Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Kenk's Amphipod, 67270-67287 [2016-23103]
Download as PDF
67270
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
—Use lists and table wherever possible.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential information,
Courts, Freedom of Information Act,
Privacy Act.
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Kristen J. Sarri,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of the Interior
proposes to amend 43 CFR part 2 as
follows:
PART 2—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT; RECORDS AND TESTIMONY
1. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553;
31 U.S.C. 3717; 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461.
2. Amend § 2.254 to add paragraph
(b)(18) to read as follows:
■
§ 2.254
Exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(18) Investigations Case Management
System (CMS), BSEE–01.
[FR Doc. 2016–23707 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2016–0030;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BB50
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Kenk’s Amphipod
AGENCY:
Executive Summary
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Kenk’s amphipod (Stygobromus
kenki), a ground water species from the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia, as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (Act).
If we finalize this rule as proposed, it
would extend the Act’s protections to
this species. The effect of this regulation
will be to add the species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
November 29, 2016. Comments
submitted electronically using the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
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 14,
2016.
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–R5–ES–2016–0030, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2016–
0030; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Headquarters, 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:
Genevieve LaRouche, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 177
Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis,
MD 21401, by telephone 410–573–4577
or by facsimile 410–269–0832. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Information Requested
Public Comments
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if a species is determined to be
an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within 1 year. Critical
habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, for any species
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designating and
revising critical habitat can be
completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This
document proposes the listing of the
Kenk’s amphipod (Stygobromus kenki)
PO 00000
as an endangered species. The Kenk’s
amphipod is a candidate species for
which we have on file sufficient
information on its biological
vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for
which development of a listing
regulation has been precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. This
proposed rule assesses the best available
information and data regarding the
status of and threats to the Kenk’s
amphipod.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we can 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 Kenk’s
amphipod is in danger of extinction
primarily due to poor water quality,
erosion, and sedimentation resulting
from urban runoff in Maryland and the
District of Columbia (Factor A) and the
effects of small population dynamics
(Factor E) at all known locations.
We will seek peer review. We will seek
comments from independent specialists
to ensure that our 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
received during the comment period,
our final determination may differ from
this proposal.
Sfmt 4702
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 the public, 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 Kenk’s amphipod’s biology,
range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(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 the 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 the species.
(5) Additional information on the
hydrology (e.g., connectedness, size of
recharge areas) of the known Kenk’s
amphipod sites.
(6) Reliable methodology for
estimating the total population size at
an individual seep site (e.g., calculating
the number of animals in the subsurface
from the number of animals at the
surface).
(7) Additional information on the
interspecific interactions of amphipods
at the known Kenk’s amphipod sites
(e.g., predator/prey dynamics or
competition for food or space
resources).
(8) The specific tolerance of the
Kenk’s amphipod or the Potomac
groundwater amphipod (Stygobromus
tenuis potomacus) to temperature,
sewage effluent, chlorinated water, or
other contaminants.
Please include supporting
documentation with your submission
(such as scientific journal articles or
other publications) to allow us to verify
any scientific or commercial
information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
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, Chesapeake Bay 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 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 FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in Kenk’s/
Stygobromus amphipod biology, habitat,
or stressors (factors negatively affecting
the species) to the Kenk’s amphipod
species or its habitat. We invite
comment from the peer reviewers
during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Action
In 2001, the Service received a
petition to list the Kenk’s amphipod and
two other invertebrates. Higher priority
workload that consumed the listing
budget prevented the Service from
making a 90-day finding until fiscal year
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67271
(FY) 2006 when we found that the
petition did not present substantial
information (72 FR 51766, September
11, 2007) indicating that listing may be
warranted. In 2010, the Service, under
its own candidate assessment process,
initiated a status review for the Kenk’s
amphipod, completed an analysis on the
best available data, and determined that
listing the species was warranted.
However, we were precluded from
moving forward with rulemaking for the
species due to other higher priority
listing actions. The Kenk’s amphipod
was added to the FY 2010 candidate list
(75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010). The
species’ status was reviewed at least
annually and continued to be found
warranted but precluded for listing in
all subsequent annual Candidate
Notices of Review (76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013; 79 FR72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015). For additional
information see: https://ecos.fws.gov/
tess_public/profile/
speciesProfile?spcode=K04P (last
accessed June 22, 2016). In 2011, the
Service entered into a settlement
agreement with the Center for Biological
Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that
specified a listing determination must
be made for all species from the FY
2010 candidate list (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Salazar 10–cv–
0230 (D.D.C.); WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar Nos. 10–cv–0048; 10–cv–0421;
10–cv–1043; 10–cv–1045; 10–cv–1048;
10–cv–1049; 10–cv–50; 10–cv–51; 10–
cv–1068; 10–cv–2299; 10–cv–2595; 10–
cv–3366 (D.D.C.)). Per the settlement
agreement, a not warranted finding or
proposed listing rule for the Kenk’s
amphipod must be delivered to the
Federal Register no later than
September 30, 2016.
Background
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Kenk’s amphipod (Stygobromus
kenki) was first collected in 1967 by
Roman Kenk from a spring in Rock
Creek Park (Park), southeast of North
National Capitol Parks’ headquarters in
the District of Columbia, and it was
formally described by J.R. Holsinger
(1978, pp. 39–42). We have carefully
reviewed the best available taxonomic
data and conclude that the Kenk’s
amphipod is a valid species.
The Kenk’s amphipod is a moderately
small ground water crustacean, with the
largest male and female specimens
growing to 0.15 inch (in) (3.7
millimeters (mm)) and 0.22 in (5.5 mm)
in length, respectively. The Kenk’s
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67272
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
amphipod is a member of the Spinosus
Group of Stygobromus, which includes
two other closely related but separate
species, Blue Ridge stygobromid (S.
spinosus) and Luray Caverns amphipod
(S. pseudospinosus), that are found only
in Virginia, primarily in Shenandoah
National Park. The Kenk’s amphipod is
distinguished from those two species, as
well as other co-occurring amphipods,
such as the Potomac groundwater
amphipod and Hay’s spring amphipod
(S. hayi), on the basis of various
morphological features (Holsinger 1978,
p. 39). For additional morphological
description details, please see the
Kenk’s amphipod’s FY 2015 candidate
assessment form here: https://
ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/
assessments/2015/r5/K04P_I01.pdf (last
accessed on June 22, 2016).
Accurate identification of the Kenk’s
amphipod can occur only when a
specimen is removed from the seepage
spring site (hereafter referred
interchangeably as seepage spring, seep,
spring, or site depending upon the
reference), and preserved in alcohol or
other fixing agent for identification by a
species expert who removes legs and
other appendages from the specimen for
microscopic examination. This
identification method is the best
scientific method available. Because the
laboratory identification results in
mortality, the Service has been
judicious in limiting the frequency and
number of specimens removed from
known sites.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Reproduction and Longevity
We have no reproductive or longevity
information specific to the Kenk’s
amphipod, but assume those attributes
are similar to other Stygobromus
species. Like other amphipods, females
of the genus Stygobromus deposit their
eggs in a brood pouch on their
underside (Foltz and Jepson 2009, p. 2).
Young of the Potomac groundwater
amphipod hatch from the egg and
actively swim from the brood pouch,
with days or even weeks passing
between the hatching of the first and
last young of a brood (Williams 2013, p.
10). The immature stages resemble the
adults, and individuals undergo
successive molts (usually between eight
and nine) until maturity. Most surface
amphipod species from the family
Talitridae complete their life cycle (egg
to adult) in 1 year or less, but
subterranean species like the Kenk’s
amphipod have a longer life span and
may live for 4 to 6 years (Foltz and
Jepson 2009, p. 2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Habitat
Amphipods of the genus Stygobromus
occur in ground water and ground
water-related habitats (e.g., caves, seeps,
small springs, wells, interstices, and
rarely deep ground water lakes).
Members of this genus occur only in
freshwater and belong to the family
Crangonyctidae, the largest family of
freshwater amphipods in North
America, and have modified
morphology for survival in the
subterranean ground water that is their
primary habitat. These species are
generally eyeless and unpigmented
(without color), and frequently have
attenuated (reduced in length and
width) bodies (Holsinger 1978, pp. 1–2).
The Kenk’s amphipod is found in
wooded areas where ground water
emerges to form seepage springs
(Holsinger 1978, p. 39). More
specifically, this habitat is called the
hypotelminorheic. Hypotelminorheic is
described as habitats: (1) With a perched
aquifer fed by subsurface water that
creates a persistent wet spot; (2)
underlain by a clay or other
impermeable layer typically 5 to 50
centimeters (cm) (2 to 20 in) below the
surface; and (3) rich in organic matter
compared with other aquatic
subterranean habitats. The water
supplying the springs infiltrates to the
ground water from precipitation and
runoff into the catchment (e.g., recharge
or drainage) areas (see Factor A—Water
Quality/Quantity Degradation Due to
Chronic Pollution of Urban/Suburban
Runoff section below for more details).
The water exits these habitats at seepage
springs. Seepage springs typically have
a diffuse discharge of water where the
flow cannot be immediately observed
but the land surface is wet compared to
the surrounding area (Culver et al. 2012,
p. 2). The shading, hydrologic
conditions, and organic matter found in
these woodlands are considered
important factors in maintaining
suitable habitat for the species.
The Kenk’s amphipod has been found
in the dead leaves or fine sediment
submerged in the waters of its seepage
spring outflows (Holsinger 1978, p.
130). The best available data indicate
that the species will move between the
surface and subterranean portions of the
spring habitat, but it is unknown when
or how often that movement occurs
(Kavanaugh 2009, p. 3). Seepage springs
typically have a drainage area of less
than 10,000 square meters (2.5 acres
(ac); 1 hectare (ha)) and their water
quality parameters differ from those
parameters of small surface waters by
having higher conductivity and
dissolved oxygen, and lower pH and
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
temperature (Culver et al. 2012, pp. 5–
6). For example, an unpublished study
(Culver and Chestnut 2006, pp. 1–3)
found that sites supporting the genus
Stygobromus had lower temperatures
during spring and summer, higher
dissolved oxygen, lower pH, and lower
nitrate levels than other seepage springs
(70 putative seepage springs) along the
George Washington Memorial Parkway
in Virginia. The Service has contracted
with the Maryland Geological Survey to
delineate the recharge areas and
conduct electrical resistivity surveying
to determine elevations of bedrock or
clay that may be perching the water
table, and to detect elevation of the
water table of several seepage springs
supporting the Kenk’s amphipod;
however, the results of this study will
not be available until 2017.
All Stygobromus species found in the
hypotelminorheic habitats appear to
have similar requirements—shallow
ground water and springs with good
water quality and persistent flow for
most of the year in wooded habitats.
Forest canopy cover appears to be
necessary both for the shading and the
food source its leaf litter provides. This
food source consists of organic detritus
and the microorganisms using the leaf
litter as substrate.
Springs currently known to support
the Kenk’s amphipod are found in
forested areas with steep slopes,
adjacent to streams, and overlying the
Wissahickon geologic formation in the
Piedmont of Maryland and the District
of Columbia and in the Calvert
formation just above the Nanjemoy
formation in the upper Coastal Plain of
Virginia. While the applicable areas
containing the known appropriate
geology in the Piedmont of Maryland
and the District of Columbia have been
extensively surveyed for Kenk’s
amphipod, the same is not true for areas
in the Coastal Plain of Maryland and
Virginia because information that these
geological formations support occupied
Kenk’s amphipod habitat is new to the
Service and species experts (see the
Distribution and Relative Abundance—
Current Range and Distribution Since
2016 section below for more
information). The Service conducted a
preliminary geographic information
system (GIS) analysis to determine that
the total amount of forested areas
containing the appropriate geology in
the Coastal Plain areas of Maryland and
Virginia is approximately 20,500 ac
(8,296 ha), with approximately 3,063 ac
(1,240 ha) on public lands. However, the
potential amount of suitable habitat for
the Kenk’s amphipod is less than 20,500
ac (8,296 ha). The Service will narrow
the scope of potential habitat areas to
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
survey by evaluating slope, adjacent
waterways, and other habitat quality
parameters.
Distribution and Relative Abundance
Known Range and Distribution Prior to
2016
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Prior to 2016, all known occurrences
of the Kenk’s amphipod were from the
Potomac River watershed in or near the
District of Columbia. At the time of its
description, this amphipod was known
from two seepage springs (East Spring
and Holsinger Spring) in Rock Creek
Park in the District of Columbia and was
initially thought to be identified from
one shallow well in Fairfax County in
northern Virginia (Holsinger 1978, p. 39;
Terwilliger 1991, p. 184). However, the
single immature male specimen from
this well was later reexamined by a
taxonomic expert and determined not to
be a Kenk’s amphipod (Holsinger 2009,
p. 266). Because of the difficulty in
finding the small seepage area of
Holsinger Spring, the location was
surveyed only once (in 2003) between
the Kenk’s amphipod’s original
discovery at the site in 1967 and surveys
conducted in 2015.
The Kenk’s amphipod was discovered
in two additional springs (Sherrill Drive
Spring and Kennedy Street Spring (this
spring also supports the federally
endangered Hay’s Spring amphipod) in
Rock Creek Park in 1995 and 2001 and
in two springs (Coquelin Run Spring
and Burnt Mill Spring #6) in
Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2003
to 2004, bringing the total number of
springs known to support the Kenk’s
amphipod to six. All of these sites are
considered to be in the Washington
metropolitan area because they are all
within the Washington Beltway (i.e., the
I–495 highway).
Until 2016, the species was known
only from six seepage spring sites in the
District of Columbia and Montgomery
County, MD (Culver and Sereg 2004, pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
35–36; Feller 2005, p. 5) (see figure 1
below), despite extensive surveys for the
species in the same area (Feller 1997,
entire; Culver and Sereg 2004, entire;
Feller 2005, entire). Ground water
amphipod surveys on National Park
Service (NPS) properties in Arlington
and Fairfax Counties, VA, failed to
detect the Kenk’s amphipod (Hutchins
and Culver 2008, entire). In addition,
surveys in 2014 in the vicinity of the
proposed Purple Line light rail project
in Montgomery County, MD, also failed
to detect the species (Culver 2015,
entire).
Within the species’ historical range,
the District of Columbia and Maryland,
it is plausible that urbanization of the
Rock Creek and Northwest Branch
watersheds (outside of the protected
parklands) has reduced the range and
distribution of the Kenk’s amphipod
because many large and small springs
throughout these drainages have been
lost as a result of urbanization (Williams
1977, entire; Feller 2005, p. 11). In
particular, the southern Rock Creek
watershed is where most of the natural
tributaries and springs in the District of
Columbia south of the National Zoo
have been lost due to leveling and
filling of the stream valleys, or
conversion to covered sewers (Williams
1977, pp. 6, 11). However, there is no
available method to estimate to what
extent the Kenk’s amphipod may have
been present in these areas. The best
available data indicate that there were
no ground water amphipod surveys at
any of the springs prior to those habitat
areas being filled or otherwise converted
to unsuitable habitat.
Current Range and Distribution Since
2016
Within the Washington metropolitan
area, five of the known sites are within
the Rock Creek drainage: Four are
within Rock Creek Park in the District
of Columbia (Holsinger Spring, Kennedy
Street Spring, East Spring, and Sherrill
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67273
Drive Spring), and the fifth (Coquelin
Run Spring) is in Montgomery County,
MD, not far from the District of
Columbia border. A sixth known site
(Burnt Mill Spring #6) is within the
Northwest Branch Park in the Northwest
Branch drainage in Montgomery
County, MD, approximately 3 miles (mi)
(4.8 kilometers (km)) from the District of
Columbia border. Thus, the current
range of this species in the Washington
metropolitan area is limited to Federal
land (four sites) and private property
(one site) adjacent to approximately 4
linear mi (6.4 km) of Rock Creek, and a
single site to the east, on county
parkland adjacent to the Northwest
Branch. Both Rock Creek Park and the
Northwest Branch Park are long, linear
parks within heavily urbanized areas.
In addition to the distribution
described above for the Washington
metropolitan area, a new area occupied
by the Kenk’s amphipod was identified
in 2016—the U.S. Army’s Fort A.P. Hill
installation in Caroline County, VA,
approximately 60 mi (97 km) south of
all previously known sites (see figure 1
below). The species was collected
during surveys conducted for another
amphipod species in 2014, but not
identified as the Kenk’s amphipod until
May 2016, when the Service was
notified of the information. Out of a
total of 21 surveyed sites on the
installation, 4 were found to contain the
Kenk’s amphipod. Seven Kenk’s
amphipod individuals were identified
from these four springs, which are along
Mount and Mill Creeks, both tributaries
of the Rappahannock River (J.
Applegate, pers. comm., 05/02/2016; C.
Hobson, pers. comm., 05/12/2016) (see
figure 1). The spring sites in the two
creek systems are approximately 7.5 mi
(12 km) apart. The area immediately
surrounding Fort A.P. Hill is less
developed than the Washington
metropolitan area.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67274
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
N
0
5
10
20
Miles
A
Figure 1. Current distribution of the 10 known Kenk's amphipod seep sites. Due to
scale, some sites are obscured by the symbols of others.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
Relative Abundance
There are no reliable total population
numbers for Kenk’s amphipod sites due
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
to sampling difficulties (e.g., flow
conditions) and the lack of information
on the portion of the population that
may remain in the springs’ ground water
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
supply (Feller 2005, p. 10). However,
because surveying in the Washington
metropolitan area has been conducted
using systematic and consistent
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
EP30SE16.000
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Kenks amphipod
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
methodology over many years, often by
the same individuals, the numbers of
Kenk’s amphipod individuals observed
and the number of conducted surveys
required to find the species are
considered to be the best available data
and do provide a reliable indication of
the species’ relative abundance.
