[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48722-48741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20018]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0027; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
RIN 1018-AV85
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky
Madtom, and Laurel Dace
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush
darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma
moorei), chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace (Chrosomus
saylori) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
This final rule implements the Federal protections provided by the Act
for these species throughout their ranges, including Cumberland darter
in Kentucky and Tennessee, rush darter in Alabama, yellowcheek darter
in Arkansas, and chucky madtom and laurel dace in Tennessee. We intend
to propose critical habitat in an upcoming rulemaking, which is
expected within the next few months.
DATES: This rule becomes effective September 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will be
[[Page 48723]]
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931-528-
6481; facsimile 931-528-7075.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Cumberland darter, contact Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, J.C. Watts
Federal Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, Frankfort, KY 40601;
telephone 502-695-0468; facsimile 502-695-1024.
For information regarding the rush darter, contact Stephen Ricks,
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A,
Jackson, MS 39213; telephone 601-965-4900; facsimile 601-965-4340 or
Bill Pearson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama
Ecological Services Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526;
telephone 251-441-5181; fax 251-441-6222.
For information regarding the yellowcheek darter, contact Jim
Boggs, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300,
Conway, AR 72032; telephone 501-513-4470; facsimile 501-513-4480.
For information regarding the chucky madtom and laurel dace,
contact Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street,
Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931-528-6481; facsimile 931-528-7075.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document consists of a final rule to list the Cumberland
darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum),
yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky madtom (Noturus
crypticus), and laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(Act). The Act requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the
Act, an endangered species is any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species is any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet
these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at
50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR
17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we
regard as candidates for listing. We call this list the Candidate
Notice of Review (CNOR). A candidate species is one for which we have
on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats
to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for
which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for
listing based on an evaluation of its status that we conducted on our
own initiative, or as a result of making a finding on a petition to
list a species that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher
priority listing action. Table 1 includes the citation information for
the CNORs mentioned in the following paragraphs, which discuss the
previous candidate status of each of the five species being listed as
endangered in this rule.
Table 1--Federal Register Citation Information for Certain Candidate Notices of Review Issued by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Since 1985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register volume and Date of publication in the Federal
Year page number Register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985..................................... 50 FR 37958................. September 18, 1985.
1989..................................... 54 FR 554................... January 6, 1989.
1991..................................... 56 FR 58804................. November 21, 1991.
1994..................................... 59 FR 58982................. November 15, 1994.
1996..................................... 61 FR 7596.................. February 28, 1996.
1999..................................... 64 FR 57533................. October 25, 1999.
2001..................................... 66 FR 54807................. October 30, 2001.
2002..................................... 67 FR 40657................. June 13, 2002.
2004..................................... 69 FR 24875................. May 4, 2004.
2005..................................... 70 FR 24869................. May 11, 2005.
2006..................................... 71 FR 53755................. September 12, 2006.
2007..................................... 72 FR 69034................. December 6, 2007.
2008..................................... 73 FR 75176................. December 10, 2008.
2009..................................... 74 FR 57804................. November 9, 2009.
2010..................................... 75 FR 69222................. November 10, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Federal Action
Cumberland Darter
The Cumberland darter was first identified as a candidate for
listing in the 1985 CNOR. It was assigned a Category 2 status, which
was given to those species for which the Service possessed information
indicating that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was
possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threat was not currently available to support
proposed rules. The Cumberland darter retained the Category 2 status in
the 1989, 1991, and 1994 CNORs.
Assigning categories to candidate species was discontinued in 1996,
and only species for which the Service had sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed
rule were regarded as candidate species. Candidate species were also
assigned listing priority numbers based on immediacy and the magnitude
of threat, as well as their taxonomic status. In the 1999, 2001, 2002,
and 2004 CNORs, the Cumberland darter was identified as a
[[Page 48724]]
listing priority 6 candidate species. We published a petition finding
for Cumberland darter in the 2005 CNOR in response to a petition
received on May 11, 2004, stating the darter would retain a listing
priority of 6.
In the 2006 CNOR, we changed the listing priority number for
Cumberland darter from 6 to 5, because it was formally described as a
distinct species. Based on new molecular evidence, the subspecies
Etheostoma nigrum susanae was elevated to specific status, Etheostoma
susanae. In the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the Cumberland darter
retained a listing priority of 5. On June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035) we
published a proposed rule to list the Cumberland darter as endangered.
Rush Darter
We first identified the rush darter as a candidate for listing in
the 2002 CNOR. The rush darter was assigned a listing priority number
of 5. In the 2004 CNOR, the rush darter retained a listing priority
number of 5. We published a petition finding for rush darter in the
2005 CNOR in response to a petition received on May 11, 2004, stating
the darter would retain a listing priority of 5.
In 2006, we changed the listing priority number of the rush darter
from 5 to 2 based on the imminent threat of water quality deterioration
(i.e., increased sedimentation due to urbanization, road maintenance,
and silviculture practices). In the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs,
the rush darter retained a listing priority of 2. We proposed to list
the rush darter as endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035).
Yellowcheek Darter
We first identified the yellowcheek darter as a candidate for
listing in the 2001 CNOR with a listing priority of 2. The yellowcheek
darter retained a listing priority number of 2 in the 2002 and 2004
CNORs. We published a petition finding for yellowcheek darter in the
2005 CNOR in response to a petition received on May 11, 2004, stating
the darter would retain a listing priority of 2.
In the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 CNORs, the yellowcheek
darter retained a listing priority of 2. The yellowcheek darter is
covered by a 2007 programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with
Assurances (71 FR 53129) that covers the entire range of the species.
We proposed to list the yellowcheek darter as endangered on June 24,
2010 (75 FR 36035).
Chucky Madtom
We first identified the chucky madtom as a candidate for listing in
the 1994 CNOR with a Category 2 status. In the 2002 and 2004 CNORs, the
chucky madtom was identified as a listing priority 2 candidate species.
We published a petition finding for chucky madtom in the 2005 CNOR in
response to a petition received on May 11, 2004, stating the madtom
would retain a listing priority of 2. In the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010 CNORs, the chucky madtom retained a listing priority of 2.
In 1994, the chucky madtom was first added to the candidate list as
Noturus sp. Subsequently, and based on morphological and molecular
evidence, the chucky madtom was formally described as a distinct
species, Noturus crypticus (Burr et al. 2005). We included this new
information in the 2006 CNOR. We proposed to list the chucky madtom as
endangered on June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035).
Laurel Dace
We first identified the laurel dace as a new candidate for listing
in the 2007 CNOR. New candidates are those taxa for which we have
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities.
In the 2007 CNOR, we assigned the laurel dace a listing priority of
5. The laurel dace retained a listing priority of 5 in the 2008, 2009,
and 2010 CNORs. We proposed to list the laurel dace as endangered on
June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36035).
Species Information
Cumberland Darter
The Cumberland darter (Etheostoma (Boleosoma) susanae (Jordan and
Swain)) is a medium-sized member of the fish tribe Etheostomatini
(family Percidae) that reaches over 5.5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches
(in)) standard length (SL) (length from tip of snout to start of the
caudal peduncle (slender region extending from behind the anal fin to
the base of the caudal fin)) (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 512). The
species has a straw-yellow background body color with brown markings
that form six evenly spaced dorsal (back) saddles and a series of X-,
C-, or W-shaped markings on its sides (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p.
510). During spawning season, the overall body color of breeding males
darkens, and the side markings become obscure or appear as a series of
blotches (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 510).
The Cumberland darter was first described as Boleosoma susanae by
Jordan and Swain (1883, pp. 249-250) from tributaries of the Clear Fork
of the Cumberland River, Kentucky. Subsequent studies by Kuhne (1939,
p. 92) and Cole (1967, p. 29) formerly recognized the taxon as a
subspecies (Etheostoma nigrum susanae) of E. n. nigrum (Johnny darter).
Starnes and Starnes (1979, p. 427) clarified the subspecific status of
the Cumberland darter, differentiating it from the Johnny darter by
several diagnostic characteristics. Strange (1998, p. 101) elevated E.
n. susanae to full species status based on analyses of mitochondrial
DNA for E. n. susanae and E. n. nigrum.
The Cumberland darter inhabits pools or shallow runs of low- to
moderate-gradient sections of streams with stable sand, silt, or sand-
covered bedrock substrates (O'Bara 1988, pp. 10-11; O'Bara 1991, p. 10;
Thomas 2007, p. 4). Thomas (2007, p. 4) did not encounter the species
in high-gradient sections of streams or areas dominated by cobble or
boulder substrates. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported that streams inhabited
by Cumberland darters were second to fourth order, with widths ranging
from 4 to 9 meters (m) (11 to 30 feet (ft)) and depths ranging from 20
to 76 cm (8 to 30 in).
Little is known regarding the reproductive habits of the Cumberland
darter. Thomas (2007, p. 4) reported the collection of males in
breeding condition in April and May, with water temperatures ranging
from 15 to 18 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (59 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)). Extensive searches by Thomas (2007, p. 4) produced no
evidence of nests or eggs at these sites. Species commonly associated
with the Cumberland darter during surveys by Thomas (2007, pp. 4-5)
were creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), northern hogsucker
(Hypentelium nigricans), stripetail darter (E. kennicotti), and
Cumberland arrow darter (E. sagitta sagitta). Feeding habits are
unknown but are likely similar to that of the closely related species,
the Johnny darter (E. nigrum). Johnny darters are sight feeders, with
prey items consisting of midge larvae, mayfly nymphs, caddisfly larvae,
and microcrustaceans (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511). Thomas (2007,
p. 5) collected individuals of the Federally threatened blackside dace
(Chrosomus cumberlandensis), from three streams that also supported
Cumberland darters.
The Cumberland darter is endemic to the upper Cumberland River
system
[[Page 48725]]
above Cumberland Falls in Kentucky and Tennessee (O'Bara 1988, p. 1;
O'Bara 1991, p. 9; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511). The earliest known
collections of the species were made by Jordan and Swain (1883, pp.
249-250), who recorded it as abundant in tributaries of Clear Fork of
the Cumberland River, Kentucky. The species was later reported from Gum
Fork, Scott County, Tennessee, by Shoup and Peyton (1940, p. 11), and
seven additional tributaries of the Cumberland River by Burr and Warren
(1986, p. 310). More exhaustive surveys by O'Bara (1988, p. 6; 1991,
pp. 9-10) and Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998; pp. 83-233, 303-408)
determined that the Cumberland darter was restricted to short reaches
of 20 small streams (23 sites) in the upper Cumberland River system in
Whitley and McCreary Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and Scott
Counties, Tennessee. These studies suggested the extirpation of the
species from Little Wolf Creek in Whitley County, Kentucky, and Gum
Fork in Scott County, Tennessee. Preliminary reports of disjunct
populations in the Poor Fork Cumberland River and Martins Fork in
Letcher and Harlan Counties, Kentucky (Starnes and Starnes 1979, p.
427; O'Bara 1988, p. 6; O'Bara 1991, pp. 9-10), were evaluated
genetically and determined to be the Johnny darter (Strange 1998, p.
101).
Thomas (2007, p. 3) provided the most recent information on status
and distribution of the species through completion of a range-wide
status assessment in the upper Cumberland River drainage in Kentucky.
Between June 2005 and April 2007, a total of 47 sites were sampled
qualitatively in the upper Cumberland River drainage. All Kentucky
sites with historic records were surveyed (20 sites), as well as 27
others having potentially suitable habitat. Surveys by Thomas (2007, p.
3) produced a total of 51 specimens from 13 localities (12 streams).
Only one of the localities represented a new occurrence record for the
species.
In 2008, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
(KDFWR) initiated a propagation and reintroduction project for the
Cumberland darter in the upper Cumberland River drainage (Thomas et al.
2010, p. 107). Utilizing State Wildlife Grant funds from the Service,
KDFWR worked cooperatively with Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (CFI) of
Knoxville, Tennessee, to develop captive propagation protocols for the
species and to produce juvenile Cumberland darters that could be
reintroduced within the species' historic range. Cogur Fork, a
tributary to Indian Creek in McCreary County, Kentucky, was chosen by
KDFWR as a suitable reintroduction site. Cumberland darters were
released into Cogur Fork in August 2009 and September 2010. Surveys in
November 2010 resulted in recaptures of individuals released in 2009
and 2010, as well as captures of four individuals without tags
(possibly native individuals) (Thomas pers. comm. 2010). Based on these
results, it appears that reintroduction efforts have been effective,
with Cumberland darters persisting within Cogur Fork since 2009.
Furthermore, captures of untagged individuals in 2009 and 2010 suggest
that Cogur Fork also supports a small, native population of the
species.
