Vol. 76 Wednesday No. 12 January 19, 2011

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:27 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 7217 Sfmt 7217 E:\FR\FM\PARTS4.XXX PARTS4 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS NARA.EPS FR.EPS 3392 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species is an endangered or threatened Richard Nelson, Field Supervisor, at the species must be made ‘‘solely on the Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock basis of the best scientific and Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field commercial data available.’’ 50 CFR Part 17 Office, 1511 47th Avenue, Moline, IL You may submit your comments and [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0050; MO 61265 (telephone 309–757–5800). materials concerning this proposed rule 92210–0–0008–B2] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by one of the methods listed in the RIN 1018–AV93 Public Comments ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Our intent is to use the best available address not listed in the ADDRESSES and Plants; Endangered Status for the commercial and scientific data as the section. Comments must be submitted to Sheepnose and Spectaclecase foundation for all endangered and http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 Mussels threatened species classification (Eastern Time) on the date specified in decisions. We request comments or the DATES section. We will not consider AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, suggestions from other concerned hand-delivered comments that we do Interior. governmental agencies, the scientific not receive, or mailed comments that ACTION: Proposed rule. community, industry, or any other are not postmarked, by the date interested party concerning this specified in the DATES section. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and proposed rule to list the spectaclecase Wildlife Service (Service), propose to and sheepnose mussels as endangered. We will post your entire comment— list two freshwater mussels, the We particularly seek comments including your personal identifying spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia concerning: information—on http://www. monodonta) and sheepnose (1) Biological, commercial trade, or regulations.gov. If you provide personal (Plethobasus cyphyus) as endangered other relevant data concerning any identifying information in your under the Endangered Species Act of threats (or lack thereof) to the species comment, you may request at the top of 1973, as amended (Act). If we finalize and regulations that may be addressing your document that we withhold this this rule as proposed, it would extend those threats. information from public review. the Act’s protections to these species (2) Additional information concerning However, we cannot guarantee that we throughout their ranges, including the ranges, distributions, and will be able to do so. sheepnose in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, population sizes of the species, Comments and materials we receive, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, including the locations of any as well as supporting documentation we Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, additional populations of these species. used in preparing this proposed rule, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and (3) Any additional information on the will be available for public inspection Wisconsin, and spectaclecase in biological or ecological requirements of on http://www.regulations.gov, or by Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, these species. appointment, during normal business Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Minnesota, (4) Current or planned activities in the hours at the Rock Island, Illinois Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, areas occupied by these species and Ecological Services Field Office (see the Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. possible impacts of these activities on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT We determined that critical habitat for the species and their habitats. section). these species is prudent, but not (5) Potential effects of climate change determinable at this time. The Service on these species and their habitats. Public Hearing seeks data and comments from the (6) The reasons why areas should or The Act provides for one or more public on this proposed listing rule. should not be designated as critical public hearings on this proposal, if DATES: We will consider comments and habitat as provided by section 4 of the requested. Requests must be received by information we receive from all Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including March 7, 2011. Such requests must be interested parties by March 21, 2011. whether the benefits of designation made in writing and be addressed to the We must receive requests for public would outweigh threats to the species Field Supervisor at the address hearings, in writing, at the address that designation could cause (e.g., provided in the FOR FURTHER shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION exacerbation of existing threats, such as INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will CONTACT section by March 7, 2011. overcollection), such that the schedule public hearings on this ADDRESSES: You may submit comments designation of critical habitat is proposal, if any are requested, and by one of the following methods: prudent. announce the dates, times, and places of • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// (7) Specific information on: those hearings, as well as how to obtain www.regulations.gov. Follow the • What areas contain physical and reasonable accommodations, in the instructions for submitting comments biological features essential for the Federal Register and local newspapers on docket number FWS–R3–ES–2010– conservation of these species; at least 15 days before the hearing. 0050. • What areas are essential to the • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public conservation of these species and Persons needing reasonable Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R3– • Special management considerations accommodations to attend and 2010–0050; Division of Policy and or protection that proposed critical participate in a public hearing should Directives Management; U.S. Fish and habitat may require. contact the Rock Island, Illinois Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Please note that submissions merely Ecological Services Field Office by Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. stating support for or opposition to the telephone at 309–757–5800, as soon as We will post all comments on http:// action under consideration without possible. To allow sufficient time to www.regulations.gov. This generally providing supporting information, process requests, please call no later means that we will post any personal although noted, will not be considered than one week before the hearing date. information you provide us (see Public in making a determination, as section Information regarding this proposed Comments section below for more 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that rule is available in alternative formats information). determinations as to whether any upon request.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3393

