or provide any
formal mechanism requiring coordination with, or input from, the
Service or the KDOW regarding the presence of federally endangered,
threatened, or candidate species, or other rare and sensitive species.
In July of 2015, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) published in the Federal Register a Notice of
Availability for a draft environmental impact statement regarding a
proposed Stream Protection Rule (80 FR 42535; July 17, 2015) and the
proposed Stream Protection Rule (80 FR 44436, July 27, 2015). The
proposed rule states: ``This proposed rule would better protect
streams, fish, wildlife, and related environmental values from the
adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations and provide mine
operators with a regulatory framework to avoid water pollution and the
long-term costs associated with water treatment'' (80 FR 44436, see
SUMMARY). While this proposed rule may provide benefits for the
Kentucky arrow darter in the future, until the rule is finalized and
implemented, we are unable to evaluate its potential effectiveness with
regard to the Kentucky arrow darter and its habitat.
In summary, degradation of habitat for the Kentucky arrow darter is
ongoing despite existing regulatory mechanisms. These regulatory
mechanisms have been inadequate to reduce or remove the threats to the
Kentucky arrow darter.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Restricted Range and Population Size
The disjunct nature of some Kentucky arrow darter populations
(Figures 2 and 3, above) restricts the natural exchange of genetic
material between populations and makes natural repopulation following
localized extirpations of the species arduous without human
intervention. The localized nature and small size of many populations
also makes them vulnerable to extirpation from intentional or
accidental toxic chemical spills, habitat modification, progressive
degradation from runoff (nonpoint-source pollutants), natural
catastrophic changes to their habitat (e.g., flood scour, drought), and
other stochastic disturbances, such as loss of genetic variation and
inbreeding (Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 157-158; Hunter 2002, pp. 97-101;
Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146). Inbreeding and loss of
neutral genetic variation associated with small population size can
further reduce the fitness of the population (Reed and Frankham 2003,
pp. 230-237), subsequently accelerating population decline (Fagan and
Holmes 2006, pp. 51-60).
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more
likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift,
potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental changes, and
reducing the fitness of individuals (Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 157-158;
Hunter 2002, pp. 97-101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146). It
is likely that some of the Kentucky arrow darter populations are below
the effective population size required to maintain long-term genetic
and population viability (Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 162-164; Hunter 2002,
pp. 105-107). The long-term viability of a species is founded on the
conservation of numerous local populations throughout its geographic
range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). These separate populations are
essential for the species to recover and adapt to environmental change
(Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264-297; Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). The
level of isolation seen in this species makes natural repopulation
following localized extirpations virtually impossible without human
intervention.
[[Page 60982]]
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, 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 2014, p. 4). Species that are dependent on
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme
periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change (see 75 FR 48911, August 12, 2010); however, while
continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is
unknown in many cases.
Climate change has the potential to increase the vulnerability of
the Kentucky arrow darter to random catastrophic events (McLaughlin et
al. 2002, pp. 6060-6074; Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145-148). An increase
in both severity and variation in climate patterns is expected, with
extreme floods, strong storms, and droughts becoming more common (Cook
et al. 2004, pp. 1015-1018; Ford et al. 2011, p. 2065; IPCC 2014, pp.
58-83). Thomas et al. (2004, pp. 145-148) report that frequency,
duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to increase in the
Southeast as a result of global climate change. Predicted impacts of
climate change on fishes include disruption to their physiology (such
as temperature tolerance, dissolved oxygen needs, and metabolic rates),
life history (such as timing of reproduction, growth rate), and
distribution (range shifts, migration of new predators) (Jackson and
Mandrak 2002, pp. 89-98; Heino et al. 2009, pp. 41-51; Strayer and
Dudgeon 2010, pp. 350-351; Comte et al. 2013, pp. 627-636). According
to Kaushal et al. (2010, p. 465), stream temperatures in the Southeast
have increased roughly 0.2-0.4 [deg]C per decade over the past 30
years, and as air temperature is a strong predictor of water
temperature, stream temperatures are expected to continue to rise.