Currently, the Cumberland darter is known from 15 localities in a
total of 13 streams in Kentucky (McCreary and Whitley Counties) and
Tennessee (Campbell and Scott Counties). All 15 extant occurrences of
the Cumberland darter are restricted to short stream reaches, with the
majority believed to be restricted to less than 1.6 kilometers (km) (1
mile (mi)) of stream (O'Bara 1991, pp. 9-10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). These
occurrences are thought to form six population clusters (Bunches Creek,
Indian Creek, Marsh Creek, Jellico Creek, Clear Fork, and Youngs
Creek), which are geographically separated from one another by an
average distance of 30.5 stream km (19 stream mi) (O'Bara 1988, p. 12;
O'Bara 1991, p. 10; Thomas 2007, p. 3). Based on collection efforts by
O'Bara (1991, pp. 9-10), Laudermilk and Cicerello (1998; pp. 83-233,
303-408), and Thomas (2007, p. 3), the species appears to be extirpated
from 11 historical collection sites and a total of 9 streams:
Cumberland River mainstem, near the mouth of Bunches Creek and
Cumberland Falls (Whitley County); Sanders Creek (Whitley County);
Brier Creek (Whitley County); Kilburn Fork of Indian Creek (McCreary
County); Bridge Fork (McCreary County); Marsh Creek, near mouth of Big
Branch and Caddell Branch (McCreary County); Cal Creek (McCreary
County); Little Wolf Creek (Whitley County); and Gum Fork (Scott
County). No population estimates or status trends are available for the
Cumberland darter; however, survey results by Thomas (2007, p. 3)
suggest that the species is uncommon or occurs in low densities across
its range (Thomas 2007, p. 3).
The Cumberland darter is ranked by the Kentucky State Nature
Preserves Commission (KSNPC) (2009, p. 38) and the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) (2009, p. 53) as a G1G2S1
species: critically imperiled or imperiled globally and critically
imperiled in Kentucky and Tennessee. The KDFWR State Wildlife Action
Plan identified the Cumberland darter as a species of Greatest
Conservation Need (GCN) and identified several top conservation actions
for it and other species in its Aquatic Guild (Upland Headwater Streams
in Pools), including: Acquisition or conservation easements for
critical habitat, development of financial incentives to protect
riparian (land adjacent to stream channel) corridors, development and
implementation of best management practices, and restoration of
degraded habitats through various State and Federal programs (KDFWR
2005, p. 2.2.2). The Cumberland darter is designated as a Tier 1 GCN
species in the Tennessee Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
(CWCS) (TWRA 2005, pp. 44, 49).
Rush Darter
The rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) is a medium-sized darter
in the family Percidae, tribe Etheostomatini, and subgenus Fuscatelum.
The species reaches an average size of 5 cm (2 in) SL (Bart and Taylor
1999, p. 28; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 3). The rush darter was
described by Bart and Taylor in 1999 (pp. 27-33), and is closely
related to the goldstripe darter (E. parvipinne), a drab-colored
species with a thin golden stripe along the lateral line (canal along
the side of a fish with sensory capabilities) that is surrounded by
heavily mottled or stippled sides (Shaw 1996, p. 85). However, the
distinct golden stripe characteristic of goldstripe darters is not well
developed in rush darters (Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 29). Also, the
brown pigment on the sides of the rush darter is usually not as intense
as in the goldstripe darter. Other characteristics of the rush darter
are described in Bart and Taylor (1999, p. 28).
Rush darters have been collected from various habitats (Stiles and
Mills 2008, pp. 1-4; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3-
4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32),
including root masses of emergent vegetation along the margins of
spring-fed streams in very shallow, clear, cool, and flowing water; and
from both small clumps and dense stands of bur reed (Sparganium sp.),
coontail (Ceratophyllum sp.), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), and
rush (Juncus sp.) in streams with substrates of silt, sand, sand and
silt, muck and sand or some gravel with sand, and bedrock. Rush darters
appear to prefer springs and spring-fed reaches of relatively low-
gradient small streams,
[[Page 48726]]
which are generally influenced by springs (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp.
1-4; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 1; Bart 2002, p. 1; Johnston and Kleiner
2001, pp. 3-4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; Bart and Taylor
1999, p. 32). Rush darters have also been collected in wetland pools
(Stiles and Mills 2008; pp. 2-3). Water depth at collection sites
ranged from 3.0 cm to 0.5 m (0.1 ft to 1.6 ft), with moderate water
velocity in riffles and no flow or low flow in pools. Rush darters have
not been found in higher gradient streams with bedrock substrates and
sparse vegetation (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-4; Bart 2002, p. 1;
Johnston and Kleiner 2001, pp. 3-4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4;
Bart and Taylor 1999, p. 32).
Stiles and Mills (2008, p. 2) found gravid rush darter females in
February and fry (newly hatched larval fish) in late April from a
wetland pool in the Mill Creek watershed (Winston County, Alabama).
These pools act as nursery areas for the fry (Stiles and Mills 2008, p.
5). While little is known specifically about the life history of the
rush darter, this information is available for the goldstripe darter, a
related species in the Etheostoma genus. Spawning of the goldstripe
darter in Alabama occurs from mid-March through June (Mettee et al.
1996, p. 655). Preferred food items for the goldstripe darter include
midge larvae, mayfly nymphs, blackfly larvae, beetles, and
microcrustaceans (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 655). The lifespan of the
goldstripe darter is estimated to be 2 to 3 years.
The rush darter currently has a restricted distribution (Johnston
and Kleiner 2001, p. 1). All rush darter populations are located above
the Fall Line (the inland boundary of the Coastal Plain physiographic
region) and in other ``highland regions'' where topography and
elevation changes are observed presenting a barrier for fish movement
(Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 18) in the Black Warrior River drainage in
portions of the Appalachian Plateau and Valley and Ridge physiographic
provinces of Alabama (Boshung and Mayden 2004, pp. 16-17; Warren et al.
2000, pp. 9, 10, 24). The closely related goldstripe darter in Alabama
occurs essentially below the Fall Line in all major systems except the
Coosa system (Boshung and Mayden 2004, p. 550). Reports of goldstripe
darters from the 1960s and 1970s in Winston and Jefferson Counties,
Alabama (Caldwell 1965, pp. 13-14; Barclay 1971, p. 38; Dycus and
Howell 1974, pp. 21-24; Mettee et al. 1989, pp. 13, 61, 64), which are
above the Fall Line, were made prior to the description of the rush
darter, but are now considered to be rush darters (Kuhajda pers. comm.
2008).
Historically, rush darters have been found in three distinct
watersheds in Alabama: Doe Branch, Wildcat Branch, and Mill Creek of
the Clear Creek drainage in Winston County; an unnamed spring run of
Beaver Creek and Penny Springs of the Turkey Creek drainage in
Jefferson County; and Cove Spring (Little Cove Creek system) and
Bristow Creek of the Locust Fork drainage in Etowah County. Fluker et
al. (2007, p. 10) suggests that the unique topographic and geologic
influences in the three distinct population groups likely produced
different selective pressures, genetic isolation, genetic drift, and
divergence during the species' evolution.
Currently, the three rush darter populations occur in the same
watersheds but in a more limited distribution. One population is
located in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the Clear Creek drainage in
Winston County (Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 4; Stiles and Mills 2008,
pp. 1-3); the second is located in an unnamed spring run to Beaver
Creek, portions of Beaver Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Turkey
Creek in the Turkey Creek drainage in Jefferson County (Stiles and
Blanchard 2001, p. 2; Drennen pers. obsv. 2006-2010; Kuhajda pers.
comm. 2009); and the third is in the Little Cove Creek drainage (Bart
and Taylor 1999, p. 28; Bart 2002, p. 7; Kuhajda pers. comm. 2008-2009;
Spadgenski pers. comm. 2008-2009).
Rush darter populations are separated from each other
geographically, and individual rush darters are only sporadically
collected at a particular site within their range. Where it occurs, the
rush darter is apparently an uncommon species that is usually collected
in low numbers (compiled from Bart and Taylor 1999, pp. 31-32; Johnston
and Kleiner 2001, pp. 2-4; Stiles and Blanchard 2001, pp. 1-4; Johnston
2003, pp. 1-3; Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-3; Rakes pers. comm. 2010;
Drennen pers. obsv. 2006-2010; Kuhajda pers. comm. 2009); however,
there are no population estimates at this time.
Cumulatively, the rush darter is only known from localized
collection sites within approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) of streams in the
Clear Creek; Little Cove and Bristow Creek; and Turkey Creek drainages
in Winston, Etowah, and Jefferson Counties, respectively. Currently,
about 3 km (2 mi) of stream, or about 22 percent of the rush darter's
known range, is not occupied.
Within the Clear Creek drainage, the rush darter has been collected
in Wildcat Branch, Mill Creek, and Doe Creek, which represents about 13
km (9 mi) of stream or about 89 percent of the species' total
cumulative range. Recent surveys (Stiles and Mills 2008, pp. 1-4;
Johnston and Kleiner 2001, p. 3) have failed to document the absence of
the rush darter in Doe Creek, indicating a potential reduction of the
species' known range within the Clear Creek drainage by about 3 km (2
mi) of stream or 22 percent. However, rush darters were collected in
2005, 2008, and 2009 in the Little Cove Creek drainage (Cove Spring
run), after a 30 year period of not finding the species. This
rediscovery of the species confirms the continued existence of the
species in Etowah County and Cove Spring. However, the Little Cove
Creek drainage constitutes an increase of only 0.05 km (0.02 mi) of
occupied stream habitat or a 0.22 percent addition to the total range
of the species. No collections of the species have occurred at Bristow
Creek since 1997. Bristow Creek has since been channelized
(straightened and deepened to increase water velocity). In the Turkey
Creek drainage, rush darters have been collected sporadically within
Penny Springs and at the type locality for the species (an unnamed
spring run in Jefferson County, Alabama) (Bart and Taylor 1999, pp. 28,
33). However, the rush darter is likely extirpated from Penny and
Tapawingo Springs due to introductions of the watercress darter (E.
nuchale) (George et al. 2009, p. 532). The species can still be found
in portions of an unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek and an unnamed
spring to Beaver Creek (Kuhajda pers. comm. 2009). This area contains
about 1.6 km (1 mi) of occupied stream habitat or approximately 11
percent of the rush darter's total range.
The rush darter is ranked by the Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (ADCNR) (Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
Division, ADCNR 2005) as a P1G1S1 species signifying its rarity in
Alabama and its status as critically imperiled globally. It is also
considered a species of GCN by the State (Bart 2004, p. 193). The rush
darter has a High Priority Conservation Actions Needed and Key
Partnership Opportunities ranking of ``CA 6,'' the highest of any fish
species listed. The State Wildlife Action Plan states that the species
consists of disjoint populations and information is needed to determine
genetic structuring within the populations (Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries Division, ADCNR 2005). Conservation Actions for the species
may require population augmentation or reintroduction of the
[[Page 48727]]
species to suitable habitats to maintain viability.
Yellowcheek Darter
The yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei) is a small and
laterally-compressed fish that attains a maximum SL of about 6.4 cm
(2.5 in), and has a moderately sharp snout, deep body, and deep caudal
peduncle (Raney and Suttkus 1964, p. 130). The back and sides are
grayish brown, often with darker brown saddles and lateral bars.
Breeding males are brightly colored with a bright blue or brilliant
turquoise throat and breast and a light-green belly, while breeding
females possess orange and red-orange spots but are not brightly
colored (Robison and Buchanan 1988, pp. 427-429).
First collected in 1959 from the Devils Fork Little Red River,
Cleburne County, Arkansas, this species was eventually described by
Raney and Suttkus in 1964, using 228 specimens from the Middle, South,
and Devils Forks of the Little Red River (Devils Fork, Turkey Fork, and
Beech Fork represent one stream with three different names and are
subsequently referred to in this rule as ``Devils Fork''). Wood (1996,
p. 305) verified the taxonomic status of the yellowcheek darter within
the subgenus Nothonotus. Complete taxonomy for the species is family
Percidae, subfamily Percinae, tribe Etheostomatini, genus Etheostoma,
subgenus Nothonotus and E. tippecanoe species group (Wood 1996, p.
307). The yellowcheek darter is one of only two members of the subgenus
Nothonotus known to occur west of the Mississippi River.
The yellowcheek darter inhabits high-gradient headwater tributaries
with clear water; permanent flow; moderate to strong riffles; and
gravel, rubble, and boulder substrates (Robison and Buchanan 1988, p.
429). Yellowcheek darter prey items include aquatic fly larvae,
stonefly larvae, mayfly nymphs, and caddisfly larvae (McDaniel 1984, p.
56).
Male and female yellowcheek darters reach sexual maturity at 1 year
of age, and maximum lifespan is around 5 years (McDaniel 1984, pp. 25,
76). Spawning occurs from late May through June in the swift to
moderately swift portions of riffles, often around or under the largest
substrate particles (McDaniel 1984, p. 82), although brooding females
have been found at the head of riffles in smaller gravel substrate
(Wine et al. 2000, p. 3). During nonspawning months, there is a general
movement to portions of the riffle with smaller substrate, such as
gravel or cobble, and less turbulence (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 3).
Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 24) observed that the yellowcheek darter
moved very little during a 1-year migration study. It was noted that
the yellowcheek darter appears to be a relatively nonmobile species,
with 19 of 22 recaptured darters found within 9 m (29.5 ft) of their
original capture position after periods of several months. A number of
life-history characteristics including courtship patterns, specific
spawning behaviors, egg deposition sites, number of eggs per nest,
degree of nest protection by males, and degree of territoriality are
unknown at this time; however, researchers have suggested that the
yellowcheek darter deposits eggs on the undersides of large rubble in
swift water (McDaniel 1984, p. 82). Wine and Blumenshine (2002, p. 10)
noted that, during laboratory spawning, female yellowcheek darters bury
themselves in fine gravel or sand substrates (often behind large cobble
or boulders) with only their heads and caudal fin exposed. A male
yellowcheek darter will then position upstream of the buried female and
fertilize her eggs as she releases them in a vibrating motion. Clutch
size and nest defense behavior were not observed.
The yellowcheek darter is endemic to the Devils, Middle, South, and
Archey Forks of the Little Red River and mainstem Little Red River in
Cleburne, Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, Arkansas (Robison and
Buchanan 1988, p. 429). In 1962, the construction of a dam on the
Little Red River to create Greers Ferry Reservoir impounded much of the
range of this species, including the lower reaches of Devils Fork,
Middle Fork, South Fork, and portions of the mainstem Little Red River,
thus extirpating the species from these reaches. Yellowcheek darter was
also extirpated from the Little Red River downstream of Greers Ferry
Reservoir due to cold tailwater releases. The lake flooded optimal
habitat for the species, and caused the genetic isolation of
populations (McDaniel 1984, p. 1). The yellowcheek darter was known to
historically occur in portions of these streams that maintained
permanent year-round flows.
In the 1978-1981 study by Robison and Harp (1981, pp. 15-16),
yellowcheek darter occurred in greatest numbers in the Middle and South
Forks of the Little Red River, with populations estimated at 36,000 and
13,500 individuals, respectively, while populations in both Devils Fork
and Archey Fork were estimated at approximately 10,000 individuals
(Robison and Harp 1981, pp. 5-11). During this study, the four forks of
the Little Red River supported an estimated yellowcheek darter
population of 60,000 individuals, and the species was considered the
most abundant riffle fish present (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 14).
Extensive sampling of the first two tributaries of the Little Red River
below Greers Ferry Dam (both named Big Creek) failed to find any
yellowcheek darters, and no darters were found in immediately adjacent
watersheds (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 5).
Two subsequent studies have failed to observe yellowcheek darters
in the Turkey Fork reach of the Devils Fork Little Red River (Wine et
al. 2000, p. 9; Wine and Blumenshine 2002, p. 11), since four
individuals were last collected by Arkansas State University (ASU)
researchers in 1999 (Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 129). They have been
observed downstream within that system in the Beech Fork reach, where
flows are more permanent. The reach downstream of Raccoon Creek is
influenced by inundation from Greers Ferry Reservoir and no longer
supports yellowcheek darter. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
channelized approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) of the lower Archey and South
Forks Little Red River within the city limits of Clinton, Arkansas, in
1985 for flood control purposes. Yellowcheek darter has not been
collected within this reach since channelization. The yellowcheek
darter inhabits most of its historical range not currently affected by
Greers Ferry Lake, although in greatly reduced numbers in the Middle,
South, Archey, and Devils Forks of the Little Red River.
While collecting specimens for the 1999 genetic study, ASU
researchers discovered that the yellowcheek darter was no longer the
most abundant riffle fish and was more difficult to find throughout its
historical range (Wine et al. 2000, p. 2). Because optimal habitat had
been destroyed by the creation of Greers Ferry Lake, yellowcheek
darters were confined to upper stream reaches with lower summer flow,
smaller substrate particle size, and reduced gradient. A thorough
status survey conducted in 2000 found the yellowcheek darter in three
of four historically occupied forks in greatly reduced numbers (Wine et
al. 2000, p. 9). Populations in the Middle Fork were estimated at
approximately 6,000 individuals, the South Fork at 2,300, and the
Archey Fork at 2,000. Yellowcheek darter was not collected from the
Devils Fork. Fish community composition was similar from 1978-1981 and
2000 studies, but the proportion of yellowcheek darter declined from
approximately 28 percent to 6 percent of the overall composition. Fish
known to coexist with yellowcheek darter include the rainbow darter (E.
[[Page 48728]]
caeruleum) and greenside darter (E. blennioides), which can use pool
habitats during periods of low flow, as evidenced by the collection of
these two species from pools during electroshocking activities.
Electroshocking has not revealed yellowcheek darter in pools,
suggesting perhaps that they are unable to tolerate pool conditions
(deep, slow-moving water usually devoid of cobble substrate). An
inability to use pools during low flows would make them much more
vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations in flows that reduce riffle
habitat. As a result, researchers have suggested that yellowcheek
darter declines are more likely a species rather than community
phenomenon (Wine et al. 2000, p. 11).
Weston and Johnson (2005, p. 22) estimated yellowcheek darter
populations within the Middle Fork to be between 15,000 and 40,000
individuals, and between 13,000 and 17,000 individuals in the South
Fork. Such increases since the 2000 status survey would indicate
remarkable adaptability to changing environmental conditions. However,
it should be noted that estimates were based upon mark/recapture
estimates using the Jolly-Seber method, which requires high numbers of
recaptured specimens for accurate estimations. Recaptures were
extremely low during that study; therefore, population estimates were
highly variable and confidence in the resulting estimates is low.
The yellowcheek darter is ranked by the Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission (ANHC) (2007, pp. 2-118) as an S1G1 species: extremely rare
in Arkansas, and critically imperiled globally. The Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission's (AGFC) Wildlife Action Plan describes the yellowcheek
darter as a critically imperiled species with declining populations
(AGFC 2005, pp. 452-454).
Chucky Madtom
The chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus) is a small catfish (family
Ictaluridae), with the largest specimen measuring 6.5 cm (2.6 in) SL
(Burr et al. 2005, p. 795). Burr et al. (2005) described the chucky
madtom, confirming previous analyses (Burr and Eisenhour 1994), which
indicated that the chucky madtom is a unique species, a member of the
Rabida subgenus (i.e., the ``mottled'' or ``saddled'' madtoms), and a
member of the Noturus elegans species complex (i.e., N. elegans, N.
albater, N. fasciatus, and N. trautmani) outlined by Taylor (1969 in
Grady and LeGrande 1992). A robust madtom, the chucky madtom body is
wide at the pectoral fin origins, greater than 23 percent of the SL.
The back contains three dark, nearly black blotches ending abruptly
above the lateral midline of the body, with a moderately contrasting,
oval, pale saddle in front of each blotch (Burr et al. 2005, p. 795).
The chucky madtom is a rare catfish known from only 15 specimens
collected from two Tennessee streams. A lone individual was collected
in 1940 from Dunn Creek (a Little Pigeon River tributary) in Sevier
County, and 14 specimens have been encountered since 1991 in Little
Chucky Creek (a Nolichucky River tributary) in Greene County,
Tennessee. Only 3 chucky madtom individuals have been encountered since
2000; 1 in 2000 (Lang et al. 2001, p. 2) and 2 in 2004 (CFI 2008,
unpublished data), despite surveys that have been conducted in both
historical localities at least twice a year since 2000 (Rakes and Shute
2004, pp. 2-3; Weber and Layzer 2007, p. 4; CFI 2008, unpublished
data). In addition, several streams in the Nolichucky, Holston, and
French Broad River watersheds of the upper Tennessee River basin, which
are similar in size and character to Little Chucky Creek, have been
surveyed with no success (Burr and Eisenhour 1994, pp. 1-2; Shute et
al. 1997, p. 5; Lang et al. 2001, pp. 2-3; Rakes and Shute 2004, p. 1).
Conservation Fisheries, Inc. did not find chucky madtoms in 2007 after
attempting new sampling techniques (e.g., PVC ``jug'' traps) (CFI 2008,
unpublished data).
Originally, museum specimens collected from the Roaring River in
Tennessee (Cumberland River drainage) and from Piney Creek, West Fork
Flint River, and the Paint Rock River system in Alabama (Tennessee
River drainage) were first identified and catalogued as Noturus elegans
species complex and thought to be chucky madtoms. The Roaring River,
Piney Creek, and West Fork Flint River specimens are now considered to
be a member of the N. elegans group, but have not been assigned to a
species. While the specimens from the Paint Rock River system share
typical anal ray counts with the chucky madtom, they lack the
distinctive cheek characteristics, differ in pelvic ray counts, and are
intermediately shaped between the chucky and saddled madtoms (N.
fasciatus) with respect to body width as a proportion of SL (Burr et
al. 2005, p. 796). Thus, the Little Chucky and Dunn Creek forms are the
only forms that are recognized as chucky madtoms.
All of the specimens collected in Little Chucky Creek have been
found in stream runs with slow to moderate current over pea gravel,
cobble, or slab-rock substrates (Burr and Eisenhour 1994, p. 2).
Habitat of these types is sparse in Little Chucky Creek, and the stream
affords little loose, rocky cover suitable for madtoms (Shute et al.
1997, p. 8). It is notable that intact riparian buffers are present in
the locations where chucky madtoms have been found (Shute et al. 1997,
p. 9).
No studies to determine the life history and behavior of this
species have been conducted. While nothing is known specifically about
chucky madtom reproductive biology, recruitment, growth and longevity,
food habits, or mobility, this information is available for other
similar members of the Noturus group. The least madtom (N. hildebrandi)
may reach sexual maturity at 1 or more years of age (i.e., during their
second summer) (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 351). Only the largest
females of Ozark madtom (N. albater) were found to be sexually mature,
and males were found to be sexually mature primarily within the second
age class (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 339), though, a single large male of
the first age class showed evidence of sexual maturity (Mayden et al.
1980, p. 339). The breeding season of the least and smoky madtoms (N.
baileyi) is primarily during June through July, though development of
breeding condition is initiated as early as April in least madtom and
May in smoky madtom (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 353; Dinkins and Shute
1996, p. 56). Fecundity varied among the species for which data were
available; however, it should be noted that fecundity in madtoms is
generally lower in comparison to other North American freshwater fishes
(Breder and Rosen 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 58). Dinkins and
Shute (1996, p. 58) commented that for smoky madtom the combination of
relatively large egg size and high level of parental care given to the
fertilized eggs and larvae reduce early mortality and, therefore, the
need to produce a large number of young.
Both smoky and elegant madtoms (N. elegans) were found to nest
under flat rocks at or near the head of riffles (Dinkins and Shute
1996, p. 56; Burr and Dimmick 1981, p. 116). Shallow pools were also
used by the smoky madtom, which was observed to select rocks of larger
dimension for nesting than were used for shelter during other times of
year (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56). Single madtoms were found to
guard nests in smoky and elegant madtoms, a behavior also exhibited by
Ozark and least madtoms (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 56; Burr and
Dimmick 1981, p. 116; Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337;
[[Page 48729]]
Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 357). Males of these species were the nest
guardians and many were found to have empty stomachs suggesting that
they do not feed during nest guarding, which can last as long as 3
weeks.
Conservation Fisheries, Inc. had one male chucky madtom in
captivity from 2004 through 2008. However, based on information from
other members of this genus for which longevity data are available,
least and smoky madtoms, it is unlikely that chucky madtoms can survive
this long in the wild. The shorter lived of these, least madtom,
reached a maximum age of 18 months, though most individuals lived
little more than 12 months, dying soon after reproducing (Mayden and
Walsh 1984, p. 351). Based on length-frequency distributions, smoky
madtoms exhibited a lifespan of 2 years, with two cohorts present in a
given year (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 53). Collection of two age
classes together provided evidence that life expectancy exceeds 1 year
in the pygmy madtom (N. stanauli) (Etnier and Jenkins 1980, p. 20). The
Ozark madtom lives as long as 3 years (Mayden et al. 1980, p. 337).
Chucky madtom prey items are unknown; however, least madtom prey
items include midge larvae, caddisfly larvae, stonefly larvae, and
mayfly nymphs (Mayden and Walsh 1984, p. 339). In smoky madtoms, mayfly
nymphs comprised 70.7 percent of stomach contents analyzed; fly,
mosquitoe, midge, and gnat larvae 2.4 percent; caddisfly larvae 4.4
percent; and stonefly larvae 1.0 percent (Dinkins and Shute 1996, p.
61). Significant daytime feeding was observed in smoky madtoms.
Dinkins and Shute (1996, p. 50) found smoky madtoms underneath
slabrocks in swift to moderate current during May to early November.
Habitat use shifted to shallow pools over the course of a 1-week
period, coinciding with a drop in water temperature to 7 or 8 [deg]C
(45 to 46 [deg]F), and persisted from early November to May. Eisenhour
et al. (1996, p. 43) collected saddled madtoms in gravel, cobble, and
slab-rock substrates in riffle habitats with depths ranging from 0.1 to
0.3 m (0.3 to 1.0 ft). Based on their limited number of observations,
Eisenhour et al. (1996, p. 43) hypothesized that saddled madtoms occupy
riffles and runs in the daylight hours and then move to pools at night
and during crepuscular hours (dawn and dusk) to feed.