The species is typically found in
small numbers and then only when
ground water levels are high and springs
are flowing freely, conditions that cause
the Kenk’s amphipod to be transported
to the surface. These conditions
typically occur during the spring
season, except during especially dry
years. Given the small size of the
shallow ground water aquifers
supporting the sites occupied by this
species, and the known characteristics
of subterranean invertebrates, it is
probable that each of the Kenk’s
amphipod populations has always been
small (Hutchins and Culver 2008, pp. 3–
6).
Although specimens were not
collected and identified to the species
level, Stygobromus sp., including some
in the right size range for Kenk’s
amphipod, were observed during site
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
reconnaissance visits between 2004 and
2015 in several of the known Kenk’s
amphipod Washington metropolitan
area spring habitats (B. Yeaman, pers.
comm., 05/04/2012). In addition, visual
inspections during this same time
period indicated that most of the sites
continued to appear to be suitable
habitat, leading us to conclude that the
Kenk’s amphipod was extant at least at
Burnt Mill Spring #6, Kennedy Street
Spring, and East Spring (D. Feller, pers.
comm., 04/01/2015). However, actual
identifications of specimens collected
during surveys conducted in 2015 and
2016 (D. Feller, pers. comm., 03/16/
2016) suggest that the species may not
be extant at those sites (see below).
Prior to 2015, all Kenk’s amphipod
specimens were discovered on the first
or second survey conducted at all
known sites. In 2015 and 2016, Kenk’s
amphipod was confirmed at only one of
the Washington metropolitan area
spring sites, Coquelin Run Spring,
despite all of the sites being sampled
multiple times during these 2 years (see
table 1 below) (D. Feller, pers. comm.,
03/16/2016; D. Feller, pers. comm., 04/
22/2016). It is unclear whether the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67275
species may be extirpated at Burnt Mill
Spring #6, Kennedy Street Spring, and
East Spring, but the best available data
show a decrease in observed individuals
at these sites.
Although there have been no Kenk’s
amphipods (Stygobromus kenki)
observed at five of the six District of
Columbia/Maryland sites during the
2015–2016 survey efforts, increasing
numbers of Potomac groundwater
amphipod have been observed at several
of the sites (Burnt Mill Spring #6, East
Spring, Kennedy Street Spring, and
Holsinger Spring) (D. Feller, pers.
comm., 04/22/2016). At Sherrill Drive
Spring, no Stygobromus species have
been detected for 12 years, and the
water quality at this site has been
documented to be poor (see Factor A—
Water Quality/Quantity Degradation
Due to Chronic Pollution of Urban/
Suburban Runoff section below for more
details), leading us to conclude that the
species is likely extirpated at this site.
This conclusion is consistent with the
earlier characterization of the
population at this site by Culver and
Sereg (2004, p. 73) over a decade ago as
‘‘barely hanging on.’’
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
At Fort A.P. Hill, all collections of the
Kenk’s amphipod were taken during
surveys conducted in the spring of 2014;
therefore, no trend data exist for the four
occupied spring sites. Twenty-one sites
were surveyed with 5 to 7 visits per site.
The numbers of the Kenk’s amphipod
collected that year were low at all sites,
ranging from 1 to 4 individuals (see
table 1 above). Other species of
Stygobromus, including S. tenuis (no
common name), Tidewater stygonectid
amphipod (S. indentatus), and
Rappahannock Spring amphipod (S.
foliatus), were also found at several of
these Virginia sites.
Summary of Distribution and Relative
Abundance: The above information
represents the best available data on the
Kenk’s amphipod’s known distribution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
and relative abundance. However, the
habitat areas at Fort A.P. Hill occur in
different river drainages and geological
formations from those in the
Washington metropolitan area, which
suggests that additional surveys may
identify additional locations and further
expand the species’ current known
range. The Service plans to fund
additional amphipod surveys to be
conducted during suitable sampling
conditions in late 2016 and early 2017
in accessible areas of Maryland and
northeastern Virginia that have geology
similar to that of the Fort A.P. Hill sites
and other suitable habitat characteristics
(e.g., forested slopes dissected by
streams). The U.S. Army also plans to
conduct additional amphipod surveys at
Fort A.P. Hill in spring 2017. Additional
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
surveys for the known Maryland and the
District of Columbia sites are also
planned.
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
The Act directs us to determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any factors affecting its continued
existence. In this section, we review the
biological condition of the species and
its resources, and the influences on such
to assess the species’ overall viability
and the risks to that viability.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
EP30SE16.001
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67276
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
storm events due to decreased
opportunity for immediate or proximal
infiltration. The surface flow waters
have higher temperatures, higher
Water Quality/Quantity Degradation
sediment loads, and higher levels of
Due to Chronic Pollution of Urban/
heavy metals (zinc, cadmium), nitrogen,
Suburban Runoff
phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria
Habitat modification, in the form of
(Walsh et al. 2005, pp. 706–723). In
degraded water quality and quantity, is
addition to affecting water quality,
one of the primary drivers of Kenk’s
urban impervious surfaces can affect
amphipod viability. While the species’
water quantity; decreased infiltration
specific tolerances to parameters
can result in depletion of ground water
affecting water quality and quantity is
reserves and ultimately cause springs to
not yet known, we do know that the
dry up over time (Frazer 2005, p. 3).
Kenk’s amphipod is at increased risk to
It is well documented that impervious
parameters that negatively affect water
cover from urbanization affects
quality and quantity because these
biological communities in streams. For
freshwater amphipods spend their
example, a review of more than 30
entire life cycle in water and are,
studies by the Center for Watershed
therefore, continually exposed to
Protection (2003, pp. 101–102) found
changes in the aquatic habitat. Water
that sensitive aquatic insect species
quality degradation of ground water at
were absent or less abundant in streams
spring sites located in the Washington
that drain from urban areas, and aquatic
metropolitan area has been previously
insect diversity decreased when
cited as a top concern in several studies imperviousness reached 10 to 15
and reports (Feller 1997, pp. 12–13;
percent. The Maryland Department of
Culver and Sereg 2004, p. 13; Feller
Natural Resources (MDDNR) found that,
2005, p. 9; Hutchins and Culver 2008,
in Maryland when the general
p. 6; Kavanaugh 2009, p. 60; Culver et
percentage of watershed imperviousness
al. 2012, p. 37; Culver and Pipan 2014,
exceeds 15 percent, stream health is
p. 219).
never rated as ‘‘good,’’ based on a
The amount of forested buffer
combined fish and benthic
surrounding the seep influences the
macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic
species’ vulnerability and exposure to
Integrity. The Potomac Washington
negative effects, and the smaller the
metropolitan basin, which incorporates
buffer, the greater the risk of exposure.
the area surrounding Kenk’s amphipod
Buffer distance is important because the sites, has the smallest percentage of
buffer helps filter sediment and other
stream miles rated as ‘‘good’’ (less than
contaminants from the surface water
1 percent) (Boward et al. 1999, p. 45).
entering the catchment areas and,
Hyporheic habitat, which is a
therefore, the ground water that
transition area between surface and
supports the Kenk’s amphipod. The
shallow ground water, is found within
Washington metropolitan area
the interstitial spaces within the
amphipod sites have narrow riparian
sediments of a stream bed but also can
buffers (94 feet (ft) to 1,000 ft) (29 m to
be found in spring runs (Culver and
305 m) separating them from the
Sereg 2004, pp. 70–71) that support the
surrounding urban landscape. This
Kenk’s amphipod. Hancock (2002, pp.
urban land is characterized by
766–775) evaluated human activities
impervious surface cover, which
that affect the hyporheic zone. Pesticide
includes paved roads, sidewalks,
pollution, heavy metal and chemical
parking lots, and buildings (Sexton et al. pollution from industrial and urban
2013, p. 42). The general percentage of
sources, increased salinity, and acidity
impervious surface inside the Capitol
were all cited as stressors that may make
Beltway (I–495) (i.e., where all the
this habitat unsuitable for invertebrates.
District of Columbia and Maryland
In addition to documenting lethal
Kenk’s amphipod sites are located)
effects on individuals from these
increased from 22 percent in 1984 to 26 stressors, researchers have documented
percent in 2010. The annual rate of
changes in macroinvertebrate diversity
increase in impervious cover within the and abundance that include an increase
in species that are tolerant to elevated
Washington Beltway has also doubled
levels of the stressors and a decrease in
since the 1980s, from 2 to 4 square (sq.)
species sensitive to elevated levels of
miles (6 to 12 sq. km) (Sexton et al.
those stressors (Hancock 2002, pp. 768–
2013, pp. 42–53; Song et al. 2016, pp.
770).
1–13; https://
The hypotelminorheic zone, which is
www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/
view.php?id=87731, last accessed 07/07/ described as the main habitat required
by the Kenk’s amphipod, may be more
2016).
vulnerable to the effects of urban runoff
Urban impervious surfaces can result
than streams or the hyporheic zone with
in increased surface water flow after
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67277
respect to pollutants, erosion, and
sedimentation because of the small size
and shallow nature of the habitat. In
addition, the aforementioned narrow
buffer zones around the
hypotelminorheic sites increase the
habitat’s and species’ exposure to urban
runoff.
Storm water runoff in urban areas is
commonly transported through
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s), from which it is often
discharged untreated into local
waterbodies. Storm water is regulated to
prevent harmful discharges of pollutants
into MS4s. The Clean Water Act’s
(CWA’s) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program requires
permits for discharges into MS4s and
development of storm water
management programs. Despite these
regulatory requirements, poor water
quality has been documented in the past
at several springs in Rock Creek Park
(Culver and Sereg 2004, p. 69).
In the Washington metropolitan area,
water quality degradation from urban
runoff is believed to have affected the
Kenk’s amphipod’s Sherrill Drive
Spring population (Culver and Sereg
2004, p. 69). Sherrill Drive Spring is
close (approximately 115 ft (35 m)) to
the edge of Rock Creek Park where there
is an abrupt change from forested
habitat to an urban landscape along 16th
Street Northwest, which parallels the
park boundary. There is a significant
amount of impervious cover that routes
runoff into the catchment area
surrounding the Sherrill Drive Spring.
While there have been no laboratory
studies conducted to evaluate the effects
and tolerance of the Kenk’s amphipod
or the more common Potomac
groundwater amphipod to chemical,
nutrient, pesticide, or heavy metal
pollution, we do know from published
studies that amphipods may be one of
the most vulnerable groups of organisms
to chemical pollution due to their high
sensitivity to toxicants and contaminant
accumulation (Borgmann et al. 1989, p.
756; Brumec-Turc 1989, p. 40). Culver
and Sereg (2004, pp. 30–31) collected
water samples from the East Spring,
Kennedy Spring, and Sherrill Drive
Spring sites on four occasions (October
2000, April 2001, July 2001, and March
2003) to measure temperature, pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
nitrates. Sediment samples surrounding
the springs were also collected in
September 2001 at East Spring and
Sherrill Drive Spring to analyze metal
and organic contaminants. From these
samples, Sherrill Drive Spring showed
evidence of water quality degradation
via the presence of heavy metals and
higher nitrate and conductivity levels as
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
compared to the other sampled spring
sites; East Spring also had evidence of
heavy metals (see below) (Culver and
Sereg 2004, pp. 30–31).
Heavy metals were found in sediment
samples taken from Sherrill Drive
Spring and East Spring in Rock Creek
Park. Values were similar for the two
sites, although East Spring had the
highest values for all heavy metals, with
the exception of zinc (Culver and Sereg
2004, p. 65). Because the spring
sediments instead of water samples
were collected for heavy metal analysis,
it is difficult to know whether the value
of the heavy metals measured in the
sediments exceed aquatic life standards
in water or any published values for
freshwater amphipod species. Sources
of trace metals in an urban environment
may include vehicles, streets, parking
lots, snowpacks, and rooftops (Center
for Watershed Protection 2003, p. 73).
Nitrate levels as high as 30.8
milligrams per liter (mg/L) were also
found at Sherrill Drive Spring. There are
no aquatic life standards for nitrates
issued by the Maryland Department of
the Environment, the District of
Columbia Department of the
Environment, or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, we
reviewed the best available and relevant
guidance values from Minnesota,
Canada, and New Zealand (Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency 2010, p. 9;
Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment 2012, p. 1; Hickey and
Martin 2009, p. 20). Based on the
comparison with available guidance, the
nitrate concentrations collected at
Sherrill Drive Spring (up to 30.8 mg/L)
exceeded the chronic aquatic life
exposure criterion for nitrate (e.g., 2.4
mg/L to 4.9 mg/L) based on Minnesota,
New Zealand, and Canada guidance
values on three of the four sampling
events. It is not known how typical
these concentrations are and if chronic
exposure is occurring. The source of the
nitrate is unknown; nitrate could come
from runoff containing fertilizers or
animal waste or from sanitary sewer
leaks. There is a sanitary sewer line that
runs adjacent to the spring, and this
sewer line has leaked in the past (Feller
1997, p. 37; B. Yeaman, pers. comm.,
06/02/2014).
Chloride levels as high as 207 mg/L
were detected at Sherrill Drive Spring.
Chronic concentrations of chloride as
low as 250 mg/L have been recognized
as harmful to freshwater life (Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment
2011, p. 1; https://www.epa.gov/wqc/
national-recommended-water-qualitycriteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table, last
accessed 07/19/2016). Although we do
not know the exact source of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
elevated chloride levels at Sherrill Drive
Spring, one potential source could be
road salt. The Washington metropolitan
area receives, on average depending on
where it was measured and the time
series, approximately 15 inches of snow
annually (https://www.sercc.com/
climateinfo/historical/avgsnowfall.html,
last accessed August 10, 2016; https://
www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/
washington-dc-snowfall-totals-snowaccumulation-averages.php, last
accessed 8/10/2106). The District of
Columbia Department of Public Works
uses road salt and other salt products to
pre- and post-treat road surfaces before
and after ice and snowfall events (https://
dpw.dc.gov/service/dc-snow-removal,
last accessed 8/10/2016). Studies have
shown that the widespread use of salt to
deice roadways has led to regionally
elevated chloride levels equivalent to 25
percent of the chloride concentration in
seawater during winter. The chloride
levels can remain high throughout the
summer even in less urbanized
watersheds due to long-term (e.g.,
decades) accumulation of chloride in
ground water (Kaushal et al. 2005, pp.
13518–13519).
At Coquelin Run Spring, ground
water pollution from yard chemicals
and road runoff (e.g., road salts, oil)
could be a concern for the species’ longterm viability. U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) research on water quality
degradation in other urban areas
indicates that chemicals enter
waterways and ground water primarily
through runoff from rain events and
these chemicals have commonly been
detected in streams and shallow ground
water (USGS 1999a, pp. 1–3; USGS
1999b, p. 1; USGS 2001, p. 2; https://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1998/fs007-98/
index.html, last accessed 07/19/2016).
Although no water samples have been
taken at the Coquelin Run Spring site,
it is separated from backyards in this
neighborhood by a narrow, wooded
riparian strip (less than 100 ft) (30 m)
that slopes steeply down to the site.
Therefore, the Coquelin Run Spring may
be at increased risk of exposure to
chemical pollutants from the
surrounding urban development.
The other four Washington
metropolitan area sites (Burnt Mill
Spring #6, Holsinger Spring, East
Spring, and Kennedy Spring) have
wider buffers than Sherrill Drive Spring
and Coquelin Run Spring, with buffer
distances ranging from approximately
272 ft (83 m) to 1,000 ft (305 m). East
Spring and Kennedy Spring had much
lower conductivity and nitrate levels
than Sherrill Drive Spring (Culver and
Sereg 2004, pp. 55–58). Surveys
conducted in 2015 and 2016 did not re-
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
confirm the Kenk’s amphipod at any of
these sites but consistently found the
more common Potomac groundwater
amphipod at all the sites in higher
numbers (e.g., greater than 40 observed
at Burnt Mill Spring #6 during 1
sampling event). As discussed
previously, urban runoff can decrease
biotic richness and favor more
pollution-tolerant species in urban
streams (Center for Watershed
Protection 2003, pp. 101–102). If the
Potomac groundwater amphipod has a
higher tolerance than Kenk’s amphipod
to poor water quality parameters, the
change in species’ composition
discussed above in the Relative
Abundance section and below in Factor
E—Changes in Species Composition
could indicate that urban runoff is
negatively affecting the Kenk’s
populations at these spring sites. Water
quality samples will be collected at
these sites in 2016 and 2017 to better
assess whether water quality parameters
exceed general EPA guidance values for
aquatic life.
The NPS manages the surrounding
habitat at the four seepage spring sites
supporting the Kenk’s amphipod in
Rock Creek Park. Conservation of park
resources is mandated by the National
Park Service Organic Act of 1916, which
requires the NPS ‘‘to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.’’ It is
also mandated by section 7 of the Rock
Creek Park enabling legislation of 1890,
which states that ‘‘such regulations shall
provide for the preservation from injury
and spoilation of all timber, animals, or
curiosities within said park, and their
retention in their natural condition, as
nearly as possible.’’ These laws are
implemented through the NPS’s formal
management policy that requires that
management of candidate species
should, to the greatest extent possible,
parallel the management of federally
listed species (D. Pavek, pers. comm.,
05/12/2011). While the NPS is utilizing
its regulatory authority to manage water
quality concerns for the species within
Rock Creek Park, the agency has little
influence over the protection of or
effects to any seep recharge areas
occurring outside park boundaries, and
over maintenance or repair of cityowned infrastructure such as storm
water and sewer systems located near
the spring sites.