Estimates of the effects of climate change using available climate
models typically lack the geographic precision needed to predict the
magnitude of effects at a scale small enough to discretely apply to the
range of a given species. However, data on recent trends and predicted
changes for Kentucky (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1-19), and, more
specifically, the upper Kentucky River drainage (Alder and Hostetler
2013, entire) provide some insight for evaluating the potential threat
of climate change to the Kentucky arrow darter. These models provide
estimates of average annual increases in maximum and minimum
temperature, precipitation, snowfall, and other variables. Depending on
the chosen model, average annual temperatures for Kentucky and the
upper Kentucky River drainage are expected to increase by 2.5 to 5
[deg]C (4.5 to 9 [deg]F) by the 2080s (Girvetz et al. 2009, pp. 1-19;
Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 1-9), while precipitation models predict
that Kentucky will experience a slight increase in average annual
precipitation (2 cm/day (0.8 in/day) (x 100)) through 2074 (Girvetz et
al. 2009, pp. 1-19; Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 1-9).
There is uncertainty about the specific effects of climate change
(and their magnitude) on the Kentucky arrow darter; however, climate
change is almost certain to affect aquatic habitats in the upper
Kentucky River drainage of Kentucky through increased water
temperatures and more frequent droughts (Alder and Hostetler 2013,
entire), and species with limited ranges, fragmented distributions, and
small population size are thought to be especially vulnerable to the
effects of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 18). Thus, we
consider climate change to be a threat to the Kentucky arrow darter.
In summary, we have determined that other natural and manmade
factors, such as geographical isolation, small population size, and
climate change, are threats to remaining populations of the Kentucky
arrow darter across its range. The severity of these threats is high
because of the species' reduced range and population size, which result
in a reduced ability to adapt to environmental change. Further, our
review of the best available scientific and commercial information
indicates that these threats are likely to continue or increase in the
future.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Kentucky arrow darter. As described in detail above, the
Kentucky arrow darter has been extirpated from about 49 percent of its
historical range (36 of 74 historical streams), 16 of these
extirpations have occurred since the mid-1990s, populations in nearly
half of the species' occupied streams are ranked as vulnerable (see
Table 1, above), remaining populations are fragmented and isolated, and
the species continues to be at risk throughout all of its range due to
the immediacy, severity, and scope of threats from three of the five
threat factors: habitat degradation and range curtailment (Factor A),
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and other
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
Anthropogenic activities such as surface coal mining, logging, oil/
gas development, land development, agriculture, and inadequate sewage
treatment have all contributed to the degradation of stream habitats
within the species' range (Factor A). These land use activities have
led to chemical and physical changes to stream habitats that continue
to affect the species. Specific stressors include inputs of dissolved
solids and elevation of instream conductivity, sedimentation/siltation
of stream substrates, turbidity, and inputs of nutrients and organic
enrichment. These high magnitude stressors, especially the inputs of
dissolved solids and sedimentation, have had profound negative effects
on Kentucky arrow darter populations and have been the primary factor
in the species' decline. Existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., the
Clean Water Act) have provided for some improvements in water quality
and habitat conditions across the species' range, but these laws and
regulations have been inadequate in protecting the species' habitat
(Factor D), as evidenced by recent extirpations (16 streams since the
1990s) and the 21 303(d) listed streams within the species' historical
range. The Kentucky arrow darter's vulnerability to these threats is
even greater due to its reduced range, fragmented populations, and
small or declining population sizes (Factor E) (Primack 2012, pp. 146-
150). The effects of certain threats, particularly habitat degradation
and loss, increase in magnitude when population size is small (Primack
2012, pp. 150-152).
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.'' We find that the Kentucky arrow darter
meets the definition of a threatened species based on the immediacy,
severity, and scope of the threats identified above. The species'
overall range has been reduced substantially, most of the species'
historical habitat has been degraded, and much of the remaining habitat
exists primarily in fragmented patches. Current Kentucky
[[Page 60983]]
arrow darter habitats continue to be lost or degraded due to surface
coal mining, logging, oil/gas development, land development,
agriculture, and inadequate sewage treatment, and it appears this trend
will continue in the future. Regulatory mechanisms such as the Clean
Water Act have been inadequate to reduce or remove these types of
threats to the species. Extant populations are known from 47 streams,
but these populations continue to be threatened by small population
size, isolation, fragmentation, climate change, and the habitat
degradation summarized above. All of these factors make the species
particularly susceptible to extinction in the future.
