# 80 FR 18710: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-07625

## Section

- **Citation:** 80 FR 18710
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 80 / 80 FR 18710

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA85 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; 12-month finding and status review.

SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Big Sandy crayfish (known at the time of the petition as Cambarus veteranus, but now known as two distinct species: Guyandotte River crayfish, C. veteranus, and Big Sandy crayfish, C. callainus ) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list both the Big Sandy crayfish ( C. callainus ), a freshwater crustacean from Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the Guyandotte River crayfish ( C. veteranus ), a freshwater crustacean from West Virginia, as endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to both species and would add both species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed listing rule.

DATES:
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 8, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES , below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by May 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
tmarked on or before June 8, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES , below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by May 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we find that a species may be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species in the Federal Register and make a final determination on our proposal within 1 year
S) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we find that a species may be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species in the Federal Register and make a final determination on our proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
This document consists of:
• Our 12-month finding that listing is warranted for the petitioned Big Sandy crayfish.
• Our status review finding that listing is warranted for the nonpetitioned Guyandotte River crayfish.
• A proposed rule to list the Big Sandy crayfish ( Cambarus callainus ) and the Guyandotte River crayfish ( C. veteranus ) as endangered species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are in danger of extinction primarily due to the threats of land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and the effects of small population size (Factor E).
We will seek peer review
e factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are in danger of extinction primarily due to the threats of land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and the effects of small population size (Factor E).
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent specialists to ensure that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes' biology, ranges, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.
(b) Genetics and taxonomy.
(c) Historical and current ranges, including distribution and abundance patterns, and quantitative evidence of the species' occurrence, especially in lower elevation sites within the known watersheds.
(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected population trends.
cies, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.
(b) Genetics and taxonomy.
(c) Historical and current ranges, including distribution and abundance patterns, and quantitative evidence of the species' occurrence, especially in lower elevation sites within the known watersheds.
(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected population trends.
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of these species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
(a) Information regarding current conditions and future trends of managing residential and commercial wastewater and how those conditions and trends may affect the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
(b) Information on total number of stream miles monitored within the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed for compliance with Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ).
(c) Quantitative water quality parameters ( e.g., conductivity) at historical and current Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish occurrence and sampling sites.
(d) Trends in Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish population estimates or abundance as it relates to water quality parameters.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution and abundance, and population size of each of these species, including the locations and habitat conditions of any additional populations.
(5) Information concerning dispersal mechanisms and distances for these species.
(6) Locations of likely suitable habitat where previously unknown populations of either species may occur.
on concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution and abundance, and population size of each of these species, including the locations and habitat conditions of any additional populations.
(5) Information concerning dispersal mechanisms and distances for these species.
(6) Locations of likely suitable habitat where previously unknown populations of either species may occur.
(7) Information related to climate change within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish and how it may affect the species' habitat.
(8) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including the possible risks associated with publication of maps designating any area on which these species may be located, now or in the future, as critical habitat.
(9) The following specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
(b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of these species, should be included in a critical habitat designation and why.
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat area, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of these species and why.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include
ial critical habitat area, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of these species and why.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested
ng documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests for a public hearing must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register . Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in freshwater crayfish biology, habitat, or stressors to crayfish and their habitat. We will invite comment from the peer reviewers during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Action
We identified the Big Sandy crayfish, then known as Cambarus veteranus, as a Category 2 species in the November 21, 1991, notice of review titled Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804). Category 2 candidates were defined as species for which we had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time
s a Category 2 species in the November 21, 1991, notice of review titled Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804). Category 2 candidates were defined as species for which we had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time. The species remained a Category 2 species in our November 15, 1994, candidate notice of review (59 FR 58982). In the February 28, 1996, candidate notice of review (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates; therefore, the Big Sandy crayfish was no longer a candidate species.
In 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the Service to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern United States under the Act. On September 27, 2011, the Service published a substantial 90-day finding for 374 of the 404 species, including what was then known as the Big Sandy crayfish ( Cambarus veteranus ), soliciting information about, and initiating status reviews for, those species (76 FR 59836). In 2012, CBD filed a complaint against the Service for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the Big Sandy crayfish within the statutory timeframe. In 2013, the Service entered into a settlement agreement with CBD to address the complaint; the court-approved settlement agreement specified a 12-month finding for the Big Sandy crayfish would be delivered to the Federal Register by April 1, 2015.
Since the settlement agreement, we received information indicating that the Big Sandy crayfish is two separate species (see the Taxonomy section, below): the Big Sandy crayfish Cambarus callainus ) and the Guyandotte River crayfish ( C. veteranus ). Although the settlement agreement specified that we must make a 12-month finding for C. veteranus, the Service chose to conduct a status review, and subsequently prepare a proposed listing rule, for both C
indicating that the Big Sandy crayfish is two separate species (see the Taxonomy section, below): the Big Sandy crayfish Cambarus callainus ) and the Guyandotte River crayfish ( C. veteranus ). Although the settlement agreement specified that we must make a 12-month finding for C. veteranus, the Service chose to conduct a status review, and subsequently prepare a proposed listing rule, for both C. veteranus and C. callainus. As discussed below, we will propose to designate critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish under the Act in the near future.
Background
Taxonomy
The crayfish subspecies Cambarus bartonii veteranus was first described in 1914 by Faxon (1914, pp. 389-390) from specimens collected from Indian Creek in Wyoming County, West Virginia, in 1900. Hobbs (1955, p. 330) later elevated the taxon to species-level, referring to the animal as Cambarus veteranus. In 1969, Hobbs described several new Cambarus subgenera and reclassified the species as C. (Puncticambarus) veteranus (Hobbs 1969, p. 102).
From the late 20th century until 2011, Cambarus veteranus was thought to occur in two disjunct river systems, the Upper Guyandotte basin in West Virginia, from where it was originally described, and the upper tributaries of the Big Sandy basin in eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia, from where it has been known since 1989 (Hobbs 1989, pp. 27-28). In 2011, a genetic comparison of extant specimens from the Upper Guyandotte and Big Sandy populations found significant genetic divergence between the two populations, indicative of possible species-level differences (Fetzner 2011, pp. 8-10, 25). Later, Thoma et al. (2014, entire) conducted the first physical comparison of all known, intact, museum specimens (292 specimens from the Big Sandy basin and 32 from the Upper Guyandotte) and noted significant morphological characteristics that distinguish the two populations
etic divergence between the two populations, indicative of possible species-level differences (Fetzner 2011, pp. 8-10, 25). Later, Thoma et al. (2014, entire) conducted the first physical comparison of all known, intact, museum specimens (292 specimens from the Big Sandy basin and 32 from the Upper Guyandotte) and noted significant morphological characteristics that distinguish the two populations. Based on the previous genetic evidence and the diagnostic morphological differences noted between specimens from the two river basins, Thoma et al. (2014, entire) recommended that the Big Sandy basin population be recognized as a new species, Cambarus (Puncticambarus) callainus.
We have carefully reviewed the peer-reviewed genetic and taxonomic information referenced above and conclude that the crayfish from the Big Sandy basin formerly thought to be Cambarus veteranus is a new, valid taxon, Cambarus callainus. The crayfish native to the Upper Guyandotte basin remains C. veteranus because the scientific name is linked with the type specimen. Additionally, Thoma et al. (2014, p. 551) proposed the common name “Big Sandy crayfish” be allied to the newly recognized species C. callainus, and that C. veteranus, which is endemic to the Upper Guyandotte system, be referred to as the “Guyandotte River crayfish.” We will follow this naming convention herein and for clarity ascribe the appropriate species and common names when discussing information from older studies that did not distinguish between the two species.
Species Description
Cambarus callainus, the Big Sandy crayfish, and C. veteranus, the Guyandotte River crayfish, are freshwater, tertiary burrowing crustaceans of the Cambaridae family. Tertiary burrowing crayfish do not exhibit complex burrowing behavior; instead, they shelter in shallow excavations under loose cobbles and boulders on the stream bottom. The two species are closely related and share many basic physical characteristics
, the Big Sandy crayfish, and C. veteranus, the Guyandotte River crayfish, are freshwater, tertiary burrowing crustaceans of the Cambaridae family. Tertiary burrowing crayfish do not exhibit complex burrowing behavior; instead, they shelter in shallow excavations under loose cobbles and boulders on the stream bottom. The two species are closely related and share many basic physical characteristics. Adult body lengths range from 75.7 to 101.6 millimeters (mm) (3.0 to 4.0 inches (in)), and the cephalothorax (main body section) is streamlined and elongate, and has two well-defined cervical spines. The elongate convergent rostrum (the beak-like shell extension located between the crayfish's eyes) lacks spines or tubercles (bumps). The gonopods (modified legs used for reproductive purposes) of Form I males (those in the breeding stage) are bent 90 degrees to the gonopod shaft (Loughman 2014, p. 1). Diagnostic characteristics that distinguish the Big Sandy crayfish from the Guyandotte River crayfish include the former's narrower, more elongate rostrum; narrower, more elongate chelea (claw); and lack of a well-pronounced lateral impression at the base of the claw's immovable finger (Thoma et al. 2014, p. 551).
Carapace (shell) coloration ranges from olive brown to light green, and the cervical groove is outlined in light blue, aqua, or turquoise. The rostral margins and post orbital (behind the eye) ridges are crimson red. The abdominal terga (dorsal plates covering the crayfish's abdomen) range from olive brown to light brown to light green and are outlined in red. The walking legs of the Guyandotte River crayfish are blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish range from light green to green blue to green. Chelae of the Guyandotte River crayfish range from blue green to light blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish are usually aqua but sometimes green blue to blue (Loughman 2014, p. 1-2; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 547)
to light green and are outlined in red. The walking legs of the Guyandotte River crayfish are blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish range from light green to green blue to green. Chelae of the Guyandotte River crayfish range from blue green to light blue, while those of the Big Sandy crayfish are usually aqua but sometimes green blue to blue (Loughman 2014, p. 1-2; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 547).
Life History and Habitat
Reproduction
Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) reported demographic and life-history observations for the Big Sandy crayfish in Virginia and Kentucky. Based on these observations and professional expertise, he concluded that the general life cycle pattern of the species is 2 to 3 years of growth, maturation in the third year, and first mating in midsummer of the third or fourth year. Following midsummer mating, the annual cycle involves egg laying in late summer or fall, spring release of young, and late spring/early summer molting. He hypothesized the likely lifespan of the Big Sandy crayfish to be 5 to 7 years, with the possibility of some individuals reaching 10 years of age. Of 60 Big Sandy crayfish juvenile and adult specimens collected, Loughman (2014, p. 20) noted 5 total carapace length (TCL) size cohorts—8.0 to 19.0 mm (0.31 to 0.75 in); 32.0 to 35.0 mm (1.26 to 1.38 in); 36.0 to 43.0 mm (1.42 to 1.69 in); 44.0 to 49.0 mm (1.73 to 1.93 in); and 51.0 to 53.0 mm (2.01 to 2.09 in), indicating at least 6 molts likely occurred over an individual's lifetime after the first year of life. The smallest Form I male was 25.1 mm (0.99 in) TCL; the smallest ovigerous (egg-carrying) female was 42.0 mm (1.65 in) TCL.
In Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 4) reported the presence of males, females, and juveniles during all months sampled (March and May through October)
3.0 mm (2.01 to 2.09 in), indicating at least 6 molts likely occurred over an individual's lifetime after the first year of life. The smallest Form I male was 25.1 mm (0.99 in) TCL; the smallest ovigerous (egg-carrying) female was 42.0 mm (1.65 in) TCL.
In Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 4) reported the presence of males, females, and juveniles during all months sampled (March and May through October). The author noted Form I males and females cohabiting under rocks in July, presumably in some stage of mating, with ovigerous females reported in July, August, and October and females carrying instars (larval crayfish) in September, October, and March (the March observation indicating that late spawning females may overwinter with instars attached). Two ovigerous females with TCLs of 42 mm (1.65 in) and 46 mm (1.81 in) were observed with 90 and 142 eggs, respectively (Thoma 2009, p. 4). Thoma (2010, pp. 3, 5) reported males, females, and juveniles in both months sampled (July and September) in Kentucky, with ovigerous females reported in September.
There is less information available specific to the life history of the Guyandotte River crayfish, but based on other shared characteristics with the Big Sandy crayfish, we conclude the life span and age to maturity are similar. et al. (1995, p. 170) noted demographic information for the species in the months surveyed (April and June through September), reporting that Form II (the nonreproductive phase) males were present in all months sampled and were the dominant demographic. Form I males were found in April, July, and August. No ovigerous females were collected by Jezerinac et al. (1995, entire); however, Loughman (2014, p. 20) collected a female in June 2009, and maintained the specimen live in the laboratory. It extruded eggs the following month. Loughman also noted females carrying instars in March, just as Thoma (2009, p. 4) had reported for some Big Sandy crayfish females
les were found in April, July, and August. No ovigerous females were collected by Jezerinac et al. (1995, entire); however, Loughman (2014, p. 20) collected a female in June 2009, and maintained the specimen live in the laboratory. It extruded eggs the following month. Loughman also noted females carrying instars in March, just as Thoma (2009, p. 4) had reported for some Big Sandy crayfish females. Loughman also observed that females carrying instars sought out slab boulders in loose, depositional sands and silts in stream reaches with slower velocities (Loughman 2014, p. 20). Loughman examined all known Guyandotte River crayfish museum specimens (n=41) and determined five TCL size cohorts—13 to 17 mm (0.51 to 0.67 in); 22 to 23 mm (0.87 to 0.91 in); 28 to 32 mm (1.10 to 1.26 in); 34 to 38 mm (1.34 to 1.50 in); and 42 to 49 mm (1.65 to 1.93 in), with a mean TCL of 31.0 mm (1.22 in) (Loughman 2014, p. 20).
Diet
Thoma (2009, pp. 3, 13) conducted a feeding study using 10 Big Sandy crayfishes collected from Virginia. Each animal was offered a variety of food items, and observations were made daily to monitor consumption. The test period was 1 week, and each animal was tested twice. The food items offered represented the following broad categories: insect, fish, worm, crayfish, root, nut, herbaceous plant, fruit, and leaf litter. Results indicated that the Big Sandy crayfish had a preference for animal tissue. In each test, animal matter was always consumed first; however, plant material was at least partially consumed in most trials. Thoma concluded that the species was best classified as a carnivore (Thoma 2009, p. 13). However, Loughman (2014, p. 21) reviewed field studies of other tertiary burrowing Cambarus species, which indicated that crayfish filling the ecological niche similar to that of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish functioned as opportunistic omnivores, with seasonal-mediated tendencies for animal or plant material. Loughman (2014, p
was best classified as a carnivore (Thoma 2009, p. 13). However, Loughman (2014, p. 21) reviewed field studies of other tertiary burrowing Cambarus species, which indicated that crayfish filling the ecological niche similar to that of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish functioned as opportunistic omnivores, with seasonal-mediated tendencies for animal or plant material. Loughman (2014, p. 20) concluded that under natural conditions the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish likely exhibit similar omnivorous tendencies.
Habitat
Habitat requirements for these two closely related species appear to be similar in their respective, separate river basins. The Big Sandy crayfish is known only from the Big Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia; the Guyandotte River crayfish is known only from the Guyandotte River basin in southern West Virginia (Figure 1). Both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte Rivers flow in a northerly direction where they each join the Ohio River.
EP07AP15.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P Both river basins are in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, which in this region is characterized by rugged, mountainous terrain with steep hills and ridges dissected by a network of deeply incised valleys (Ehlke et al. 1982, pp. 4, 8; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 8). Geologically, the area is underlain primarily by et al. 1982, p. 1; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 8). The dominant land cover in the two basins is forest, with the natural vegetation community being characterized as mixed mesophytic (moderately moist) forest and Appalachian oak forest (McNab and Avers 1996, section 221E).
Suitable instream habitat for both species is generally described as clean, third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 to 66 feet (ft))), fast-flowing, permanent streams and rivers with unembedded slab boulders on a bedrock, cobble, or sand substrate (Channell 2004, pp. 21-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 1; Loughman 2014, pp
(McNab and Avers 1996, section 221E).
Suitable instream habitat for both species is generally described as clean, third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 to 66 feet (ft))), fast-flowing, permanent streams and rivers with unembedded slab boulders on a bedrock, cobble, or sand substrate (Channell 2004, pp. 21-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 1; Loughman 2014, pp. 22-23; Taylor and Shuster 2004, p. 124; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4, 6). Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) found that specimens were more abundant in pools with current than in riffles. Loughman (2013, p. 1; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23) noted that all historical Guyandotte River crayfish locations originally maintained rocky substrates with abundant slabs and boulders, which is supported by the watershed's geomorphology and available habitat descriptions from early survey efforts. Loughman (2013, p. 2) characterized the Guyandotte River crayfish as “a habitat specialist primarily associated with slab boulders in the immediate up and downstream margins of fast moving riffles.” However, some information indicates adult and juvenile Big Sandy crayfish, and presumably Guyandotte River crayfish, may use different microhabitats within the more generalized stream parameters described above. In Dry Fork (upper Tug Fork drainage, McDowell County, West Virginia), a stream described as having characteristics approaching those of a headwater stream, lacking both fast velocity and deep riffles (Loughman 2014, pp. 9-11), adult Big Sandy crayfish specimens were captured from under slab boulders in the midchannel, fast-moving waters of riffles and runs, while juvenile Big Sandy crayfish were limited to smaller cobbles and boulders in the shallow, slower velocity waters near stream banks. Loughman (2014, pp. 9-11) notes that this habitat partitioning between age classes has been observed in other Cambarus species.
Jezerinac et al. (1995, p
specimens were captured from under slab boulders in the midchannel, fast-moving waters of riffles and runs, while juvenile Big Sandy crayfish were limited to smaller cobbles and boulders in the shallow, slower velocity waters near stream banks. Loughman (2014, pp. 9-11) notes that this habitat partitioning between age classes has been observed in other Cambarus species.
Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) noted that all occurrences of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes occurred above 457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. However, our analyses of both species' location data (both pre- and post-Jezerinac et al. 1995) show that all known occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish occurred from about 180 to 500 m (600 to 1,640 ft) elevation, and all known occurrences of the Guyandotte River crayfish occurred from about 230 to 520 m (750 to 1,700 ft) elevation.
Both species also appear to be intolerant of excessive sedimentation and other pollutants. This statement is based on observed habitat characteristics from sites that either formerly supported either the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish or from sites within either of the species' historical ranges that were predicted to be suitable for the species, but where neither of the species (and in some cases no crayfish from any species) were observed (Channell 2004, pp. 22-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4). See Summary of Factors Affecting the Species for additional information.
Summary of Habitat —Suitable habitat for both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish appears to be limited to higher elevation, clean, medium-sized streams and rivers in the upper reaches of the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte basins, respectively. Both species are associated with the faster moving water of riffles and runs or pools with current. An important habitat feature for both species is an abundance of large, unembedded slab boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock stream bottom
ears to be limited to higher elevation, clean, medium-sized streams and rivers in the upper reaches of the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte basins, respectively. Both species are associated with the faster moving water of riffles and runs or pools with current. An important habitat feature for both species is an abundance of large, unembedded slab boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock stream bottom. Excessive sedimentation appears to create unsuitable conditions for both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Species Distribution and Status
Historical Range and Distribution
Results from multiple crayfish surveys dating back to 1900 and a 2014 examination of all existing museum specimens indicate that the historical range of the Guyandotte River crayfish is limited to the Upper Guyandotte River basin in West Virginia and that the historical range of the Big Sandy crayfish is limited to the upper Big Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and southern West Virginia. Within these larger river basins, the two species were apparently more narrowly distributed to certain stream reaches that exhibited the habitat characteristics required by the species, as discussed in the previous section. Evidence of each species' historical distribution is presented below.
Guyandotte River crayfish —Specimens collected from Indian Creek in the Upper Guyandotte basin in Wyoming County, West Virginia, in 1900 were the basis for the Guyandotte River crayfish's initial description (Faxon 1914, pp. 389-390), and additional collections in the basin in 1947, 1953, and 1971 confirmed the species' presence in Wyoming County and added a new record in Logan County, West Virginia (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; Loughman 2014, p.5). From 1987 to 1989, Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) conducted a Statewide survey of the crayfish of West Virginia, and devoted considerable sampling effort to the Upper Guyandotte basin (Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia). Jezerinac et al. (1995, p
e in Wyoming County and added a new record in Logan County, West Virginia (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; Loughman 2014, p.5). From 1987 to 1989, Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) conducted a Statewide survey of the crayfish of West Virginia, and devoted considerable sampling effort to the Upper Guyandotte basin (Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia). Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) sampled 13 of the 15 known Guyandotte River crayfish locations (as well as 42 other potentially suitable sites) in the Upper Guyandotte basin and documented the species at only two of the known historical locations (a single Wyoming County site and the Logan County site) and reported a new occurrence in Wyoming County (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170). A 2001 survey of the 15 historical locations in the Upper Guyandotte system failed to locate the species at any site (Channell 2004, pp. 16-21; Jones et al. 2010 entire).
EP07AP15.001
Big Sandy crayfish —Records of the Big Sandy crayfish in the Virginia portions of the Big Sandy basin date to 1937, with a specimen collected from the Russell Fork drainage in Dickenson County. A series of surveys conducted in 1950 confirmed the species' presence in Dickenson County and added an occurrence in Buchanan County, Virginia. Surveys in 1998-99 collected specimens from several locations in Dickenson County and added a new occurrence record for Buchanan County (Loughman 2014, pp. 14-15). In 2001, Channell (2004, pp. 21-23) confirmed the presence of the species in the Levisa Fork drainage in Buchanan and Dickenson Counties.