The NPS worked with the District of
Columbia Department of Transportation
(DCDOT) to incorporate the
construction of a storm sewer under
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Sherrill Drive into the design of the 16th
Street road reconstruction and storm
drainage project (B. Yeaman, pers.
comm., 05/19/2015), resulting in the
elimination of a major outfall at the
Sherrill Drive Spring site. However, as
discussed above, this effort has not
completely eliminated the documented
erosion and poor water quality concerns
at the site.
The NPS is communicating with
DCDOT on the need to move the
sanitary sewer line adjacent to the
Sherrill Drive Spring out of Rock Creek
Park and into the neighborhood on the
other side of 16th Street. If the line
cannot be moved, the alternative is to
reline the existing pipe to prevent
further leakage (B. Yeaman, pers.
comm., 07/11/2016). In addition, the
Service, NPS, and the District of
Columbia Department of the
Environment have worked cooperatively
to obtain funding for best management
practices (reducing erosion and
increasing infiltration) on two
tributaries flowing into the drainage of
Kennedy Street Spring, which supports
both the Kenk’s amphipod and the
federally endangered Hay’s Spring
amphipod. Project funding was
approved in January of 2015, and
implementation, which includes
construction of bioretention basins and
infiltration berms, is to be completed by
November 2017.
In Virginia, poor water quality may
not be affecting the species at the Fort
A.P. Hill because the sites are
substantially buffered by currently
undeveloped property.
Summary of Water Quality—In total,
poor water quality is believed to be a
significant or contributing stressor at all
six of the Washington metropolitan area
sites (i.e., 60 percent of the total known
sites). Water quality in this area is
expected to worsen due to significant
runoff events from anticipated increases
in both winter and spring precipitation
and the frequency of high intensity
storms. See Factor A—Excessive Storm
Water Flows and Factor E—Effects of
Climate Change sections below for more
details.
Excessive Storm Water Flows
Runoff from impervious surfaces after
heavy rain events can result in flooding
(Frazer 2005, p. 4; https://
www.nbcwashington.com/traffic/transit/
Metro-Station-Flooding-Nearby-ParkingLot-Expansion-Could-Be-Part-of-Cause384015451.html; last accessed 06/24/
16). Flash flooding can also result in
erosion and sedimentation (Center for
Center for Watershed Protection 2003,
pp. 30–33), which, if it occurs in the
catchment area, can subsequently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
degrade a spring site’s value as habitat
for the Kenk’s amphipod.
In the Washington metropolitan area,
excessive storm water flows are causing
significant habitat degradation at two
sites—Sherrill Drive Spring and
Coquelin Run Spring. A washout at
Sherrill Drive Spring from 16th Street
was observed in 2016 making it difficult
to find a seep to survey (D. Feller, pers.
comm., 06/15/2016). Coquelin Run
Spring is severely degraded by runoff
from the surrounding Chevy Chase Lake
Subdivision, where severe erosion was
first observed at this site in 2006 (D.
Feller, pers. comm., 07/01/2016). When
the site was first re-surveyed in 2016, a
plastic underground pipe several inches
in diameter was observed less than 1 ft
(0.3 m) from the original seep (D. Feller,
pers. comm., 02/27/2016; D. Feller, pers.
comm., 05/27/2016), which may have
been an attempt to address water flow
and erosion at the site. Erosion was still
evident during the 2016 surveys and it
was difficult for MDDNR to find a
flowing seep (D. Feller, pers. comm., 02/
27/2016). A small flow was observed in
May 2016, but was located several feet
above the original seep documented in
2006. Plastic sheet material was also
observed under this uphill seep (D.
Feller, pers. comm., 05/25/2016), which
may have been an attempt to address
water flow and erosion at the site. It is
unknown what affect the pipe or plastic
may have on the long-term hydrology of
the site.
Erosion from storm water flows has
also been observed at the other four
springs in Rock Creek Park, but not to
the extent that it has been observed at
Sherrill Drive and Coquelin Run
springs. It is unknown how much
chronic or acute erosion and
sedimentation causes a site to become
unsuitable for the Kenk’s amphipod;
however, Culver and Sereg (2004, p. 69)
found that sediment transported by
storm runoff results in the degradation
of ground water animals’ habitat by
clogging the interstices of gravels in the
spring seep, thereby preventing the
species from using those interstitial
spaces for shelter. It is uncertain to what
extent Kenk’s amphipod uses those
interstitial spaces, but if they do, then
it is plausible that this type of
sedimentation would cause the habitat
to become unsuitable for the species.
At the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating excessive storm
water flows may affect the species.
Summary of Excessive Storm Water
Flows—Excessive storm water flows are
a concern at 60 percent (6 of 10) of the
species’ sites.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67279
Sewer Line Breaks and Spills
The same riparian areas that contain
the habitats of the Kenk’s amphipod are
among the principal areas where sewer
lines are located in the Washington
metropolitan area (Feller 2005, p. 2).
Most of these sewer lines are old (most
installed between 1900 and 1930 in the
District of Columbia, and between 1941
and 1971 in Montgomery County, MD)
and subject to periodic breakage and
leakage (Shaver 2011, entire; Kiely 2013,
entire). While there have been no
laboratory or field studies evaluating the
effect of sewage leaks or spills on the
Kenk’s amphipod or the Potomac
groundwater amphipod, adverse effects
of sewage contamination on amphipods
and other invertebrates have been
documented by several researchers. For
instance, Simon and Buikema (1977,
entire) studied a karst ground water
system and found that amphipods were
absent from ground water pools
polluted by septic system effluent. The
authors reported that the highest
densities of Virginia cave isopods were
found in pools that were slightly and
moderately polluted from septic
systems, whereas an amphipod,
Stygobromus makini (southwestern
Virginia cave amphipod), was absent
from all polluted pools. de-la-OssaCarretero et al. (2012, p. 137) stated that,
as an Order, amphipods were generally
sensitive to sewage pollution, but that
there are substantial differences in
sensitivity between amphipod species
(de-La-Ossa-Carretero et al. 2012, p.
129).
Releases of large volumes of sewage
(up to 2 million gallons (gal)) from
sanitary sewer leaks have occurred in
the District of Columbia and
Montgomery County, MD. Distances of
seep sites to nearby upslope sewer lines
are shown in table 2 below. Based on
these distances, Coquelin Run Spring,
Burnt Mill Spring #6, and Sherrill Drive
Spring are most vulnerable to sewage
spills (see table 2 below). As mentioned
above, a sanitary sewer line located
nearby Sherrill Drive Spring has been
described as structurally unsound and is
subject to leakage (Feller 1997, p. 37; B.
Yeaman, pers. comm., 06/02/2014; B.
Yeaman, pers. comm., 02/24/15).
Over the 10-year period from 2005
through 2015, the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission (WSSC) has
documented approximately 38 leaks of
more than 1,000 gal in the Rock Creek
drainage and 15 leaks of more than
1,000 gal in the Northwest Branch in
Montgomery County. During the same
period there were 136 leaks of more
than 100 gal in the Rock Creek drainage
and 51 leaks of more than 100 gal in the
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67280
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Northwest Branch in Montgomery
County (WSSC 2015). The District of
Columbia does not have such detailed
records, but the District of Columbia
Water Chief Executive Officer has stated
that half the District’s 1,800 mi (2,896
km) of sewer lines are at least 84 years
old and has estimated that faulty pipes
result in two dozen sewer spills every
year (Olivio 2015). The frequency of
spills is likely to increase in the future
as the sewer lines continue to age.
TABLE 2—SEWER AND WATER LINES NEAR KENK’S AMPHIPOD SPRINGS
Site name
Sherrill
Sherrill
Sherrill
Sherrill
Sherrill
Sherrill
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Location
Rock
Rock
Rock
Rock
Rock
Rock
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Diameter in
inches
(″)
Pipe type
...
...
...
...
...
...
Year installed
East Spring .............
Rock Creek Park ...
Kennedy Street
Spring.
Kennedy Street
Spring.
Kennedy Street
Spring.
Kennedy Street
Spring.
Kennedy Street
Spring.
Coquelin Run
Spring.
Coquelin Run
Spring.
Coquelin Run
Spring.
Coquelin Run
Spring.
Burnt Mill Spring #6
Rock Creek Park ...
Rock Creek Park ...
Storm Sewer ..........
21
1931 .......................
unknown ................
1300
Rock Creek Park ...
Sanitary Sewer ......
10
1911 .......................
unknown ................
1350
Rock Creek Park ...
Water Distribution
Main.
Water Distribution
Main.
Gravity sewer pipe
8
1911 .......................
cast iron .................
860
8
1912 .......................
cast iron .................
1357
8
1954 .......................
unknown ................
220
Water pipe .............
8
1954 (lined 1995) ...
205
Water pipe .............
4
unknown ................
cast iron or sand
spun.
ductile iron .............
Water pipe .............
8
1954 (lined 1995) ...
Gravity sewer pipe
6
Gravity sewer pipe
Rock Creek Park ...
East
East
East
East
Rock
Rock
Rock
Rock
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
.............
.............
.............
.............
Burnt Mill Spring #6
Burnt Mill Spring #6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Holsinger Spring .....
Holsinger Spring .....
Holsinger Spring .....
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Park
Park
Park
Park
...
...
...
...
Rock Creek Park ...
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Montgomery County, MD.
Rock Creek Park ...
Rock Creek Park ...
Rock Creek Park ...
10
200
30
60
120
130
155
18
10
10
6
unknown ................
1925 .......................
1911 .......................
1921 .......................
unknown
unknown
unknown
cast iron
................
................
................
.................
475
658
750
560
8
1911 .......................
cast iron .................
740
10
1911 .......................
unknown ................
900
213
unknown ................
8
unknown ................
unknown ................
383
Water pipe .............
6
1959 .......................
394
Storm Sewer ..........
Sanitary Sewer ......
Water Distribution
Main.
36
18
6
1931 .......................
1908 .......................
1898 .......................
cast iron or sand
spun.
unknown ................
unknown ................
cast iron .................
Bursting of large-diameter water pipes
can cause significant erosion of
surrounding areas as a result of the large
volume of fast-moving water that exits
the pipe at the break point. Bursting
water pipes and the resulting erosion
has been documented within the
Jkt 238001
1919 .......................
unknown ................
unknown ................
unknown ................
unknown ................
unknown ................
PCCP Lined Cylinder.
cast iron .................
232
Water Pipe Breaks
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
12
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
cast iron or sand
spun.
cast iron .................
At the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating sewer pipelines
may affect the species.
Summary of Sewer Line Spills—In
total, sewer line breaks and spills are a
concern at 30 percent (3 of 10) of the
species’ sites.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
1924
1926
1958
1933
1949
1955
Distance from
spring in feet
(′)
Sanitary Sewer ......
Sanitary Sewer ......
Storm Sewer ..........
Storm Sewer ..........
Storm Sewer ..........
Water Transmission
Main.
Water Distribution
Main.
Storm Sewer ..........
Sanitary Sewer ......
Sanitary Sewer ......
Water Distribution
Main.
Water Distribution
Main.
Sanitary Sewer ......
Sherrill Drive Spring
12
12
30
24
15
30
Pipe material
Washington metropolitan area,
including at areas near but not directly
at a specific Kenk’s amphipod seep site.
For example, a 60-in (152.4-cm) water
main broke at the Connecticut Avenue
crossing of Coquelin Run in 2013,
releasing 60 million gal of water and
scouring out a 500-ft (152.4-m) length of
the creek (Dudley et al. 2013, entire).
The Coquelin Run Spring site is on a
small tributary that flows into Coquelin
Run, about a quarter mile downstream
of the aforementioned severely damaged
section of the creek bed and, due to its
elevation above Coquelin Run, was not
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
186
1875
1925
1885
affected by the flood and subsequent
erosion caused by this burst pipe.
The exposure risk of bursting water
pipes at locations that could affect
Kenk’s amphipod sites is increasing
given the age of the water pipe
infrastructure (see table 2 above). As an
example, there is one very-largediameter (30-in (76-cm)) water pipe
within 130 ft (39.6 m) of Sherrill Drive
Spring that was installed more than 60
years ago. The significant erosion
resulting from a large break, should the
break occur near Kenk’s amphipod
habitat, could eliminate the seep and all
associated amphipods.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The best available data indicate that
there are smaller pipes near three of the
sites (Sherrill Drive Spring, Burnt Mill
#6 Spring, Coquelin Run Spring) (WSSC
GIS Web site, https://
gisweb.wsscwater.com/WERI/Account/
Login?ReturnUrl=%2fweri, last accessed
12/21/2015) (see table 2 above).
Although less likely to eliminate habitat
of springs, breakage of smaller pipes
(less than 1 ft (0.3 m) in diameter) is
even more frequent (Water Research
Foundation 2016, p. 2) and still may
result in erosion or sedimentation at the
spring site. Coquelin Run Spring is
within 250 ft of a 6- to 8-in (15- to 20cm) water pipe installed in 1954 (WSSC
GIS Web site). Given the overall age of
the infrastructure and the District of
Columbia and Maryland utilities’
inability to keep up with the needed
replacements (Shaver 2011, entire; Kiely
2013, entire), additional breaks are
predicted to occur.
At the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating water pipeline
breaks may affect the species.
Summary of Water Pipe Breaks—In
total, large water pipeline breaks are a
concern at 10 percent (1 of 10) of the
species’ sites, while smaller water
pipeline breaks are a concern for 30
percent (3 of 10) of the sites.
Other Habitat Considerations
Compared to the stressors to the
Kenk’s amphipod habitat in the
Washington metropolitan area, the
stressors to the species’ habitat at Fort
A.P. Hill are likely minimal. Little or no
development is expected to occur near
the spring sites (J. Applegate, pers.
comm., 05/5/2016). However, military
training exercises may be conducted in
areas surrounding the springs, which
may result in disturbance of the spring
recharge areas. Live-fire exercises may
result in uncontrolled burns that reduce
canopy cover that shades the seep sites,
moderates water temperature, and
provides leaf litter for food. Timber
harvests and other forest management
activities such as timber stand
improvement, prescribed burns, and
possible pesticide application for forestdestroying pests such as gypsy moths
may occur in the general vicinity of the
springs (Fort A.P. Hill 2016, pp. 751–
754). Fort A.P. Hill has included a 100ft (30.5-m) buffer around the springs in
the installation’s Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP)
(2016, pp. 9–22), but it is unknown
whether this buffer distance is sufficient
to protect the sites and recharge areas
from all of the activities (e.g., forest
management, live-fire exercises)
outlined in the INRMP. However, staff
at Fort A.P. Hill have indicated a
willingness to work with the Service to
delineate recharge areas based on
topography, and, if needed, institute
more protective buffers (J. Applegate,
pers. comm., 06/15/2016).
Summary of Factor A—Habitat
modification, in the form of degraded
water quality and quantity, is one of the
primary drivers affecting Kenk’s
amphipod viability, despite the
discussed ongoing conservation
measures. Reductions in water quality
are occurring primarily as a result of
urbanization, which increases the
amount of impervious cover in the
watersheds surrounding Kenk’s
amphipod sites. Impervious cover
increases storm water flow velocities
and increases erosion and
sedimentation. Impervious cover can
also increase the transport of
contaminants and nutrients common in
urban environments, such as heavy
metals (zinc, cadmium), nitrogen,
phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria.
The Washington metropolitan area sites
have narrow riparian buffers separating
them from the surrounding
development, increasing the sites’
exposure to poor water quality runoff.
Poor water quality has been
67281
documented at Sherrill Drive Spring but
is likely affecting all six sites in the
Washington metropolitan area, whereas
the Virginia sites are not thought to be
affected by poor water quality because
of the larger forested buffers on Fort
A.P. Hill.
Excessive storm water runoff from
heavy rain events can result in flooding,
which can cause erosion and
sedimentation. Habitat degradation due
to excessive storm water flows is having
significant effects at two sites—Sherrill
Drive Spring and Coquelin Run
Spring—but has also been observed at
the other four springs in Rock Creek
Park, and may increase in the future. At
the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating excessive storm
water flows may affect the species.
Sewer and water line breaks and leaks
are a concern at the Washington
metropolitan area sites because most of
them are located in the same riparian
areas that contain the habitats of the
Kenk’s amphipod. While leaks and
breaks of these pipelines have not yet
been known to directly affect the
species or its habitat, the pipeline
systems are subjected to chronic leaks
and breaks, the frequency of which is
likely to increase given the age of the
infrastructure, and thus the exposure
risk of the species to this stressor will
continue to increase. Coquelin Run
Spring, Burnt Mill Spring #6, and
Sherrill Drive Spring are most
vulnerable to sewage spills and water
pipe breaks due to the pipe’s proximity
to each site and the age of the pipes. At
the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating sewer or water
pipeline breaks may affect the species.
Potential stressors to Kenk’s
amphipod habitat are lesser in scope
and severity at Fort A.P. Hill, as
opposed to the Washington
metropolitan area habitat, and are
associated with disturbance to the
surface habitat.