We find that endangered status is not appropriate for the Kentucky
arrow darter because we do not consider the species' threats to be so
severe that extinction is imminent. Although threats to the species are
ongoing, often severe, and occurring across the range, populations
continue to occupy 47 scattered streams, 23 of which appear to support
stable populations (see Table 1, above). Additionally, a significant
number of extant Kentucky arrow darter populations (49 percent) occur
primarily on public lands (i.e., DBNF and Robinson Forest) that are at
least partially managed to protect habitats used by the species. For
example, the CCA with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for DBNF should
provide an elevated level of focused management and conservation for
portions of 20 streams that support populations of the Kentucky arrow
darter. Based on all these factors, the Kentucky arrow darter does not
meet the definition of an endangered species. Therefore, on the basis
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose
listing the Kentucky arrow darter as a threatened species in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined
that the Kentucky arrow darter is a threatened species throughout all
of its range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for
purposes of the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species.'' See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37577, July 1, 2014).
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, 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 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. The plan may be revised 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 reclassification from
endangered to threatened or for 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. If the species is listed, a recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web
site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Kentucky Ecological
Services Field 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), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Kentucky would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Kentucky arrow darter. Information on
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Kentucky arrow darter is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in conservation efforts for this species. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for conservation
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to
[[Page 60984]]
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the USFS; issuance of
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; construction and maintenance of gas pipeline and power line
rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Environmental Protection Agency pesticide registration; construction
and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway
Administration; and projects funded through Federal loan programs which
may include, but are not limited to, roads and bridges, utilities,
recreation sites, and other forms of development.
Several conservation efforts are already being undertaken for the
Kentucky arrow darter. The Service, in cooperation with KDFWR, KSNPC,
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), KDOW, DBNF, CFI, and The Appalachian
Wildlife Foundation, Inc., completed a conservation strategy for the
Kentucky arrow darter in 2014 (Service 2014, entire). The strategy was
developed as a guidance document that would assist the Service and its
partners in their conservation efforts for the species. The strategy is
divided into four major sections: (1) Biology and status, (2) listing
factors/current threats, (3) current conservation efforts, and (4)
conservation objectives/actions. The strategy's first conservation
objective addresses current informational needs on the species'
biology, ecology, viability, and survey methods, while the remaining
three conservation objectives address specific threats facing the
species (Factors A, D, and E, respectively).
With respect to the conservation strategy's first objective,
several research projects have been initiated that will provide new
information on the species' biology and threats (see descriptions in
the following paragraphs). These projects include studies on the
species' distribution, status, and population size; movement and
microhabitat characteristics; genetics; and response to changes in
water quality (e.g., conductivity). Initial efforts to address
objectives 2-4 have included the development of a CCA with the USFS, a
propagation and reintroduction study by KDFWR and CFI, field
investigations to determine the predatory risk posed by nonnative
trout, and continued informal discussions with our Federal, State, and
private partners. If implemented, specific actions identified in the
conservation strategy will help to reduce current threats to the
Kentucky arrow darter.
As stated above, the Service and USFS recently signed a CCA for the
Kentucky arrow darter on the DBNF. About half of the species' extant
streams occur on lands owned and managed by the DBNF, so conservation
of these populations is essential to the species' recovery, and a DBNF-
specific conservation plan is needed to guide those efforts. The CCA is
intended to conserve the Kentucky arrow darter on the DBNF by (a)
protecting known populations and habitat, (b) reducing threats to its
survival, (c) conserving the watersheds and ecosystems on which it
depends, and (d) enhancing and/or restoring degraded habitat.
In 2005, KDFWR identified the Kentucky arrow darter as 1 of 251
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in its State Wildlife
Action Plan (KDFWR 2005, entire). The species remains a SGCN in the
most recent version of the plan (KDFWR 2013, pp. 61-62), which
identifies conservation issues (threats), conservation actions, and
monitoring strategies for 301 animal species belonging to 1 of 20
terrestrial and aquatic habitat guilds (collection of species that
occur in the same habitat). In the original plan, KDFWR developed a
priority list of research and survey needs for Kentucky's SGCN. In
2008, KDFWR attempted to address two of these needs by initiating a
propagation and reintroduction study for the Kentucky arrow darter
through the Service's State Wildlife Program (Ruble et al. 2010,
entire). The study was designed to document details on the species'
reproductive biology and to begin conservation actions (e.g.,
propagation followed by reintroduction or augmentation) that would
benefit the species. The KDFWR partnered with CFI to develop successful
spawning protocols and produce the offspring needed to augment
populations within the species' current range.