Background (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 50). The central tubercles, and its general shape. shell commonly will crack posteriorly Oesch (1984, p. 120) and Parmalee and Species Descriptions when dried (Oesch 1984, p. 31). Bogan (1998, p. 176), describe the The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia Internally, the single pseudocardinal sheepnose as a medium-sized mussel monodonta) is a member of the mussel tooth (a triangular tooth-like structure that reaches nearly 5 inches (13 cm) in family Margaritiferidae and was along the hinge line of the internal length. The shell is elongate ovate in originally described as Unio monodonta portion of the shell) is simple and peg- shape, moderately inflated, and with Say, 1829. The type locality is the Falls like in the right valve, fitting into a thick, solid valves. The anterior end of of the Ohio (on the Ohio River in the depression in the left (Parmalee & Bogan the shell is rounded, but the posterior vicinity of Louisville, Kentucky, and 1998, p. 50). The lateral teeth are end is somewhat bluntly pointed to adjacent Indiana), and the Wabash River straight and single in the right valve, truncate. The dorsal margin of the shell (probably the lower portion in Illinois and double in the left valve but become is nearly straight, while the ventral and Indiana) (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, fused with age into an indistinct raised margin is uniformly rounded or slightly p. 49). Parmalee and Bogan (1998, p. 49) hinge line (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. convex. The posterior ridge is gently summarized the synonymy of the 50). The soft anatomy was described by rounded, becoming flattened ventrally spectaclecase. The species has been Williams et al. (2008, pp. 497–498). The and somewhat biangular. There is a row placed in the genera Unio, Margaritana, color of the nacre (interior covering of of large, broad tubercular swellings on Alasmidonta, Margarita, Margaron, and the shell) is white, occasionally granular the center of the shell extending from Margaritifera at various times in history. and pitted, mostly iridescent in young the beak to the ventral margin. A broad, Ortmann (1912, p. 13) placed it in the specimens, but becoming iridescent shallow sulcus (depression on furrow monotypic (a taxonomic group with posteriorly in older shells (Parmalee & on the outside surface of shell) lies only one biological type) genus Bogan 1998, p. 50). There are no between the posterior ridge and central Cumberlandia in the family differences between the sexes in the row. Beaks are elevated, high, and Margaritiferidae. Currently recognized shells of this species (Baird 2000, p. 19). placed near the anterior margin. synonymy includes Unio soleniformis Key characters for distinguishing the Juvenile beak sculpture consists of a few (Lea). Smith (2001, p. 43) reassigned the spectaclecase from other mussels are its concentric ridges at the tip of the beaks. spectaclecase to the Holarctic genus large size, elongate shape, arcuate The periostracum is generally smooth, Margaritinopsis based on shell and gill ventral margin, dark coloration, shiny, rayless, and light yellow to a dull characters. However, the Service will roughened periostracum, poorly yellowish brown. Concentric ridges defer to the Committee on Scientific and developed teeth, and white nacre resulting from growth arrests are usually Vernacular Names of Mollusks of the (Oesch 1984, pp. 31–32). No other North darker. Council of Systematic Malacologists, American mussel species has this suite Oesch (1984, p. 120) describes the American Malacological Union of characters. internal anatomy of the sheepnose as (Turgeon et al. 1998), on whether the The sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) the left valve having two heavy, erect, genus Margaritinopsis is accepted as is a member of the mussel family roughened, somewhat triangular, and valid for the spectaclecase. Until an Unionidae and was originally described divergent pseudocardinal teeth. The official decision is made, the Service as Obliquaria cyphya Rafinesque, 1820. right valve has a large, triangular, will use the commonly accepted The type locality is the Falls of the Ohio roughened pseudocardinal tooth. The Cumberlandia for the genus of this (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 175) on the lateral teeth are heavy, long, slightly species. Spectaclecase is the accepted Ohio River in the vicinity of Louisville, curved, and serrated. The beak cavity is common name for Cumberlandia Kentucky, and adjacent Indiana. shallow to moderately deep. The soft monodonta (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 32). Parmalee and Bogan (1998, p. 175) anatomy was described by Williams et The spectaclecase is a large mussel summarized the synonymy of the al. (2008, p. 94). The color of the nacre that reaches at least 9.25 inches (23.5 species. Over the years, the name of this is generally white, but may be pinkish centimeters (cm)) in length (Havlik species has been variably spelled to cream-colored and iridescent 1994, p. 19). The shape of the shell is cyphya, scyphius, cyphius, cyphia, posteriorly. There are no differences greatly elongated, sometimes arcuate cyphyum, and ultimately cyphyus. Over between the sexes in the shells of this (curved), and moderately inflated, with the years the species has been placed in species. The shell of the sheepnose is the valves being solid and moderately the genera Obliquaria, Unio, extremely hard and was given the name thick, especially in older individuals Pleurobema, Margarita, and Margaron. ‘‘clear profit’’ by early commercial (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 49). Both It was ultimately placed in the genus shellers, being too hard to cut into anterior and posterior ends of the shell Plethobasus by Ortmann (1919, pp. 65– buttons (Wilson & Clark 1914, p. 57). are rounded with a shallow depression 66) where it remains today (Turgeon et The species also preserves well in near the center of shell (Baird 2000, p. al. 1998, p. 35). The Service recognizes archaeological material (Morrison 1942, 6; Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 49). The Unio aesopus and U. compertus as p. 357). anterior end is higher than the posterior synonyms of Plethobasus cyphyus. end (Baird 2000, p. 6). The posterior Sheepnose is the accepted common Life History ridge is low and broadly rounded name for Plethobasus cyphyus as The general biology of the (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 50). Year- established by the Committee on spectaclecase and sheepnose are similar one specimens have heavy ridges Scientific and Vernacular Names of to other bivalve mollusks belonging to running parallel with the growth arrests, Mollusks of the Council of Systematic the families Margaritiferidae and which are shell lines that indicate Malacologists, American Malacological Unionidae, order Unioniformes or slower periods of growth, thought to be Union (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 35). The Unionoida. Adult mussels suspension- laid down annually (Baird 2000, p. 6). Service also recognizes ‘‘bullhead’’ and feed, spending their entire lives The periostracum (external shell ‘‘clear profit’’ as older common names partially or completely buried within surface) is somewhat smooth, rayless, for the sheepnose. the substrate (Murray and Leonard 1962, and light yellow, greenish-tan, or brown Key characters useful for p. 27). Adults feed on algae, bacteria, in young specimens, becoming rough distinguishing the sheepnose from other detritus, microscopic animals, and and dark brown to black in old shells mussels are its color, the occurrence of dissolved organic material (Christian et