TABLE 3—RELATIVE VULNERABILITY OF KENK’S AMPHIPOD SEEP HABITAT SITES
Site name
Location
Current seep status
Current biological status of the Kenk’s amphipod
Extirpated? Not found in recent surveys. No other
Stygobromus present. Last detected 2001 (8 surveys since and none found).
Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC.
East Spring .........................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Sherrill Drive Spring ...........
Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC.
Approximately 50′ to road, documented decrease in
water quality (chemical and sedimentation), within
10′ of 1924 sewer pipe and 130′ of 1955 30″
water pipe.
Approximately 300–500′ buffer of protected forest,
within 560′ of 6–8″ 1921 water pipe.
Kennedy Street Spring .......
Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC.
Approximately 500′ buffer of protected forest, within
860′ of 6–8″ 1911 water pipe.
Holsinger Spring .................
Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC.
Northwest Branch Park,
Montgomery County,
MD.
Approximately 700–1,000′ buffer of protected forest
Burnt Mill Spring #6 ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
In county park protected from further development,
within 186′ of unknown age sewer pipe and 394′
of 6–8″ 1959 water pipe.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Unknown. Not found in recent surveys but other
Stygobromus present. Last detected 2001 (7 surveys in 2015–2016 and none found).
Unknown. Not found in recent surveys but other
Stygobromus present. Last detected 2001 (5 surveys since and none found).
Historical? Not documented since 1967. 1 survey in
2003 and 3 surveys in 2015 and none found.
Unknown. Not found in recent surveys but other
Stygobromus present. Last detected in 2005 (10
surveys since and none found).
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67282
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—RELATIVE VULNERABILITY OF KENK’S AMPHIPOD SEEP HABITAT SITES—Continued
Site name
Location
Current seep status
Current biological status of the Kenk’s amphipod
Coquelin Run Spring ..........
Private land, Montgomery
County, MD.
Present in upslope portion of seep (1 individual
found in last survey); lower portion has some erosion and species absent in recent surveys (3 surveys and none found).
Fort A.P. Hill .......................
(4 seeps) ............................
Department of Defense,
Caroline County, VA.
Erosion problems are already apparent, site has
been modified with a plastic pipe and plastic material, and riparian forest is very narrow, within
220′ of 1952 sewer pipe and 250′ of 6–8″ 1954
water pipe.
Good habitat quality, sites unaffected by urbanization. Military exercises and forest management
could affect surface habitat if protective areas encompassing the recharge area are not established and implemented.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a
factor affecting the Kenk’s amphipod.
The Kenk’s amphipod is a Maryland
State endangered species under its
Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act (Section 10–2A–01–09
of the Maryland Code). This designation
makes ‘‘taking, possession,
transportation, exportation, processing,
sale, offer for sale, or shipment within
the State’’ of a State-listed species
unlawful. Kenk’s amphipod is
considered a species of greatest
conservation need in the District of
Columbia’s State Wildlife Action Plan
(https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/
dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/
attachments/03%202015%
20WildlifeActionPlan%20%20Ch2%
20SGCN.pdf; last accessed 8/10/2016),
but this status does not confer any
regulatory protection; the species is not
State-listed in Virginia.
Distribution surveys for the species
are coordinated with the Service and,
where required, collection is permitted
through the Service, NPS, and the
MDDNR. Whether specifically permitted
or not, all amphipod surveys are
conducted using consistent
methodology and collection protocols.
The target species of Stygobromus is
collected based on size, and the number
of individuals collected at each spring
has been limited to 10 or fewer
individuals in the target species’ size
range. However, the Service has allowed
larger numbers to be collected during
2016 surveys in the Washington
metropolitan area since none of the
specimens of appropriate size collected
in the 2015 surveys have been identified
to be Kenk’s amphipod. These protocols
are followed to minimize effects to the
species. Because the occurrence of
subterranean invertebrates at spring
emergence sites likely represents only a
portion of the actual underground
population, the Service has considered
the collecting procedures (Feller 1997,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
p. 2) to be nondetrimental to the
populations.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We have no information that indicates
that either disease or predation is
affecting the Kenk’s amphipod.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The following existing regulatory
mechanisms were specifically
considered and discussed as they relate
to the stressors, under the applicable
Factors, affecting the Kenk’s amphipod:
The CWA’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, Rock
Creek Park enabling legislation of 1890,
and National Park Service Organic Act
of 1916 (Factor A) and Nongame and
Endangered Species Conservation Act
(Factor B). In Factor A we conclude that
habitat modification, in the form of
degraded water quality and quantity, is
one of the primary drivers affecting
Kenk’s amphipod viability. In Factor B
we conclude that overutilization is not
known to be affecting the species. There
are no existing regulatory mechanisms
to address the stressors affecting the
species under Factor E (see below).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small Population Dynamics
The observed small size of each of the
10 Kenk’s amphipod populations makes
each one vulnerable to natural
environmental stochasticity and humancaused habitat disturbance, including
relatively minor impacts in their spring
recharge areas. Each population is also
vulnerable to demographic stochasticity,
including loss of genetic variability and
adaptive capacity. Unless the
populations are larger than we know or
are hydrologically connected such that
individuals can move between sites, we
conclude that these small populations
are vulnerable to the effects of small
population dynamics.
Species that are restricted in range
and population size are more likely to
suffer loss of genetic diversity due to
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Recently discovered. 1 individual each found at
Upper Mill 2, Mill 4, and Mount 2; 4 individuals
found at Mill 5.
genetic drift, potentially increasing their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
and reducing the fitness of individuals
(Soule 1980, pp. 157–158; Hunter 2002,
pp. 162–163; Allendorf and Luikart
2007, pp. 117–146). Small population
sizes and inhibited gene flow between
populations may increase the likelihood
´
of local extirpation (Gilpin and Soule
1986, pp. 32–34). With the exception for
the Mount Creek #2 and Mount Creek #5
populations at Fort A.P. Hill, which are
separated by only approximately 360 ft
(110 m), all the other populations of the
Kenk’s amphipod are isolated from
other existing populations and known
historical habitats by long distances,
inhospitable upland habitat, and terrain
that creates barriers to amphipod
movement. The level of isolation and
the restricted range seen in this species,
based on our current knowledge of
known habitat, make natural
repopulation of historical habitats (e.g.,
the District of Columbia sites and Burnt
Mill Spring #6 where the species’
presence has not been recently
confirmed) and other potentially
suitable habitat virtually impossible
without human intervention.
Effects of Climate Change
Climate change may result in changes
in the amount and timing of
precipitation, the frequency and
intensity of storms, and air
temperatures. All of these changes could
affect the Kenk’s amphipod and its
habitat. The amount and timing of
precipitation influence spring flow,
which is an important feature of the
habitat of this groundwater species.
Also, the frequency and intensity of
storms affects the frequency, duration,
and intensity of runoff events, and
runoff transport of sediment and
contaminants (see Factor A above) into
catchment areas of Kenk’s amphipod
sites, especially in the Washington
metropolitan area, where there is a
substantial amount of impervious cover
in close proximity to the habitat. Below
we discuss the best available climate
predictions for the areas supporting the
Kenk’s amphipod.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The 2014 National Climate
Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire)
predicts increasing ambient
temperatures, increasing winter and
spring precipitation, increasing
frequency of heavy downpours, and
increasing summer and fall drought risk
as higher temperatures lead to greater
evaporation and earlier winter and
spring snowmelt (Horton et al. 2014, p.
374 In Melillo et al. 2014). These
droughts may result in the drying up of
springs and mortality of the Kenk’s
amphipod, while the increase in heavy
downpours will likely result in
increased runoff and resulting erosion of
surface features at spring sites, based on
previously documented events. The
2014 National Climate Assessment
further indicates that overall warming in
the Northeast, including Maryland and
the District of Columbia, but not
Virginia, will be from 3 to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) (1.7 to 5.6 degrees
Celsius (°C)) by the 2080s (Horton et al.
2014, p. 374 In Melillo et al. 2014).
Data specific to the District of
Columbia from NOAA’s National
Climate Data Center (https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/
49/USW00093738/tavg/1/5/18952016?base_prd=true&firstbase
year=1901&lastbase
year=2000&trend=true&trend_
base=10&firsttren
dyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2016, last
accessed 07/20/2016) shows that the
average annual air temperature in the
District of Columbia area has already
increased by approximately 3 °F (1.7 °C)
from 1960, the decade corresponding to
the first Kenk’s amphipod surveys, to
2015. This higher rate of change in the
District of Columbia area may be due to
the urban heat island effect (Oke 1995,
p. 187), which is an increase in ambient
temperature due to heating of
impervious surfaces. This activity also
results in an increase in temperature of
rainwater that falls on heat-absorbing
roads and parking lots. A sudden
thunderstorm striking a parking lot that
has been sitting in hot sunshine can
easily result in a 10 °F (5.6 °C) increase
in the rainfall temperature. Menke et al.
(2010, pp. 147–148) showed that these
temporary increases in temperature of
storm water can still result in a shift in
the biotic community composition and
even accelerate changes in species
distributions. Based on the work of
Menberg et al. (2014, entire), we expect
these changes in air temperature to be
reflected in the temperature of the
shallow ground water within a few
years, but at a lower magnitude. While
we do not have specific temperature
tolerance information for the Kenk’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
amphipod, there are studies of other
amphipod species that indicate
sensitivity to elevated temperatures,
exhibited by reduced or eliminated egg
survival at water temperatures above
75 °F (24 °C) to 79 °F (26 °C) (Pockl and
Humpesch 1990, pp. 445–449).
In summary, it is highly probable that
by the 2080s some increase in ground
water temperatures will occur at sites
occupied by the Kenk’s amphipod, but
the magnitude and significance of these
changes is difficult to predict.
Change in Species Composition
At most of the Washington
metropolitan area sites supporting the
Kenk’s amphipod, numbers of the
Potomac groundwater amphipod, which
is the most widely distributed and
abundant Stygobromus species in the
lower Potomac drainage (Kavanaugh
2009, p. 6), have increased as numbers
of observed Kenk’s amphipod have
declined (D. Feller, pers. comm., 03/16/
2016; D. Feller, pers. comm., 04/22/
2016). The exact cause of this change is
not known, but it may be an indication
that some stressor has led to a
competitive advantage for the Potomac
groundwater amphipod (Culver et al.
2012, p. 29). Other than at Coquelin Run
Spring, there are no obvious physical
changes at these sites indicating a cause
for the decline. However, as described
above in Factor A, impaired water
quality could favor a more common
species over a rare species. Culver and
Sereg (2004, pp. 72–73) indicated that
there is a possibility that the Kenk’s
amphipod is a poor competitor with
other Stygobromus species, which may
be a factor promoting the Kenk’s
amphipod’s natural rarity, and that in
cave locations Stygobromus species
strongly compete with each other. While
the Kenk’s amphipod may have always
been naturally rare, we conclude that
the species may be getting rarer due to
the stressors discussed above.
Summary of Factor E—Small
population size at all of the sites makes
each one of them vulnerable to natural
environmental stochasticity and humancaused habitat disturbance, including
relatively minor impacts in their spring
recharge areas. The small size and
isolation of sites also make each
population vulnerable to demographic
stochasticity, including loss of genetic
variability and adaptive capacity.
The best available climate data
indicate that the areas supporting the
Kenk’s amphipod will see increasing
ambient temperatures, increasing winter
and spring precipitation, increasing
frequency of heavy downpours, and
increasing summer and fall drought risk
as higher temperatures lead to greater
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67283
evaporation and earlier winter and
spring snowmelt. Droughts could result
in drying up of spring sites, while the
increase in heavy downpours could
result in erosion and sedimentation of
sites. Ambient air temperature has
increased by 3 °F (1.7 °C) since 1960,
and is expected to increase by 10 °F
(5.6 °C) by the 2080s. It is highly
probable that by the 2080s some
increase in ground water temperatures
will occur at sites occupied by the
Kenk’s amphipod, but the magnitude
and significance of these changes is
difficult to predict.
Cumulative Effects
Many of the factors discussed above
are cumulatively and synergistically
affecting the Kenk’s amphipod. For
example, Kenk’s amphipod habitat can
be degraded by storm water runoff,
which is likely to increase with more
frequent and intense storms and
precipitation levels in the future.
Species with larger populations are
naturally more resilient to the stressors
affecting individuals or local
occurrences, while smaller populations
or individuals are more susceptible to
demographic or stochastic events.
Below we discuss the Kenk’s
amphipod’s viability as expressed
through the conservation biology
principles of representation,
redundancy, and resiliency, which
illustrate how the cumulative and
synergistic effects are affecting the
species as a whole.
Redundancy—The species has some
redundancy given its known
distribution is 10 sites across 3
municipal jurisdictions and multiple
streams. For example, the isolation of
the two Montgomery County, MD,
populations from other Washington
metropolitan area populations and their
occurrence along different tributary
streams make it unlikely that a single
catastrophic adverse event (e.g., a spill)
will eliminate more than one occurrence
at a time. In addition, the Virginia sites
occur in two stream areas, Mill Creek
and Mount Creek, making it unlikely
that a single military training event or
other catastrophic event will eliminate
more than one occurrence at a time.
Representation—Based on the
information about historical changes to
the landscape across the Washington
metropolitan area, we conclude it is
likely that the species’ historical
distribution was larger than the current
distribution; therefore, the species may
have previously experienced a
significant loss in representation. Also,
because we do not yet have any
information on the genetics of these
populations, we cannot determine
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67284
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
whether the species possesses a single
genetic identity or has genetic
variability across populations.
Therefore, we conclude that the species’
representation has likely been reduced,
and may currently be limited.
Resiliency—Given the range of the
species, the small number of seeps and
individuals at those seeps, and each
seep’s vulnerability to stressors, the
Kenk’s amphipod’s overall resiliency is
low. Based on the best available data,
we conclude that the stressors to the
species are not decreasing and, in most
cases, are expected to increase in the
future. Furthermore, the small size of
each of the 10 habitat areas makes each
population vulnerable to natural
environmental stochasticity and humancaused habitat disturbance, including
relatively minor effects in the spring
recharge area. As a result of habitat
fragmentation/isolation there is a lack of
connectivity and genetic exchange
between populations and, we assume, a
lack of ability to recolonize extirpated
sites, leading to an overall reduced
resiliency for the species.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal 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.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future stressors to the Kenk’s
amphipod and find that several of those
stressors rise to the level of threats to
the species as a whole. Habitat loss and
degradation (Factor A) from poor water
quality parameters associated with
urban runoff in Maryland and the
District of Columbia has decreased
water quality and increased erosion and
sedimentation at several shallow ground
water habitat sites. These parameters are
likely to be exacerbated in the future by
the increasing risk of exposure to breaks
and leaks from the aging sewer and
water pipe infrastructure (Factor A), as
well as more frequent and intense
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
rainfall events, due to the effects of
climate change (Factor E). In addition,
all 10 sites are characterized by small
numbers of the Kenk’s amphipod that
appear to be declining and affected by
the inherent vulnerabilities associated
with small population dynamics (Factor
E). Overutilization (Factor B), disease
(Factor C), and predation (Factor C) are
not considered threats to the Kenk’s
amphipod. The existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) for the stressors
and threats affecting the species have
been evaluated under Factors A, B, and
E. While the Kenk’s amphipod has some
redundancy and representation, the
resiliency of each individual site is
compromised, making the species’
overall resiliency low.
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 Kenk’s amphipod is
presently in danger of extinction
throughout its entire range based on the
severity and immediacy of threats
currently affecting the species. The best
available data indicate that, while the
species may have always been
represented by small numbers of
individuals found at the surface of each
seep site, the species’ abundance
appears to be declining. In addition,
each of the 10 known seep sites are
vulnerable to varying levels of stressors
and threats: 1 Seep (Sherrill Drive
Spring), based on repeated negative
survey results combined with
documented poor water quality, may be
extirpated, and another seep (Coquelin
Run Spring) has visible erosion and
sedimentation. The Kenk’s amphipod
has some redundancy and
representation, but those two
conservation parameters are
compromised due to each site’s low
resiliency, all of which makes the
species’ overall resiliency low. The
primary drivers affecting the species’
viability (water quality and habitat
degradation and small population
dynamics) are difficult to manage
because either they are caused by factors
outside the control of the landowner’s
jurisdiction (e.g., poor water quality or
risk of sewer/water line spills at NPScontrolled sites) or there are no apparent
management actions to minimize or
control them (e.g., small population
dynamics), and some of those threats
and additional stressors are likely to
increase in the future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information, we propose listing the
Kenk’s amphipod as endangered in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a
threatened species status is not
appropriate for the Kenk’s amphipod
based on the high magnitude and
imminence of the threats across the
species’ range. If additional Kenk’s
amphipod sites are found and those
sites are individually resilient and add
to the species’ overall representation,
redundancy, and resiliency, then a
threatened species status may be
appropriate at that time.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that the Kenk’s amphipod is an
endangered 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 37578; July 1, 2014).
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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-
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan also identifies recovery
criteria for review of when a species
may be ready for downlisting or
delisting, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also
establish a framework for agencies to
coordinate their recovery efforts and
provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery
teams (composed of species experts,
Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery
plan will be available on our Web site
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our Chesapeake Bay 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 Maryland,
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the
District of Columbia would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Kenk’s
amphipod. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
species recovery can be found at: https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Kenk’s amphipod is
only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you
are interested in participating in
recovery 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 recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a), and in particular section
7(a)(1), of the Act requires Federal
agencies to evaluate their actions with
respect to any species that is proposed
or listed as an endangered or threatened
species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section
7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to confer with the Service on
any action that is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a species
proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the National Park
Service (Rock Creek Park) and U.S.