From 2009 to 2011, a total of 145 captive-spawned, juvenile
Kentucky arrow darters (originating from brood stock taken from Big
Double Creek) were produced by CFI, tagged (Northwest Marine
Technologies elastomer tag), and introduced into Sugar Creek, Leslie
County, a tributary of the Red Bird River in the DBNF, Redbird District
(Thomas and Brandt 2012, pp. 57-64). Attempts to relocate tagged
darters in August 2009, October 2009, March 2010, January 2012, and
February 2012, were unsuccessful, so KDFWR and CFI made the decision to
abandon efforts at Sugar Creek and begin another reintroduction effort
at Long Fork, another DBNF stream and tributary of Hector Branch in
Clay County.
Since August 2012, a total of 1,447 captive-spawned KADs (about 50-
55 mm TL) have been tagged and reintroduced within a 1.5-km (0.9 mi)
reach of Long Fork. Monitoring has been conducted on 14 occasions since
the initial release using visual searches and seining methods. Tagged
darters have been observed during each monitoring event, with numbers
increasing from 18 (October 2012) to 86 (August 2013) (Thomas et al.
2014, p. 23). Tagged darters have been observed throughout the Long
Fork mainstem, both upstream and downstream of the release points, and
two tagged individuals have been observed outside of Long Fork--one in
Hector Branch, just downstream of its confluence with Long Fork, and
one at the mouth of Deerlick Branch, a first-order tributary of Hector
Branch located approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) downstream of the confluence
of Long Fork and Hector Branch. The majority of individuals have been
found in pools (depth of 20-61 cm (8-24 in)) with rock substrates,
exposed bedrock, and some marginal cover (e.g., tree roots). Surveys in
July, August, and October 2013, produced a total of 20, untagged young-
of-year arrow darters, while surveys in March, July, August, and
October 2013, produced 25 untagged young-of-year. These results
indicate natural reproduction in Long Fork. In 2015, KDFWR observed
five untagged individuals in Hector Branch, approximately 0.6 km (0.4
mi) upstream of its confluence with Long Fork, and four untagged
individuals in Deerlick Branch, approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) downstream
of the confluence of Long Fork and Hector Branch. Additional monitoring
and releases are planned for 2015.
The Service and KDFWR are working with EKU on a study that is
investigating Kentucky arrow darter movements, habitat characteristics,
and population size in two DBNF streams, Gilberts Big Creek and Elisha
Creek, in Clay and Leslie Counties (Harrel and Baxter 2013, entire).
EKU is using PIT-tags and placed antenna systems to monitor intra- and
inter-tributary movement patterns in both streams, and they have
collected seasonal (Spring, Summer, and Fall of 2013) biotic and
abiotic data from 20 100-m (328-ft) reaches to determine habitat use
and population density/size for both
[[Page 60985]]
streams. Preliminary findings include the following:
126 individuals pit-tagged;
Population estimates for Elisha Creek: 592-1,429
individuals (summer) and 661-1,359 (fall) (range here and below
reflects 95 percent confidence intervals);
Population estimate for Gilberts Big Creek: 175-358
(summer);
Maximum observed movement: 4,078 m (2.5 mi) (female,
downstream in Gilberts Big Creek); and
Other observed movements (7 individuals): 134 m (439 ft)
(upstream), 328 m (1,076 ft) (downstream), 351 (1,151 ft) (upstream),
900 m (2,952 ft) (upstream/downstream), 950 m (3,116 ft) (downstream),
1,282 m (4,028 ft) (downstream) and 1,708 m (5,603 ft) (downstream).
In 2013, KSNPC and the Service initiated a study to investigate the
distribution, status, population size, and habitat use of the Kentucky
arrow darter within the upper Kentucky River basin. One important
aspect of the study was to account for imperfect detection when
surveying for the species. Studies that do not account for imperfect
detection can often lead to an underestimation of the true proportion
of sites occupied by a species and can bias assessments and sampling
efforts (MacKenzie et al. 2002, entire; MacKenzie et al. 2005, entire).