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3394 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

al. 2004, pp. 108–109; Nichols & Garling newly transformed juveniles. For further 1.93 to 9.57 million per female. In 2000, p. 873; Silverman et al. 1997, p. information on the life history of mussels, fecundity is related positively 1859; Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430–431). freshwater mussels, see Williams et al. to body size and inversely related to Recent evidence suggests that adult 2008. glochidia size (Bauer 1994, pp. 940– mussels may also deposit feed on Mussel biologists know relatively 941). The reproductive potential of the particles in the sediment (Raikow & little about the specific life-history spectaclecase is therefore phenomenal. Hamilton 2001, p. 520). For their first requirements of the spectaclecase and However, the fact that extant several months, juvenile mussels sheepnose. Most mussels, including the populations are generally skewed employ foot (pedal) feeding, consuming spectaclecase and sheepnose, have towards larger adults strongly indicates bacteria, algae, and detritus (Yeager et separate sexes. Age at sexual maturity of that survival rates to the adult stage al. 1994, p. 221). the spectaclecase was estimated to be 4 must be extraordinarily low. As a group, mussel longevity varies to 5 years for males and 5 to 7 years for Researchers in Wisconsin observed tremendously with some species living females, with sex ratios approximating female spectaclecase under boulders in only about 4 years (Haag & Rypel 2010, 50:50 (Baird 2000, p. 24). The the St. Croix River simultaneously p. 5) but possibly up to 100 to 200 years spectaclecase life cycle includes a releasing their conglutinates (Heath in other species (Ziuganov et al. 2000, parasitic phase; however, despite 2008, pers. comm.). The spectaclecase p. 102). However, the vast majority of extensive investigation, the host species conglutinates are entrained along a species live a few decades (Haag & is not yet known. The spectaclecase is transparent, sticky mucous strand up to Rypel 2010, pp. 4–6). Baird (2000, pp. thought to release glochidia from early several feet in length (Lee & Hove 1997, 54, 59, 67) aged 278 specimens of the April to late May in the Meramec and p. 9). Baird (2000, p. 29) observed the spectaclecase in Missouri by sectioning Gasconade Rivers, Missouri (Baird 2000, release of loose glochidia and small the hinge ligament, as most p. 26). Gordon and Smith (1990, p. 409) fragments of conglutinates. Based on his margaritiferids are aged. The maximum reported the species as producing two observations, he hypothesized that age determined was 56 years, but he broods, one in spring or early summer conglutinates sometimes contain mostly surmised that some large individuals and the other in the fall, also based on immature glochidia, and that may have been older. A very large Meramec River specimens. In the conglutinates containing mostly specimen (9.25 inches (23.5 cm)) from Meramec and Gasconade Rivers, immature glochidia may be aborted the St. Croix River, Minnesota and however, Baird (2000, pp. 26–27) found when disturbed. Wisconsin, was estimated (based on no evidence of two spawns in a given Sheepnose conglutinates are narrow external growth ring counts) to be year. and lanceolate in outline, solid and red approximately 70 years old (Havlik Age at sexual maturity for the or pink in color, and discharged in 1994, p. 19). Sheepnose longevity has sheepnose is unknown, but given its unbroken form (Oesch 1984, pp. 118– been reported as being nearly 30 years estimated longevity, probably occurs 119). Discharge of sheepnose (Watters et al. 2009, p. 221). Thick after a few years. The sheepnose is conglutinates have been observed in late shelled mussels from large rivers, like thought to be a short-term brooder, with July (Ortmann 1911, p. 306) and August sheepnose, are thought to live longer egg fertilization taking place in early (Williams et al. 2008, p. 498). Ortmann than other species (Stansbery 1961, p. summer (Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. (1911, p. 306) described them as being 16). 177; Williams et al. 1998, p. 498), and pink and ‘‘lying behind the posterior Mussels tend to grow relatively glochidial release presumably occurring end of the shell, which were greedily rapidly for the first few years, and then later in the summer. Hermaphroditism devoured by a number of minnows.’’ slow appreciably at sexual maturity, occurs in many mussel species (van der Sheepnose glochidia are semicircular in when energy presumably is being Schalie 1966, p. 77), but is not known outline, with the ventral margin diverted from growth to reproductive for the sheepnose. If hermaphroditism obliquely rounded, hinge line long, and activities (Baird 2000, pp. 66–67). In does occur in the sheepnose, it may medium in size. The length (0.009 spectaclecase, the biggest change in explain the occurrence of small, but inches (0.23 mm)) is slightly greater growth rate appears to occur at 10 to15 persistent populations over long periods than the height (0.008 inches (0.20 mm)) years of age, which suggests that of time. (Oesch 1984, p. 119). Several hundred significant reproductive investment Glochidia of spectaclecase and glochidia probably occur in each does not occur until they reach 10 years sheepnose are released in conglutinates conglutinate. Judging from the size of of age (Baird 2000, pp. 66–67). (gelatinous structures containing the glochidia, total fecundity (including Margaritiferids and unionids have an numerous glochidia and analogous to glochidia and ova) per female sheepnose unusual mode of reproduction. With cold capsules). Spectaclecase glochidia is probably in the tens of thousands. very few exceptions, their life cycle lack hooks (teeth-like structures that Like many freshwater mussels, the includes a brief, obligatory parasitic presumably function to pierce through complex life histories of the stage on a host organism, typically fish. skin tissue of the host) and are the spectaclecase and sheepnose have many Eggs develop into microscopic larvae smallest glochidia known of any North vulnerable components that may (glochidia) within special gill chambers American freshwater mussel; they prevent successful reproduction or of the female. The female expels the measure approximately 0.0024 inches recruitment of juveniles into existing mature glochidia, which must attach to (0.06 mm) in both length and height populations. Glochidia must come into an appropriate host species (generally a (Baird 2000, p. 22). Tens to hundreds of contact with a specific host species for fish) to complete development. Host thousands of glochidia may occur in their survival to be ensured. Without the specificity varies among margaritiferids each conglutinate. Based on eight proper host, the glochidia will perish. and unionids. Some species appear to Missouri spectaclecase specimens, the The host(s) for the spectaclecase is use a single host, while others can number of conglutinates released per unknown, although over 60 species of transform on several host species. female varied from 53 to 88, with a fish, amphibians, and crayfish have Following successful infestation, mean of 64.5 (Baird 2000, p. 23). Total been tested in the lab during host glochidia encyst (enclose in a cyst-like fecundity (reproductive potential, suitability studies (Baird 2000, pp. 23– structure), remain attached to the host including glochidia and ova) in Baird’s 24; Henley & Neves 2006, p. 3; Hove et for several weeks, and then drop off as (2000, p. 27) Missouri study varied from al. 2009b, pp. 22–23; Hove et al. 1998,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3395