The current range of the chucky madtom is believed to be restricted
to an approximately 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of Little Chucky Creek in
Greene County, Tennessee. Because this species was also collected from
Dunn Creek, a stream that is in a different watershed and physiographic
province than Little Chucky Creek, it is likely that the historic range
of the chucky madtom encompassed a wider area in the Ridge and Valley
and the Blue Ridge physiographic provinces in Tennessee than is
demonstrated by its current distribution. A survey for the chucky
madtom in Dunn Creek in 1996 was not successful at locating the species
(Shute et al. 1997, p. 8). The Dunn Creek population may be extirpated
(Shute et al. 1997, p. 6; Burr et al. 2005, p. 797), because adequate
habitat and a diverse fish community were present at the time of the
surveys, but no chucky madtoms were found. There are no population size
estimates or status trends for the chucky madtom due to low numbers and
only sporadic collections of specimens.
The chucky madtom is ranked by the TDEC (2009, p. 58) as an S1G1
species: extremely rare in Tennessee, and critically imperiled
globally. The chucky madtom is designated as a Tier 1 GCN species in
the Tennessee CWCS (TWRA 2005, pp. 44, 49).
Laurel Dace
The laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori), family Cyprinidae and
subfamily Leuciscinae, has two continuous black lateral stripes and
black pigment covering the breast and underside of the head of nuptial
(breeding) males (Skelton 2001, p. 120). The maximum SL observed is 5.1
cm (2 in) (Skelton 2001, p. 124). While the belly, breast, and lower
half of the head are typically a whitish-silvery color, at any time of
the year laurel dace may develop red coloration below the lateral
stripe that extends from the base of the pectoral fins to the base of
the caudal fin (Skelton 2001, p. 121).
Nuptial males often acquire brilliant coloration during the
breeding season, as the two lateral stripes, breast, and underside of
head turn intensely black and the entire ventral (lower/abdominal)
portion of the body, contiguous with the lower black stripe and black
breast, becomes an intense scarlet color. All of the fins acquire a
yellow color, which is most intense in the paired fins and less intense
in the dorsal, anal, and caudal fins. Females also develop most of
these colors, though of lesser intensity (Skelton 2001, p. 121).
Broadly rounded pectoral fins of males are easily discerned from the
broadly pointed fins of females at any time during the year.
Laurel dace have been most often collected from pools or slow runs
from undercut banks or beneath slab boulders, typically in first or
second order, clear, cool (maximum temperature 26 [deg]C or 78.8
[deg]F) streams. Substrates in streams where laurel dace are found
typically consist of a mixture of cobble, rubble, and boulders, and the
streams tend to have a dense riparian zone consisting largely of
mountain laurel (Skelton 2001, pp. 125-126).
Skelton (2001, p. 126) reported having collected nuptial
individuals from late March until mid-June, though Call (pers. obs.
2004) observed males in waning nuptial color during surveys on July 22,
2004. Laurel dace may be a spawning nest associate where syntopic
(sharing the same habitat) with nest-building minnow species, as has
been documented in blackside dace (Starnes and Starnes 1981, p. 366).
Soddy Creek is the only location in which Skelton (2001, p. 126) has
collected a nest-building minnow with laurel dace. Skelton (2001, p.
126) reports finding as many as three year classes in some collections
of laurel dace, though young-of-year fish are uncommon in collections.
Observations of three year classes indicate that laurel dace live as
long as 3 years.
Laurel dace preferred prey items include fly larvae, stonefly
larvae, and caddisfly larvae (Skelton 2001, p. 126). Skelton observed
that the morphological feeding traits of laurel dace, including large
mouth, short digestive tract, reduced number of pharyngeal (located
within the throat) teeth, and primitively shaped basioccipital bone
(bone that articulates the vertebra), all of which are consistent with
a diet consisting largely of animal material.
Laurel dace are known historically from seven streams on the Walden
Ridge portion of the Cumberland Plateau, where drainages generally
meander eastward before dropping abruptly down the plateau escarpment
and draining into the Tennessee River. Specifically, these seven
streams occur in three independent systems: Soddy Creek; three streams
that are part of the Sale Creek system (the Horn and Laurel branch
tributaries to Rock Creek, and the Cupp Creek tributary to Roaring
Creek); and three streams that are part of the Piney River system
(Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks). Strange and Skelton (2005, p.
8) assessed the genetic structure within populations of laurel dace
and, based on distribution of genetic diversity among populations, they
recognized two genetically distinct management units; (1) The southern
populations in Sale and Soddy Creeks, and (2) the northern population
in the Piney River system.
Skelton (2001, p. 126) considered collections by the Tennessee
Valley
[[Page 48730]]
Authority (TVA) during a rotenone survey of Laurel Branch in 1976 to
represent laurel dace that were misidentified as southern redbelly dace
(Chrosomus erythrogaster), as was found to be true for specimens
collected by TVA from Horn Branch in 1976, but no specimens are
available for confirmation. In 1991, and in four other surveys (two in
1995, one in 1996, and one in 2004), laurel dace were not collected in
Laurel Branch, leading Skelton to the conclusion that laurel dace have
been extirpated from this stream (Skelton 1997, p. 13; Skelton 2001, p.
126; Skelton pers. comm. 2009). Skelton (pers. comm. 2009) also noted
that the site was impacted by silt.
The current distribution of laurel dace comprises six of the seven
streams that were historically occupied; the species is considered
extirpated from Laurel Branch (see above). In these six streams, they
are known to occupy reaches of approximately 0.3 to 8 km (0.2 to 5 mi)
in length. The laurel dace is known from a single reach in Soddy Creek,
and surveys in 2004 produced only a single, juvenile laurel dace
(Strange and Skelton 2005, pp. 5-6 and Appendices 1 and 2). In Horn
Branch, laurel dace are known from approximately 900 m (2,953 ft), but
have become increasingly difficult to collect (Skelton 1997, pp. 13-
14). Skelton (1997, p. 14) reports that minnow traps have been the most
successful method for collecting live laurel dace from Horn Branch, as
it is difficult to electroshock the fish due to in-stream rock
formations and fallen trees. Only a single juvenile was caught in 2004
(Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6). A total of 19 laurel dace were
collected from Cupp Creek during 1995 and 1996 using an electroshocker
(Skelton 1996, p. 14). However, Skelton found no laurel dace in this
stream in 2004, despite attempts to collect throughout an approximately
700-m (2,297-ft) reach (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6).
Laurel dace were initially found in Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee
creeks in the Piney River system in 1996 (Skelton 1997, pp. 14-15).
Sampling in 2004 led to the discovery of additional laurel dace
localities in Young's and Moccasin creeks, but the locality where
laurel dace were found in Young's Creek in 1996 was inaccessible due to
the presence of a locked gate (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 6-7). The
new localities were in the headwaters of these two streams. Persistence
of laurel dace at the Bumbee Creek locality was confirmed in 2004 by
surveying from a nearby road using binoculars. Direct surveys were not
possible because the land had been leased to a hunt club for which
contact information was not available, and, therefore, survey
permission could not be obtained (Strange and Skelton 2005, p. 7).
Nuptial males are easily identified from other species present in
Bumbee Creek due to their brilliant coloration during the breeding
season, as the two lateral stripes, breast, and underside of head turn
intensely black and the entire ventral (lower/abdominal) portion of the
body, contiguous with the lower black stripe and black breast, becomes
an intense scarlet color. This brilliant coloration is easily seen
through binoculars at short distances by trained individuals.
No population estimates are available for laurel dace. However,
based on trends observed in surveys and collections since 1991, Strange
and Skelton (2005, p. 8) concluded that this species is persisting in
Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee creeks in the Piney River watershed, but
is at risk of extirpation from the southern part of Walden Ridge in
Soddy Creek, and in the Horn Branch and Cupp Creek areas that are
tributaries to Sale Creek. As noted above, the species is considered to
be extirpated from Laurel Branch, which is part of the Sale Creek
system.
The laurel dace is ranked by the TDEC (2009, p. 60) as an S1G1
species: extremely rare in Tennessee, and critically imperiled
globally. The laurel dace is designated as a Tier 1 GCN species in the
Tennessee CWCS (TWRA 2005, pp. 44, 49).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on June 24, 2010, we requested that
all interested parties submit written comments on the proposed rule to
list the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky
madtom, and laurel dace by August 23, 2010. We also contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were
published in newspapers covering all affected counties in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas. We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received ten
comment letters in response to the proposed rule: four from peer
reviewers, one from a State agency, and five from organizations or
individuals. All of the ten commenters supported the proposed rule to
list these five fishes as endangered. All substantive information
provided during the comment period has either been incorporated
directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from 12 knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the 5 species and their habitats, biological needs, and threats. We
received responses from four of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the
five fishes. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
conclusions and provided additional information on taxonomic
classification, life-history, and distribution; technical
clarifications; and suggestions to improve the final rule. Peer
reviewer comments are addressed in the ``Summary of Changes from
Proposed Rule'' and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Public Comments
(1) Comment: Two commenters stated that the laurel dace is
threatened, particularly in Horn Branch, a tributary to the Rock Creek
watershed, by timber harvest, rock harvest (collection of surface
fieldstones), and coal mining of the Sewanee Coal Seam in Bledsoe and
Rhea counties, Tennessee. These commenters recommended critical habitat
designation in the Upper Rock Creek watershed of Bledsoe County,
Tennessee, due to the threats that are imminent and of high magnitude
in Horn Branch. The commenters are particularly concerned that mining
of the Sewanee Coal Seem would result in acid mine drainage.
Our Response: We concur with these commenters that the laurel dace
in Rock Creek watershed is threatened by timber harvest, rock harvest,
and coal mining. We have incorporated further analyses regarding the
threats of rock harvest and coal mining under ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' for laurel dace. Further analysis with regard
to critical habitat designation will be addressed in the upcoming
critical habitat rule.
(2) Comment: One commenter stated that the Cumberland darter is
threatened, particularly in Dan Branch, a tributary to the Lick Fork
watershed, by degradation of water quality from mountaintop mining
projects in Campbell and Claiborne counties, Tennessee. In addition to
this general concern, the commenter was aware of selenium contamination
within these same watersheds and feared that the
[[Page 48731]]
issuance of new permits would cause further degradation to fish and
wildlife habitats in Campbell County.
Our Response: We concur with the commenter that mountaintop mining,
and specifically selenium contamination, has the potential to degrade
the water quality of Cumberland darter streams in Campbell and
Claiborne counties, Tennessee. Streams associated with mountaintop
mining and valley fills are characterized by increased conductivity,
total dissolved solids, and concentrations of sulfate, bicarbonate
ions, and metals such as manganese, iron, aluminum, and selenium.
Increased levels of selenium have been shown to bioaccumulate in
organisms, leading to deformities in larval fish and potentially
harming birds that prey on fishes. The proposed rule provided a more
detailed analysis of these and other water quality threats to the
Cumberland darter under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.''
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
As a result of the comments received during the public comment
period (see above) we made the following changes to the final listing
rule:
(1) We added taxonomic classification information to the species'
background sections.
(2) We added life-history information to the Cumberland darter and
chucky madtom background sections.
(3) We updated the distributional information for the rush darter
in Alabama.
(4) We changed the genus of laurel dace from Phoxinus to Chrosomus
to reflect recent taxonomic changes (Strange and Mayden 2009).
(5) We updated population estimate and threats information for the
yellowcheek darter in Arkansas.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The primary threat to the Cumberland darter, rush darter,
yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace is physical habitat
destruction or modification resulting from a variety of human-induced
impacts such as siltation, disturbance of riparian corridors, and
changes in channel morphology (Waters 1995, pp. 2-3; Skelton 1997, pp.
17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5). The most significant of these impacts is
siltation (excess sediments suspended or deposited in a stream) caused
by excessive releases of sediment from activities such as resource
extraction (e.g., coal mining, silviculture, natural gas development),
agriculture, road construction, and urban development (Waters 1995, pp.
2-3; Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) 2006, pp. 178-185; Skelton 1997,
pp. 17, 19; Thomas 2007, p. 5).
Land use practices that affect sediment and water discharges into a
stream can also increase the erosion or sedimentation pattern of the
stream, which can lead to the destruction or modification of in-stream
habitat and riparian vegetation, stream bank collapse, and increased
water turbidity and temperature. Sediment has been shown to abrade and
suffocate bottom-dwelling fish and other organisms by clogging gills;
reduce aquatic insect diversity and abundance; impair fish feeding
behavior by altering prey base and reducing visibility of prey; impair
reproduction due to burial of nests; and, ultimately, negatively impact
fish growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters 1995, pp. 5-7, 55-62;
Knight and Welch 2001, pp. 134-136). Wood and Armitage (1997, pp. 211-
212) identified at least five impacts of sedimentation on fish,
including (1) reduction of growth rate, disease tolerance, and gill
function; (2) reduction of spawning habitat and egg, larvae, and
juvenile development; (3) modification of migration patterns; (4)
reduction of food availability through the blockage of primary
production; and (5) reduction of foraging efficiency. The effects of
these types of threats will likely increase as development increases in
these watersheds.
Non-point source pollution from land surface runoff can originate
from virtually any land use activity and may be correlated with
impervious surfaces and storm water runoff. Pollutants may include
sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic
tank and gray water leakage, pharmaceuticals, and petroleum products.