Prior to Thoma (2009, entire), little information exists regarding the species' status in Kentucky. The earliest reference of the species was Hobbs (1969, pp. 134-135), who provided no specific collection records but did provide a shaded range map including portions of the Levisa Fork, Russell Fork, and Tug Fork basins as part of the species' range. A survey of the region by the U.S
on Counties.
Prior to Thoma (2009, entire), little information exists regarding the species' status in Kentucky. The earliest reference of the species was Hobbs (1969, pp. 134-135), who provided no specific collection records but did provide a shaded range map including portions of the Levisa Fork, Russell Fork, and Tug Fork basins as part of the species' range. A survey of the region by the U.S. National Museum in 1972-74 did not record the species' presence (Loughman 2014, p. 11). The first confirmed specimens from Kentucky were collected in 1991, from two locations in the Russell Fork in Pike County, and in 1998, another survey confirmed the species' presence in this river (Loughman 2014, p. 11). In 1999, the species was found in the Levisa Fork in Floyd County, and in 2002, the species was found in Knox Creek (Tug Fork drainage) in Pike County (Loughman 2014, p. 11). Based on his best professional judgment, Thoma (2010, p. 6) concludes that prior to the widespread habitat degradation in the region (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor A), the species likely occupied suitable streams throughout the basin, from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the headwaters. Evidence that the species once occupied suitable habitat down to the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence is also provided by Fetzner and Thoma (2011, pp. 9-10), who found that the pattern of certain genetic markers in Big Sandy crayfish specimens collected from the now isolated Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork watersheds indicate that the species once had a significantly larger range than it currently occupies. In his 2014 report describing the species, Thoma et al. (2014, p. 12) reported the species as endemic to the Levisa Fork, Tug Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds in the upper Big Sandy basin.
There are three known occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in West Virginia, all occurring in 2009 or later and from McDowell County (Loughman 2014, pp. 9-11)
icantly larger range than it currently occupies. In his 2014 report describing the species, Thoma et al. (2014, p. 12) reported the species as endemic to the Levisa Fork, Tug Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds in the upper Big Sandy basin.
There are three known occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in West Virginia, all occurring in 2009 or later and from McDowell County (Loughman 2014, pp. 9-11). See the Current Range and Distribution section below for additional information.
Erroneous or Dubious Records
Collections of crayfish specimens from the region are held at the United States National Museum, Eastern Kentucky University, Ohio State University, West Liberty University, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Several vouchered specimens in some of these collections were labeled as Cambarus veteranus and were reported to have originated from river basins other than the Upper Guyandotte or Big Sandy. Upon further examination these were found to be erroneous or dubious records. Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170) examined specimens identified as C. veteranus collected from the Greenbrier, Little C. robustus and C. elkensis. Subsequent analysis of these specimens by Loughman (2014, p. 16) determined that the Greenbrier River specimens were actually C. smilax and that the Elk River specimens were in fact Big Sandy crayfish ( C. callainus ) (identification based on the morphological characteristics described previously). However, Loughman (2014, p. 16) questioned the recorded origin of this collection, noting that the Elk River and Big Sandy basins are separated by hundreds of stream kilometers and that thorough sampling in the Elk River basin by Jezerinac et al. (1995, pp. 170-171) and Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. 64) were negative for the species. Both Loughman and Jezerinac et al. (1995) surmise that neither C. veteranus nor C. callainus is native to the Elk River basin (Loughman 2014, p. 16)
noting that the Elk River and Big Sandy basins are separated by hundreds of stream kilometers and that thorough sampling in the Elk River basin by Jezerinac et al. (1995, pp. 170-171) and Loughman and Welsh (2013, p. 64) were negative for the species. Both Loughman and Jezerinac et al. (1995) surmise that neither C. veteranus nor C. callainus is native to the Elk River basin (Loughman 2014, p. 16).
Also questionable are specimens collected in 1900, reportedly from Crane Creek in the New River basin in Mercer County, West Virginia. While Loughman (2014, p. 17) did confirm that these specimens are Big Sandy crayfish ( Cambarus callainus ), he concluded that the collection location was likely not “Crane Creek” in the New River system, but the identically named “Crane Creek” in McDowell County, West Virginia, part of the Big Sandy River basin. Loughman (2014, p. 17) notes that several surveys of the New River's Crane Creek (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 64) confirmed the presence of other Cambarus species in this creek, indicating habitat conditions were favorable for the genus, but failed to produce any Big Sandy crayfish. In Loughman's best professional judgment, the species is not native to the New River basin (Loughman 2014, p. 17).
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries possesses a collection of specimens from the New River Watershed that were originally identified as Cambarus veteranus; these specimens were later determined by Thoma to be misidentified and are actually C. sciotensis (Loughman 2014, p. 17).
Taylor and Shuster (2004) report a single 1967 Cambarus veteranus collection from the Kentucky River basin in Estill County, Kentucky. However, subsequent survey efforts in the area have been negative for C. veteranus and C. callainus
ginally identified as Cambarus veteranus; these specimens were later determined by Thoma to be misidentified and are actually C. sciotensis (Loughman 2014, p. 17).
Taylor and Shuster (2004) report a single 1967 Cambarus veteranus collection from the Kentucky River basin in Estill County, Kentucky. However, subsequent survey efforts in the area have been negative for C. veteranus and C. callainus. In addition, the Kentucky River basin has no direct connectivity with either the Big Sandy or Upper Guyandotte River basins—the mouths of the Kentucky River and the Big Sandy River are separated by more than 230 kilometers (km) (143 miles (mi)) of the Ohio River mainstem and the mouth of the Guyandotte River is separated by about 255 km (158 mi). Therefore, the authors concluded that the Estill County record was dubious.
After reviewing the best available information, we conclude that the historical range of the Guyandotte River crayfish ( Cambarus veteranus ) is limited to the Upper Guyandotte River basin in West Virginia, including Wyoming County and parts of Logan and Mingo Counties. We conclude that the historical range of the Big Sandy crayfish ( C. callainus ) is limited to the upper Big Sandy River basin (Levisa Fork, Tug Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds) in eastern Kentucky (Pike and Floyd Counties where the species has been confirmed, and perhaps Johnson, Martin, and Lawrence Counties based on the watershed boundary and stream connectivity), southwestern Virginia (Buchanan and Dickenson Counties and parts of Wise County), and southern West Virginia (McDowell and Mingo Counties).
Current Range and Distribution
The best available scientific information indicates that both the Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish initially occurred in suitable stream habitat throughout their respective historical ranges (Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 2)
e County), and southern West Virginia (McDowell and Mingo Counties).
Current Range and Distribution
The best available scientific information indicates that both the Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish initially occurred in suitable stream habitat throughout their respective historical ranges (Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10; Thoma et al. 2014, p. 2). However, by the late 1800s, commercial logging and coal mining in the region had begun to severely alter the landscape and affect the streams and rivers (Eller 1982, pp. 93-111, 128-162). These widespread and intensive timber and mining enterprises, coupled with rapid human population growth that led to increased development in the narrow valley riparian zones, sewage discharges, road construction, and similar activities throughout both the Big Sandy and the Upper Guyandotte basins, degraded the aquatic systems and apparently extirpated both crayfish species from many subwatersheds within much of their respective historical ranges (discussed below in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The best available information on each species' current range and distribution, based on survey data collected since 2004, is presented below.
Guyandotte River crayfish —The current range of the Guyandotte River crayfish appears to be limited to the midreach of a single stream, Pinnacle Creek, in Wyoming County, West Virginia (Figure 3). In 2001, targeted sampling of the 9 streams (15 individual sites) where the species had previously been confirmed failed to produce the species (Channell 2004, pp. 17-18), and it was theorized that the species might be extirpated from West Virginia (Jones et al. 2010, entire). In 2009, considerable sampling effort was dedicated toward assessing the species' status in West Virginia with 30 likely sites being sampled in the Upper Guyandotte basin
individual sites) where the species had previously been confirmed failed to produce the species (Channell 2004, pp. 17-18), and it was theorized that the species might be extirpated from West Virginia (Jones et al. 2010, entire). In 2009, considerable sampling effort was dedicated toward assessing the species' status in West Virginia with 30 likely sites being sampled in the Upper Guyandotte basin. Thirteen of these sites were historical locations, and the remaining 17 sites were randomly and nonrandomly selected sites meeting the basic habitat characteristics for the species ( e.g., size, gradient, bottom substrate) (Loughman 2013, pp. 4-5). This effort succeeded in collecting two specimens from one of the historical locations, Pinnacle Creek (Loughman 2013, pp. 5-6). In 2011, Loughman (2014, p.10) returned to the Pinnacle Creek site and collected five specimens. In 2014, Loughman (2014, pp. 10-11) surveyed a different downstream location at Pinnacle Creek but was unable to confirm the species' presence; he was not able to survey the historical Pinnacle Creek site during this 2014 effort because of time constraints. See Table 1a for all known stream occurrences of the species.
EP07AP15.002
EP07AP15.003
EP07AP15.004
Big Sandy crayfish —In 2009 and 2010, Thoma (2010, p. 6) conducted a survey of likely Big Sandy crayfish locations to determine the range of the species in Kentucky, sampling sites in Pike (n=15), Floyd (n=10), and Martin (n=2) Counties. The Big Sandy crayfish was confirmed at 10 sites in Pike County and 1 in Floyd County. Broken down by watershed, of the 18 likely sites sampled in the Levisa Fork portion of the basin, the species was found at 8 sites; 2 in the mainstem of the Levisa Fork, 3 in Shelby Creek, 3 in Russell Fork, and 1 in Elkhorn Creek. In the Tug Fork portion of the Big Sandy basin, eight likely sites were surveyed, with the species being confirmed at single sites in three tributary streams near their respective confluences with the mainstem of the Tug Fork (Figure 4)
sa Fork portion of the basin, the species was found at 8 sites; 2 in the mainstem of the Levisa Fork, 3 in Shelby Creek, 3 in Russell Fork, and 1 in Elkhorn Creek. In the Tug Fork portion of the Big Sandy basin, eight likely sites were surveyed, with the species being confirmed at single sites in three tributary streams near their respective confluences with the mainstem of the Tug Fork (Figure 4).
In 2007 and 2012, the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW; 2014) noted two occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in Pike County, Kentucky. In 2007, the species was reported in the Russell Fork near the Virginia border, the same area from which the species was reported in 1991 and 1998 (as discussed previously). In 2012, the species was again confirmed at this location and at a site in Shelby Creek, from where the species was known since Thoma's 2009 survey work (discussed above).