pp. 13–14; Hove et al. 2008, p. 4; 13; Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 50). or more adjacent stream populations of Knudsen & Hove 1997, p. 2; Lee & Hove According to Stansbery (1967, pp. 29– a species occur without a barrier (for 1997, pp. 9–10). Two of 690 wild- 30), this species is usually found in firm example, a dam and impoundment) collected fish checked by Baird (2000, p. mud between large rocks in quiet water between them. 24) had spectaclecase glochidia attached very near the interface with swift Following are generalized sets of to their gills; these fish were the bigeye currents. Specimens have also been criteria that were used to categorize the chub (Hybopsis amblops) and pealip reported in tree stumps, in root masses, relative status of populations of redhorse (Moxostoma pisolabrum). and in beds of rooted vegetation (Oesch spectaclecase and sheepnose. The status However, these fish are not confirmed 1984, p. 33). Similar to other of a population is considered as hosts, because the encysted glochidia margaritiferids, spectaclecase ‘‘improving’’ if: (1) There is evidence had not grown measurably and occurrences throughout much of its that habitat degradation appears glochidial transformation was not range tend to be aggregated (Gordon & insignificant, (2) live or fresh dead observed (Baird 2000, p. 24). Layzer 1989, p. 19), particularly under mussel abundance has improved during Spectaclecase populations are slab boulders or bedrock shelves (Baird post-1990 surveys, or (3) ample oftentimes highly aggregated (see 2000, p. 6; Buchanan 1980, p. 13; evidence of recent recruitment has been Habitat) with many apparently even- Parmalee & Bogan 1998, p. 50), where documented during post-1990 surveys. aged individuals, suggesting that they are protected from the current. Up The status of a population is considered glochidia may excyst simultaneously to 200 specimens have been reported ‘‘stable’’ if: (1) There is little evidence of from a host (Gordon & Layzer 1989, p. from under a single large slab in the significant habitat loss or degradation, 19). Additional host work is underway Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals, (2) live or fresh dead mussel abundance to test the wild-collected fish species Alabama (Hinkley 1906, p. 54). Unlike has been fairly consistent during post- that were found with encysted most species that move about to some 1990 surveys, or (3) evidence of spectaclecase glochidia (pealip redhorse degree, the spectaclecase may seldom if relatively recent recruitment has been and bigeye chub), as well as to test ever move except to burrow deeper and documented during post-1990 surveys. additional species of fish and other may die from stranding during droughts The status of a population is considered aquatic organisms for suitability. Host (Oesch 1984, p. 17). ‘‘declining’’ if: (1) There is ample information is needed so that existing The sheepnose is primarily a larger- evidence of significant habitat loss or populations can be artificially cultured stream species occurring primarily in degradation, (2) live or fresh dead for potential population augmentation shallow shoal habitats with moderate to mussel numbers have declined during and reintroduction efforts. swift currents over coarse sand and recent surveys, or (3) no evidence of Little is known regarding host fish of gravel (Oesch 1984, p. 121). Habitats relatively recent recruitment has been the sheepnose. Until recently the only with sheepnose may also have mud, documented during recent surveys. The cited host for this species came from a cobble, and boulders. Sheepnose in status of a population is considered 1914 report that found glochidia larger rivers may occur at depths ‘‘extirpated’’ if: (1) All known suitable naturally attached to sauger (Sander exceeding 6 m (Williams et al. 2008, p. habitat has been destroyed, or (2) no live canadense) in the wild. No confirmation 498). or fresh dead mussels of any age have of successful transformation was been located during recent surveys. The Genetics recorded in this early report (Surber status of a population is considered 1912, p. 110; Wilson 1914, pp. 338– A recent genetic study (Monroe et al. ‘‘unknown’’ if the available information 340). However, recent laboratory studies 2007, pp. 7–13) indicates that much of is inadequate to place the population in at the Genoa National Fish Hatchery, the the remaining genetic variability in the one of the above four categories. In a University of Minnesota, and Ohio State spectaclecase is represented in each of few cases, additional information not University have successfully the remaining large populations, and listed above may have been used to transformed sheepnose glochidia on that these populations do not appear to categorize a population. fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), differ significantly from one another. Spectaclecase Historical Range and creek chub (Semotilus atrromaculatus), Genetics studies of sheepnose are Distribution central stoneroller (Campostoma currently under investigation; however, anomalum), and brook stickleback no conclusions were available at the The spectaclecase occurred (Culaea inconstans) (Watters et al. 2005, time of publication (Roe 2010, pers. historically in at least 44 streams in the pp. 11–12; Brady 2008, pers. comm.; comm.). Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri River basins (Butler 2002a, p. 6, Heath 2008, Watters 2008, pers. comm.). Although Species Distribution these are identified as suitable hosts in pers. comm.). Its distribution comprised laboratory studies, natural interactions We use the term ‘‘population’’ here in portions of 15 States (Alabama, between the aforementioned fishes and a geographical and not genetic sense, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, the sheepnose seem rare and infrequent defining it as all individuals of the Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, due to habitat preferences. Fish that spectaclecase or sheepnose living in one Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, frequent medium to large rivers near stream. Using the term in this way West Virginia, and Wisconsin). mussel beds, like the sauger, may act as allows the status, trends, and threats to Historical occurrence by stream system hosts in the natural environment. be discussed comparatively across (with tributaries) include the: upper streams where the species occur. In Mississippi River system (Mississippi Habitat using this term we do not imply that River (St. Croix, Chippewa, Rock, Salt, The spectaclecase generally inhabits their populations are currently Illinois (Des Plaines, Kankakee Rivers), large rivers, and is found in reproducing and recruiting or that they Meramec (Bourbeuse, Big Rivers), microhabitats sheltered from the main are distinct genetic units. We Kaskaskia Rivers; Joachim Creek)); force of current. It occurs in substrates considered populations of the lower Missouri River system (Missouri from mud and sand to gravel, cobble, spectaclecase and sheepnose as extant if River (Platte, River Aux Vases, Osage and boulders in relatively shallow riffles live or fresh-dead specimens have been (Sac, Marais des Cygnes Rivers), and shoals with a slow to swift current observed or collected since 1990. A Gasconade (Osage Fork, Big Piney River) (Baird 2000, pp. 5–6; Buchanan 1980, p. ‘‘population cluster’’ refers to where two Rivers)); Ohio River system (Ohio River