From June to September 2013, KSNPC and the Service visited 80 randomly
chosen sites (ranging from first- to third-order) across the upper
Kentucky River basin in order to address these concerns and meet
project objectives. As expected, Kentucky arrow darters were rare
during the study and were observed at only 7 of the 80 sites, including
two new localities (Granny Dismal Creek in Owsley County and Spring
Fork Quicksand Creek in Breathitt County) and one historical stream
(Hunting Creek, Breathitt County) where the species was not observed
during status surveys by Thomas (2008, pp. 1-33) and Service (2012, pp.
1-4). Presently, KSNPC and the Service are in the data analysis stage
of this project.
In July 2013, EKU, the Service, and KSNPC initiated a population
estimate and microhabitat characterization study on Clemons Fork,
Breathitt County. The study was designed to estimate the Kentucky arrow
darter's current population size and average density within Clemons
Fork and to compare current densities with historical densities
reported by Lotrich (1973). Additionally, population densities and
habitat parameters will be compared to data from Gilberts Big Creek and
Elisha Creek (both DBNF) to aid in delineation of essential habitat
characteristics and development and implementation of conservation
efforts. Field surveys were completed in August 2013. Data analyses are
incomplete, but initial results include a mean density of 9.69 Kentucky
arrow darters per sampling reach and a population estimate of 986 to
2,113 darters in Clemons Fork (95 percent confidence intervals).
Preliminary findings of this study were presented at the 2013
Southeastern Fishes Council Meeting, Lake Guntersville, Alabama
(November 14-15, 2013).
Austin Peay State University is currently working with KDFWR and
the Service on the first comprehensive assessment of genetic variation
and gene flow patterns across the range of the Kentucky arrow darter
(Johansen et al. 2013, pp. 1-3). Approximately 25 individuals per
population from up to 12 populations across the range of the species
will be genotyped using microsatellite markers. Resulting data will be
used to generate robust estimates of effective population sizes and
overall population and species' variability. This information is
essential to the development of effective conservation and recovery
measures to ensure the long-term persistence of the species. Funding
for this project is being provided through the Service's section 6
program.
Through Service-USGS Quick Response funding, the USGS Leetown
Science Center evaluated the relationship between Kentucky arrow darter
abundance and stream conductivity in the upper Kentucky River basin
(Hitt 2014, entire). Nonlinear regression techniques were used to
evaluate significant thresholds and associated confidence intervals for
Kentucky arrow darter abundance related to conductivity levels. As a
contrast to Kentucky arrow darter, Dr. Hitt also evaluated blackside
dace occurrence in this regard. Data for the study were supplied by the
Service's Kentucky and Tennessee Field Offices, KDFWR, and KSNPC.
Nonlinear regressions indicated a distinct decline in Kentucky arrow
darter abundance at 258 [micro]S/cm (95 percent confidence intervals
155-590 [micro]S/cm), above which abundances were negligible. Nonlinear
threshold declines for blackside dace were observed at 343 [micro]S/cm,
and 95 percent confidence intervals bounded this relationship between
123-632 [micro]S/cm. Boosted regression results indicated that stream
conductivity was the strongest predictor in separate analyses of
Kentucky arrow darter and blackside dace abundance. Hitt (2014, pp. 7-
8) concluded that the similar responses of these ecologically distinct
taxa suggest the general importance of this water quality attribute for
stream fish ecology in central Appalachia.
Proposed Special Rule
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 wildlife. We may also prohibit by
regulation, with respect to threatened wildlife, any act that is
prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife.