From 2007 to 2009, Thoma (2009, pp. 2, 10) conducted a comprehensive survey of the Big Sandy River basin of Virginia and confirmed the species' continued presence in Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, and added a new occurrence in Wise County. Buchanan County is drained primarily by the Levisa Fork tributary system; however, the southwestern portion of the county is drained by the Russell Fork system, and a section of the north portion is drained by the Tug Fork system. Thoma sampled 16 likely Big Sandy crayfish sites in the Levisa Fork system in Buchanan County and found the species at 5 sites, all in a single stream, Dismal Creek. One site was sampled in the Tug Fork drainage of Buchanan County, but the species was not found. In the Russell Fork drainage of Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise Counties, the Big
In 2009, Loughman (2014, pp. 8-11) surveyed 22 likely sites in the upper Tug Fork basin in McDowell and Mingo Counties, West Virginia, with the species being found at 1 site in Dry Fork. This was the first observation of the species in the West Virginia section of the Big Sandy basin
ty, but the species was not found. In the Russell Fork drainage of Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise Counties, the Big
In 2009, Loughman (2014, pp. 8-11) surveyed 22 likely sites in the upper Tug Fork basin in McDowell and Mingo Counties, West Virginia, with the species being found at 1 site in Dry Fork. This was the first observation of the species in the West Virginia section of the Big Sandy basin. In 2011, Loughman confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site and reported a new occurrence in the Tug Fork mainstem. In 2014, Loughman again confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site and reported a new location 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry Fork. This is the farthest upstream occurrence in the Tug Fork drainage of West Virginia (Loughman 2014, p. 11). See Table 1b for all stream occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish.
EP07AP15.005
Population Estimates and Status
Data to inform a rangewide population estimate for either the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish are sparse, but historical evidence, observations from existing healthier sites, and expert opinion suggest that, prior to the significant land-disturbing activities that began in the late 1800s (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor A), these species were the dominant tertiary burrowing crayfish occupying the previously described habitat type throughout their respective ranges (Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014; Thoma 2010, p. 10). Loughman (pers. comm., October 24, 2014) surmises that, within each suitable stream reach ( e.g., the riffles and runs of third order or larger streams with a sand, gravel, or bedrock substrate and abundant unembedded slab boulders), each large slab boulder in midstream likely harbored an adult specimen. This is based on his observations of the population densities of similar stream-dwelling Cambarus species, historical accounts, and the results of Thoma's (2009) surveys for C. callainus in Virginia
ffles and runs of third order or larger streams with a sand, gravel, or bedrock substrate and abundant unembedded slab boulders), each large slab boulder in midstream likely harbored an adult specimen. This is based on his observations of the population densities of similar stream-dwelling Cambarus species, historical accounts, and the results of Thoma's (2009) surveys for C. callainus in Virginia. It is also reasonable to conclude based on the historical range of each species, that the instream habitat conditions (including an absence of physical obstacles such as dams) were once conducive to the movement of individuals between subpopulations or to the colonization (or recolonization) of unoccupied sites. This movement (via downstream drift or active upstream migration) has been documented in other stream crayfish (Kerby et al. 2005, p. 407; Momot 1966, pp. 158-159), and contributes to the genetic diversity of the species and the flexibility of individuals to occupy or abandon different sites as environmental conditions change.
Guyandotte River crayfish —While the collection methods and level of effort is not described for the early surveys, it is notable that on August 16, 1900, a researcher visited the Upper Guyandotte River and was able to collect 25 Guyandotte River crayfish specimens from Indian Creek and 15 specimens from Little Indian Creek in Wyoming
The best available information indicates that, of the nine streams where the Guyandotte River crayfish had previously been confirmed, it persists in only one: Pinnacle Creek. The R.D. Bailey Dam (completed in 1980) and Lake, on the Guyandotte River near the town of Justice, West Virginia, physically isolates two of the streams with historical records of the species (Huff Creek and Little Huff Creek) from the remaining seven subwatersheds known to have harbored the species, including Pinnacle Creek. The species was confirmed in Little Huff Creek in 1971, and Huff Creek in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p
1980) and Lake, on the Guyandotte River near the town of Justice, West Virginia, physically isolates two of the streams with historical records of the species (Huff Creek and Little Huff Creek) from the remaining seven subwatersheds known to have harbored the species, including Pinnacle Creek. The species was confirmed in Little Huff Creek in 1971, and Huff Creek in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170), and while survey efforts in 2001 and 2009 failed to find the species in either creek, Loughman did remark that unlike most streams in the basin, in 2009 Huff Creek appeared to have habitat conducive to the species (Channell 2004, p. 17; Loughman 2013, pp. 5-6, 9).
Since 1978, four Pinnacle Creek sites have been surveyed for the species. One of these sites is located near the creek's confluence with the Guyandotte River, and the other three are located approximately 21 km (13 mi) upstream of this site. The three upstream sites are within about 1.6-km (1.0-mi) stream distance of each other and were surveyed in 1988, 2001, 2009, and 2011, with one, zero, two, and five individual Guyandotte River crayfish reported in each respective year (Channell 2004, pp. 16-17, Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 170; Loughman, 2013, pp. 6-10). The site near the confluence was surveyed in 1978 and in 2014 but was negative for the species. In addition, during the 2014 survey, Loughman (2014, pp. 10-11) did not find crayfish of any species.
Big Sandy crayfish —In the Big Sandy basin of Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 10) noted apparently healthy populations of the Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork drainage in Dickenson and parts of Buchanan and Wise Counties. Of the 18 sites sampled in 8 individual streams that harbored the species, a total of 344 individuals were observed (an average of 19 individuals per site)
fish of any species.
Big Sandy crayfish —In the Big Sandy basin of Virginia, Thoma (2009, p. 10) noted apparently healthy populations of the Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork drainage in Dickenson and parts of Buchanan and Wise Counties. Of the 18 sites sampled in 8 individual streams that harbored the species, a total of 344 individuals were observed (an average of 19 individuals per site). Two of the occupied streams (Pound River and Cranes Nest River) (five individual sites) are physically isolated from each other and from the rest of the Russell Fork system (and remainder of the species' range) by the Flannagan Dam and Reservoir.
In the upper Levisa Fork drainage of Buchanan County, Virginia, the species was found only in a single stream: Dismal Creek. During separate sampling events in 2007, 2008, and 2009, 33 specimens were collected from 4 sites (3 to 12 individuals per site) in Dismal Creek. The upper Levisa Fork (including Dismal Creek) is physically isolated from the rest of the species' range by the Fishtrap Dam and Lake (completed in 1969), located on the Levisa Fork about 4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream of the Levisa Fork-Russell Fork confluence in Kentucky.
In the Kentucky portion of the Big Sandy crayfish's range, Thoma (2010, p. 6) found the species in very low numbers (one to two individuals) at two sites in the lower portion of the Levisa Fork and described the population as stressed and in poor condition (Thoma 2010, p. 6). He also found the species in two tributaries to the Levisa Fork: Shelby Creek and Russell Fork. Specimens were collected at 3 sites in Shelby Creek, with the farthest downstream site producing 12 individuals and the farthest upstream site producing 4. The author described these populations as “very healthy,” but noted that the middle sampling site produced only two specimens. In the Russell Fork upstream of Shelby Creek, 7 specimens were collected from 1 site and 20 from another; this section was also described as a “healthy” population
Creek, with the farthest downstream site producing 12 individuals and the farthest upstream site producing 4. The author described these populations as “very healthy,” but noted that the middle sampling site produced only two specimens. In the Russell Fork upstream of Shelby Creek, 7 specimens were collected from 1 site and 20 from another; this section was also described as a “healthy” population. Thoma did not detect the species in the mainstem of the Levisa Fork between Shelby Creek and the Virginia State line. However, the previously mentioned Fishtrap Dam and Lake makes much of this stretch of river unsuitable for the species and isolates the Big Sandy crayfish population in the lower Levisa Fork system from the upper reaches, including the only remaining population in Dismal Creek, Virginia.
In the Tug Fork drainage of Kentucky, Thoma (2010, p. 6) surveyed seven sites and confirmed the species in low numbers (one, three, and seven individuals) at three sites. Those sites that produced specimens were all located in tributary streams near their confluences with the Tug Fork mainstem. In 2009, Loughman and Welsh (as reported in Loughman 2014, pp. 8-11) surveyed 24 likely sites in the Tug Fork basin in West Virginia, and observed the species at one site, collecting three individuals from Dry Creek, an upper Tug Fork tributary. In 2011, Loughman returned to the area and, with the same level of sampling effort, recovered nine specimens from Dry Creek and eight individuals from a site in the Tug Fork mainstem. The Tug Fork site had produced zero specimens in 2009. In 2014, Loughman again confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site, collecting 11 individuals, and reported a new occurrence 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry Fork, where he collected seven individuals. See Tables 2a and 2b for a summary of the survey results for the Big Sandy crayfish (2006 to 2014) by watershed boundaries and by State boundaries
uced zero specimens in 2009. In 2014, Loughman again confirmed the species' presence at the Dry Fork site, collecting 11 individuals, and reported a new occurrence 25.8 km (16.0 mi) farther upstream in the Dry Fork, where he collected seven individuals. See Tables 2a and 2b for a summary of the survey results for the Big Sandy crayfish (2006 to 2014) by watershed boundaries and by State boundaries.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP07AP15.006
To better compare the status of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfish populations among existing sites, Loughman (2014, pp. 8-15) standardized the results of his and Thoma's (2009; 2010) survey work, which used the same sampling techniques, to the common metric CPUE ( i.e., “crayfish per hour of searching”). The results indicate that, compared to the seemingly healthy population of Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork system (including the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers), where the average CPUE ranged from 12 to 21.7 crayfish/hour (hr), the remaining populations of Big Sandy crayfish in the Levisa Fork and Tug Fork drainages, and the single remaining Guyandotte River crayfish population in Pinnacle Creek, are depressed, ranging from 1 to 11 crayfish/hr in the Levisa Fork and Tug Fork, and 2 to 2.5 crayfish/hr in the Guyandotte (see Table 3). The data also illustrate an apparent decrease in abundance of the Big Sandy crayfish from upstream waters ( i.e., Virginia) to downstream waters ( i.e., Kentucky). Loughman (2014, pp. 13, 15) pooled the data from all sites sampled in Kentucky and Virginia (including the sites that were negative for the species) and determined the average CPUEs for the Big Sandy crayfish in those States to be 1.9 and 3.83, respectively. The pattern is stark for the Guyandotte River crayfish, as the species is known to persist in only one upstream subwatershed, Pinnacle Creek, with a CPUE of 2.0 to 2.5 crayfish/hr; all other likely sites downstream of this were negative for the species ( i.e., zero crayfish/hr)
he species) and determined the average CPUEs for the Big Sandy crayfish in those States to be 1.9 and 3.83, respectively. The pattern is stark for the Guyandotte River crayfish, as the species is known to persist in only one upstream subwatershed, Pinnacle Creek, with a CPUE of 2.0 to 2.5 crayfish/hr; all other likely sites downstream of this were negative for the species ( i.e., zero crayfish/hr). The Guyandotte River crayfish has apparently been extirpated from all waters downstream of Pinnacle Creek.