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3396 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(Muskingum, Kanawha, Green, Wabash • Tennessee River system (Tennessee significantly rangewide and is now Rivers)); Cumberland River system River (Nolichucky, Clinch, Duck known from only 19 of 44 streams (Cumberland River (Big South, Caney Rivers)); and (Table 1), representing a 57 percent Fork; Stones, Red Rivers)); Tennessee • Lower Mississippi River system decline. The species is presumed River system (Tennessee River (Holston, (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers). extirpated from thousands of river miles Nolichucky, Little, Little Tennessee, The 19 extant spectaclecase and from numerous reaches of habitat in Clinch (Powell River), Sequatchie, Elk, populations occur in the following 11 which it occurred historically, including States (with streams): Duck Rivers)); lower Mississippi River • long reaches of upper Mississippi, Ohio, system (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers). Alabama (Tennessee River), • Arkansas (Mulberry, Ouachita Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers and Spectaclecase Current Range and Rivers), many other streams and stream reaches. Distribution • Illinois (Mississippi, Ohio Rivers), Of the 19 extant populations, 6 are • Iowa (Mississippi River), represented by only one or two recent Extant populations of the • Kentucky (Ohio, Green Rivers), specimens each and are likely declining • spectaclecase are known from 19 Minnesota (Mississippi, St. Croix and some may be extirpated. streams in 11 States (Butler 2002b, p. 7). Rivers), • Populations in Mississippi and Clinch These include the following stream Missouri (Mississippi, Meramec, Rivers have recently experienced systems (with tributaries): Bourbeuse, Big, Gasconade, Sac, Big significant population declines. Most • Piney Rivers; Osage Fork), Upper Mississippi River system • Tennessee (Tennessee, Clinch, surviving populations face significant (Mississippi River (St. Croix, Meramec Nolichucky, Duck Rivers; Caney Fork), threats and with few exceptions are (Bourbeuse, Big Rivers) Rivers)); • Virginia (Cumberland, Clinch highly fragmented and restricted to • Lower Missouri River system (Sac Rivers), short stream reaches. The spectaclecase and Gasconade (Osage Fork, Big Piney • West Virginia (Kanawha River), and is considered extirpated from Indiana, River) Rivers); • Wisconsin (Mississippi, St. Croix Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio. The only Rivers). • Lower Ohio River system relatively strong populations remaining (lowermost Ohio River (Kanawha, Green Spectaclecase Population Estimates and are in the Meramec and Gasconade Rivers)); Status Rivers in Missouri and in the St. Croix River in Minnesota and Wisconsin. • Cumberland River system Based on historical and current data, (Cumberland River); the spectaclecase has declined