Army (Fort A.P. Hill); issuance of
section 404 CWA permits by the Army
Corps of Engineers; and construction
and maintenance of roads or highways
by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
to attempt any of these) endangered
wildlife within the United States or on
the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful
to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67285
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other
Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. At this time, we are unable to
identify specific activities that would
not be considered to result in a violation
of section 9 of the Act because the
Kenk’s amphipod occurs in seep
habitats that are influenced by the
surrounding environment and it is
likely that site-specific conservation
measures may be needed for activities
that may directly or indirectly affect the
species.
Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction/alteration of the
species’ habitat by discharge of fill
material, use of motorized vehicles such
as all-terrain vehicles or creation of
trails that would increase foot traffic
through the spring area, draining, or
diversion or alteration of surface or
ground water flow into or out of the
seepage springs or catchment basins;
(3) Forest management practices that
alter the seepage spring sites or remove
canopy cover from above the seepage
spring sites;
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67286
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(4) Discharge of chemicals, storm
water, or runoff into the seepage springs
or catchment basins.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Critical Habitat for the Kenk’s
amphipod (Stygobromus Kenki)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time the species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when
one or both of the following situations
exist: (1) The species is threatened by
taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat
to the species, or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
There is currently no imminent threat
of take attributed to collection or
vandalism under Factor B for the Kenk’s
amphipod. Identification and mapping
of critical habitat is not likely to
increase any such threat. In the absence
of finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a
species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The
potential benefits of designation
include: (1) Triggering consultation
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
under section 7 of the Act, in new areas
for actions in which there may be a
Federal nexus where it would not
otherwise occur because, for example, it
is or has become unoccupied or the
occupancy is in question; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State
or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Therefore, because we have determined
that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of
threat to this species and may provide
some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the Kenk’s amphipod.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the species is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist: (i) Information
sufficient to perform required analyses
of the impacts of the designation is
lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of
the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an
area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have
reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the
Kenk’s amphipod and habitat
characteristics where the species is
located. Because we are awaiting the
results of hydrology studies that support
the species’ physical and biological
features, and additional surveys in new
habitat areas (e.g., accessible areas
within steep, sloped, forested habitat
overlaying the Calvert formation in
Maryland and Virginia), we conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is
not determinable for the Kenk’s
amphipod at this time. We will make a
determination on critical habitat no later
than 1 year following any final listing
determination.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
67287
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(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 ADDRESSES. 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
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
Common name
*
CRUSTACEANS
*
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the
Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the
Northeast Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
*
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
RIN 0648–BG17
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Amendment 27 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
proposed fishery management plan
amendment; request for comments.
AGENCY:
Jkt 238001
2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for
‘‘Amphipod, Kenk’s’’ to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under
CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth
below:
■
*
Fmt 4702
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Listing citations and
applicable rules
*
*
*
*
[Federal Register citation
when published as a final
rule]
E
*
Sfmt 4702
*
Status
*
*
Wherever found ........................
*
Frm 00071
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted.
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
NMFS announces that the
Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) has submitted Amendment 27
to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (PCGFMP) for
Secretarial review. Amendment 27
would add deacon rockfish to the FMP,
reclassifies big skate as an actively
managed stock, add a new inseason
management process for commercial
and recreational in California, and
several clarifications.
DATES: Comments on Amendment 27
must be received on or before November
29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2016–0094, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160094, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
William Stelle, Regional Administrator,
West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand
PO 00000
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
*
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
18:55 Sep 29, 2016
*
*
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
Where listed
*
Stygobromus kenki ...................
[FR Doc. 2016–23103 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Chesapeake
Bay Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
*
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Scientific name
*
*
Amphipod, Kenk’s .....................
*
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).
*
*
Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–
0070.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments if they are sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the
comment period ends. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and NMFS will post for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender is publicly
accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Information relevant to Amendment
27, which includes a draft
environmental assessment (EA), a
regulatory impact review (RIR), and an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) are available for public review
during business hours at the NMFS
West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand
Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67270-67287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23103]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2016-0030; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB50
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Kenk's Amphipod
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Kenk's amphipod (Stygobromus kenki), a ground water species
from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this
species. The effect of this regulation will be to add the species to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 29, 2016. 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 14, 2016.
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-R5-ES-2016-0030,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2016-0030; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters, 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: Genevieve LaRouche, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 177
Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, MD 21401, by telephone 410-573-4577
or by facsimile 410-269-0832. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designating and revising
critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This document proposes the listing of the
Kenk's amphipod (Stygobromus kenki) as an endangered species. The
Kenk's amphipod is a candidate species for which we have on file
sufficient information on its biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of
a listing regulation has been precluded by other higher priority
listing activities. This proposed rule assesses the best available
information and data regarding the status of and threats to the Kenk's
amphipod.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can 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 Kenk's amphipod is in
danger of extinction primarily due to poor water quality, erosion, and
sedimentation resulting from urban runoff in Maryland and the District
of Columbia (Factor A) and the effects of small population dynamics
(Factor E) at all known locations.
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our 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 received 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 the public, 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 Kenk's amphipod's biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
[[Page 67271]]
(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 the 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 the species.
(5) Additional information on the hydrology (e.g., connectedness,
size of recharge areas) of the known Kenk's amphipod sites.
(6) Reliable methodology for estimating the total population size
at an individual seep site (e.g., calculating the number of animals in
the subsurface from the number of animals at the surface).
(7) Additional information on the interspecific interactions of
amphipods at the known Kenk's amphipod sites (e.g., predator/prey
dynamics or competition for food or space resources).
(8) The specific tolerance of the Kenk's amphipod or the Potomac
groundwater amphipod (Stygobromus tenuis potomacus) to temperature,
sewage effluent, chlorinated water, or other contaminants.
Please include supporting documentation with your submission (such
as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
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 ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
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, Chesapeake Bay 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 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 FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in Kenk's/
Stygobromus amphipod biology, habitat, or stressors (factors negatively
affecting the species) to the Kenk's amphipod species or its habitat.
We invite comment from the peer reviewers during this public comment
period.
Previous Federal Action
In 2001, the Service received a petition to list the Kenk's
amphipod and two other invertebrates. Higher priority workload that
consumed the listing budget prevented the Service from making a 90-day
finding until fiscal year (FY) 2006 when we found that the petition did
not present substantial information (72 FR 51766, September 11, 2007)
indicating that listing may be warranted. In 2010, the Service, under
its own candidate assessment process, initiated a status review for the
Kenk's amphipod, completed an analysis on the best available data, and
determined that listing the species was warranted. However, we were
precluded from moving forward with rulemaking for the species due to
other higher priority listing actions. The Kenk's amphipod was added to
the FY 2010 candidate list (75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010). The
species' status was reviewed at least annually and continued to be
found warranted but precluded for listing in all subsequent annual
Candidate Notices of Review (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015). For additional
information see: https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=K04P (last accessed June 22, 2016). In 2011, the
Service entered into a settlement agreement with the Center for
Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that specified a listing
determination must be made for all species from the FY 2010 candidate
list (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar 10-cv-0230 (D.D.C.);
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar Nos. 10-cv-0048; 10-cv-0421; 10-cv-1043;
10-cv-1045; 10-cv-1048; 10-cv-1049; 10-cv-50; 10-cv-51; 10-cv-1068; 10-
cv-2299; 10-cv-2595; 10-cv-3366 (D.D.C.)). Per the settlement
agreement, a not warranted finding or proposed listing rule for the
Kenk's amphipod must be delivered to the Federal Register no later than
September 30, 2016.
Background
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Kenk's amphipod (Stygobromus kenki) was first collected in 1967
by Roman Kenk from a spring in Rock Creek Park (Park), southeast of
North National Capitol Parks' headquarters in the District of Columbia,
and it was formally described by J.R. Holsinger (1978, pp. 39-42). We
have carefully reviewed the best available taxonomic data and conclude
that the Kenk's amphipod is a valid species.
The Kenk's amphipod is a moderately small ground water crustacean,
with the largest male and female specimens growing to 0.15 inch (in)
(3.7 millimeters (mm)) and 0.22 in (5.5 mm) in length, respectively.
The Kenk's
[[Page 67272]]
amphipod is a member of the Spinosus Group of Stygobromus, which
includes two other closely related but separate species, Blue Ridge
stygobromid (S. spinosus) and Luray Caverns amphipod (S.
pseudospinosus), that are found only in Virginia, primarily in
Shenandoah National Park. The Kenk's amphipod is distinguished from
those two species, as well as other co-occurring amphipods, such as the
Potomac groundwater amphipod and Hay's spring amphipod (S. hayi), on
the basis of various morphological features (Holsinger 1978, p. 39).
For additional morphological description details, please see the Kenk's
amphipod's FY 2015 candidate assessment form here: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2015/r5/K04P_I01.pdf (last accessed on June
22, 2016).
Accurate identification of the Kenk's amphipod can occur only when
a specimen is removed from the seepage spring site (hereafter referred
interchangeably as seepage spring, seep, spring, or site depending upon
the reference), and preserved in alcohol or other fixing agent for
identification by a species expert who removes legs and other
appendages from the specimen for microscopic examination. This
identification method is the best scientific method available. Because
the laboratory identification results in mortality, the Service has
been judicious in limiting the frequency and number of specimens
removed from known sites.
Reproduction and Longevity
We have no reproductive or longevity information specific to the
Kenk's amphipod, but assume those attributes are similar to other
Stygobromus species. Like other amphipods, females of the genus
Stygobromus deposit their eggs in a brood pouch on their underside
(Foltz and Jepson 2009, p. 2). Young of the Potomac groundwater
amphipod hatch from the egg and actively swim from the brood pouch,
with days or even weeks passing between the hatching of the first and
last young of a brood (Williams 2013, p. 10). The immature stages
resemble the adults, and individuals undergo successive molts (usually
between eight and nine) until maturity. Most surface amphipod species
from the family Talitridae complete their life cycle (egg to adult) in
1 year or less, but subterranean species like the Kenk's amphipod have
a longer life span and may live for 4 to 6 years (Foltz and Jepson
2009, p. 2).
Habitat
Amphipods of the genus Stygobromus occur in ground water and ground
water-related habitats (e.g., caves, seeps, small springs, wells,
interstices, and rarely deep ground water lakes). Members of this genus
occur only in freshwater and belong to the family Crangonyctidae, the
largest family of freshwater amphipods in North America, and have
modified morphology for survival in the subterranean ground water that
is their primary habitat. These species are generally eyeless and
unpigmented (without color), and frequently have attenuated (reduced in
length and width) bodies (Holsinger 1978, pp. 1-2).
The Kenk's amphipod is found in wooded areas where ground water
emerges to form seepage springs (Holsinger 1978, p. 39). More
specifically, this habitat is called the hypotelminorheic.
Hypotelminorheic is described as habitats: (1) With a perched aquifer
fed by subsurface water that creates a persistent wet spot; (2)
underlain by a clay or other impermeable layer typically 5 to 50
centimeters (cm) (2 to 20 in) below the surface; and (3) rich in
organic matter compared with other aquatic subterranean habitats. The
water supplying the springs infiltrates to the ground water from
precipitation and runoff into the catchment (e.g., recharge or
drainage) areas (see Factor A--Water Quality/Quantity Degradation Due
to Chronic Pollution of Urban/Suburban Runoff section below for more
details). The water exits these habitats at seepage springs. Seepage
springs typically have a diffuse discharge of water where the flow
cannot be immediately observed but the land surface is wet compared to
the surrounding area (Culver et al. 2012, p. 2). The shading,
hydrologic conditions, and organic matter found in these woodlands are
considered important factors in maintaining suitable habitat for the
species.
The Kenk's amphipod has been found in the dead leaves or fine
sediment submerged in the waters of its seepage spring outflows
(Holsinger 1978, p. 130). The best available data indicate that the
species will move between the surface and subterranean portions of the
spring habitat, but it is unknown when or how often that movement
occurs (Kavanaugh 2009, p. 3). Seepage springs typically have a
drainage area of less than 10,000 square meters (2.5 acres (ac); 1
hectare (ha)) and their water quality parameters differ from those
parameters of small surface waters by having higher conductivity and
dissolved oxygen, and lower pH and temperature (Culver et al. 2012, pp.
5-6). For example, an unpublished study (Culver and Chestnut 2006, pp.
1-3) found that sites supporting the genus Stygobromus had lower
temperatures during spring and summer, higher dissolved oxygen, lower
pH, and lower nitrate levels than other seepage springs (70 putative
seepage springs) along the George Washington Memorial Parkway in
Virginia. The Service has contracted with the Maryland Geological
Survey to delineate the recharge areas and conduct electrical
resistivity surveying to determine elevations of bedrock or clay that
may be perching the water table, and to detect elevation of the water
table of several seepage springs supporting the Kenk's amphipod;
however, the results of this study will not be available until 2017.
All Stygobromus species found in the hypotelminorheic habitats
appear to have similar requirements--shallow ground water and springs
with good water quality and persistent flow for most of the year in
wooded habitats. Forest canopy cover appears to be necessary both for
the shading and the food source its leaf litter provides. This food
source consists of organic detritus and the microorganisms using the
leaf litter as substrate.
Springs currently known to support the Kenk's amphipod are found in
forested areas with steep slopes, adjacent to streams, and overlying
the Wissahickon geologic formation in the Piedmont of Maryland and the
District of Columbia and in the Calvert formation just above the
Nanjemoy formation in the upper Coastal Plain of Virginia. While the
applicable areas containing the known appropriate geology in the
Piedmont of Maryland and the District of Columbia have been extensively
surveyed for Kenk's amphipod, the same is not true for areas in the
Coastal Plain of Maryland and Virginia because information that these
geological formations support occupied Kenk's amphipod habitat is new
to the Service and species experts (see the Distribution and Relative
Abundance--Current Range and Distribution Since 2016 section below for
more information). The Service conducted a preliminary geographic
information system (GIS) analysis to determine that the total amount of
forested areas containing the appropriate geology in the Coastal Plain
areas of Maryland and Virginia is approximately 20,500 ac (8,296 ha),
with approximately 3,063 ac (1,240 ha) on public lands. However, the
potential amount of suitable habitat for the Kenk's amphipod is less
than 20,500 ac (8,296 ha). The Service will narrow the scope of
potential habitat areas to
[[Page 67273]]
survey by evaluating slope, adjacent waterways, and other habitat
quality parameters.
Distribution and Relative Abundance
Known Range and Distribution Prior to 2016
Prior to 2016, all known occurrences of the Kenk's amphipod were
from the Potomac River watershed in or near the District of Columbia.
At the time of its description, this amphipod was known from two
seepage springs (East Spring and Holsinger Spring) in Rock Creek Park
in the District of Columbia and was initially thought to be identified
from one shallow well in Fairfax County in northern Virginia (Holsinger
1978, p. 39; Terwilliger 1991, p. 184). However, the single immature
male specimen from this well was later reexamined by a taxonomic expert
and determined not to be a Kenk's amphipod (Holsinger 2009, p. 266).
Because of the difficulty in finding the small seepage area of
Holsinger Spring, the location was surveyed only once (in 2003) between
the Kenk's amphipod's original discovery at the site in 1967 and
surveys conducted in 2015.
The Kenk's amphipod was discovered in two additional springs
(Sherrill Drive Spring and Kennedy Street Spring (this spring also
supports the federally endangered Hay's Spring amphipod) in Rock Creek
Park in 1995 and 2001 and in two springs (Coquelin Run Spring and Burnt
Mill Spring #6) in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2003 to 2004,
bringing the total number of springs known to support the Kenk's
amphipod to six. All of these sites are considered to be in the
Washington metropolitan area because they are all within the Washington
Beltway (i.e., the I-495 highway).
Until 2016, the species was known only from six seepage spring
sites in the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, MD (Culver and
Sereg 2004, pp. 35-36; Feller 2005, p. 5) (see figure 1 below), despite
extensive surveys for the species in the same area (Feller 1997,
entire; Culver and Sereg 2004, entire; Feller 2005, entire). Ground
water amphipod surveys on National Park Service (NPS) properties in
Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA, failed to detect the Kenk's
amphipod (Hutchins and Culver 2008, entire). In addition, surveys in
2014 in the vicinity of the proposed Purple Line light rail project in
Montgomery County, MD, also failed to detect the species (Culver 2015,
entire).
Within the species' historical range, the District of Columbia and
Maryland, it is plausible that urbanization of the Rock Creek and
Northwest Branch watersheds (outside of the protected parklands) has
reduced the range and distribution of the Kenk's amphipod because many
large and small springs throughout these drainages have been lost as a
result of urbanization (Williams 1977, entire; Feller 2005, p. 11). In
particular, the southern Rock Creek watershed is where most of the
natural tributaries and springs in the District of Columbia south of
the National Zoo have been lost due to leveling and filling of the
stream valleys, or conversion to covered sewers (Williams 1977, pp. 6,
11). However, there is no available method to estimate to what extent
the Kenk's amphipod may have been present in these areas. The best
available data indicate that there were no ground water amphipod
surveys at any of the springs prior to those habitat areas being filled
or otherwise converted to unsuitable habitat.