EP07AP15.007
Summary of Population Estimates/Status —Multiple survey results dating back to 1900 and the best professional judgment of crayfish experts indicate a significant reduction in the Guyandotte River crayfish's historical range and a likely reduction in the Big Sandy crayfish's historical range. Specifically, the best available information indicates a contraction in range from the lower reaches of each watershed to the higher elevation streams. Based on a reduction in CPUE and a reduction in the number of observed specimens, the populations of both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish appear to be depressed, and critically so for the latter. Neither species is particularly cryptic. Multiple researchers have demonstrated that, given suitable habitat conditions, individuals of each species are readily located, collected, and identified. Survey efforts since 2004 have adequately covered the ranges of both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes; therefore, if individuals of either species occupied a surveyed site it is reasonable to conclude that their presence would have been noted. While it is possible that future survey efforts could identify additional occurrences of either the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, the best available information indicates a reduction in distribution and abundance for both species
River crayfishes; therefore, if individuals of either species occupied a surveyed site it is reasonable to conclude that their presence would have been noted. While it is possible that future survey efforts could identify additional occurrences of either the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, the best available information indicates a reduction in distribution and abundance for both species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 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.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Based on the best available information, and as previously described, the Guyandotte River crayfish and the Big Sandy crayfish exist only in suitable stream habitats in the Upper Guyandotte basin of southern West Virginia and the Big Sandy basin of eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia, respectively. Within the historical range of each species, aquatic habitat has been severely degraded by past and ongoing human activities (Channell 2004, pp. 16-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4)
g Sandy basin of eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia, respectively. Within the historical range of each species, aquatic habitat has been severely degraded by past and ongoing human activities (Channell 2004, pp. 16-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4). Visual evidence of habitat degradation, such as excessive bottom sedimentation, discolored sediments, or stream channelization and dredging, is often obvious, while other water quality issues such as changes in pH, low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, high dissolved solids, high conductivity, high metals concentrations, and changes in other chemical parameters are less visually obvious. These perturbations may occur singly or in combination, and may vary temporally from chronic issues to acute episodic events. Degradation of the aquatic habitat can affect the stream biota and community structure in multiple ways. Some conditions can cause direct mortality to stream organisms ( e.g., exceedingly high or low pH, exceedingly low DO), while others such as sedimentation may make the stream uninhabitable for some species (by removing access to shelter or breeding substrates), but not uninhabitable for other species. Within the range of each species, water quality monitoring reports, most recently from the KDOW (2013, entire), the EPA
Historical context —The initial degradation of the rivers and streams within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes was a result of industrial-scale forestry and coal mining. By the late 1800s, the timber resources in the Northeast and Great Lakes region were in decline, and companies began focusing on the largely intact forests of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Initially the cutting was selective and only the most valuable trees were taken, but beginning in about 1900 and continuing into the 1920s, the cutting became more intensive, widespread, and indiscriminate
By the late 1800s, the timber resources in the Northeast and Great Lakes region were in decline, and companies began focusing on the largely intact forests of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Initially the cutting was selective and only the most valuable trees were taken, but beginning in about 1900 and continuing into the 1920s, the cutting became more intensive, widespread, and indiscriminate. During this same period, the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia began to be mined and railroads expanded throughout the region to transport the lumber and coal to outside markets (Forest History Society 2008, entire). Since this period, many thousands of individual underground and surface mines have been constructed throughout the region, and extensive areas have been disturbed (Kentucky Surface Mining Viewer 2015; Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (VDMME) 2015; West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey 2015). Figure 5 provides historical coal extraction data for those counties making up the core ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. To date, the cumulative tonnage of coal extracted from these counties, standardized by area, ranges from 1.16 million to 2.78 million tons of coal per square mile (Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends 2015; Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS) 2015; West Virginia Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 2014).
The regional timber and coal booms led to a concurrent increase in human population as people moved into the area for work. Between 1900 and 1950, the human populations of the five counties that constitute the core ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes increased by a range of 300 percent to more than 500 percent (Figure 6)
lth Safety and Training 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 2014).
The regional timber and coal booms led to a concurrent increase in human population as people moved into the area for work. Between 1900 and 1950, the human populations of the five counties that constitute the core ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes increased by a range of 300 percent to more than 500 percent (Figure 6). And because of the rugged topography of the region, most of the main roads, railroads, and residential and commercial development was (and remains) confined to the narrow valley bottoms, through which the region's streams and rivers also flow. This pattern of development resulted in the destruction of riparian habitat and the direct discharge of sewage, refuse, and sediments into the adjacent waters (Eller 1982, pp. 162, 184-186).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP07AP15.008
EP07AP15.009
While most of the residential and commercial development was, and remains, concentrated in the valley bottoms, the timber cutting and coal mining operations occurred throughout, including the ridges and steep mountainsides, resulting in severe soil erosion and sedimentation of the region's streams and rivers. An account from the 1920s described the regional landscape as being “scarred and ugly, and streams ran brown with garbage and acid runoff from the mines” (Eller 1982, p. 162). While we are not aware of rigorous water quality or habitat studies from this early period, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report on the coal resources in Pike County, Kentucky (Big Sandy basin) provides evidence that by 1937, habitat conditions conducive to the Big Sandy crayfish were likely degraded, noting that throughout the county the clearing of timber from the hillsides and subsequent attempts at cultivating the steep slopes caused severe soil erosion into the basin's streams “keeping them muddy and partly filling their channels” (Hunt et al. 1937, p. 7)
Kentucky (Big Sandy basin) provides evidence that by 1937, habitat conditions conducive to the Big Sandy crayfish were likely degraded, noting that throughout the county the clearing of timber from the hillsides and subsequent attempts at cultivating the steep slopes caused severe soil erosion into the basin's streams “keeping them muddy and partly filling their channels” (Hunt et al. 1937, p. 7). Because timber cutting and coal mining were ubiquitous in the region, it is reasonable to conclude that these conditions were common throughout the historical ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes and that this habitat degradation led to the extirpation of the species from much of their historical ranges.
Current conditions —The KDOW reported that in the Big Sandy basin in Pike County (Tug Fork and Levisa Fork drainages), 30 streams or stream segments (about 285 km (177 mi) of stream length) are impaired, meaning they violate water quality standards or do not meet one or more of their designated uses ( e.g., human health, aquatic life) (KDOW 2013, appendix E). Of these, 25 are listed for aquatic habitat impairment, 9 for coliform bacteria (indicators of sewage discharges), and 1 for a fish consumption advisory due to chemical contamination (KDOW 2013, appendix E). Many of the streams have multiple impairments. Of those streams listed for aquatic habitat impairment, coal mining is cited as a cause in all but two cases (which are listed as “unknown”). According to the report, the next most commonly cited cause of stream habitat degradation is sedimentation, which is associated with mining, stream channelization, urban runoff, road runoff, and silviculture (which are also cited individually as sources of impairment). The WVDEP reported that in the Tug Fork drainage in West Virginia, 47 streams or stream segments (about 523 km (325 mi) of stream length) are impaired, primarily for “biological impairment” (as measured by the WVSCI), coliform bacteria, and selenium (a toxic metal) (WVDEP 2012, pp
nnelization, urban runoff, road runoff, and silviculture (which are also cited individually as sources of impairment). The WVDEP reported that in the Tug Fork drainage in West Virginia, 47 streams or stream segments (about 523 km (325 mi) of stream length) are impaired, primarily for “biological impairment” (as measured by the WVSCI), coliform bacteria, and selenium (a toxic metal) (WVDEP 2012, pp. 32-33).
In the Big Sandy basin of Virginia, the VADEQ reported that 25 streams, stream segments, or stream systems (about 475 km (295 mi) of stream length) were impaired. Impairment assessments for aquatic life are based on measures such as benthic macroinvertebrate community structure or water temperature and for recreational use based on measures such as Escherichia coli and fecal coliform bacteria contamination ( e.g., sewage) (VADEQ 2014, pp. 1098-1124). The primary causes of these impairments are listed as coal mining (n=5), rural residential development (n=12), forestry (n=1), or unknown (n=7). Additionally, more than 212 km (138 mi) of the Knox Creek (Tug Fork drainage) and Levisa Fork
Water quality monitoring data for the Upper Guyandotte basin indicate that 62 streams (362 km (225 mi) of stream length) in the basin are impaired. Forty-four streams are listed for biological impairment, 14 streams exceed the water quality standard for selenium, and 4 streams are listed for fecal coliform bacteria (WVDEP 2012, pp. 28, 42-44). Although the specific sources of these impairments are listed as “unknown,” a 2004 report by the EPA (2004, entire) links the metals and pH impairments to coal mining-related activities, including AML drainage, and links the fecal coliform impairments to “urban and residential runoff, leaking sanitary sewers, failing septic systems, straight pipe discharges, grazing livestock, runoff from cropland, and wildlife” (EPA 2004, p. 2).
Water quality information appears to be correlated with the presence or absence of the Guyandotte River crayfish
nts to coal mining-related activities, including AML drainage, and links the fecal coliform impairments to “urban and residential runoff, leaking sanitary sewers, failing septic systems, straight pipe discharges, grazing livestock, runoff from cropland, and wildlife” (EPA 2004, p. 2).
Water quality information appears to be correlated with the presence or absence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. For example, during their 1988 and 1989 surveys for the Guyandotte River crayfish at 13 of the 15 known locations for the species (as well as 42 other potentially suitable sites) in the Upper Guyandotte basin, Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 171) a noted an absence of the species in many otherwise suitable streams that displayed visible evidence of sewage, sedimentation, and coal fines.