TABLE 1—SPECTACLECASE STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL OR CURRENT OCCURRENCE

Date of Last Live River Basin Stream Current Status Observa- Comments tion

Upper Mississippi River ...... Mississippi River ...... declining ...... 2009 ...... St. Croix River ...... stable ...... 2008 ...... Chippewa River ...... extirpated ...... 1989 ...... Rock River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1970 ..... Salt River ...... extirpated ...... 1980 ...... Illinois River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1914 ..... Des Plaines River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1921 ..... Kankakee River ...... extirpated ...... 1906 ...... Meramec River ...... stable ...... 2003 ...... Bourbeuse River ...... stable ...... 1997 ...... Big River ...... stable ...... 2002 ...... Kaskaskia River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1970 ..... Joachim Creek ...... extirpated ...... ∼1965 ..... Lower Missouri River ...... Missouri River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1914 ..... Platte River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1917 ..... River Aux Vases ...... extirpated ...... ∼1974 ..... Osage River ...... extirpated ...... 1980 ...... Sac River ...... declining ...... 2001 ...... Marais des Cygnes River ...... extirpated ...... unknown relic shell observed in 1998. Gasconade River ...... stable ...... 2007 ...... Big Piney River ...... unknown ...... 2004 ...... Osage Fork ...... unknown ...... 1999 ...... Ohio River ...... Ohio River ...... declining ...... 1994 ...... single individual observed. Muskingum River ...... extirpated ...... unknown relic shell observed in 1995. Kanawha River ...... unknown ...... 2005 ...... two live individuals observed. Green River ...... unknown ...... 2006 ...... Wabash River ...... extirpated ...... 1970 ...... Cumberland River ...... Cumberland River ...... unknown ...... 2008 ...... single individual observed. Big South Fork ...... extirpated ...... 1911 ...... Caney Fork ...... extirpated ...... 1988 ...... Stones River ...... extirpated ...... 1968 ...... Red River ...... extirpated ...... 1966 ...... Tennessee River ...... Tennessee River ...... unknown ...... 2001 ...... Holston River ...... extirpated ...... 1981 ...... Nolichucky River ...... unknown ...... 1991 ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3397

TABLE 1—SPECTACLECASE STATUS IN ALL STREAMS OF HISTORICAL OR CURRENT OCCURRENCE—Continued

Date of Last Live River Basin Stream Current Status Observa- Comments tion

Little River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1911 ..... Little Tennessee River ...... extirpated ...... unknown relic shell observed in 1980, pre- vious record archaeological. Clinch River ...... declining ...... 2005 ...... Powell River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1978 ..... Sequatchie River ...... extirpated ...... ∼1925 ..... Elk River ...... extirpated ...... unknown relic shell observed in 1998. Duck River ...... declining ...... 1999 ...... single individual observed. Lower Mississippi River ...... Mulberry River ...... unknown ...... ∼1995 ..... single individual observed. Ouachita River ...... declining ...... 2000 ...... two individuals observed.