Current Range and Distribution Since 2016
Within the Washington metropolitan area, five of the known sites
are within the Rock Creek drainage: Four are within Rock Creek Park in
the District of Columbia (Holsinger Spring, Kennedy Street Spring, East
Spring, and Sherrill Drive Spring), and the fifth (Coquelin Run Spring)
is in Montgomery County, MD, not far from the District of Columbia
border. A sixth known site (Burnt Mill Spring #6) is within the
Northwest Branch Park in the Northwest Branch drainage in Montgomery
County, MD, approximately 3 miles (mi) (4.8 kilometers (km)) from the
District of Columbia border. Thus, the current range of this species in
the Washington metropolitan area is limited to Federal land (four
sites) and private property (one site) adjacent to approximately 4
linear mi (6.4 km) of Rock Creek, and a single site to the east, on
county parkland adjacent to the Northwest Branch. Both Rock Creek Park
and the Northwest Branch Park are long, linear parks within heavily
urbanized areas.
In addition to the distribution described above for the Washington
metropolitan area, a new area occupied by the Kenk's amphipod was
identified in 2016--the U.S. Army's Fort A.P. Hill installation in
Caroline County, VA, approximately 60 mi (97 km) south of all
previously known sites (see figure 1 below). The species was collected
during surveys conducted for another amphipod species in 2014, but not
identified as the Kenk's amphipod until May 2016, when the Service was
notified of the information. Out of a total of 21 surveyed sites on the
installation, 4 were found to contain the Kenk's amphipod. Seven Kenk's
amphipod individuals were identified from these four springs, which are
along Mount and Mill Creeks, both tributaries of the Rappahannock River
(J. Applegate, pers. comm., 05/02/2016; C. Hobson, pers. comm., 05/12/
2016) (see figure 1). The spring sites in the two creek systems are
approximately 7.5 mi (12 km) apart. The area immediately surrounding
Fort A.P. Hill is less developed than the Washington metropolitan area.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 67274]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE16.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Relative Abundance
There are no reliable total population numbers for Kenk's amphipod
sites due to sampling difficulties (e.g., flow conditions) and the lack
of information on the portion of the population that may remain in the
springs' ground water supply (Feller 2005, p. 10). However, because
surveying in the Washington metropolitan area has been conducted using
systematic and consistent
[[Page 67275]]
methodology over many years, often by the same individuals, the numbers
of Kenk's amphipod individuals observed and the number of conducted
surveys required to find the species are considered to be the best
available data and do provide a reliable indication of the species'
relative abundance.
The species is typically found in small numbers and then only when
ground water levels are high and springs are flowing freely, conditions
that cause the Kenk's amphipod to be transported to the surface. These
conditions typically occur during the spring season, except during
especially dry years. Given the small size of the shallow ground water
aquifers supporting the sites occupied by this species, and the known
characteristics of subterranean invertebrates, it is probable that each
of the Kenk's amphipod populations has always been small (Hutchins and
Culver 2008, pp. 3-6).
Although specimens were not collected and identified to the species
level, Stygobromus sp., including some in the right size range for
Kenk's amphipod, were observed during site reconnaissance visits
between 2004 and 2015 in several of the known Kenk's amphipod
Washington metropolitan area spring habitats (B. Yeaman, pers. comm.,
05/04/2012). In addition, visual inspections during this same time
period indicated that most of the sites continued to appear to be
suitable habitat, leading us to conclude that the Kenk's amphipod was
extant at least at Burnt Mill Spring #6, Kennedy Street Spring, and
East Spring (D. Feller, pers. comm., 04/01/2015). However, actual
identifications of specimens collected during surveys conducted in 2015
and 2016 (D. Feller, pers. comm., 03/16/2016) suggest that the species
may not be extant at those sites (see below).
Prior to 2015, all Kenk's amphipod specimens were discovered on the
first or second survey conducted at all known sites. In 2015 and 2016,
Kenk's amphipod was confirmed at only one of the Washington
metropolitan area spring sites, Coquelin Run Spring, despite all of the
sites being sampled multiple times during these 2 years (see table 1
below) (D. Feller, pers. comm., 03/16/2016; D. Feller, pers. comm., 04/
22/2016). It is unclear whether the species may be extirpated at Burnt
Mill Spring #6, Kennedy Street Spring, and East Spring, but the best
available data show a decrease in observed individuals at these sites.
Although there have been no Kenk's amphipods (Stygobromus kenki)
observed at five of the six District of Columbia/Maryland sites during
the 2015-2016 survey efforts, increasing numbers of Potomac groundwater
amphipod have been observed at several of the sites (Burnt Mill Spring
#6, East Spring, Kennedy Street Spring, and Holsinger Spring) (D.
Feller, pers. comm., 04/22/2016). At Sherrill Drive Spring, no
Stygobromus species have been detected for 12 years, and the water
quality at this site has been documented to be poor (see Factor A--
Water Quality/Quantity Degradation Due to Chronic Pollution of Urban/
Suburban Runoff section below for more details), leading us to conclude
that the species is likely extirpated at this site. This conclusion is
consistent with the earlier characterization of the population at this
site by Culver and Sereg (2004, p. 73) over a decade ago as ``barely
hanging on.''
[[Page 67276]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE16.001
At Fort A.P. Hill, all collections of the Kenk's amphipod were
taken during surveys conducted in the spring of 2014; therefore, no
trend data exist for the four occupied spring sites. Twenty-one sites
were surveyed with 5 to 7 visits per site. The numbers of the Kenk's
amphipod collected that year were low at all sites, ranging from 1 to 4
individuals (see table 1 above). Other species of Stygobromus,
including S. tenuis (no common name), Tidewater stygonectid amphipod
(S. indentatus), and Rappahannock Spring amphipod (S. foliatus), were
also found at several of these Virginia sites.
Summary of Distribution and Relative Abundance: The above
information represents the best available data on the Kenk's amphipod's
known distribution and relative abundance. However, the habitat areas
at Fort A.P. Hill occur in different river drainages and geological
formations from those in the Washington metropolitan area, which
suggests that additional surveys may identify additional locations and
further expand the species' current known range. The Service plans to
fund additional amphipod surveys to be conducted during suitable
sampling conditions in late 2016 and early 2017 in accessible areas of
Maryland and northeastern Virginia that have geology similar to that of
the Fort A.P. Hill sites and other suitable habitat characteristics
(e.g., forested slopes dissected by streams). The U.S. Army also plans
to conduct additional amphipod surveys at Fort A.P. Hill in spring
2017. Additional surveys for the known Maryland and the District of
Columbia sites are also planned.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors
affecting its continued existence. In this section, we review the
biological condition of the species and its resources, and the
influences on such to assess the species' overall viability and the
risks to that viability.
[[Page 67277]]
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Water Quality/Quantity Degradation Due to Chronic Pollution of Urban/
Suburban Runoff
Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality and
quantity, is one of the primary drivers of Kenk's amphipod viability.
While the species' specific tolerances to parameters affecting water
quality and quantity is not yet known, we do know that the Kenk's
amphipod is at increased risk to parameters that negatively affect
water quality and quantity because these freshwater amphipods spend
their entire life cycle in water and are, therefore, continually
exposed to changes in the aquatic habitat. Water quality degradation of
ground water at spring sites located in the Washington metropolitan
area has been previously cited as a top concern in several studies and
reports (Feller 1997, pp. 12-13; Culver and Sereg 2004, p. 13; Feller
2005, p. 9; Hutchins and Culver 2008, p. 6; Kavanaugh 2009, p. 60;
Culver et al. 2012, p. 37; Culver and Pipan 2014, p. 219).
The amount of forested buffer surrounding the seep influences the
species' vulnerability and exposure to negative effects, and the
smaller the buffer, the greater the risk of exposure. Buffer distance
is important because the buffer helps filter sediment and other
contaminants from the surface water entering the catchment areas and,
therefore, the ground water that supports the Kenk's amphipod. The
Washington metropolitan area amphipod sites have narrow riparian
buffers (94 feet (ft) to 1,000 ft) (29 m to 305 m) separating them from
the surrounding urban landscape. This urban land is characterized by
impervious surface cover, which includes paved roads, sidewalks,
parking lots, and buildings (Sexton et al. 2013, p. 42). The general
percentage of impervious surface inside the Capitol Beltway (I-495)
(i.e., where all the District of Columbia and Maryland Kenk's amphipod
sites are located) increased from 22 percent in 1984 to 26 percent in
2010. The annual rate of increase in impervious cover within the
Washington Beltway has also doubled since the 1980s, from 2 to 4 square
(sq.) miles (6 to 12 sq. km) (Sexton et al. 2013, pp. 42-53; Song et
al. 2016, pp. 1-13; https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87731, last accessed 07/07/2016).
Urban impervious surfaces can result in increased surface water
flow after storm events due to decreased opportunity for immediate or
proximal infiltration. The surface flow waters have higher
temperatures, higher sediment loads, and higher levels of heavy metals
(zinc, cadmium), nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria
(Walsh et al. 2005, pp. 706-723). In addition to affecting water
quality, urban impervious surfaces can affect water quantity; decreased
infiltration can result in depletion of ground water reserves and
ultimately cause springs to dry up over time (Frazer 2005, p. 3).
It is well documented that impervious cover from urbanization
affects biological communities in streams. For example, a review of
more than 30 studies by the Center for Watershed Protection (2003, pp.
101-102) found that sensitive aquatic insect species were absent or
less abundant in streams that drain from urban areas, and aquatic
insect diversity decreased when imperviousness reached 10 to 15
percent. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR) found
that, in Maryland when the general percentage of watershed
imperviousness exceeds 15 percent, stream health is never rated as
``good,'' based on a combined fish and benthic macroinvertebrate Index
of Biotic Integrity. The Potomac Washington metropolitan basin, which
incorporates the area surrounding Kenk's amphipod sites, has the
smallest percentage of stream miles rated as ``good'' (less than 1
percent) (Boward et al. 1999, p. 45).
Hyporheic habitat, which is a transition area between surface and
shallow ground water, is found within the interstitial spaces within
the sediments of a stream bed but also can be found in spring runs
(Culver and Sereg 2004, pp. 70-71) that support the Kenk's amphipod.
Hancock (2002, pp. 766-775) evaluated human activities that affect the
hyporheic zone. Pesticide pollution, heavy metal and chemical pollution
from industrial and urban sources, increased salinity, and acidity were
all cited as stressors that may make this habitat unsuitable for
invertebrates. In addition to documenting lethal effects on individuals
from these stressors, researchers have documented changes in
macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance that include an increase in
species that are tolerant to elevated levels of the stressors and a
decrease in species sensitive to elevated levels of those stressors
(Hancock 2002, pp. 768-770).
The hypotelminorheic zone, which is described as the main habitat
required by the Kenk's amphipod, may be more vulnerable to the effects
of urban runoff than streams or the hyporheic zone with respect to
pollutants, erosion, and sedimentation because of the small size and
shallow nature of the habitat. In addition, the aforementioned narrow
buffer zones around the hypotelminorheic sites increase the habitat's
and species' exposure to urban runoff.
Storm water runoff in urban areas is commonly transported through
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), from which it is often
discharged untreated into local waterbodies. Storm water is regulated
to prevent harmful discharges of pollutants into MS4s. The Clean Water
Act's (CWA's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program
requires permits for discharges into MS4s and development of storm
water management programs. Despite these regulatory requirements, poor
water quality has been documented in the past at several springs in
Rock Creek Park (Culver and Sereg 2004, p. 69).
In the Washington metropolitan area, water quality degradation from
urban runoff is believed to have affected the Kenk's amphipod's
Sherrill Drive Spring population (Culver and Sereg 2004, p. 69).
Sherrill Drive Spring is close (approximately 115 ft (35 m)) to the
edge of Rock Creek Park where there is an abrupt change from forested
habitat to an urban landscape along 16th Street Northwest, which
parallels the park boundary. There is a significant amount of
impervious cover that routes runoff into the catchment area surrounding
the Sherrill Drive Spring.
While there have been no laboratory studies conducted to evaluate
the effects and tolerance of the Kenk's amphipod or the more common
Potomac groundwater amphipod to chemical, nutrient, pesticide, or heavy
metal pollution, we do know from published studies that amphipods may
be one of the most vulnerable groups of organisms to chemical pollution
due to their high sensitivity to toxicants and contaminant accumulation
(Borgmann et al. 1989, p. 756; Brumec-Turc 1989, p. 40). Culver and
Sereg (2004, pp. 30-31) collected water samples from the East Spring,
Kennedy Spring, and Sherrill Drive Spring sites on four occasions
(October 2000, April 2001, July 2001, and March 2003) to measure
temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and nitrates. Sediment
samples surrounding the springs were also collected in September 2001
at East Spring and Sherrill Drive Spring to analyze metal and organic
contaminants. From these samples, Sherrill Drive Spring showed evidence
of water quality degradation via the presence of heavy metals and
higher nitrate and conductivity levels as
[[Page 67278]]
compared to the other sampled spring sites; East Spring also had
evidence of heavy metals (see below) (Culver and Sereg 2004, pp. 30-
31).
Heavy metals were found in sediment samples taken from Sherrill
Drive Spring and East Spring in Rock Creek Park. Values were similar
for the two sites, although East Spring had the highest values for all
heavy metals, with the exception of zinc (Culver and Sereg 2004, p.
65). Because the spring sediments instead of water samples were
collected for heavy metal analysis, it is difficult to know whether the
value of the heavy metals measured in the sediments exceed aquatic life
standards in water or any published values for freshwater amphipod
species. Sources of trace metals in an urban environment may include
vehicles, streets, parking lots, snowpacks, and rooftops (Center for
Watershed Protection 2003, p. 73).
Nitrate levels as high as 30.8 milligrams per liter (mg/L) were
also found at Sherrill Drive Spring. There are no aquatic life
standards for nitrates issued by the Maryland Department of the
Environment, the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, or
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, we reviewed
the best available and relevant guidance values from Minnesota, Canada,
and New Zealand (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2010, p. 9;
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2012, p. 1; Hickey and
Martin 2009, p. 20). Based on the comparison with available guidance,
the nitrate concentrations collected at Sherrill Drive Spring (up to
30.8 mg/L) exceeded the chronic aquatic life exposure criterion for
nitrate (e.g., 2.4 mg/L to 4.9 mg/L) based on Minnesota, New Zealand,
and Canada guidance values on three of the four sampling events. It is
not known how typical these concentrations are and if chronic exposure
is occurring. The source of the nitrate is unknown; nitrate could come
from runoff containing fertilizers or animal waste or from sanitary
sewer leaks. There is a sanitary sewer line that runs adjacent to the
spring, and this sewer line has leaked in the past (Feller 1997, p. 37;
B. Yeaman, pers. comm., 06/02/2014).
Chloride levels as high as 207 mg/L were detected at Sherrill Drive
Spring. Chronic concentrations of chloride as low as 250 mg/L have been
recognized as harmful to freshwater life (Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment 2011, p. 1; https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table, last
accessed 07/19/2016). Although we do not know the exact source of the
elevated chloride levels at Sherrill Drive Spring, one potential source
could be road salt. The Washington metropolitan area receives, on
average depending on where it was measured and the time series,
approximately 15 inches of snow annually (https://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/avgsnowfall.html, last accessed August 10, 2016;
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/washington-dc-snowfall-totals-snow-accumulation-averages.php, last accessed 8/10/2106). The
District of Columbia Department of Public Works uses road salt and
other salt products to pre- and post-treat road surfaces before and
after ice and snowfall events (https://dpw.dc.gov/service/dc-snow-removal, last accessed 8/10/2016). Studies have shown that the
widespread use of salt to deice roadways has led to regionally elevated
chloride levels equivalent to 25 percent of the chloride concentration
in seawater during winter. The chloride levels can remain high
throughout the summer even in less urbanized watersheds due to long-
term (e.g., decades) accumulation of chloride in ground water (Kaushal
et al. 2005, pp. 13518-13519).
At Coquelin Run Spring, ground water pollution from yard chemicals
and road runoff (e.g., road salts, oil) could be a concern for the
species' long-term viability. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research on
water quality degradation in other urban areas indicates that chemicals
enter waterways and ground water primarily through runoff from rain
events and these chemicals have commonly been detected in streams and
shallow ground water (USGS 1999a, pp. 1-3; USGS 1999b, p. 1; USGS 2001,
p. 2; https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1998/fs007-98/, last accessed
07/19/2016). Although no water samples have been taken at the Coquelin
Run Spring site, it is separated from backyards in this neighborhood by
a narrow, wooded riparian strip (less than 100 ft) (30 m) that slopes
steeply down to the site. Therefore, the Coquelin Run Spring may be at
increased risk of exposure to chemical pollutants from the surrounding
urban development.
The other four Washington metropolitan area sites (Burnt Mill
Spring #6, Holsinger Spring, East Spring, and Kennedy Spring) have
wider buffers than Sherrill Drive Spring and Coquelin Run Spring, with
buffer distances ranging from approximately 272 ft (83 m) to 1,000 ft
(305 m). East Spring and Kennedy Spring had much lower conductivity and
nitrate levels than Sherrill Drive Spring (Culver and Sereg 2004, pp.
55-58). Surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 did not re-confirm the
Kenk's amphipod at any of these sites but consistently found the more
common Potomac groundwater amphipod at all the sites in higher numbers
(e.g., greater than 40 observed at Burnt Mill Spring #6 during 1
sampling event). As discussed previously, urban runoff can decrease
biotic richness and favor more pollution-tolerant species in urban
streams (Center for Watershed Protection 2003, pp. 101-102). If the
Potomac groundwater amphipod has a higher tolerance than Kenk's
amphipod to poor water quality parameters, the change in species'
composition discussed above in the Relative Abundance section and below
in Factor E--Changes in Species Composition could indicate that urban
runoff is negatively affecting the Kenk's populations at these spring
sites. Water quality samples will be collected at these sites in 2016
and 2017 to better assess whether water quality parameters exceed
general EPA guidance values for aquatic life.