In 2001, Channell (2004, pp. 16-21) surveyed and assessed habitat conditions at each of the 15 historical Guyandotte River crayfish locations. Habitat quality was assessed and scored per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rapid bioassessment protocol (RBP) (Barbour et al. 1999, entire) and the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000, entire). The RBP (see http://water.epa.gov/scitech/monitoring/rsl/bioassessment/index.cfm; last accessed March 3, 2015) is “an integrated assessment, comparing habitat ( e.g., physical structure, flow regime), water quality and biological measures with empirically defined reference conditions (via actual reference sites, historical data, and/or modeling or extrapolation)” (Barbour et al. 1999, chapter 2) using benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages (see http://www.dep.wv.gov/wwe/watershed/bio_fish/pages/bio_fish.aspx#wvwvsci; last accessed March 3, 2015). The index allows comparison of assessed streams to reference streams that contain little to no human disturbance
reference conditions (via actual reference sites, historical data, and/or modeling or extrapolation)” (Barbour et al. 1999, chapter 2) using benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages (see http://www.dep.wv.gov/wwe/watershed/bio_fish/pages/bio_fish.aspx#wvwvsci; last accessed March 3, 2015). The index allows comparison of assessed streams to reference streams that contain little to no human disturbance. Although the RBP and WVSCI use macroinvertebrates instead of crayfish as indicators, the WVSCI is a valid screening tool for water quality assessment because macroinvertebrates are sensitive to changes in water quality due to their limited mobility and short life span ( e.g., sensitive life stages respond quickly to deteriorating conditions). Macroinvertebrates are also abundant in most streams and easy to sample, and are food for other stream biota (Barbour et al. 1999, chapter 3). The WVSCI was the best available screening tool at the time of the 2001 crayfish surveys and is a standard measure used to comply with the monitoring requirements of the CWA. Of five crayfish species native to the basin (the presence of each having been confirmed in 1988 and 1989 by Jezerinac et al. (1995)), two species ( Cambarus veteranus and C. robustus ) were not detected at any site during this effort. Four of the historical sites produced no species in the genus Cambarus ( e.g., crayfish of the same genus as C. veteranus ). Results of the habitat assessment indicated that 7 of 15 sites were “impaired” per the EPA protocol, with 3 sites also being “impaired” per the WVSCI definition. Impairment indicates that habitat conditions at these sites exhibited some level of degradation, as compared to high-quality reference streams in the region.
In 2009, Pinnacle Creek was the only site in the Upper Guyandotte system confirmed to still harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish
of 15 sites were “impaired” per the EPA protocol, with 3 sites also being “impaired” per the WVSCI definition. Impairment indicates that habitat conditions at these sites exhibited some level of degradation, as compared to high-quality reference streams in the region.
In 2009, Pinnacle Creek was the only site in the Upper Guyandotte system confirmed to still harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish. This site is located in a mostly forested floodplain and was characterized as having coal fines and moderate sedimentation but with an abundance of unembedded slab boulders in both riffles and runs (Loughman 2013, p. 6). At another historical site, Huff Creek, the species had been reported as “moderately abundant” in 1989 (Jezerinac et al. 1995). However in 2009, while the habitat appeared conducive to the species, Loughman (2013, p. 6) did not observe the species in Huff Creek. Based on personal observation, Loughman (2013, pp. 6, 9) concluded that the Guyandotte River crayfish was eliminated from Huff Creek by channel bulldozing in the early 2000s, and perhaps chemical inputs from upstream coal mines.
In association with her study of the Guyandotte River crayfish population, Channell (2004, pp. 21-23) also surveyed suitable locations in the Levisa Fork system (Big Sandy basin) in Virginia. Big Sandy crayfish were confirmed at three of the six sites surveyed, with the author noting that the species was found under large rocks (greater than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) across) in streams from 4 to 15 m (13 to 49 ft) wide and without coal fines in the substrate. While RBP scores for the six sites did not indicate impairment, the author noted that the three streams where the Big Sandy crayfishes were not observed were included on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's 303(d) list of impaired waters as a result of damming, urban influence, mining activities, or sewage (Channell 2004, pp. 22-23).
Thoma (2009, p. 7 and 2010, pp
in the substrate. While RBP scores for the six sites did not indicate impairment, the author noted that the three streams where the Big Sandy crayfishes were not observed were included on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's 303(d) list of impaired waters as a result of damming, urban influence, mining activities, or sewage (Channell 2004, pp. 22-23).
Thoma (2009, p. 7 and 2010, pp. 3-4) examined the relationship of Cambarus callainus abundance and various habitat parameters in Kentucky and Virginia, and correlated his results with several habitat variables at each site, quantified using the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) (Ohio EPA 2006, entire). The QHEI “is a physical habitat index designed to provide an empirical, quantified evaluation of the general lotic macrohabitat characteristics that are important to fish communities” (Ohio EPA 2006, p. 3). The habitat variables captured in the QHEI include substrate quality, instream cover, riparian zone and bank erosion, and pool/glide and riffle/run quality (Thoma 2009, p. 7). At sample sites in Virginia, he found Big Sandy crayfish numbers positively correlated with higher quality habitat, as measured by the QHEI, and negatively correlated with pollution, fine bottom sediments, and stream gradient (Thoma 2009, p. 7). A similar analysis of the species' status in Kentucky supported his findings from Virginia that the Big Sandy crayfish “was most strongly associated with clean, third order or larger streams, low in bedload sediments, with moderate gradient, and an abundance of boulder/cobble substrate” (Thoma 2010, p. 3). The Kentucky data indicated a strong positive correlation between Big Sandy crayfish numbers and general habitat quality ( i.e., QHEI), riffle quality, and percent boulders. A site's riffle quality and riffle embeddedness (bottom sedimentation) were the best correlates of the species' abundance (Thoma 2010, p. 4)
moderate gradient, and an abundance of boulder/cobble substrate” (Thoma 2010, p. 3). The Kentucky data indicated a strong positive correlation between Big Sandy crayfish numbers and general habitat quality ( i.e., QHEI), riffle quality, and percent boulders. A site's riffle quality and riffle embeddedness (bottom sedimentation) were the best correlates of the species' abundance (Thoma 2010, p. 4).
In 2009 and 2011, Loughman and Welsh (2013) surveyed specifically for the species in the Upper Guyandotte River basin, Tug Fork basin (Big Sandy River basin), and the Bluestone River basin (a tributary of the New River) in West Virginia. Results of this intensive effort (69 sites surveyed in 2009) indicated that most sites exhibited excessive sedimentation and embedded slab boulders, or had been channelized and were devoid of large boulders (Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Cambarus theepiensis, a newly described Cambarus species associated with lower gradient streams dominated by depositional bottom substrate ( e.g., finer substrates) and fewer slab boulders, being common in the region's streams. In these situations, C. theepiensis has been observed sheltering in simple burrows in the stream bottom or stream banks. Neither the Big Sandy crayfish nor the Guyandotte River crayfish has been observed exhibiting this sheltering behavior (Loughman et al. 2013, p. 70).
Coal mining —The past and ongoing effects of coal mining in the Appalachian Basin are well documented, and both underground and surface mines are reported to degrade water quality and stream habitats (Bernhardt et al. 2012, entire; Demchak et al. 2004, entire; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 94-100; Hopkins et al. 2013, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011, entire; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 67-70; Merriam et al. 2011, entire; Palmer and Hondula 2014, entire; Pond et al. 2008, entire; Pond 2011, entire; Sams and Beer 2000, entire; USEPA 2011, entire; Wang et al. 2013, entire; Williams et al. 1996, p. 41-46)
ts (Bernhardt et al. 2012, entire; Demchak et al. 2004, entire; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 94-100; Hopkins et al. 2013, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011, entire; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 67-70; Merriam et al. 2011, entire; Palmer and Hondula 2014, entire; Pond et al. 2008, entire; Pond 2011, entire; Sams and Beer 2000, entire; USEPA 2011, entire; Wang et al. 2013, entire; Williams et al. 1996, p. 41-46). Notable water quality changes associated with coal mining in this region include increased concentrations of sulfate, calcium, and other ions (measured collectively by a water's electrical conductivity); increased concentrations of iron, magnesium, manganese, and other metals; and increased alkalinity and pH, depending on the local geology (Lindberg et al. 2011, pp. 2-6; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 67-68; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717-718; Sams and Beer 2000, pp. 3-5; Williams et al. 1996, pp. 10-17). The common physical changes to local waterways associated with coal mining include increased erosion and sedimentation, changes in flow, and in many cases the complete burial of headwater streams (Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 91-92; Matter and Ney 1981, entire; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717-718; USEPA 2011, pp. 7-9). These mining-related effects are commonly noted in the streams and rivers within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes (KDOW 2013; USEPA 2004; VADEQ 2014; WVDEP 2012).
The response of aquatic species to coal mining-induced degradation are also well documented, commonly observed as a shift in a stream's macroinvertebrate ( e.g., insect larva or nymphs, aquatic worms, snails, clams, crayfish) or fish community structure and resultant loss of sensitive taxa and an increase in tolerant taxa (Diamond and Serveiss 2001, pp. 4714-4717; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 96-97; Hitt and Chambers 2014, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011b, p. 1; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 66-67; Pond et al. 2008)
d as a shift in a stream's macroinvertebrate ( e.g., insect larva or nymphs, aquatic worms, snails, clams, crayfish) or fish community structure and resultant loss of sensitive taxa and an increase in tolerant taxa (Diamond and Serveiss 2001, pp. 4714-4717; Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 96-97; Hitt and Chambers 2014, entire; Lindberg et al. 2011b, p. 1; Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 66-67; Pond et al. 2008). As mentioned above, coal mining can cause a variety of changes to water chemistry and physical habitat; therefore, it is often difficult to attribute the observed effects to a single factor. It is likely that the observed shifts in community structure (including the extirpation of some species) are, in many cases, a result of a combination of factors.
There is less specific information available on the effects of coal mining-induced degradation to crayfishes. A study in Ohio using juvenile Appalachian Brook crayfish ( Cambarus bartonii cavatus ), a stream-dwelling species in the same genus as the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, found that individuals from downstream of a mine drainage were somewhat more tolerant of high conductivity conditions than individuals from upstream of the discharge (Gallaway and Hummon 1991, pp. 168-170). The authors noted that during ecdysis (molting, a particularly vulnerable stage in the animal's lifecycle), however, individuals were more sensitive to high conductivity levels. In the laboratory, conductivity levels of 1,200 to 2,000 micro Siemens/centimeter (µS) resulted in the crayfish having difficulty molting, while field observations indicated that crayfish in isolated pools with conductivity levels of 800 to 1,920 µS died in midmolt or experienced obviously stressful molts as demonstrated by missing chelea and/or periopods or other physical malformations
ty levels. In the laboratory, conductivity levels of 1,200 to 2,000 micro Siemens/centimeter (µS) resulted in the crayfish having difficulty molting, while field observations indicated that crayfish in isolated pools with conductivity levels of 800 to 1,920 µS died in midmolt or experienced obviously stressful molts as demonstrated by missing chelea and/or periopods or other physical malformations. The authors also noted that a 1-week exposure to water with a conductivity level of 3,000 µS, as might be experienced during summer low flow conditions, would be lethal to all of the crayfish in the study (Gallaway and Hummon 1991, pp. 168-170).
Welsh and Loughman (2014, entire) analyzed crayfish distributions in the heavily mined upper Kanawha River basin in southern West Virginia and determined that physical habitat quality (including substrate type and quality, embeddedness, instream cover, channel morphology, and gradient) and stream order (size) were the best predictors of crayfish presence or absence and crayfish diversity. They observed that, in general, secondary and tertiary burrowing species such as Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes were associated with high-quality physical habitat conditions. The exception to this pattern was Cambarus bartonii cavatus (a secondary burrower), the same species studied by Gallaway and Hummon (1991) and discussed above, that was found to be more closely associated with low-quality physical habitat but high-quality water ( i.e. , low conductivity). For most species studied, the results did not demonstrate a relationship between conductivity levels and a species' presence or absence. However, Welsh and Loughman (2014, entire) noted that stream conductivity levels can vary seasonally or with flow conditions, making assumptions regarding species' presence or absence at the time of surveys difficult to correlate with prior ephemeral conductivity conditions
ecies studied, the results did not demonstrate a relationship between conductivity levels and a species' presence or absence. However, Welsh and Loughman (2014, entire) noted that stream conductivity levels can vary seasonally or with flow conditions, making assumptions regarding species' presence or absence at the time of surveys difficult to correlate with prior ephemeral conductivity conditions.