Based on collections made over 100 Although quantitative historical The spectaclecase is thought to be years ago, the spectaclecase was abundance data for the spectaclecase is extant in at least four pools of the historically widespread and locally rare, generalized relative abundance (the Mississippi River mainstem, albeit in common in many streams rangewide. percent abundance of a species, divided very low numbers. Records include The spectaclecase is often absent from by the total abundance of all mussel MRP 15 (Quad Cities area, Illinois and archaeological shell middens (Morrison species combined) was sometimes noted Iowa; in 1998), MRP 16 (Muscatine area, 1942, p. 353) and is generally difficult in the historical literature and can be Iowa and Illinois in 1997), MRP 19 to find due to its habit of occurring inferred from museum lots. The (Burlington area, Illinois and Iowa in under rocks or ledges and burrowing following is a summary of what is 2009), and MRP 22 (Quincy, Illinois and deep into the substrate (Parmalee 1967, known about the relative abundance Hannibal, Missouri, area in 1996). p. 25). Therefore, the chance of casually and trends of presumably extant Populations may still persist in MRP 9 finding the species where population spectaclecase populations by stream and 10 where specimens were found in numbers are low is remote. system. the 1980s (Heath 2010a, pers. comm.). Only a relic spectaclecase shell was The spectaclecase was considered a Upper Mississippi River System found in MRP 3 above the St. Croix rare species by mussel experts as early River confluence in 2001, and none as 1970 (Stansbery 1970, p. 13), when The spectaclecase was historically were found in subsequent surveys the first attempt was made to compile a known from 13 streams in the upper (Kelner 2008, pers. comm.). In general, list of imperiled mussels. The Mississippi River system. Currently, spectaclecase population levels in the spectaclecase is considered widely only four streams in the system are upper Mississippi River appear to have distributed but absent from many areas thought to have extant spectaclecase always been fairly small and difficult to where it formerly occurred (Cummings populations. locate, and are now of questionable & Mayer 1992, p. 22). The American Mississippi River mainstem: In 1907, long-term persistence. Malacological Union and American Bartsch found spectaclecase at St. Croix River: The northernmost and Fisheries Society consider the approximately nine of the 140 sampled one of the three most significant extant spectaclecase to be threatened (Williams sites from what are now Mississippi populations of the spectaclecase occurs et al. 1993, p.10). Six of the 19 streams River Pools (MRP) 9 to 22 (Havlik in the St. Croix River, Minnesota and (or big river reaches) considered to 2001b, p. 10). Grier (1922, p. 11) did not Wisconsin. The population is primarily harbor extant populations of the find spectaclecase in sampled portions found in the middle reaches of the river spectaclecase are represented by one or of MRP 4 to 6. Van der Schalie and van in Chisago and Washington Counties, two recent specimens (for example, der Schalie (1950, p. 456), reporting on Minnesota, and Polk and St. Croix Ohio, Kanawha, Cumberland, Duck, studies from the upper Mississippi Counties, Wisconsin (river miles (RM) Ouatchita, and Mulberry Rivers), River to the Missouri River mouth, 17 to 118). Havlik (1994, p. 19) reported exemplifying the species’ imperiled stated that no live spectaclecase were spectaclecase in the St. Croix Wild River status rangewide. found in their study of 254 sites during State Park portion of the river In some streams, the last reported 1930–31. Havlik and Stansbery (1977, p. (approximately RM 62 to 65) and the records for the spectaclecase occurred 12) thought the spectaclecase had reproducing population below the St. decades ago (for example, Rock, Des disappeared from MRP 8 by the 1920s. Croix Falls Dam at St. Croix Falls, Plaines, Kaskaskia, Platte, Wabash, Thiel (1981, p. 10) found only shell Wisconsin (dam located at Stones, Red, and Little Rivers; River material in MRP 11 in a survey that approximately RM 52). Additional Aux Vases; Big South Fork). Parmalee spanned MRP 3 to 11 conducted during survey work in the lower river at Afton (1967, p. 25) considered the 1977 to 1980. Whitney et al. (1997, p. State Park (approximately RM 7 to 9) spectaclecase to be ‘‘rare and of local 12) recorded a single individual during failed to find the spectaclecase (Havlik occurrence’’ in Illinois in the 1960s, but 1994–1995 in MRP 15, for a density of 1994, p. 19). that it had ‘‘[a]pparently already been 0.004 per square foot (sq. ft) (0.04 per Hornbach (2001, p. 218) reported 68 extirpated from the Illinois and square meter (sq. m)). Helms (2008, p. live specimens from 4 of 16 river Kankakee Rivers.’’ The only records 8) found eight live individuals and reaches. Relative abundance for the known from some streams are relic numerous shells during a recent search spectaclecase varied from 0.67 percent specimens collected around 1975 (for of MRP 19, representing the most recent from RM 78 to 92 (20 live spectaclecase example, Marais des Cygnes, and numerous collection of the species among 17 species collected), 0.008 Muskingum, and Elk Rivers). in the Mississippi River. percent from RM 63 to 78 (41 live, 24