These pollutants tend to increase concentrations of nutrients and
toxins in the water and alter the chemistry of affected streams such
that the habitat and food sources for species like the Cumberland
darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace
are negatively impacted. Construction and road maintenance activities
associated with urban development typically involve earth-moving
activities that increase sediment loads into nearby streams. Other
siltation sources, including timber harvesting, natural gas development
activities, clearing of riparian vegetation, mining, and agricultural
practices, allow exposed earth to enter streams during or after
precipitation events. These activities result in canopy removal,
elevated stream temperatures, and increased siltation, thereby
degrading habitats used by fishes for both feeding and reproduction
(Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5). Undisturbed riparian corridors are
important because they prevent elevated stream temperatures due to
solar heating, serve as buffers against non-point source pollutants,
provide submerged root materials for cover and feeding, and help to
stabilize stream banks (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 5).
Cumberland Darter
The Cumberland darter's preferred habitat characteristics (i.e.,
low- to moderate-gradient, low current velocity, backwater nature) make
it extremely susceptible to the effects of siltation (O'Bara 1991, p.
11). Sediment (siltation) has been listed repeatedly by KDOW as the
most common stressor of aquatic communities in the upper Cumberland
River basin (KDOW 1996, pp. 50-53, 71-75; KDOW 2002, pp. 39-40; KDOW
2006, pp. 178-185). The primary source of sediment was identified as
resource extraction (e.g., coal mining, logging). The streams within
the Cumberland darter's current range that are identified as impaired
(due to siltation from mining, logging, and agricultural activities)
and have been included on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters
(KDOW 2007, pp. 155-166) include Jenneys Branch (Indian Creek basin),
an unnamed tributary of Jenneys Branch (Indian Creek basin), Ryans
Creek (Jellico Creek basin), Marsh Creek, and Wolf Creek (Clear Fork
basin).
Siltation can also occur in the Cumberland darter's known habitat
as a
[[Page 48732]]
result of construction activities for human development. For example,
during the fall of 2007, an 8.4-km (5.2-mi) reach of Barren Fork in
McCreary County, Kentucky, was subjected to a severe sedimentation
event (Floyd pers. obs. 2008). This event occurred despite the fact
that approximately 95 percent of the Barren Fork watershed is under
Federal ownership within the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF).
Construction activities associated with the development of a 40.5-
hectare (100-acre) park site caused excessive sedimentation of two
unnamed headwater tributaries of Barren Fork. Successive, large
rainfall events in September and October carried sediment offsite and
impacted downstream areas of Barren Fork known to support Cumberland
darters and the Federally threatened blackside dace. Our initial site
visit on September 7, 2007, confirmed that sediment had been carried
offsite, resulting in significant habitat degradation in the Barren
Fork mainstem and ``adverse effects'' on the blackside dace. Several
smaller sediment events have occurred despite Federal and State
attempts to resolve the issue, and on July 31, 2008, another large
rainfall event resulted in excessive sedimentation in two Barren Fork
watershed streams.
Another significant threat to the Cumberland darter is water
quality degradation caused by a variety of non-point source pollutants.
Coal mining represents a major source of these pollutants (O'Bara 1991,
p. 11; Thomas 2007, p. 5), because it has the potential to contribute
high concentrations of dissolved metals and other solids that lower
stream pH or lead to elevated levels of stream conductivity (Pond 2004,
pp. 6-7, 38-41; Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 59). These impacts have been
shown to negatively affect fish species, including listed species, in
the Clear Fork system of the Cumberland basin (Weaver 1997, pp. 29;
Hartowicz pers. comm. 2008). The direct effect of elevated stream
conductivity on fishes, including the Cumberland darter, is poorly
understood, but some species, such as blackside dace, have shown
declines in abundance over time as conductivity increased in streams
affected by mining (Hartowicz pers. comm. 2008). Studies indicate that
blackside dace are generally absent when conductivity values exceed 240
microSiemens ([micro]S) (Mattingly et al. 2005, p. 59; Black and
Mattingly 2007, p. 12).
Other non-point source pollutants that affect the Cumberland darter
include domestic sewage (through septic tank leakage or straight pipe
discharges); agricultural pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, and animal waste; and other chemicals associated with oil
and gas development. Non-point source pollutants can cause excess
nutrification (increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus), excessive
algal growth, instream oxygen deficiencies, increased acidity and
conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry that can seriously
impact aquatic species (KDOW 1996, pp. 48-50; KDOW 2006, pp. 70-73).
In summary, habitat loss and modification represent significant
threats to the Cumberland darter. Severe degradation from
sedimentation, physical habitat disturbance, and contaminants threatens
the habitat and water quality on which the Cumberland darter depends.
Sedimentation from coal mining, logging, agriculture, and development
sites within the upper Cumberland basin negatively affect the
Cumberland darter by reducing growth rates, disease tolerance, and gill
function; reducing spawning habitat, reproductive success, and egg,
larvae, and juvenile development; modifying migration patterns;
reducing food availability through reductions in prey; and reducing
foraging efficiency. Contaminants associated with coal mining (metals,
other dissolved solids), domestic sewage (bacteria, nutrients), and
agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste)
cause degradation of water quality and habitats through increased
acidity and conductivity, instream oxygen deficiencies, excess
nutrification, and excessive algal growths. Furthermore, these threats
faced by the Cumberland darter from sources of sedimentation and
contaminants are imminent, the result of ongoing projects that are
expected to continue indefinitely. As a result of the imminence of
these threats combined with the vulnerability of the remaining small
populations to extirpation from natural and manmade threats, we have
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the Cumberland darter habitat and range represents a
significant threat of high magnitude. We have no information indicating
that the magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely to be
appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
Rush Darter
Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in the Mobile River Basin
(Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1996, pp. 14-15) and a
major threat to the rush darter. Within the Clear Creek drainage,
Johnston and Kleiner (2001, p. 4) reported that, during August 2001,
the dominant land use adjacent to Doe Branch and Mill Creek appeared to
be forests, and that there were no obvious threats to water quality.
However, Johnston and Kleiner (2001, p. 4) reported that clearcutting
in the Wildcat Branch watershed may have increased sedimentation into
the stream. Approximately 84 percent (i.e., 5 km or 3 mi) of Wildcat
Branch is privately owned, and recent land exchanges within the
Bankhead National Forest have taken about 0.9 km (0.6 mi) of stream
west of Clear Creek out of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) management and
protection. In 2001, Service and USFS personnel noted heavy siltation
at the County Road 329 Bridge over Doe Branch and at several other road
crossings in other tributary streams in the immediate area during a
modest spring rain event. Sediment in area streams is also the result
of increased erosion from the scouring of roadside ditches, and erosion
of the gravel County Road 329 itself adjacent to Doe and Wildcat
branches (Drennen pers. obs. 2005).
Blanco (2001, p. 68) identified siltation from development projects
as the greatest threat to the fauna of Turkey Creek. New subdivisions
have been developed throughout the watershed, increasing the amount of
impervious surfaces in the recharge areas of springs. The increase in
impervious surfaces is leading to increased stormwater runoff and is
reducing the amount of recharge (water storage) available to the
aquifers that feed springs in the watershed. These flow alterations
reduce the amount and complexity of rush darter habitat by eroding
stream banks, destabilizing substrates and aquatic vegetation, and
decreasing overall water quality.
There are four major soil types that occur within the Turkey Creek
watershed, and all are considered highly erodible due to the steep
topography (Spivey 1982, pp. 5, 7, 8, 14). Therefore, any activity that
removes native vegetation on these soils can be expected to lead to
increased sediment loads in Turkey Creek watershed (USFWS 2001, p.
59370), including the areas near Penny and Tapawingo Springs.
Industrialization is extensive and expanding throughout the watershed,
particularly near the type locality for the rush darter (Bart and
Taylor 1999, p. 33; Drennen pers. obs. 2007-2010).
Point source siltation has impacted the Turkey Creek watershed,
including an abundance of sites affecting Beaver Creek, a major
tributary to Turkey
[[Page 48733]]
Creek. These sites are impaired by bridge, road, and sewer line
construction; industrialized areas; road maintenance; and storm water
mismanagement (Drennen pers. obs. 1999, 2004-2010). Rapid urbanization
in this area renders this population extremely vulnerable during the
breeding season when rush darters concentrate in wetland pools and
shallow pools with aquatic vegetation in headwater streams (Stiles and
Mills 2008, p. 5; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 10).
Springs throughout the rush darter's range, especially in Pinson
Valley, flush and dilute sediments and excessive nutrients from streams
by providing a constant flow of cool, clean water. However, the ongoing
destruction of spring heads and wetlands throughout the species' range
has significantly reduced the species' movement and colonization.
Little Cove Creek and Bristow Creek spring heads have been channelized,
and the head of Cove Spring has a pumping facility built on it (Fluker
et al. 2007, p. 1). Channelization and groundwater withdrawals from
spring heads might do more to impact water quality in these systems
than overall spring drainage disturbances such as beaver dam
construction, and road maintenance (Drennen per. obs. 2005). Alteration
of spring head habitats has reduced water quality and increased
sediment loads into spring-fed tributary streams throughout the range
of the rush darter.
In summary, threats to rush darter include stormwater runoff and
siltation, caused by an increase in urbanization and impervious
surfaces in the watershed. Other threats include spring head
alteration, roadside maintenance, and logging. These threats are
ongoing and thus considered imminent. The magnitude of the threats is
high due to the small population sizes and high levels of alterations
and destruction of the springs and streams. We have no information
indicating that the magnitude or imminence of these threats is likely
to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
Yellowcheek Darter
Robison and Harp (1981, p. 17), McDaniel (1984, p. 92), and Robison
and Buchanan (1988, p. 429) have attributed the decline in populations
of yellowcheek darters in the four forks of the Little Red River and
the mainstem Little Red River to habitat alteration and degradation.
The suspected primary cause of the species' decline is the impoundment
of the Little Red River and lower reaches of the Devils, Middle, and
South Forks, areas that in the past provided optimal habitat for this
species. The creation of Greers Ferry Lake, in 1962, converted optimal
yellowcheek darter habitat (clear, cool, perennial flow with large
substrate particle size (Robison and Buchanan 1988, p. 429)), to a
deep, standing water environment. This dramatic change in habitat
flooded spawning sites and changed chemical and physical
characteristics in the streams that provide habitat for the species.
Impoundments profoundly alter channel characteristics, habitat
availability, and flow regime with serious consequences for biota
(Allan and Flecker 1993, p. 36, Ward and Stanford 1995, pp. 105-119).
Some of these include converting flowing to still waters, increasing
depths and sedimentation, decreasing dissolved oxygen, drastically
altering resident fish populations (Neves et al. 1997, p. 63),
disrupting fish migration, and destroying spawning habitat (Ligon et
al. 1995, pp. 185-86). Channelization of the lower 5.6 km (3.5 miles)
of Archey and South Forks in 1985 and subsequent, and ongoing, channel
maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and City of
Clinton, Arkansas, degraded habitat in this reach as well as segments
upstream of the project area. Based upon current knowledge and a 2004-
2005 threats assessment (Davidson and Wine 2004, pp. 6-13; Davidson
2005, pp. 1-4), gravel mining, unrestricted cattle access into streams,
water withdrawal for agricultural and recreational purposes (i.e., golf
courses), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of county roads, and non-point source pollution arising
from a broad array of activities also appear to be degrading suitable
habitat for the species. The threats assessment documented occurrences
of the aforementioned activities and found 52 sites on the Middle Fork,
28 sites on the South Fork, 8 sites on Archey Fork (Davidson 2005, pp.
1-4), and 1 site in the Turkey/Beech/Devils Fork system that are
adversely affected by these activities and are likely contributors to
the decline of the species.
Ozark headwater streams typically exhibit seasonal fluctuations in
flows, with flow rates highest in spring and lowest in late summer and
fall. The upper reaches of these small streams are most affected by
seasonally fluctuating water levels (Robison and Harp 1981, p. 17). As
a result, they often lack consistent and adequate flows, and by late
summer or fall are reduced to a series of isolated pools (Wine pers.
comm. 2008). Expanding natural gas development activities that began in
the upper Little Red River watershed in 2006 require large quantities
of water (both surface water and groundwater) and pose an imminent
threat to the continued existence of yellowcheek darter as these
activities rapidly expand and increase in the watersheds of all four
forks (Davidson pers. comm. 2008). Because the yellowcheek darter
requires permanent flows with moderate to strong current (Robison and
Buchanan 1988, p. 429), and because downstream refugia have been lost
to impoundments and channelization, water withdraws that exacerbate
seasonal stream reductions and reduce moving water (lotic) habitat are
a serious threat.
Additional threats to the yellowcheek darter include habitat
degradation from land use activities in the watershed, including
agriculture and forestry. Traditional farming practices, feedlot
operations, and associated poor land use practices contribute many
pollutants to rivers. Neves et al. (1997, p. 65) suggest that
agriculture affects 72 percent of impaired river reaches in the United
States. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and other organic compounds
generally are found in higher concentrations in agricultural areas than
forested areas. Nutrient concentrations in streams may result in
increased algal growth in streams, and a related alteration in fish
community composition (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 16). Major agricultural
activities within the Little Red River watershed include poultry,
dairy, swine, and beef cattle operations.