Exercising this discretion, the Service has developed general
prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened species at 50 CFR
17.31 and exceptions to those prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.32. While most
of the prohibitions of 17.31 and 17.32 are appropriate for the Kentucky
arrow darter, we find that some activities that would normally be
prohibited under 17.31 and 17.32 are necessary for the conservation of
this species because the species could benefit from habitat
improvements in first- to third-order streams that are physically
degraded (e.g., unstable stream channels, eroding banks, no canopy
cover). Therefore, for the Kentucky arrow darter, the Service has
determined that a species-specific section 4(d) rule may be appropriate
to promote the conservation of this species. As discussed in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this rule, the
primary threat to the species is the continuing loss and degradation of
habitat. Physical habitat degradation is widespread within the species'
range, and sediment has been identified as the most common stressor
(KDOW 2013a, pp. 189-214; KDOW 2013b, pp. 88-94). Sedimentation may
originate from areas outside of the stream channel as a result of land
use activities associated with surface coal mining, legacy coal
extraction, logging, land development, channel relocations, and
riparian clearing. All of these activities can cause sedimentation, but
they may also lead to canopy removal clearing of riparian vegetation,
and elevation of stream temperatures, thereby degrading habitats used
by Kentucky arrow darters for feeding, sheltering, and reproduction.
Sedimentation may also originate from areas within the stream channel
as a result of channel instability and bank or stream bed erosion.
Numerous streams within the species' current range have been identified
as impaired (primarily due to siltation) and have been included on
Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters (see Table 2, above).
Activities such as stream reconfiguration/riparian restoration, bridge
and culvert
[[Page 60986]]
replacement or removal, bank stabilization, and stream crossing repair
and maintenance, that follow the provisions of the species specific
4(d) rule below will improve or restore physical habitat quality for
the Kentucky arrow darter and will provide an overall conservation
benefit to the species.
The 4(d) rule, if approved, will not remove or alter in any way the
consultation requirement under section 7 of the Act. However, we expect
the 4(d) rule to provide greater certainty to Federal agencies and any
third parties (e.g., permit applicants) in the consultation process for
activities conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 4(d)
rule. The consultation process may be further streamlined through
programmatic consultations between Federal agencies and the Service for
these activities. We ask the public, particularly Federal agencies and
other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the 4(d) rule, to
provide comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance and
methods that the Service could provide or utilize, respectively, to
streamline the implementation of this 4(d) rule (see Information
Requested).
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would except from the general prohibitions
in 50 CFR 17.32 take incidental to the following activities when
conducted within habitats currently occupied by the Kentucky arrow
darter. All of the activities listed below must be conducted in a
manner that (1) maintains connectivity of suitable Kentucky arrow
darter habitats, allowing for dispersal between streams; (2) minimizes
instream disturbance by conducting activities during low-flow periods
when possible; and (3) maximizes the amount of instream cover that is
available for the species:
(1) Channel reconfiguration or restoration projects that create
natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream
and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater
aquifers (Parola and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8-13; Parola and Hansen
2011, pp. 2-7; Floyd et al. 2013, pp. 129-135). These projects can be
accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a
natural, sinuous channel with low shear stress (force of water moving
against the channel); low bank heights and reconnection to the
floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems,
resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools
comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported
materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
inclusion of riparian wetlands. First- to third-order, headwater
streams reconstructed in this way would offer suitable habitats for the
Kentucky arrow darter and contain stable channel features, such as
pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species
for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal
behaviors.
(2) Bank stabilization projects that utilize bioengineering methods
outlined in Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet and
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116-128) to replace pre-
existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream
banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and
improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these methods,
stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative
cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the
stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings,
usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). These methods would not
include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock
baskets or gabion structures.
(3) Bridge and culvert replacement/removal projects that remove
migration barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or perched culverts) or
generally allow for improved upstream and downstream movements of
Kentucky arrow darters while maintaining normal stream flows,
preventing bed and bank erosion, and improving habitat conditions for
the species.
(4) Repair and maintenance of USFS concrete plank stream crossings
on the DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage while maintaining
instream habitats, reducing bank and stream bed erosion and instream
sedimentation, and improving habitat conditions for the species. These
concrete plank crossings have been an effective stream crossing
structure on the DBNF and have been used for decades. Over time, the
planks can be buried by sediment, undercut during storm events, or
simply break down and decay. If these situations occur, the DBNF must
make repairs or replace the affected plank.
We believe these actions and activities, while they may have some
minimal level of mortality, harm, or disturbance to the Kentucky arrow
darter, are not expected to adversely affect the species' conservation
and recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they would have a net
beneficial effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream
habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct
channel disturbance. The activities proposed in this rule will correct
some of these problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for
the species. Like the proposed listing rule, this proposed 4(d) rule
will not be finalized until we have reviewed comments from the public
and peer reviewers.