In addition to degrading water quality, coal mining increases erosion and sedimentation in downgradient streams and rivers (Hartman et al. 2005, pp. 91-92; Matter and Ney 1981; Pond et al. 2008, pp. 717-718; USEPA 1976, pp. 3-11; USEPA 2011, pp. 7-9); this is of particular importance for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, which, as tertiary burrowers, rely on unembedded slab boulders for shelter. While some other crayfish species (secondary burrowers) are known to excavate burrows in the streambank or bottom, or utilize leaf packs or other vegetation for shelter, neither the Big Sandy crayfish nor the Guyandotte River crayfish has been observed exhibiting this behavior. Channell (2004, p. 18), Jezerinac et al. (1995, p. 170), Loughman (2014, pp. 32-33), and Loughman and Welsh (2013, pp. 22-24) theorize that, because of habitat degradation, the habitat-specialist Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes may be at a competitive disadvantage to other more generalist crayfish species (see Factor E— Interspecific competition, below, for additional information), which has contributed to the decline, extirpation, and continued low abundance of the former two species. Whatever the exact mechanism may be, multiple researchers have observed that excessive bottom sedimentation appears to make otherwise suitable stream reaches uninhabitable by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Channell 2004, pp. 16-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4)
es. Whatever the exact mechanism may be, multiple researchers have observed that excessive bottom sedimentation appears to make otherwise suitable stream reaches uninhabitable by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Channell 2004, pp. 16-23; Jezerinac et al. 1995, p. 171; Loughman 2013, p. 6; Loughman 2014, pp. 10-11; Loughman and Welsh 2013, p. 23; Thoma 2009, p. 7; Thoma 2010, pp. 3-4).
While coal extraction from the southern Appalachian region has declined from the historical highs of the 20th century, and is unlikely to ever return to those levels (McIlmoil, et al. 2013, pp. 1-8, 49-57; Milici and Dennen 2009, pp. 9-10), significant mining still occurs within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River
The detrimental effects of coal mining often continue long after active mining ceases. Hopkins et al. (2013, entire) studied water quality in a southeast Ohio watershed where most of the coal mining operations are closed and in varying stages of reclamation, and found that, while pH levels were not correlated with mining activity (and appeared to be within the tolerance limits of most stream taxa), conductivity, aluminum, and sulfate concentrations were correlated with past mining activity and that, despite mine reclamation efforts, these parameters were measured at levels associated with the impairment of aquatic biota. While the Hopkins et al. (2013, entire) study does not include crayfish species specifically, the results are compared to water quality parameters that may negatively affect all aquatic species, including crayfish. Sams and Beer (2000, pp. 11-16) studied the effects of acid mine drainage in the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and estimated trends in sulfate concentrations over a 30-year period (1965 to 1995). For several creeks and rivers they found that sulfate concentrations were correlated with coal production in the individual basins
species, including crayfish. Sams and Beer (2000, pp. 11-16) studied the effects of acid mine drainage in the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and estimated trends in sulfate concentrations over a 30-year period (1965 to 1995). For several creeks and rivers they found that sulfate concentrations were correlated with coal production in the individual basins. In one stream system with long-term data and where coal mining had been in decline since 1950, they noted a decrease in sulfate concentrations over time as abandoned mine lands were reclaimed and with the natural weathering of the exposed sulfide minerals. However, while the decline in sulfate concentrations was initially rapid, the rate of improvement slowed over time, and they concluded that mine drainage would continue to degrade water quality for many years.
By-products of deep and surface mines include manganese and iron (Sams and Beers 2000, pp. 2, 4, 6). When these by-products enter the aquatic environment, they can affect crayfish in two ways: directly through the body and indirectly through food sources (Loughman 2014, p. 27). Both iron and manganese are upregulated into the body through gill respiration and stomach and intestinal absorption (Baden and Eriksson 2006, pp. 67-75). In addition, both iron and manganese bioaccumulate in crayfish when they feed on benthic macroinvertebrates. Although manganese is “an essential metal and is thus required in at least a minimum concentration for an animal to be able to fulfil its metabolic functions” (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 64), it can be physiologically toxic to crayfishes when levels are too high (Loughman 2014, p. 27). While manganese absorption may not directly cause mortality, it may adversely affect reproductive cycles and oocytes (immature egg cells) (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 73)
ired in at least a minimum concentration for an animal to be able to fulfil its metabolic functions” (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 64), it can be physiologically toxic to crayfishes when levels are too high (Loughman 2014, p. 27). While manganese absorption may not directly cause mortality, it may adversely affect reproductive cycles and oocytes (immature egg cells) (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 73). “Iron and manganese also physically bond to crayfish exoskeletons following ecydisis [ e.g., molting], clogging sensory sensila [ e.g., receptor] and reducing overall health of crayfish” (Loughman 2014, p. 27).
Loughman (2014, pp. 26-27) has observed Guyandotte River crayfish that have visible signs of manganese encrustation. While Hay's 1900 Indian Creek, Wyoming County, West Virginia, specimen did not exhibit manganese encrustation, Hobbs' 1947 specimens from Indian Creek did. In addition, Big Sandy crayfish specimens collected by Loughman in 2014, from Dry Fork, McDowell County, West Virginia, also exhibited manganese encrustation. The Dry Fork specimens were sampled from a site immediately downstream of deep mine effluents entering Dry Fork (Loughman 2014, p. 27). While manganese encrustations have been found on both Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfish specimens, we are uncertain the extent to which these deposits occur across the species' ranges or if and to what extent the effects of the manganese and iron exposure has contributed to the decline of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Ancillary to the coal mines are the processing facilities that use various mechanical and hydraulic techniques to separate the coal from rock and other geological waste material. This process results in the creation of large volumes of “coal slurry,” a blend of water, coal fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, which is commonly disposed of in large impoundments created in the valleys near the coal mines
o the coal mines are the processing facilities that use various mechanical and hydraulic techniques to separate the coal from rock and other geological waste material. This process results in the creation of large volumes of “coal slurry,” a blend of water, coal fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, which is commonly disposed of in large impoundments created in the valleys near the coal mines. In multiple instances, these impoundments have failed catastrophically and caused substantial damage to downstream aquatic habitats (and in some cases the loss of human life) (Frey et al. 2001, entire; Michael et al. 2010, entire; Michalek et al. 1997, entire; National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2002, pp. 23-30). In 2000, a coal slurry impoundment in the Tug Fork watershed failed and released approximately 946 million liters (250 million gallons) of viscous coal slurry to several tributary creeks of the Tug Fork, which ultimately affected 177.5 km (110.3 mi) of stream length, including the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork mainstems (Frey et al. 2001, entire). The authors reported a complete fish kill in 92.8 km (57.7 mi) of stream length, and based on their description of the instream conditions following the event, it is reasonable to conclude that all aquatic life in these streams was killed, including individuals of the Big Sandy crayfish, if they were present at that time. The authors also noted that the effects of this release will continue to negatively affect aquatic species, including benthic macroinvertebrates, for a considerable time into the future. Coal slurry impoundments are common throughout the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, and releases have been documented in each of the States within these ranges (NAS 2002, pp. 25-30). However, the exact location of impoundments as they relate to the streams known to support Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is unknown
ebrates, for a considerable time into the future. Coal slurry impoundments are common throughout the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, and releases have been documented in each of the States within these ranges (NAS 2002, pp. 25-30). However, the exact location of impoundments as they relate to the streams known to support Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is unknown.
In addition to the stressors described above, several active surface coal mines in the Pinnacle Creek watershed may pose an immediate threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. These mines represent geographic extents of 13 to 242 hectares (ha) (33 to 598 acres (ac)) and are located either on Pinnacle Creek ( e.g., encroaching to within 0.5 km (0.31 mi) of the creek) and directly upstream ( e.g., within 7.0 km (4.4 mi)) of the last documented location of the Guyandotte River crayfish or on tributaries that drain into Pinnacle Creek upstream of the Guyandotte River crayfish location e.g., 3 to 37) within the last 2 years (WVDEP 2014a; WVDEP 2014b; WVDEP 2014d).
Coal mining summary — While coal extraction in the Appalachian region has declined from the historical highs of the 20th century, we expect that the ongoing and legacy effects of coal mining, including the drainage from closed and abandoned mine lands, will continue to degrade aquatic habitats and act as a stressor to both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes into the future.
Residential and commercial development —Because of the rugged topography within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes, most residential and commercial development and the supporting transportation infrastructure is confined to the narrow valley floodplains (Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 14; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 14)
g Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes into the future.
Residential and commercial development —Because of the rugged topography within the ranges of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes, most residential and commercial development and the supporting transportation infrastructure is confined to the narrow valley floodplains (Ehlke et al. 1982, p. 14; Kiesler et al. 1983, p. 14). The close proximity of this development to the region's streams and rivers has historically resulted in the loss of riparian habitat and the continued direct discharge of sediments, chemical pollutants, sewage, and other refuse into the aquatic systems (KDOW 2013; VADEQ 2014; WVDEP 2012), which degrades habitat quality and complexity (Merriam et al. 2011, p. 415). The best available information indicates that the human population in these areas will continue to decrease over the next several decades (see Figure 6, above). For example, between 2010 and 2030, the human populations of the five counties that make up the core ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes are projected to decline between 3 to 28 percent (University of Louisville 2011; University of Virginia 2012; West Virginia University 2012). However, while the human populations may decline, the human population centers are likely to remain in the riparian valleys. We have no information on whether the historical trend of releasing untreated waste into the streams will decrease, increase, or stay the same, but are seeking comments on this knowledge gap.
In summary, we conclude that even with the observed and projected decline in human population within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, development will still be concentrated in the narrow valley riparian zones and may contribute to the degradation of water quality and the aquatic habitat required by both species.
Roads —Both paved and unpaved roads can degrade the aquatic habitat required by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes
line in human population within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, development will still be concentrated in the narrow valley riparian zones and may contribute to the degradation of water quality and the aquatic habitat required by both species.