The Arkansas Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
identified animal wastes, nutrients, excessive erosion, loss of plant
diversity, and loss of species as water quality concerns associated
with agricultural land use activities in the upper Little Red River
watershed (NRCS 1999). Large poultry and dairy operations increase
nutrient inputs to streams when producers apply animal waste to
pastures to stimulate vegetation growth for grazing and hay production.
Continuous grazing methods in the watershed allow unrestricted animal
access to grazing areas, and on steeper slopes this results in
increased runoff and erosion (NRCS 1999). Since pastures often extend
directly to the edge of the stream, and lack a riparian zone with
native vegetation, runoff from pastures carries pollutants directly
into streams. Eroding stream banks also result in alterations to stream
hydrology and geomorphology, degrading habitat. Livestock spend a
disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas during hot summer
months. Trampling and grazing can change and reduce vegetation and
eliminate riparian areas
[[Page 48734]]
by channel widening, channel aggradation, or lowering of the water
table (Armour et al. 1991, pp. 7-11).
Additionally, earthen dams were constructed across a riffle in the
lower South Fork to create a pool for annual chuckwagon races for many
years leading up to 2003. The Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
met with the responsible landowner in 2004 and suggested an alternative
to dam construction that would minimize impacts to the yellowcheek
darter. These recommendations were followed for several years; however,
another earthen dam was constructed in 2008 using material from the
South Fork to facilitate events associated with the annual chuckwagon
races. This dam, like its predecessors, was unpermitted and resulted in
habitat degradation and alteration for several miles upstream and
downstream of the site.
The chuckwagon race event draws approximately 20,000 to 30,000
people per year to the South Fork Little Red River for a 1-week period
around Labor Day. Horses and wagons traverse the river and its
tributaries for miles leading to increased habitat disturbance,
sedimentation, and trampling. The chuckwagon races continue to grow
annually and pose a threat to the continued existence of yellowcheek
darters in the South Fork Little Red River.
Timber harvesting activities involving clear-cutting entire steep
hillsides were observed during 1999-2000 in the Devils Fork watershed
(Wine pers. comm. 2008). The failure to implement voluntary State best
management practices (BMPs) for intermittent and perennial streams
during timber harvests has resulted in water quality degradation and
habitat alteration in stream reaches adjacent to harvesting operations.
When timber harvests involve clear cutting to the water's edge, without
leaving a riparian buffer, silt and sediment enter streams lying at the
bottom of steep slopes. The lack of streamside vegetation also promotes
bank erosion that alters stream courses and introduces large quantities
of sediment into the channel (Allan 1995, p. 321). Timber harvest
operations that use roads on steep slopes to transport timber can carry
silt and sediment from the road into the stream at the bottom of the
slope. Logging impacts on sediment production are considerable, but
often erosion of access and haul roads produces more sediment than the
land harvested for timber (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). These
activities have occurred historically and continue to occur in the
upper Little Red River watershed.
Natural gas exploration and development is a newly emerging threat
to yellowcheek darter populations. Erosion and sedimentation issues
associated with natural gas development activities, particularly
pipelines (herein defined as all flow lines, gathering lines, and non-
interstate pipelines), were first documented by Service biologists
during 2007 in the South Fork Little Red River watershed. In June 2008,
the Service began documenting significant erosion and sedimentation
issues associated with natural gas pipeline construction and
maintenance as natural gas development activities expanded into the
watershed. Service biologists documented erosion and sedimentation at
almost every new pipeline stream crossing in the South Fork and Middle
Fork Little Red River watersheds, regardless of the diameter of the
pipe. Channel incision was documented at numerous stream crossings that
are tributaries to the South Fork Little Red River. The incision
increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as altering the hydrology
and geomorphology characteristics of the streams. Pipeline rights-of-
way were found to have one of the following conditions: (1) No BMPs
(i.e., silt fences, grade breaks, non-erodible stream crossing
materials) installed to prevent erosion and sedimentation; (2)
ineffective erosion minimization practices in place; (3) effective
erosion minimization practices that had not been maintained and, thus,
had become ineffective; or (4) final reclamation of the pipeline right-
of-way had not occurred for months and in some cases greater than a
year after construction activities ceased, leading to prolonged periods
of erosion and sedimentation. The magnitude of the impacts to the South
Fork and Middle Fork Little Red River from 2007-2008 also was
exacerbated due to above-average rainfall, which led to more frequent
and larger pipeline erosion events.
In summary, threats to the yellowcheek darter from the present
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
negatively impact the species. Threats include such activities as
impoundment, sedimentation, poor livestock grazing practices, improper
timber harvest practices, nutrient enrichment, gravel mining,
channelization/channel instability, and natural gas development. These
threats are considered imminent and of high magnitude throughout the
species' entire range. We have no information indicating that the
magnitude or imminence of these threats is likely to be appreciably
reduced in the foreseeable future, and in the case of pipeline
disturbance, we expect this threat to become more problematic over the
next several years as natural gas development continues to intensify.
Chucky Madtom
The current range of the chucky madtom is believed to be restricted
to an approximately 1.8-mi (3-km) reach of Little Chucky Creek in
Greene County, Tennessee. Land use data from the Southeast GAP Analysis
Program (SE-GAP) show that land use within the Little Chucky Creek
watershed is predominantly agricultural, with the vast majority of
agricultural land being devoted to production of livestock and their
forage base (Jones et al. 2000).
Traditional farming practices, feedlot operations, and associated
land use practices contribute many pollutants to rivers. Neves et al.
(1997, p. 65) suggest that agriculture affects 72 percent of impaired
river reaches in the United States. These practices erode stream banks
and result in alterations to stream hydrology and geomorphology,
degrading habitat. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and other organic
compounds generally are found in higher concentrations in agricultural
areas than forested areas. Nutrient concentrations in streams may
result in increased algal growth in streams, and a related alteration
in fish community composition (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 16).
The TVA Index of Biological Integrity results indicate that Little
Chucky Creek is biologically impaired (Middle Nolichucky Watershed
Alliance 2006, p. 13). Given the predominantly agricultural land use
within the Little Chucky Creek watershed, non-point source sediment and
agrochemical discharges may pose a threat to the chucky madtom by
altering the physical characteristics of its habitat, thus potentially
impeding its ability to feed, seek shelter from predators, and
successfully reproduce. The Little Chucky Creek watershed also contains
a portion of the City of Greeneville, providing an additional source
for input of sediments and contaminants into the creek and threatening
the chucky madtom. Wood and Armitage (1997, pp. 211-212) identify at
least five impacts of sedimentation on fish, including (1) reduction of
growth rate, disease tolerance, and gill function; (2) reduction of
spawning habitat and egg, larvae, and juvenile development; (3)
modification of migration patterns; (4) reduction of food availability
through
[[Page 48735]]
the blockage of primary production; and (5) reduction of foraging
efficiency.
The chucky madtom is a bottom-dwelling species. Bottom-dwelling
fish species are especially susceptible to sedimentation and other
pollutants that degrade or eliminate habitat and food sources (Berkman
and Rabeni 1987, pp. 290-292; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1091; Waters
1995, p. 72). Etnier and Jenkins (1980, p. 20) suggested that madtoms,
which are heavily dependent on chemoreception (detection of chemicals)
for survival, are susceptible to human-induced disturbances, such as
chemical and sediment inputs, because the olfactory (sense of smell)
``noise'' they produce could interfere with a madtom's ability to
obtain food and otherwise monitor its environment.
In summary, threats to the chucky madtom from the present
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
negatively impact the species. Degradation from sedimentation, physical
habitat disturbance, and contaminants threaten the habitat and water
quality on which the chucky madtom depends. Sedimentation from
agricultural lands could negatively affect the chucky madtom by
reducing growth rates, disease tolerance, and gill function; reducing
spawning habitat, reproductive success, and egg, larvae, and juvenile
development; reducing food availability through reductions in prey; and
reducing foraging efficiency. Contaminants associated with agriculture
(e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste) can cause
degradation of water quality and habitats through instream oxygen
deficiencies, excess nutrification, and excessive algal growths.
Furthermore, these threats faced by the chucky madtom from sources of
sedimentation and contaminants are imminent; the result of ongoing
agricultural practices that are expected to continue indefinitely. As a
result of the imminence of these threats combined with the
vulnerability of the remaining small population to extirpation from
natural and manmade threats, we have determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the chucky
madtom habitat and range represents a significant threat of high
magnitude. We have no information indicating that the magnitude or
imminence of these threats is likely to be appreciably reduced in the
foreseeable future.
Laurel Dace
Skelton (2001, p. 127) concluded that the laurel dace is
``presumably tolerant of some siltation.'' However, Strange and Skelton
(2005, p. 7 and Appendix 2) observed levels of siltation they
considered problematic during later surveys for the laurel dace and
concluded this posed a threat in several localities throughout the
range of the species. Sediment has been shown to abrade and or
suffocate bottom-dwelling fish and other organisms by clogging gills;
reducing aquatic insect diversity and abundance; impairing fish feeding
behavior by altering prey base and reducing visibility of prey;
impairing reproduction due to burial of nests; and, ultimately,
negatively impacting fish growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters
1995, pp. 5-7, 55-62; Knight and Welch 2001, pp. 134-136). However, we
do not currently know what levels of siltation laurel dace are able to
withstand before populations begin to decline due to these siltation-
related stressors. The apparent stability of the northern population of
laurel dace in the Piney River system suggests that this species is at
least moderately tolerant of siltation-related stressors. We do not
know the extent to which other factors might have driven the decline of
the southern populations in Sale and Soddy Creeks.
Of the streams inhabited by the southern populations recognized by
Strange and Skelton (2005, p. Appendix 2), the reaches from which
laurel dace have been collected in Soddy Creek and Horn Branch approach
1 km (0.6 mi) in length. In Cupp Creek, collections of this species are
restricted to less than 300 m (984 ft) of stream, in spite of surveys
well beyond the reach known to be inhabited. In each of the streams
occupied by the southern populations, Strange and Skelton (2005,
Appendix 2) identified siltation as a factor that could alter the
habitat and render it unsuitable for laurel dace. The restricted
distribution of laurel dace in streams inhabited by the southern
populations leaves them highly vulnerable to potential deleterious
effects of excessive siltation or other localized disturbances.
A newly emerging threat to laurel dace in Soddy Creek is the
conversion of silvicultural lands to row crop agriculture. Two large
pine plantations within the Soddy Creek Watershed were harvested and
then converted to tomato farms. An irrigation impoundment was built on
one Soddy Creek tributary and another is under construction. As a
result of these activities, a large silt source was introduced into the
Soddy Creek headwaters. In addition to contributing sediment, crop
fields often allow runoff from irrigation water to flow directly into
the creek. This water contains fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers
(Thurman pers. comm. 2010).
Strange and Skelton (2005, p. 7 and Appendix 2) identified
siltation as a threat in all of the occupied Piney River tributaries
(Young's, Moccasin, and Bumbee Creeks). The Bumbee Creek type locality
for the laurel dace is located within industrial forest that has been
subjected to extensive clear-cutting and road construction in close
proximity to the stream. Strange and Skelton (2005, p. 7) noted a heavy
sediment load at this locality and commented that conditions in Bumbee
Creek in 2005 had deteriorated since the site was visited by Skelton in
2002. Strange and Skelton (2005, pp. 7 and 8 and Appendix 2) also
commented on excessive siltation in localities they sampled on Young's
and Moccasin Creeks, and observed localized removal of riparian
vegetation around residences in the headwaters of each of these
streams. They considered the removal of riparian vegetation problematic
not only for the potential for increased siltation, but also for the
potential thermal alteration of these small headwater streams. Skelton
(2001, p. 125) reported that laurel dace occupy cool streams with a
maximum recorded temperature of 26 [deg]C (78.8 [deg]F). The removal of
riparian vegetation could potentially increase temperatures above the
laurel dace's maximum tolerable limit.
Water temperature may be a limiting factor in the distribution of
this species (Skelton 1997, pp. 17, 19). Canopy cover of laurel dace
streams often consists of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), mixed
hardwoods, pines (Pinus spp.), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).
The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is a nonnative insect that
infests hemlocks, causing damage or death to trees. The woolly adelgid
was recently found in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and could impact
eastern hemlock in floodplains and riparian buffers along laurel dace
streams in the future (Simmons pers. comm. 2008). Riparian buffers
filter sediment and nutrients from overland runoff, allow water to soak
into the ground, protect stream banks, and provide shade for streams
(Waters 1995, p. 149-152). Because eastern hemlock is primarily found
in riparian areas, the loss of this species adjacent to laurel dace
streams would be detrimental to fish habitat.