The NPS manages the surrounding habitat at the four seepage spring
sites supporting the Kenk's amphipod in Rock Creek Park. Conservation
of park resources is mandated by the National Park Service Organic Act
of 1916, which requires the NPS ``to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' It is
also mandated by section 7 of the Rock Creek Park enabling legislation
of 1890, which states that ``such regulations shall provide for the
preservation from injury and spoilation of all timber, animals, or
curiosities within said park, and their retention in their natural
condition, as nearly as possible.'' These laws are implemented through
the NPS's formal management policy that requires that management of
candidate species should, to the greatest extent possible, parallel the
management of federally listed species (D. Pavek, pers. comm., 05/12/
2011). While the NPS is utilizing its regulatory authority to manage
water quality concerns for the species within Rock Creek Park, the
agency has little influence over the protection of or effects to any
seep recharge areas occurring outside park boundaries, and over
maintenance or repair of city-owned infrastructure such as storm water
and sewer systems located near the spring sites.
The NPS worked with the District of Columbia Department of
Transportation (DCDOT) to incorporate the construction of a storm sewer
under
[[Page 67279]]
Sherrill Drive into the design of the 16th Street road reconstruction
and storm drainage project (B. Yeaman, pers. comm., 05/19/2015),
resulting in the elimination of a major outfall at the Sherrill Drive
Spring site. However, as discussed above, this effort has not
completely eliminated the documented erosion and poor water quality
concerns at the site.
The NPS is communicating with DCDOT on the need to move the
sanitary sewer line adjacent to the Sherrill Drive Spring out of Rock
Creek Park and into the neighborhood on the other side of 16th Street.
If the line cannot be moved, the alternative is to reline the existing
pipe to prevent further leakage (B. Yeaman, pers. comm., 07/11/2016).
In addition, the Service, NPS, and the District of Columbia Department
of the Environment have worked cooperatively to obtain funding for best
management practices (reducing erosion and increasing infiltration) on
two tributaries flowing into the drainage of Kennedy Street Spring,
which supports both the Kenk's amphipod and the federally endangered
Hay's Spring amphipod. Project funding was approved in January of 2015,
and implementation, which includes construction of bioretention basins
and infiltration berms, is to be completed by November 2017.
In Virginia, poor water quality may not be affecting the species at
the Fort A.P. Hill because the sites are substantially buffered by
currently undeveloped property.
Summary of Water Quality--In total, poor water quality is believed
to be a significant or contributing stressor at all six of the
Washington metropolitan area sites (i.e., 60 percent of the total known
sites). Water quality in this area is expected to worsen due to
significant runoff events from anticipated increases in both winter and
spring precipitation and the frequency of high intensity storms. See
Factor A--Excessive Storm Water Flows and Factor E--Effects of Climate
Change sections below for more details.
Excessive Storm Water Flows
Runoff from impervious surfaces after heavy rain events can result
in flooding (Frazer 2005, p. 4; https://www.nbcwashington.com/traffic/transit/Metro-Station-Flooding-Nearby-Parking-Lot-Expansion-Could-Be-Part-of-Cause-384015451.html; last accessed 06/24/16). Flash flooding
can also result in erosion and sedimentation (Center for Center for
Watershed Protection 2003, pp. 30-33), which, if it occurs in the
catchment area, can subsequently degrade a spring site's value as
habitat for the Kenk's amphipod.
In the Washington metropolitan area, excessive storm water flows
are causing significant habitat degradation at two sites--Sherrill
Drive Spring and Coquelin Run Spring. A washout at Sherrill Drive
Spring from 16th Street was observed in 2016 making it difficult to
find a seep to survey (D. Feller, pers. comm., 06/15/2016). Coquelin
Run Spring is severely degraded by runoff from the surrounding Chevy
Chase Lake Subdivision, where severe erosion was first observed at this
site in 2006 (D. Feller, pers. comm., 07/01/2016). When the site was
first re-surveyed in 2016, a plastic underground pipe several inches in
diameter was observed less than 1 ft (0.3 m) from the original seep (D.
Feller, pers. comm., 02/27/2016; D. Feller, pers. comm., 05/27/2016),
which may have been an attempt to address water flow and erosion at the
site. Erosion was still evident during the 2016 surveys and it was
difficult for MDDNR to find a flowing seep (D. Feller, pers. comm., 02/
27/2016). A small flow was observed in May 2016, but was located
several feet above the original seep documented in 2006. Plastic sheet
material was also observed under this uphill seep (D. Feller, pers.
comm., 05/25/2016), which may have been an attempt to address water
flow and erosion at the site. It is unknown what affect the pipe or
plastic may have on the long-term hydrology of the site.
Erosion from storm water flows has also been observed at the other
four springs in Rock Creek Park, but not to the extent that it has been
observed at Sherrill Drive and Coquelin Run springs. It is unknown how
much chronic or acute erosion and sedimentation causes a site to become
unsuitable for the Kenk's amphipod; however, Culver and Sereg (2004, p.
69) found that sediment transported by storm runoff results in the
degradation of ground water animals' habitat by clogging the
interstices of gravels in the spring seep, thereby preventing the
species from using those interstitial spaces for shelter. It is
uncertain to what extent Kenk's amphipod uses those interstitial
spaces, but if they do, then it is plausible that this type of
sedimentation would cause the habitat to become unsuitable for the
species.
At the Virginia sites, we have no information indicating excessive
storm water flows may affect the species.
Summary of Excessive Storm Water Flows--Excessive storm water flows
are a concern at 60 percent (6 of 10) of the species' sites.
Sewer Line Breaks and Spills
The same riparian areas that contain the habitats of the Kenk's
amphipod are among the principal areas where sewer lines are located in
the Washington metropolitan area (Feller 2005, p. 2). Most of these
sewer lines are old (most installed between 1900 and 1930 in the
District of Columbia, and between 1941 and 1971 in Montgomery County,
MD) and subject to periodic breakage and leakage (Shaver 2011, entire;
Kiely 2013, entire). While there have been no laboratory or field
studies evaluating the effect of sewage leaks or spills on the Kenk's
amphipod or the Potomac groundwater amphipod, adverse effects of sewage
contamination on amphipods and other invertebrates have been documented
by several researchers. For instance, Simon and Buikema (1977, entire)
studied a karst ground water system and found that amphipods were
absent from ground water pools polluted by septic system effluent. The
authors reported that the highest densities of Virginia cave isopods
were found in pools that were slightly and moderately polluted from
septic systems, whereas an amphipod, Stygobromus makini (southwestern
Virginia cave amphipod), was absent from all polluted pools. de-la-
Ossa-Carretero et al. (2012, p. 137) stated that, as an Order,
amphipods were generally sensitive to sewage pollution, but that there
are substantial differences in sensitivity between amphipod species
(de-La-Ossa-Carretero et al. 2012, p. 129).
Releases of large volumes of sewage (up to 2 million gallons (gal))
from sanitary sewer leaks have occurred in the District of Columbia and
Montgomery County, MD. Distances of seep sites to nearby upslope sewer
lines are shown in table 2 below. Based on these distances, Coquelin
Run Spring, Burnt Mill Spring #6, and Sherrill Drive Spring are most
vulnerable to sewage spills (see table 2 below). As mentioned above, a
sanitary sewer line located nearby Sherrill Drive Spring has been
described as structurally unsound and is subject to leakage (Feller
1997, p. 37; B. Yeaman, pers. comm., 06/02/2014; B. Yeaman, pers.
comm., 02/24/15).
Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2015, the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) has documented approximately 38
leaks of more than 1,000 gal in the Rock Creek drainage and 15 leaks of
more than 1,000 gal in the Northwest Branch in Montgomery County.
During the same period there were 136 leaks of more than 100 gal in the
Rock Creek drainage and 51 leaks of more than 100 gal in the
[[Page 67280]]
Northwest Branch in Montgomery County (WSSC 2015). The District of
Columbia does not have such detailed records, but the District of
Columbia Water Chief Executive Officer has stated that half the
District's 1,800 mi (2,896 km) of sewer lines are at least 84 years old
and has estimated that faulty pipes result in two dozen sewer spills
every year (Olivio 2015). The frequency of spills is likely to increase
in the future as the sewer lines continue to age.
Table 2--Sewer and Water Lines Near Kenk's Amphipod Springs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance from
Site name Location Pipe type Diameter in Year installed Pipe material spring in feet
inches ('') (')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 12 1924................ unknown............ 10
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 12 1926................ unknown............ 200
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 30 1958................ unknown............ 30
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 24 1933................ unknown............ 60
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 15 1949................ unknown............ 120
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Water Transmission 30 1955................ PCCP Lined Cylinder 130
Main.
Sherrill Drive Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 12 1919................ cast iron.......... 155
Main.
East Spring...................... Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 18 unknown............. unknown............ 475
East Spring...................... Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 10 1925................ unknown............ 658
East Spring...................... Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 10 1911................ unknown............ 750
East Spring...................... Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 6 1921................ cast iron.......... 560
Main.
East Spring...................... Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 8 1911................ cast iron.......... 740
Main.
Kennedy Street Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 10 1911................ unknown............ 900
Kennedy Street Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 21 1931................ unknown............ 1300
Kennedy Street Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 10 1911................ unknown............ 1350
Kennedy Street Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 8 1911................ cast iron.......... 860
Main.
Kennedy Street Spring............ Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 8 1912................ cast iron.......... 1357
Main.
Coquelin Run Spring.............. Montgomery County, Gravity sewer pipe.. 8 1954................ unknown............ 220
MD.
Coquelin Run Spring.............. Montgomery County, Water pipe.......... 8 1954 (lined 1995)... cast iron or sand 205
MD. spun.
Coquelin Run Spring.............. Montgomery County, Water pipe.......... 4 unknown............. ductile iron....... 213
MD.
Coquelin Run Spring.............. Montgomery County, Water pipe.......... 8 1954 (lined 1995)... cast iron or sand 232
MD. spun.
Burnt Mill Spring #6............. Montgomery County, Gravity sewer pipe.. 6 unknown............. cast iron.......... 186
MD.
Burnt Mill Spring #6............. Montgomery County, Gravity sewer pipe.. 8 unknown............. unknown............ 383
MD.
Burnt Mill Spring #6............. Montgomery County, Water pipe.......... 6 1959................ cast iron or sand 394
MD. spun.
Holsinger Spring................. Rock Creek Park..... Storm Sewer......... 36 1931................ unknown............ 1875
Holsinger Spring................. Rock Creek Park..... Sanitary Sewer...... 18 1908................ unknown............ 1925
Holsinger Spring................. Rock Creek Park..... Water Distribution 6 1898................ cast iron.......... 1885
Main.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Virginia sites, we have no information indicating sewer
pipelines may affect the species.
Summary of Sewer Line Spills--In total, sewer line breaks and
spills are a concern at 30 percent (3 of 10) of the species' sites.
Water Pipe Breaks
Bursting of large-diameter water pipes can cause significant
erosion of surrounding areas as a result of the large volume of fast-
moving water that exits the pipe at the break point. Bursting water
pipes and the resulting erosion has been documented within the
Washington metropolitan area, including at areas near but not directly
at a specific Kenk's amphipod seep site. For example, a 60-in (152.4-
cm) water main broke at the Connecticut Avenue crossing of Coquelin Run
in 2013, releasing 60 million gal of water and scouring out a 500-ft
(152.4-m) length of the creek (Dudley et al. 2013, entire). The
Coquelin Run Spring site is on a small tributary that flows into
Coquelin Run, about a quarter mile downstream of the aforementioned
severely damaged section of the creek bed and, due to its elevation
above Coquelin Run, was not affected by the flood and subsequent
erosion caused by this burst pipe.
The exposure risk of bursting water pipes at locations that could
affect Kenk's amphipod sites is increasing given the age of the water
pipe infrastructure (see table 2 above). As an example, there is one
very-large-diameter (30-in (76-cm)) water pipe within 130 ft (39.6 m)
of Sherrill Drive Spring that was installed more than 60 years ago. The
significant erosion resulting from a large break, should the break
occur near Kenk's amphipod habitat, could eliminate the seep and all
associated amphipods.
[[Page 67281]]
The best available data indicate that there are smaller pipes near
three of the sites (Sherrill Drive Spring, Burnt Mill #6 Spring,
Coquelin Run Spring) (WSSC GIS Web site, https://gisweb.wsscwater.com/WERI/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2fweri, last accessed 12/21/2015) (see
table 2 above). Although less likely to eliminate habitat of springs,
breakage of smaller pipes (less than 1 ft (0.3 m) in diameter) is even
more frequent (Water Research Foundation 2016, p. 2) and still may
result in erosion or sedimentation at the spring site. Coquelin Run
Spring is within 250 ft of a 6- to 8-in (15- to 20-cm) water pipe
installed in 1954 (WSSC GIS Web site). Given the overall age of the
infrastructure and the District of Columbia and Maryland utilities'
inability to keep up with the needed replacements (Shaver 2011, entire;
Kiely 2013, entire), additional breaks are predicted to occur.
At the Virginia sites, we have no information indicating water
pipeline breaks may affect the species.
Summary of Water Pipe Breaks--In total, large water pipeline breaks
are a concern at 10 percent (1 of 10) of the species' sites, while
smaller water pipeline breaks are a concern for 30 percent (3 of 10) of
the sites.
Other Habitat Considerations
Compared to the stressors to the Kenk's amphipod habitat in the
Washington metropolitan area, the stressors to the species' habitat at
Fort A.P. Hill are likely minimal. Little or no development is expected
to occur near the spring sites (J. Applegate, pers. comm., 05/5/2016).
However, military training exercises may be conducted in areas
surrounding the springs, which may result in disturbance of the spring
recharge areas. Live-fire exercises may result in uncontrolled burns
that reduce canopy cover that shades the seep sites, moderates water
temperature, and provides leaf litter for food. Timber harvests and
other forest management activities such as timber stand improvement,
prescribed burns, and possible pesticide application for forest-
destroying pests such as gypsy moths may occur in the general vicinity
of the springs (Fort A.P. Hill 2016, pp. 751-754). Fort A.P. Hill has
included a 100-ft (30.5-m) buffer around the springs in the
installation's Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP)
(2016, pp. 9-22), but it is unknown whether this buffer distance is
sufficient to protect the sites and recharge areas from all of the
activities (e.g., forest management, live-fire exercises) outlined in
the INRMP. However, staff at Fort A.P. Hill have indicated a
willingness to work with the Service to delineate recharge areas based
on topography, and, if needed, institute more protective buffers (J.
Applegate, pers. comm., 06/15/2016).
Summary of Factor A--Habitat modification, in the form of degraded
water quality and quantity, is one of the primary drivers affecting
Kenk's amphipod viability, despite the discussed ongoing conservation
measures. Reductions in water quality are occurring primarily as a
result of urbanization, which increases the amount of impervious cover
in the watersheds surrounding Kenk's amphipod sites. Impervious cover
increases storm water flow velocities and increases erosion and
sedimentation. Impervious cover can also increase the transport of
contaminants and nutrients common in urban environments, such as heavy
metals (zinc, cadmium), nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform
bacteria. The Washington metropolitan area sites have narrow riparian
buffers separating them from the surrounding development, increasing
the sites' exposure to poor water quality runoff. Poor water quality
has been documented at Sherrill Drive Spring but is likely affecting
all six sites in the Washington metropolitan area, whereas the Virginia
sites are not thought to be affected by poor water quality because of
the larger forested buffers on Fort A.P. Hill.
Excessive storm water runoff from heavy rain events can result in
flooding, which can cause erosion and sedimentation. Habitat
degradation due to excessive storm water flows is having significant
effects at two sites--Sherrill Drive Spring and Coquelin Run Spring--
but has also been observed at the other four springs in Rock Creek
Park, and may increase in the future. At the Virginia sites, we have no
information indicating excessive storm water flows may affect the
species.
Sewer and water line breaks and leaks are a concern at the
Washington metropolitan area sites because most of them are located in
the same riparian areas that contain the habitats of the Kenk's
amphipod. While leaks and breaks of these pipelines have not yet been
known to directly affect the species or its habitat, the pipeline
systems are subjected to chronic leaks and breaks, the frequency of
which is likely to increase given the age of the infrastructure, and
thus the exposure risk of the species to this stressor will continue to
increase. Coquelin Run Spring, Burnt Mill Spring #6, and Sherrill Drive
Spring are most vulnerable to sewage spills and water pipe breaks due
to the pipe's proximity to each site and the age of the pipes. At the
Virginia sites, we have no information indicating sewer or water
pipeline breaks may affect the species.
Potential stressors to Kenk's amphipod habitat are lesser in scope
and severity at Fort A.P. Hill, as opposed to the Washington
metropolitan area habitat, and are associated with disturbance to the
surface habitat.
Table 3--Relative Vulnerability of Kenk's Amphipod Seep Habitat Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current biological status
Site name Location Current seep status of the Kenk's amphipod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherrill Drive Spring............. Rock Creek Park, Approximately 50' to road, Extirpated? Not found in
Washington, DC. documented decrease in recent surveys. No other
water quality (chemical Stygobromus present.
and sedimentation), Last detected 2001 (8
within 10' of 1924 sewer surveys since and none
pipe and 130' of 1955 found).