Roads —Both paved and unpaved roads can degrade the aquatic habitat required by the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Paved roads, coincident with and connecting areas of residential and commercial development, generally occur in the narrow valley bottoms adjacent to the region's streams and rivers. Runoff from these paved roads can include a complex mixture of metals, organic chemicals, deicers, nutrients, pesticides and herbicides, and sediments that, when washed into local streams, can degrade the aquatic habitat and have a detrimental effect on resident organisms (Buckler and Granato 1999, entire; Boxall and Maltby 1997, entire; NAS 2005, pp. 72-75, 82-86). We are not aware of any studies specific to the effects of highway runoff on the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes; however, one laboratory study from Khan et al. (2006, pp. 515-519) evaluated the effects of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc exposure on juvenile Orconectes immunis, a species of pond crayfish. These particular metals, which are known constituents of highway runoff (Sansalone et al. 1996, p. 371), were found to inhibit oxygen consumption in O. immunis. We are uncertain to what extent these results may be comparable to how Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes may react to these contaminants, but it was the only relevant study exploring the topic in crayfish. Boxall and Maltby (1997, pp. 14-15) studied the effects of roadway contaminants (specifically the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs) on Gammarus pulex, a freshwater amphipod crustacean commonly used in toxicity studies
fect the current occupied habitat of both crayfish species, but is of particular concern for the Guyandotte River crayfish because of a section that will parallel and cross Pinnacle Creek.
In West Virginia, the Coalfields Expressway right-of-way crosses Wyoming and McDowell Counties roughly perpendicular to the King Coal Highway and continues into Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia. This project runs through the Upper Guyandotte, Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds and has the potential to affect the aquatic habitats in each basin. Of particular concern are sections of the Coalfields Expressway planned through perhaps the most robust Big Sandy crayfish populations in Dickenson County, Virginia.
Unpaved forest roads ( e.g., haul roads, access roads, and skid trails constructed by the extractive industries or others) are often located on the steep hillsides and are recognized as a major source of sediment loading to streams and rivers (Christopher and Visser 2007, pp. 22-24; Clinton and Vose 2003, entire; Greir et al. 1976, pp. 1-8; MacDonald and Coe 2008, entire; Morris et al. 2014, entire; Stringer and Taylor 1998, entire; Wade et al. 2012, pp. 408-409; Wang et al. 2013, entire). These unpaved roads, especially those associated with mining, forestry, and oil and gas activities, are ubiquitous throughout the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. The estimated erosion rate for undisturbed forested sites in mountainous terrain ranges from about 0.16 tonnes of sediment/ha/year (yr) (0.063 tons/ac/yr) to 0.31 tonnes/ha/yr (0.12 tons/ac/yr) (Grant and Wolff 1991, p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56); however, the construction of unpaved forest roads in an area greatly increases this natural erosion process. Wade et al. (2012, p
te River crayfishes. The estimated erosion rate for undisturbed forested sites in mountainous terrain ranges from about 0.16 tonnes of sediment/ha/year (yr) (0.063 tons/ac/yr) to 0.31 tonnes/ha/yr (0.12 tons/ac/yr) (Grant and Wolff 1991, p. 36; Hood et al. 2002, p. 56); however, the construction of unpaved forest roads in an area greatly increases this natural erosion process. Wade et al. (2012, p. 403) cite typical erosion rates for unpaved roads and trails as being from 10 to greater than 100 tonnes/ha/yr (4 to greater than 40 tons/ac/yr), with one study of trails established on steep slopes in the western United States resulting in an erosion rate of 163 tonnes/ha/yr (64.7 tons/ac/yr). Christopher and Visser (2007, pp. 23-24) estimated soil erosion rates for forestry operations in the coastal plain, piedmont, and mountains of Virginia, and determined that access roads and skid trails lost an average of 21.1 and
In addition to erosion from unpaved road surfaces, we expect erosion from unpaved road stream crossings throughout the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes to also contribute significant sediment loading to local waters. Wang et al. (2013, entire) studied stream turbidity levels and suspended sediment loads following construction of a forest haul road stream crossing in West Virginia. The authors reported significant increases in both parameters following construction of the stream crossing and noted that, with site revegetation, sediment loads improved over time. However, sediment remained in the stream channel 2 years after construction, and the authors concluded that it could require decades to flush from the system. Morris et al. (2014, entire) studied sediment loading from an unpaved, but properly sized and installed, culvert stream crossing in the Virginia piedmont
eam crossing and noted that, with site revegetation, sediment loads improved over time. However, sediment remained in the stream channel 2 years after construction, and the authors concluded that it could require decades to flush from the system. Morris et al. (2014, entire) studied sediment loading from an unpaved, but properly sized and installed, culvert stream crossing in the Virginia piedmont. Their results indicated that, by applying the minimal Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for this type of stream crossing, the estimated annual sediment load to the creek was 98.5 tonnes/yr (96.5 tons/yr). By instituting the standard (vice minimum) BMP measures and installing a geotextile and stone covering on the running surface, the sediment loading was reduced to 28.5 tonnes/yr (27.9 tons/yr). A Statewide survey of these types of crossings by the VDOF found that 33 percent met the minimum criteria and 64 percent met the standard BMP recommendations. About 3 percent of the crossings exceeded the State BMP recommendations, but even with additional erosion control measures the estimated sediment load was 22.5 tonnes/yr (22.1 tons/yr). Christopher and Visser (2007, p. 23-24) estimated the average erosion rate for stream crossings at logging sites in Virginia to be 20.8 tonnes/ha/yr (8.3 tons/ac/yr). This average includes sites in the mountain, coastal plain, and piedmont physiographic provinces, the latter two of which would be expected to have less erosion potential than the steep mountainous terrain indicative of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish habitat.
Offroad Vehicles (ORVs) —Offroad vehicle use of haul roads and trails has become an increasingly popular form of recreation in the region (see http://www.riderplanet-usa.com, last accessed February 13, 2015)
ographic provinces, the latter two of which would be expected to have less erosion potential than the steep mountainous terrain indicative of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish habitat.
Offroad Vehicles (ORVs) —Offroad vehicle use of haul roads and trails has become an increasingly popular form of recreation in the region (see http://www.riderplanet-usa.com, last accessed February 13, 2015). Recreational ORV use, which includes the use of unimproved stream crossings, stream channel riding, and “mudding” (the intentional and repeated use of wet or low-lying trail sections that often results in the formation of deep “mud holes”), may cause increased sediment loading to streams and possibly kill benthic organisms directly by crushing them (Switalski and Jones 2012, pp. 14-15; YouTube.com 2008; YouTube.com 2010; YouTube.com 2011; YouTube.com 2013). Ayala et al. (2005, entire) modeled long-term sediment loading from an ORV stream crossing in a ridge and valley landscape in Alabama, and estimated that the ORV crossing contributed 45.4 tonnes/ha/yr (18 tons/ac/yr) to the stream. Chin et al. (2004, entire) studied ORV use at stream crossings in Arkansas, and found that pools below ORV crossings experienced increased sedimentation and decreased pool depth, compared to unaffected streams. The quantitative data on stream bottom embeddedness were unclear, but the authors did note that none of the sites below ORV crossings was less than 10 percent embedded, while some of the control sites had little or no embeddedness. Christopher and Visser (2007, p. 24) looked at the effect of ORV use on previously logged sites and found that ORV use significantly increased erosion at stream crossings and access roads, as compared to sites that were closed to ORV use.
Nearly all of the land within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is privately owned
f the control sites had little or no embeddedness. Christopher and Visser (2007, p. 24) looked at the effect of ORV use on previously logged sites and found that ORV use significantly increased erosion at stream crossings and access roads, as compared to sites that were closed to ORV use.
Nearly all of the land within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is privately owned. Offroad vehicle use on private land is largely unregulated, and we found no comprehensive information on the extent of offroad trails in the region, ridership numbers, or the effects to local streams. However, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail system, which was created in 2000 to promote tourism and economic development in southern West Virginia, may provide some insight into the scale of ORV recreation within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes (Pardue et al. 2014, p. 1). As of 2014, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail system had eight individual trail networks totaling more than 700 mi of cleared trails, with the stated long-term goal being approximately 2,000 mi of accessible trails (Pardue et al. 2014, pp. 4-5), and in 2013, 35,900 trail permits were sold (Hatfield-McCoy presentation 2013, p. 8). Two of the designated Hatfield-McCoy trail networks, Pinnacle Creek and Rockhouse, are located in the Upper Guyandotte basin and one, Buffalo Mountain, is in the Tug Fork basin.
The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, opened in 2004, is located entirely within the Pinnacle Creek watershed and may pose a significant threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. The majority of this unpaved trail network runs along the ridgelines or up and down the steep mountainsides; however, approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of ORV trail is located in the Pinnacle Creek riparian zone, including the area last known to harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish
he Pinnacle Creek watershed and may pose a significant threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish. The majority of this unpaved trail network runs along the ridgelines or up and down the steep mountainsides; however, approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of ORV trail is located in the Pinnacle Creek riparian zone, including the area last known to harbor the Guyandotte River crayfish. At several locations along this section of trail, riders are known to operate their vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent “mud holes” (You Tube 2008; You Tube 2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that these activities increase erosion and sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, the instream operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has the potential to crush or injure individual crayfish directly.
Summary of Roads (Paved and Unpaved) and ORVs —In summary, we conclude that contaminant runoff from paved road surfaces and erosion and sedimentation from road construction projects, unpaved roads and trails, and ORV use throughout the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes likely contribute directly to degradation of the species' habitat and will continue to do so into the future.
Forestry —The dominant land cover within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is forest, and commercial timber harvesting occurs throughout the region. While not approaching the scale of the intensive cutting that occurred in the early 20th century, commercial logging still has the potential to degrade aquatic habitats, primarily by increasing erosion and sedimentation (Arthur et al. 1998, entire; Hood et al. 2002, entire; Stone and Wallace 1998, entire; Stringer and Hilpp 2001, entire; Swank et al. 2001, entire)
ing occurs throughout the region. While not approaching the scale of the intensive cutting that occurred in the early 20th century, commercial logging still has the potential to degrade aquatic habitats, primarily by increasing erosion and sedimentation (Arthur et al. 1998, entire; Hood et al. 2002, entire; Stone and Wallace 1998, entire; Stringer and Hilpp 2001, entire; Swank et al.

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [80 FR 21 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hoquiam River, Hoquiam, WA](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30784.md)
- [80 FR 678 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 24](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30114.md)
- [80 FR 838 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30716.md)
- [80 FR 926 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Rate Setting for Community-Rated Plans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30633.md)
- [80 FR 1476 Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00199.md)
- [80 FR 1477 Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00234.md)
- [80 FR 1478 Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00263.md)
- [80 FR 1491 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for 21 Species and Proposed Threatened Status for 2 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00259.md)
- [80 FR 1872 Clarification of Content Eligibility for Standard Mail Marketing Parcels](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00401.md)
- [80 FR 1873 Lead-Based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00473.md)
- [80 FR 1881 Pacific Island Fisheries; Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00444.md)
- [80 FR 2065 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings for a New Subscription Service](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00203.md)
- [80 FR 2067 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants; Extension of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-00461.md)
- [80 FR 2078 Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-30777.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2015-07625. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.