Habitat destruction and modification also stem from existing or
proposed infrastructure development in association with silvicultural
activities. The presence of culverts at one or more road crossings in
most of the streams inhabited by laurel dace may disrupt upstream
dispersal within those systems (Chance pers. obs. 2008). Such dispersal
barriers could prevent re-establishment
[[Page 48736]]
of laurel dace populations in reaches where they suffer localized
extinctions due to natural or human-caused events.
In summary, the primary threat to laurel dace throughout its range
is excessive siltation resulting from agriculture and extensive
silviculture involving both inadequate riparian buffers in harvest
areas and the failure to use BMPs during road construction. Severe
degradation from sedimentation, physical habitat disturbance, and
contaminants threatens the habitat and water quality on which the
laurel dace depends. Sedimentation negatively affects species (such as
the laurel dace) by reducing growth rates, disease tolerance, and gill
function; reducing spawning habitat, reproductive success, and egg,
larvae, and juvenile development; reducing food availability through
reductions in prey; and reducing foraging efficiency (Waters 1995, pp.
5-7; 55-62; Wood and Armitage 1997, pp. 211-212; Knight and Welch 2001,
pp. 134-136). These threats faced by the laurel dace from sources of
sedimentation and contaminants are imminent, the result of ongoing
agricultural and silvicultural practices that are expected to continue.
Since the identified threats substantially affect survival, growth,
reproduction, and feeding, we have determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the laurel dace
habitat and range represents a significant threat of high magnitude. We
have no information indicating that the magnitude or imminence of these
threats is likely to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky
madtom, and laurel dace are not commercially utilized. Individuals have
been taken for scientific and private collections in the past, but
collecting is not considered a factor in the decline of these species
and is not expected to be so in the future. The available information
does not indicate that overutilization is likely to become a threat to
any of these five fishes in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease is not considered to be a factor in the decline of the
Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, or
laurel dace. Although the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek
darter, and laurel dace are undoubtedly consumed by predators, the
available information suggests that this predation is naturally
occurring, or a normal aspect of the population dynamics. As a result,
we do not believe that predation is considered to currently pose a
threat to these species. Furthermore, the information we do have does
not indicate that disease or predation is likely to become a threat to
any of these five fishes in the foreseeable future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Cumberland Darter
The Cumberland darter and its habitats are afforded some protection
from water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Kentucky's Forest Conservation Act of
1998 (KRS 149.330-355), Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality Act of
1994 (KRS 224.71-140), additional Kentucky laws and regulations
regarding natural resources and environmental protection (KRS 146.200-
360; KRS 224; 401 KAR 5:026, 5:031), and Tennessee's Water Quality
Control Act of 1977 (TWQCA; T.C.A. 69-3-101). However, as demonstrated
under Factor A, population declines and degradation of habitat for this
species are ongoing despite the protection afforded by these laws and
corresponding regulations. While these laws have resulted in some
improvements in water quality and stream habitat for aquatic life,
including the Cumberland darter, they alone have not been adequate to
fully protect this species; sedimentation and non-point source
pollutants continue to be a significant problem.
States maintain water-use classifications through issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to
industries, municipalities, and others. NPDES permits set maximum
limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. For water bodies
on the 303(d) list, States are required under the Clean Water Act to
establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutants of
concern that will bring water quality into the applicable standard.
Three Cumberland darter streams, Jenneys Branch, Marsh Creek, and Wolf
Creek, have been identified as impaired by the KDOW and placed on the
State's 303(d) list (KDOW 2008). Causes of impairment were listed as
siltation/sedimentation from agriculture, coal mining, land
development, and silviculture and organic enrichment/eutrophication
from residential areas. TMDLs have not yet been developed for these
pollutants.
The Cumberland darter has been designated as an endangered species
by Tennessee (TWRA 2005, p. 240) and Kentucky (KSNPC 2005, p. 11), but
the designation in Kentucky conveys no legal protection. Under the
Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species
Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. Sec. 70-8-101-
112), ``[I]t is unlawful for any person to take, attempt to take,
possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship
nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract carrier knowingly to
transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife.'' Further,
regulations included in the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission
Proclamation 00-15 Endangered Or Threatened Species state the
following: ``Except as provided for in Tennessee Code Annotated,
Section 70-8-106 (d) and (e), it shall be unlawful for any person to
take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed as threatened or endangered or
otherwise to violate terms of Section 70-8-105 (c) or to destroy
knowingly the habitat of such species without due consideration of
alternatives for the welfare of the species listed in (1) of this
proclamation, or (2) the United States list of Endangered fauna.''
Under these regulations, potential collectors of this species are
required to have a State collection permit, therefore protecting
against potential threats under Factor B. However, in terms of project
management, and potential habitat disturbance, this regulation only
provides for the consideration of alternatives, and does not require
the level of project review afforded by the Act.
In 7 of 12 streams where the Cumberland darter still occurs, the
species receives incidental protection under the Act due to the
coexistence of the Federally threatened blackside dace. These streams
are in watersheds that are at least partially owned by the Federal
Government (i.e., DBNF). The five remaining streams supporting
populations of the Cumberland darter are not afforded this protection.
In summary, population declines and degradation of habitat for the
Cumberland darter are ongoing despite the protection afforded by State
and Federal laws and corresponding regulations. Because of the
vulnerability of the small remaining populations of the Cumberland
darter and the imminence of these threats, we find the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to be a significant threat of high
magnitude. Further, the information available to us at this time does
not indicate that the magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely
to be
[[Page 48737]]
appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
Rush Darter
The rush darter and its habitats are afforded some protection from
water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act and the
Alabama Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 1975 (Code of Alabama,
Sec. Sec. 22-22-1 to 22-22-14). However, as demonstrated under Factor
A, population declines and degradation of habitat for this species are
ongoing despite the protection afforded by these laws. While these laws
have resulted in some improvement in water quality and stream habitat
for aquatic life, including the rush darter, they alone have not been
adequate to fully protect this species; stormwater mismanagement,
sedimentation, and non-point source pollutants continue to be a
significant problem. In addition, these laws have not adequately
addressed water quantity issues that are a problem throughout the range
of the species. Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in the Mobile
River Basin and is among the greatest threats to the rush darter.
The State of Alabama maintains water-use classifications through
issuance of NPDES permits to industries, municipalities, and others
that set maximum limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters.
For water bodies on the 303(d) list, States are required under the
Clean Water Act to establish a TMDL for the pollutants of concern that
will bring water quality into the applicable standard. The State of
Alabama has not identified any impaired water bodies in Jefferson,
Winston, and Etowah counties in the immediate or upstream portion of
the rush darter range or in any watersheds in Winston or Etowah
counties. However, sedimentation events are usually related to
stormwater runoff episodes, and are usually not captured by routine
water quality sampling.
Although stormwater events are temporary in nature, they are still
harmful to aquatic species. The size and frequency of floods and
stormwater events increases with urbanization (Konrad 2003, pp. 1-4).
Stormwater events in urban areas decrease the storage capacity for
water in urban basins compared to rural basins; and urbanization
promotes more rapid runoff, higher peak discharge rates, and total
volume of water (Konrad 2003, pp. 1-4). Not only does urbanization and
associated runoff change the physical aspects of water resources, but
also the chemical and biological conditions of waterways (AMEC Earth
and Environmental 2001, p. 1). Jefferson County, Alabama (2005, pp. 2,
39) has noted that the expansion of impervious surfaces in the Turkey
Creek Drainage Basin caused an increase in flood heights and water
velocity during stormwater events. Due to these observations, the Storm
Water Management Authority and Jefferson County Department of Health
(2010, pp. 4-9) are tracking and monitoring construction and
maintenance sites that impact stormwater management within the Turkey
Creek and City of Pinson area. As demonstrated under Factor A, flow
alterations associated with stormwater runoff reduce the amount and
complexity of rush darter habitat by eroding stream banks,
destabilizing substrates and aquatic vegetation, and decreasing overall
water quality.
In summary, population declines and degradation of habitat for the
rush darter are ongoing despite the protection afforded by State and
Federal laws and corresponding regulations. Despite these laws,
sedimentation, flow alterations, and non-point source pollution
continue to adversely affect the species. Because of the vulnerability
of the small remaining populations of the rush darter and the imminence
of these threats, we find the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to be a significant threat of high magnitude. Further, the
information available to us at this time does not indicate that the
magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely to be appreciably
reduced in the foreseeable future.
Yellowcheek Darter
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has
established water quality standards for surface waters in Arkansas,
including specific standards for those streams designated as
``extraordinary resource waters'' (ERW) based on ``a combination of the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of a waterbody and
its watershed, which is characterized by scenic beauty, aesthetics,
scientific values, broad scope recreation potential, and intangible
social values'' (ADEQ Regulation 2, November 25, 2007). As described in
ADEQ's Regulation 2, Section 2.203, ERW ``shall be protected by (1)
water quality controls, (2) maintenance of natural flow regime, (3)
protection of in stream habitat, and (4) pursuit of land management
protective of the watershed.'' This regulatory mechanism has precluded
most large-scale commercial gravel mining in the Little Red River
watershed; however, illegal gravel mining is still considered a cause
of habitat degradation and a threat in this watershed. The Middle,
Archey, and Devils (and its major tributaries) forks are designated as
ERW. The South Fork has not been designated as an ERW. The applicable
water quality standards have not protected yellowcheek darter habitat
from alterations and water quality degradation from traditional land
use and expanding natural gas development activities.
The Arkansas Forestry Commission is the State agency responsible
for establishing BMPs for timber harvests in Arkansas. BMPs for timber
harvests in Arkansas are only recommendations; there is no requirement
that timber harvesters include BMPs in timber operations. The BMPs are
currently under revision, but the Service does not know what effect
these revisions will have on aquatic habitats within the range of the
species.
Natural gas production in the upper Little Red River watershed
presents a unique problem for yellowcheek darter conservation. In
Arkansas, mineral rights for properties supersede the surface rights.
Even where private landowners agree to implement certain BMPs or
conservation measures on their lands for yellowcheek darter
conservation, there is no guarantee that these BMPs or conservation
measures will be implemented by natural gas companies, their
subsidiaries, or contractors that lease and develop the mineral rights
for landowners. For this reason, the intended benefits of conservation
measures agreed to by landowners in agreements such as Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances may never be realized.
Additionally, natural gas projects often do not contain a Federal nexus
that would allow the Service to comment on proposed or ongoing
projects.
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission regulates water
withdrawal in Arkansas streams. To date, they have not precluded water
withdrawal for natural gas development activities in the upper Little
Red River watershed. The USACE regulates instream activities under the
Clean Water Act. Their policy to date has been to issue permits for
instream activities associated with pipeline construction and
maintenance under Nationwide Permits rather than Individual Permits
that require more public involvement. The ADEQ lacks the resources
necessary to enforce existing regulations under the Clean Water Act and
the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Act for activities associated with
natural gas development.
The yellowcheek darter receives incidental protection under the Act
due to the coexistence of the Federally endangered speckled pocketbook
[[Page 48738]]
mussel (Lampsilis streckeri), which occurs throughout the upper Little
Red River drainage. However, this protection has been insufficient to
mitigate the threats to either species.
In summary, the threats of inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms are imminent and considered high in magnitude. This is of
particular concern in regard to the vulnerability of the species to
threats from natural gas development, which is already impacting
populations in the South and Middle forks of the Little Red River and
is expected to intensify in the next several years throughout the range
of the species. Further, the information available to us at this time
does not indicate that the magnitude or imminence of this threat is
likely to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
Chucky Madtom
The chucky madtom and its habitats are afforded some protection
from water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act
and TDEC's Division of Water Pollution Control under the TWQCA.
However, as demonstrated under Factor A, population declines and
degradation of habitat for this species are ongoing despite the
protection afforded by these laws. While these laws have resulted in
improved water quality and stream habitat for aquatic life, including
the chucky madtom, they alone have not been adequate to fully protect
this species; sedimentation and non-point source pollutants continue to
be a significant problem. Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in
the Little Chucky Creek watershed and is the greatest threat to the
chucky madtom.
Portions of the Nolichucky River and its tributaries in Greene
County, Tennessee, are listed as impaired (303d) by the State of
Tennessee due to pasture grazing, irrigated crop production,
unrestricted cattle access, land development, municipal point source
discharges, septic tank failures, gravel mining, agriculture, and
channelization (TDEC 2010, pp. 64-73). However, Little Chucky Creek is
not listed as ``an impaired water'' by the State of Tennessee (TDEC
2010, pp. 64-73). For water bodies on the 303(d) (impaired) list,
States are required under the Clean Water Act to establish a TMDL for
the pollutants of concern that will bring water quality into the
applicable standard. The TDEC has developed TMDLs for the Nolichucky
River watershed to address the problems of fecal coliform loads,
siltation, and habitat alteration by agriculture.
The chucky madtom receives incidental protection under the Act due
to the coexistence of the Federally endangered Cumberland bean (Villosa
trabalis), which is still thought to occur in Little Chucky Creek,
Greene County, Tennessee (Ahlstedt pers. comm. 2008). However, this
protection has been insufficient to mitigate the threats to either
species.