30'' water pipe.
East Spring....................... Rock Creek Park, Approximately 300-500' Unknown. Not found in
Washington, DC. buffer of protected recent surveys but other
forest, within 560' of 6- Stygobromus present.
8'' 1921 water pipe. Last detected 2001 (7
surveys in 2015-2016 and
none found).
Kennedy Street Spring............. Rock Creek Park, Approximately 500' buffer Unknown. Not found in
Washington, DC. of protected forest, recent surveys but other
within 860' of 6-8'' 1911 Stygobromus present.
water pipe. Last detected 2001 (5
surveys since and none
found).
Holsinger Spring.................. Rock Creek Park, Approximately 700-1,000' Historical? Not
Washington, DC. buffer of protected documented since 1967. 1
forest. survey in 2003 and 3
surveys in 2015 and none
found.
Burnt Mill Spring #6.............. Northwest Branch In county park protected Unknown. Not found in
Park, Montgomery from further development, recent surveys but other
County, MD. within 186' of unknown Stygobromus present.
age sewer pipe and 394' Last detected in 2005
of 6-8'' 1959 water pipe. (10 surveys since and
none found).
[[Page 67282]]
Coquelin Run Spring............... Private land, Erosion problems are Present in upslope
Montgomery County, already apparent, site portion of seep (1
MD. has been modified with a individual found in last
plastic pipe and plastic survey); lower portion
material, and riparian has some erosion and
forest is very narrow, species absent in recent
within 220' of 1952 sewer surveys (3 surveys and
pipe and 250' of 6-8'' none found).
1954 water pipe.
Fort A.P. Hill.................... Department of Good habitat quality, Recently discovered. 1
(4 seeps)......................... Defense, Caroline sites unaffected by individual each found at
County, VA. urbanization. Military Upper Mill 2, Mill 4,
exercises and forest and Mount 2; 4
management could affect individuals found at
surface habitat if Mill 5.
protective areas
encompassing the recharge
area are not established
and implemented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a factor affecting the Kenk's
amphipod. The Kenk's amphipod is a Maryland State endangered species
under its Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (Section 10-
2A-01-09 of the Maryland Code). This designation makes ``taking,
possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale, offer for
sale, or shipment within the State'' of a State-listed species
unlawful. Kenk's amphipod is considered a species of greatest
conservation need in the District of Columbia's State Wildlife Action
Plan (https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/03%202015%20WildlifeActionPlan%20%20Ch2%20SGCN.pdf; last accessed 8/10/
2016), but this status does not confer any regulatory protection; the
species is not State-listed in Virginia.
Distribution surveys for the species are coordinated with the
Service and, where required, collection is permitted through the
Service, NPS, and the MDDNR. Whether specifically permitted or not, all
amphipod surveys are conducted using consistent methodology and
collection protocols. The target species of Stygobromus is collected
based on size, and the number of individuals collected at each spring
has been limited to 10 or fewer individuals in the target species' size
range. However, the Service has allowed larger numbers to be collected
during 2016 surveys in the Washington metropolitan area since none of
the specimens of appropriate size collected in the 2015 surveys have
been identified to be Kenk's amphipod. These protocols are followed to
minimize effects to the species. Because the occurrence of subterranean
invertebrates at spring emergence sites likely represents only a
portion of the actual underground population, the Service has
considered the collecting procedures (Feller 1997, p. 2) to be
nondetrimental to the populations.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We have no information that indicates that either disease or
predation is affecting the Kenk's amphipod.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The following existing regulatory mechanisms were specifically
considered and discussed as they relate to the stressors, under the
applicable Factors, affecting the Kenk's amphipod: The CWA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Rock Creek Park enabling
legislation of 1890, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916
(Factor A) and Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (Factor
B). In Factor A we conclude that habitat modification, in the form of
degraded water quality and quantity, is one of the primary drivers
affecting Kenk's amphipod viability. In Factor B we conclude that
overutilization is not known to be affecting the species. There are no
existing regulatory mechanisms to address the stressors affecting the
species under Factor E (see below).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small Population Dynamics
The observed small size of each of the 10 Kenk's amphipod
populations makes each one vulnerable to natural environmental
stochasticity and human-caused habitat disturbance, including
relatively minor impacts in their spring recharge areas. Each
population is also vulnerable to demographic stochasticity, including
loss of genetic variability and adaptive capacity. Unless the
populations are larger than we know or are hydrologically connected
such that individuals can move between sites, we conclude that these
small populations are vulnerable to the effects of small population
dynamics.
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more
likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift,
potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
and reducing the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980, pp. 157-158;
Hunter 2002, pp. 162-163; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146).
Small population sizes and inhibited gene flow between populations may
increase the likelihood of local extirpation (Gilpin and Soul[eacute]
1986, pp. 32-34). With the exception for the Mount Creek #2 and Mount
Creek #5 populations at Fort A.P. Hill, which are separated by only
approximately 360 ft (110 m), all the other populations of the Kenk's
amphipod are isolated from other existing populations and known
historical habitats by long distances, inhospitable upland habitat, and
terrain that creates barriers to amphipod movement. The level of
isolation and the restricted range seen in this species, based on our
current knowledge of known habitat, make natural repopulation of
historical habitats (e.g., the District of Columbia sites and Burnt
Mill Spring #6 where the species' presence has not been recently
confirmed) and other potentially suitable habitat virtually impossible
without human intervention.
Effects of Climate Change
Climate change may result in changes in the amount and timing of
precipitation, the frequency and intensity of storms, and air
temperatures. All of these changes could affect the Kenk's amphipod and
its habitat. The amount and timing of precipitation influence spring
flow, which is an important feature of the habitat of this groundwater
species. Also, the frequency and intensity of storms affects the
frequency, duration, and intensity of runoff events, and runoff
transport of sediment and contaminants (see Factor A above) into
catchment areas of Kenk's amphipod sites, especially in the Washington
metropolitan area, where there is a substantial amount of impervious
cover in close proximity to the habitat. Below we discuss the best
available climate predictions for the areas supporting the Kenk's
amphipod.
[[Page 67283]]
The 2014 National Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire)
predicts increasing ambient temperatures, increasing winter and spring
precipitation, increasing frequency of heavy downpours, and increasing
summer and fall drought risk as higher temperatures lead to greater
evaporation and earlier winter and spring snowmelt (Horton et al. 2014,
p. 374 In Melillo et al. 2014). These droughts may result in the drying
up of springs and mortality of the Kenk's amphipod, while the increase
in heavy downpours will likely result in increased runoff and resulting
erosion of surface features at spring sites, based on previously
documented events. The 2014 National Climate Assessment further
indicates that overall warming in the Northeast, including Maryland and
the District of Columbia, but not Virginia, will be from 3 to 10
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.7 to 5.6 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) by
the 2080s (Horton et al. 2014, p. 374 In Melillo et al. 2014).
Data specific to the District of Columbia from NOAA's National
Climate Data Center (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/49/USW00093738/tavg/1/5/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2016, last accessed 07/20/
2016) shows that the average annual air temperature in the District of
Columbia area has already increased by approximately 3[emsp14][deg]F
(1.7 [deg]C) from 1960, the decade corresponding to the first Kenk's
amphipod surveys, to 2015. This higher rate of change in the District
of Columbia area may be due to the urban heat island effect (Oke 1995,
p. 187), which is an increase in ambient temperature due to heating of
impervious surfaces. This activity also results in an increase in
temperature of rainwater that falls on heat-absorbing roads and parking
lots. A sudden thunderstorm striking a parking lot that has been
sitting in hot sunshine can easily result in a 10[emsp14][deg]F (5.6
[deg]C) increase in the rainfall temperature. Menke et al. (2010, pp.
147-148) showed that these temporary increases in temperature of storm
water can still result in a shift in the biotic community composition
and even accelerate changes in species distributions. Based on the work
of Menberg et al. (2014, entire), we expect these changes in air
temperature to be reflected in the temperature of the shallow ground
water within a few years, but at a lower magnitude. While we do not
have specific temperature tolerance information for the Kenk's
amphipod, there are studies of other amphipod species that indicate
sensitivity to elevated temperatures, exhibited by reduced or
eliminated egg survival at water temperatures above 75[emsp14][deg]F
(24 [deg]C) to 79[emsp14][deg]F (26 [deg]C) (Pockl and Humpesch 1990,
pp. 445-449).
In summary, it is highly probable that by the 2080s some increase
in ground water temperatures will occur at sites occupied by the Kenk's
amphipod, but the magnitude and significance of these changes is
difficult to predict.
Change in Species Composition
At most of the Washington metropolitan area sites supporting the
Kenk's amphipod, numbers of the Potomac groundwater amphipod, which is
the most widely distributed and abundant Stygobromus species in the
lower Potomac drainage (Kavanaugh 2009, p. 6), have increased as
numbers of observed Kenk's amphipod have declined (D. Feller, pers.
comm., 03/16/2016; D. Feller, pers. comm., 04/22/2016). The exact cause
of this change is not known, but it may be an indication that some
stressor has led to a competitive advantage for the Potomac groundwater
amphipod (Culver et al. 2012, p. 29). Other than at Coquelin Run
Spring, there are no obvious physical changes at these sites indicating
a cause for the decline. However, as described above in Factor A,
impaired water quality could favor a more common species over a rare
species. Culver and Sereg (2004, pp. 72-73) indicated that there is a
possibility that the Kenk's amphipod is a poor competitor with other
Stygobromus species, which may be a factor promoting the Kenk's
amphipod's natural rarity, and that in cave locations Stygobromus
species strongly compete with each other. While the Kenk's amphipod may
have always been naturally rare, we conclude that the species may be
getting rarer due to the stressors discussed above.
Summary of Factor E--Small population size at all of the sites
makes each one of them vulnerable to natural environmental
stochasticity and human-caused habitat disturbance, including
relatively minor impacts in their spring recharge areas. The small size
and isolation of sites also make each population vulnerable to
demographic stochasticity, including loss of genetic variability and
adaptive capacity.
The best available climate data indicate that the areas supporting
the Kenk's amphipod will see increasing ambient temperatures,
increasing winter and spring precipitation, increasing frequency of
heavy downpours, and increasing summer and fall drought risk as higher
temperatures lead to greater evaporation and earlier winter and spring
snowmelt. Droughts could result in drying up of spring sites, while the
increase in heavy downpours could result in erosion and sedimentation
of sites. Ambient air temperature has increased by 3 [deg]F (1.7
[deg]C) since 1960, and is expected to increase by 10[emsp14][deg]F
(5.6 [deg]C) by the 2080s. It is highly probable that by the 2080s some
increase in ground water temperatures will occur at sites occupied by
the Kenk's amphipod, but the magnitude and significance of these
changes is difficult to predict.
Cumulative Effects
Many of the factors discussed above are cumulatively and
synergistically affecting the Kenk's amphipod. For example, Kenk's
amphipod habitat can be degraded by storm water runoff, which is likely
to increase with more frequent and intense storms and precipitation
levels in the future. Species with larger populations are naturally
more resilient to the stressors affecting individuals or local
occurrences, while smaller populations or individuals are more
susceptible to demographic or stochastic events. Below we discuss the
Kenk's amphipod's viability as expressed through the conservation
biology principles of representation, redundancy, and resiliency, which
illustrate how the cumulative and synergistic effects are affecting the
species as a whole.
Redundancy--The species has some redundancy given its known
distribution is 10 sites across 3 municipal jurisdictions and multiple
streams. For example, the isolation of the two Montgomery County, MD,
populations from other Washington metropolitan area populations and
their occurrence along different tributary streams make it unlikely
that a single catastrophic adverse event (e.g., a spill) will eliminate
more than one occurrence at a time. In addition, the Virginia sites
occur in two stream areas, Mill Creek and Mount Creek, making it
unlikely that a single military training event or other catastrophic
event will eliminate more than one occurrence at a time.
Representation--Based on the information about historical changes
to the landscape across the Washington metropolitan area, we conclude
it is likely that the species' historical distribution was larger than
the current distribution; therefore, the species may have previously
experienced a significant loss in representation. Also, because we do
not yet have any information on the genetics of these populations, we
cannot determine
[[Page 67284]]
whether the species possesses a single genetic identity or has genetic
variability across populations. Therefore, we conclude that the
species' representation has likely been reduced, and may currently be
limited.
Resiliency--Given the range of the species, the small number of
seeps and individuals at those seeps, and each seep's vulnerability to
stressors, the Kenk's amphipod's overall resiliency is low. Based on
the best available data, we conclude that the stressors to the species
are not decreasing and, in most cases, are expected to increase in the
future. Furthermore, the small size of each of the 10 habitat areas
makes each population vulnerable to natural environmental stochasticity
and human-caused habitat disturbance, including relatively minor
effects in the spring recharge area. As a result of habitat
fragmentation/isolation there is a lack of connectivity and genetic
exchange between populations and, we assume, a lack of ability to
recolonize extirpated sites, leading to an overall reduced resiliency
for the species.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal 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.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors
to the Kenk's amphipod and find that several of those stressors rise to
the level of threats to the species as a whole. Habitat loss and
degradation (Factor A) from poor water quality parameters associated
with urban runoff in Maryland and the District of Columbia has
decreased water quality and increased erosion and sedimentation at
several shallow ground water habitat sites. These parameters are likely
to be exacerbated in the future by the increasing risk of exposure to
breaks and leaks from the aging sewer and water pipe infrastructure
(Factor A), as well as more frequent and intense rainfall events, due
to the effects of climate change (Factor E). In addition, all 10 sites
are characterized by small numbers of the Kenk's amphipod that appear
to be declining and affected by the inherent vulnerabilities associated
with small population dynamics (Factor E). Overutilization (Factor B),
disease (Factor C), and predation (Factor C) are not considered threats
to the Kenk's amphipod. The existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D)
for the stressors and threats affecting the species have been evaluated
under Factors A, B, and E. While the Kenk's amphipod has some
redundancy and representation, the resiliency of each individual site
is compromised, making the species' overall resiliency low.
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 Kenk's amphipod is
presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on
the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting the species.
The best available data indicate that, while the species may have
always been represented by small numbers of individuals found at the
surface of each seep site, the species' abundance appears to be
declining. In addition, each of the 10 known seep sites are vulnerable
to varying levels of stressors and threats: 1 Seep (Sherrill Drive
Spring), based on repeated negative survey results combined with
documented poor water quality, may be extirpated, and another seep
(Coquelin Run Spring) has visible erosion and sedimentation. The Kenk's
amphipod has some redundancy and representation, but those two
conservation parameters are compromised due to each site's low
resiliency, all of which makes the species' overall resiliency low. The
primary drivers affecting the species' viability (water quality and
habitat degradation and small population dynamics) are difficult to
manage because either they are caused by factors outside the control of
the landowner's jurisdiction (e.g., poor water quality or risk of
sewer/water line spills at NPS-controlled sites) or there are no
apparent management actions to minimize or control them (e.g., small
population dynamics), and some of those threats and additional
stressors are likely to increase in the future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing the Kenk's amphipod as
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We
find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Kenk's
amphipod based on the high magnitude and imminence of the threats
across the species' range. If additional Kenk's amphipod sites are
found and those sites are individually resilient and add to the
species' overall representation, redundancy, and resiliency, then a
threatened species status may be appropriate at that time.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
Kenk's amphipod is an endangered 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 37578; July 1,
2014).
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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-
[[Page 67285]]
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. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Chesapeake Bay 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 Maryland, Commonwealth
of Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the Kenk's amphipod. Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Kenk's amphipod is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery 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 recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a), and in particular section 7(a)(1), of the Act
requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any
species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened
species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated.
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed
for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or
its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service
(Rock Creek Park) and U.S. Army (Fort A.P. Hill); issuance of section
404 CWA permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. At this time, we are unable to identify
specific activities that would not be considered to result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act because the Kenk's amphipod occurs in
seep habitats that are influenced by the surrounding environment and it
is likely that site-specific conservation measures may be needed for
activities that may directly or indirectly affect the species.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of
fill material, use of motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles
or creation of trails that would increase foot traffic through the
spring area, draining, or diversion or alteration of surface or ground
water flow into or out of the seepage springs or catchment basins;
(3) Forest management practices that alter the seepage spring sites
or remove canopy cover from above the seepage spring sites;
[[Page 67286]]
(4) Discharge of chemicals, storm water, or runoff into the seepage
springs or catchment basins.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Chesapeake
Bay Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Critical Habitat for the Kenk's amphipod (Stygobromus Kenki)
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism under Factor B for the Kenk's amphipod.
Identification and mapping of critical habitat is not likely to
increase any such threat. In the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new
areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to
this species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Kenk's amphipod.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist: (i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (ii)
The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the Kenk's amphipod and habitat
characteristics where the species is located. Because we are awaiting
the results of hydrology studies that support the species' physical and
biological features, and additional surveys in new habitat areas (e.g.,
accessible areas within steep, sloped, forested habitat overlaying the
Calvert formation in Maryland and Virginia), we conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is not determinable for the Kenk's
amphipod at this time. We will make a determination on critical habitat
no later than 1 year following any final listing determination.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
[[Page 67287]]
(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 ADDRESSES. 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
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
Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the Northeast Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), add an entry for ``Amphipod, Kenk's'' to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under
CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Crustaceans
* * * * * * *
Amphipod, Kenk's................. Stygobromus kenki.. Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-23103 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P