Based on the rationale above, the provisions included in this
proposed 4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Kentucky arrow darter. Nothing in this proposed
4(d) rule would change in any way the recovery planning provisions of
section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements under section 7
of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships
for the management and protection of the Kentucky arrow darter.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, to
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, economic hardship,
zoological exhibition, educational purposes, and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain
statutory exemptions from the prohibited activities, 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 (for this species, those
section 9 prohibitions adopted through the proposed 4(d) rule). The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range
of species proposed for listing. Based on the best available
information, the following actions are unlikely to result in a
violation of section 9, if these activities are carried out in
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements, although
this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including
herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with
any existing regulations, permit and label
[[Page 60987]]
requirements, and best management practices; and
(2) Surface coal mining and reclamation activities conducted in
accordance with the 1996 Biological Opinion between the Service and
OSM.
However, we believe the following activities may potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act, although this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species.
(2) Destruction or alteration of the habitat of the Kentucky arrow
darter (e.g., unpermitted instream dredging, impoundment, water
diversion or withdrawal, channelization, discharge of fill material)
that impairs essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, or results in killing or injuring a Kentucky arrow darter.
(3) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, contaminants, or
other pollutants into waters supporting the Kentucky arrow darter that
kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs essential life-
sustaining behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Kentucky
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and 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).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
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 an entry for ``Darter, Kentucky
arrow'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under FISHES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Darter, Kentucky arrow........ Etheostoma U.S.A. (KY)..... Entire.......... T ............... NA 17.44(p)
spilotum.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.44 by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.44 Special rules--fishes.
* * * * *
(p) Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma spilotum).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (p)(2) of this
section, all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32
apply to the Kentucky arrow darter.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. (i) All of the activities listed
in paragraph (p)(2)(ii) must be conducted in a manner that maintains
connectivity of suitable Kentucky arrow darter habitats, allowing for
dispersal between streams; that minimizes instream disturbance by
conducting activities during low-flow periods when possible; and that
maximizes the amount of instream cover that is available for the
species.
(ii) Incidental take of the Kentucky arrow darter will not be
considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take results from
any of the following when conducted within habitats currently occupied
by the Kentucky arrow darter:
(A) Channel reconfiguration or restoration projects that create
natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream
and
[[Page 60988]]
wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers
(Parola and Biebighauser 2011, pp. 8-13; Parola and Hansen 2011, pp. 2-
7; Floyd et al. 2013, pp. 129-135). These projects can be accomplished
using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural,
sinuous channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against
the channel); low bank heights and reconnection to the floodplain; a
reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial
flows in the channel; riffles and pools comprised of existing soil,
rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of
soils within adjacent riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian
wetlands. First- to third-order, headwater streams reconstructed in
this way would offer suitable habitats for the Kentucky arrow darter
and contain stable channel features, such as pools, glides, runs, and
riffles, which could be used by the species for spawning, rearing,
growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors.
(B) Bank stabilization projects that utilize bioengineering methods
outlined in Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet and
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (2005, pp. 116-128) to replace pre-
existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream
banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and
improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these methods,
stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative
cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the
stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings,
usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). These methods would not
include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock
baskets or gabion structures.
(C) Bridge and culvert replacement/removal projects that remove
migration barriers (e.g., collapsing, blocked, or perched culverts) or
generally allow for improved upstream and downstream movements of
Kentucky arrow darters while maintaining normal stream flows,
preventing bed and bank erosion, and improving habitat conditions for
the species.
(D) Repair and maintenance of USFS concrete plank stream crossings
on the DBNF that allow for safe vehicle passage while maintaining
instream habitats, reducing bank and stream bed erosion and instream
sedimentation, and improving habitat conditions for the species. These
concrete plank crossings have been an effective stream crossing
structure on the DBNF and have been used for decades. Over time, the
planks can be buried by sediment, undercut during storm events, or
simply break down and decay. If these situations occur, the DBNF must
make repairs or replace the affected plank.
* * * * *
Dated: September 22, 2015.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-25278 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