The chucky madtom was listed as Endangered by the State of
Tennessee in September of 2000. Under the Tennessee Nongame and
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974
(Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. Sec. 70-8-101-112), ``[I]t is unlawful
for any person to take, attempt to take, possess, transport, export,
process, sell or offer for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for any
common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for
shipment nongame wildlife.'' Further, regulations included in the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission Proclamation 00-15 Endangered
Or Threatened Species state the following: ``Except as provided for in
Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 70-8-106 (d) and (e), it shall be
unlawful for any person to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed as
threatened or endangered or otherwise to violate terms of Section 70-8-
105 (c) or to destroy knowingly the habitat of such species without due
consideration of alternatives for the welfare of the species listed in
(1) of this proclamation, or (2) the United States list of Endangered
fauna.'' Under these regulations, potential collectors of this species
are required to have a State collection permit. However, in terms of
project management, this regulation only provides for the consideration
of alternatives, and does not require the level of project review
afforded by the Act.
In summary, population declines and degradation of habitat for the
chucky madtom are ongoing despite the protection afforded by State and
Federal laws and corresponding regulations. Despite these laws,
sedimentation and non-point source pollution continue to adversely
affect the species. Because of the vulnerability of the small remaining
populations of the chucky madtom and the imminence of these threats, we
find the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to be a
significant threat of high magnitude. Further, the information
available to us at this time does not indicate that the magnitude or
imminence of this threat is likely to be appreciably reduced in the
foreseeable future.
Laurel Dace
The laurel dace and its habitats are afforded some protection from
water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act and by
TDEC's Division of Water Pollution Control under the TWQCA. However, as
demonstrated under Factor A, population declines and degradation of
habitat for this species are ongoing despite the protection afforded by
these laws. While these laws have resulted in improved water quality
and stream habitat for aquatic life, including the laurel dace, they
alone have not been adequate to fully protect this species;
sedimentation and non-point source pollutants continue to be a
significant problem. Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in the
watershed and one of the greatest threats to the laurel dace.
The State of Tennessee maintains water-use classifications through
issuance of NPDES permits to industries, municipalities, and others
that set maximum limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters.
For water bodies on the 303(d) list, States are required under the
Clean Water Act to establish a TMDL for the pollutants of concern that
will bring water quality into the applicable standard. The TDEC has not
identified any impaired water bodies in the Soddy Creek, the Sale Creek
system, or the Piney River system (TDEC 2008).
The TWRA lists the laurel dace as endangered. Under the Tennessee
Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act
of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. Sec. 70-8-101-112), ``[I]t is
unlawful for any person to take, attempt to take, possess, transport,
export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or
for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive
for shipment nongame wildlife.'' Further, regulations included in the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission Proclamation 00-15 Endangered
Or Threatened Species state the following: ``Except as provided for in
Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 70-8-106 (d) and (e), it shall be
unlawful for any person to take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed as
threatened or endangered or otherwise to violate terms of Section 70-8-
105 (c) or to destroy knowingly the habitat of such species without due
consideration of alternatives for the welfare of the species listed in
(1) of this proclamation, or (2) the United States list of Endangered
fauna.'' Under these regulations, potential collectors of this species
are required to have a State collection permit. However, in terms of
[[Page 48739]]
project management, this regulation only provides for the consideration
of alternatives, and does not require the level of project review
afforded by the Act.
In summary, population declines and degradation of habitat for the
laurel dace are ongoing despite the protection afforded by State and
Federal water quality laws. While these laws have resulted in improved
water quality and stream habitat for aquatic life, including the laurel
dace, they alone have not been adequate to fully protect this species;
sedimentation and non-point source pollutants continue to be a
significant problem. Non-point source pollution is not regulated by the
Clean Water Act. Due to the vulnerability of the laurel dace to water
quality and habitat degradation, we find the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms that address water quality to be an imminent threat of high
magnitude. Further, the information available to us at this time does
not indicate that the magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely
to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Restricted Range and Population Size
The Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky
madtom, and laurel dace have limited geographic ranges and small
population sizes. Their existing populations are extremely localized,
and geographically isolated from one another, leaving them vulnerable
to localized extinctions from intentional or accidental toxic chemical
spills, habitat modification, progressive degradation from runoff (non-
point source pollutants), natural catastrophic changes to their habitat
(e.g., flood scour, drought), other stochastic disturbances, and to
decreased fitness from reduced genetic diversity. Potential sources of
unintentional spills include accidents involving vehicles transporting
chemicals over road crossings of streams inhabited by one of these five
fish, or the accidental or intentional release of chemicals used in
agricultural or residential applications into streams.
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more
likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift,
potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental changes, and
reducing the fitness of individuals (Soule 1980, pp. 157-158; Hunter
2002, pp. 97-101; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146). It is
likely that some of the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek
darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace populations are below the
effective population size required to maintain long-term genetic and
population viability (Soule 1980, pp. 162-164; Hunter 2002, pp. 105-
107). The long-term viability of a species is founded on the
conservation of numerous local populations throughout its geographic
range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). These separate populations are
essential for the species to recover and adapt to environmental change
(Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264-297; Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). The
level of isolation seen in these five species makes natural
repopulation following localized extirpations virtually impossible
without human intervention.
Climate Change
Climate change has the potential to increase the vulnerability of
the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom,
and laurel dace to random catastrophic events (e.g., McLaughlin et al.
2002; Thomas et al. 2004). Climate change is expected to result in
increased frequency and duration of droughts and the strength of storms
(e.g., Cook et al. 2004). During 2007, a severe drought affected the
upper Cumberland River basin in Kentucky and Tennessee. Streamflow
values for the Cumberland River at Williamsburg, Kentucky (USGS Station
Number 03404000), in September and October of 2007 were among the
lowest recorded monthly values (99th percentile for low-flow periods)
during the last 67 years (Cinotto pers. comm. 2008). Climate change
could intensify or increase the frequency of drought events, such as
the one that occurred in 2007. Thomas et al. (2004, p. 112) report that
the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to
increase in the Southeast as a result of global climate change.
Fluker et al. (2007, p. 10) reported that drought conditions,
coupled with rapid urbanization in watersheds that contain rush
darters, render the populations vulnerable, especially during the
breeding season when they concentrate in wetland pools and shallow
pools of headwater streams. Drought conditions from 2006 to 2007
greatly reduced spawning habitat for rush darter in Jefferson County
(Drennen pers. obs. 2007). Survey numbers for the rush darter within
the spring-fed headwaters for the unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek
during 2007 were reduced due to a lack of water (Kuhajda pers. comm.
2008). In Winston County, Stiles and Mills (2008, pp. 5-6) noted that
Doe Branch almost completely dried up during the summer of 2007 (Stiles
pers. comm. 2008).
The Little Red River watershed in Arkansas experienced moderate
drought conditions during 1997-2000 (Southern Regional Climate Center
2000), which reduced flows in its tributaries and affected yellowcheek
darter populations. During a status survey for the species conducted in
2000, the stage height of the Little Red River was 0.3 m (1 ft) lower
than what was reported during a 1979-1980 status survey of the darter
(Wine et al. 2000, p. 7). Stream flow is strongly correlated with
important physical and chemical parameters that limit the distribution
and abundance of riverine species (Power et al. 1995, p. 159; Resh et
al. 1988, p. 437) and it regulates the ecological integrity of flowing
water systems (Poff et al. 1997, p. 769). During the 2000 status
survey, the yellowcheek darter was not found in the upper reaches of
any study streams or in the Turkey/Beech Fork reach of Devils Fork, a
likely result of drought conditions. This indicates a contraction of
yellowcheek darter range to stream reaches lower in the watershed where
flows are maintained for a greater portion of the year (Wine et al.
2000, p. 11). It is possible that the perceived contraction in range
occurs only during low precipitation years in north-central Arkansas.
The threat of drought is imminent and moderate to high, respectively,
in all four watersheds for the yellowcheek darter. Exacerbation of
natural drought cycles as a result of global climate change could have
detrimental effects on the species, which could continue for the
foreseeable future.
Competition From Introduced Species
The Federally endangered watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) was
translocated outside of its native range by the Service into Tapawingo
Springs in 1988 in order to assist in the species' recovery by
expanding its range (Moss 1995, p. 5). The watercress darter is now
reproducing and is competing with the rush darter in Tapawingo Springs
(USFWS 1993, p. 1; Drennen pers. obs. 2004; George et al. 2009, p.
532). In 2001, a population of watercress darters was found in the
Penny Springs site (Stiles and Blanchard 2001, p. 3). The introduced
watercress darter appears to be out-competing the rush darter at this
site (Fluker et al. 2008, p. 1; George et al. 2009, p. 532), even
though the rush darter has always been considered rare in the Tapawingo
Spring area (Stiles pers. comm. 2008). Further investigation may be
required to determine whether interspecific competition is occurring
[[Page 48740]]
between the watercress darter and the rush darter at this site (Stiles
pers. comm. 2008). However, Fluker et al. (2008, p. 1) and George et
al. (2009, p. 532) consider the rush darter to be extirpated after
completing 2 years of surveys (2008-2009) in Tapawingo Spring.
Reduced Fecundity
The low fecundity rates exhibited by many madtom catfishes (Breder
and Rosen 1966 in Dinkins and Shute 1996, p. 58) could limit the
potential for populations to rebound from disturbance events. The short
lifespan exhibited by members of the N. hildebrandi clade (a taxonomic
group of organisms classified together on the basis of homologous
features traced to a common ancestor) of madtoms, if also true of
chucky madtoms, would further limit the species' viability by rendering
it vulnerable to severe demographic shifts from disturbances that
prevent reproduction in even a single year, and could be devastating to
the population if the disturbance persists for successive years.
Summary
Because the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter,
chucky madtom, and laurel dace all have limited geographic ranges and
small population sizes, they are subject to several ongoing natural and
manmade threats. Since these threats are ongoing, they are considered
to be imminent. The magnitude of these threats is high for each of
these species because they result in a reduced ability to adapt to
environmental change. Further, the information available to us at this
time does not indicate that the magnitude or imminence of this threat
is likely to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.
Exacerbation of natural drought cycles as a result of global
climate change could have detrimental effects on these five species,
which are expected to continue or increase in the future. The specific
threat of global climate change is considered to be nonimminent. The
Federally endangered watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) introduced
into the range of the rush darter is now potentially competing with the
rush darter. The low fecundity rates exhibited by many madtom catfishes
could specifically affect the chucky madtom and exacerbate the problem
of its recovering from disturbance events. These threats are considered
moderate/low in magnitude because of the uncertainty of their effects,
but are considered imminent as they are ongoing.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky
madtom, and laurel dace. Section 3(6) of the Act defines an endangered
species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' We find that each of these
five species is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire
range, based on the immediacy and magnitude of the threats described
above. Based on our analysis, we have no reason to believe that the
negative population trends for any of the five species addressed in
this final rule will improve, nor will the effects of current threats
acting on the species be ameliorated in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing the Cumberland darter, rush darter,
yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace as endangered under
the Act.
Without the protection of the Act, these five species are in danger
of extinction throughout all of their highly localized ranges.
Extinction could occur within a few years, given the reduction of
habitats and ranges, small population sizes, current habitat threats,
and natural or human-induced catastrophic events. Furthermore, because
of the immediate and ongoing significant threats to each species
throughout their entire respective ranges, as described above in the
five-factor analysis, we find that it is unnecessary to analyze whether
there are any significant portions of ranges for each species that may
warrant a different determination of status.
Critical Habitat
In the June 24, 2010 proposed listing rule (75 FR 36035) we
determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent for all
five species. However, we found that critical habitat was not
determinable at the time, and set forth the steps we would undertake to
obtain the information necessary to develop a proposed designation of
critical habitat. We have completed these steps and intend to publish a
proposed designation in the next few months for all five species. We
were unable to include the critical habitat with the final listing rule
due to an internal publishing issue requiring separate publication of
proposed and final rules in the Federal Register.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private organizations; and
individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and
requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species.
The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened 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) 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 to
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 formal 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, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the
issuance of permits for reservoir construction, stream alterations,
discharges, wastewater facility development, water withdrawal projects,
pesticide registration, mining, and road and bridge construction.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate
[[Page 48741]]
commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It also is
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must 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.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
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 all references cited in this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request
from the Field Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Dace, laurel,''
``Darter, Cumberland,'' ``Darter, rush,'' ``Darter, yellowcheek,'' and
``Madtom, chucky'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
in alphabetical order, under FISHES, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Dace, laurel..................... Chrosomus saylori... U.S.A (TN)......... Entire............. E 791 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Darter, Cumberland............... Etheostoma susanae.. U.S.A. (KY, TN).... Entire............. E 791 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Darter, rush..................... Etheostoma U.S.A. (AL)........ Entire............. E 791 NA NA
phytophilum.
* * * * * * *
Darter, yellowcheek.............. Etheostoma moorei... U.S.A. (AR)........ Entire............. E 791 NA NA
* * * * * * *
Madtom, chucky................... Noturus crypticus... U.S.A. (TN)........ Entire............. E 791 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: July 27, 2011.
James J. Slack,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20018] Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