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3398 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

species), 0.0006 percent from RM 42 to (1980, pp. 4–5), resurveyed the dependent on the much larger Meramec 52 (6 live, 33 species), and 0.003 percent Meramec River system and collected population for long-term sustainability. from RM 40 to 42 (1 live, 21 species). spectaclecase from 23 sites, 19 of which Big River: Another Meramec tributary Reaches where the spectaclecase is had live individuals. They found the with a population of the spectaclecase, extant are fragmented by the pool largest populations between RM 56.7 the Big River flows northward into the formed from the power dam at St. Croix and 118.8. Among 17 sites where Meramec River at RM 38. The Falls. spectaclecase were found during both spectaclecase is only known from the Baird (2000, p. 70) presented a length- surveys, the species was less abundant lower end (RM 1.3), where 14 live frequency histogram for the at nine sites and more abundant at five specimens were found in 1997 (Roberts spectaclecase in the St. Croix River sites in 1997. At three sites, only relic & Bruenderman 2000, p. 96). At RM 0.4, using data from an unpublished 1989 shells were found during both surveys. Buchanan (1980, p. 13) found only relic study. The 962 specimens were fairly In the 1970s, Buchanan (1980, p. 10) shells. Similar to the Bourbeuse River evenly distributed over the length scale, reported finding 456 live individuals population, the population in the Big indicating multiple age classes among the 17 shared sites, whereas River is probably dependent on the including healthy numbers of young Roberts and Bruenderman (2000, p. 44) much larger Meramec population for spectaclecase recruiting into the recorded only 198. A reduction in sustainability. The Meramec River population. Baird (2000, p. 70) used spectaclecase numbers (260 to 33) at RM system, including the lower Bourbeuse, growth curves determined from his 59.5 accounted for most of the overall lower Big, and Meramec River Missouri study of the species to estimate decrease in abundance between the mainstems, can be considered a single the ages of spectaclecase of known size studies. Confounding the decrease in spectaclecase population cluster. in the St. Croix River. The percentage of numbers among shared survey sites, Lower Missouri River System newly recruited individuals (less than Roberts and Bruenderman (2000, p. 44) or equal to 10 years of age) in the St. surveyed three sites between RM 56.7 The spectaclecase was historically Croix was 40 percent— considerably and 118.8 that were unsampled by known from 10 streams in the Missouri higher than that noted from the Buchanan (1980, pp. 1–69) and found River system. Currently, only four of Gasconade (10.4 percent) and Meramec 500, 538, and 856 live spectaclecase. these streams are thought to have extant (2.8 percent) Rivers in Missouri, two The most specimens found at a single populations. other streams with abundant site in the earlier study was 260 (RM Sac River: The Sac River is a large spectaclecase populations that he 59.5). Currently, the population in the tributary to the Osage River. The studied. The St. Croix spectaclecase Meramec River stretches over much of spectaclecase was considered extirpated population, while among the largest the mainstem, a distance of over 100 in the 2002 status review of the species known, may also be the healthiest based miles (161 km) from RM 18.5 to 120.4. (Butler 2002a). However, three old, live on this metric. The spectaclecase is The spectaclecase represented 28 individuals were collected at two sites currently distributed from RM 17 to 118 percent of all mussels sampled in the during a survey of the Sac River in 2004 and appears to be recruiting from RM 17 Meramec River in 1997 (Roberts & (Hutson & Barnhart 2004, p. 17). The to 54 (downstream of the St. Croix Falls Bruenderman 2000, p. 39). Baird (2000, same survey revealed ‘‘numerous’’ relic Dam) (Heath 2008, pers. comm.). pp. 62, 68,77) extensively studied the shells from six other sites, indicating The long-term health of mussel demographics of the Meramec River that the spectaclecase may have been populations in the St. Croix may be in spectaclecase population in the late relatively abundant at one time. Prior to jeopardy, however. Hornbach et al. 1990s. The mean estimated age of the the 2004 survey, the spectaclecase had (2001, pp. 12–13) determined that population was 32 years. Individuals not been collected from this river since juvenile mussel density had suffered a less than 10 years of age comprised only 1978 (Bruenderman 2001, pers. comm.). statistically significant decline at three 2.8 percent of the Meramec population Given the age of the live individuals and of four lower St. Croix sites sampled in sampled (a total of 2,983 individuals). the abundance of shell material, Hutson the 1990s and in 2000. Zebra mussels At the four sites he intentionally & Barnhart (2004, p. 17) predicted the also threaten the spectaclecase and selected for their large spectaclecase species would ‘‘soon be extirpated’’ from other mussel populations in the lower populations, densities ranged from 0.01 the river. St. Croix River. A 2000 survey at 20 to 0.12 per sq. ft (0.1 to 1.3 per sq. m) Gasconade River: The Gasconade sites on the lowermost 24 miles of the while estimated population numbers at River is a southern tributary of the St. Croix River estimated that nearly one these sites ranged from 933 to 22,697. Missouri River in south-central Missouri percent of the mussels were infested Baird (2000, p. 71) thought that and flows into the mainstem east of with zebra mussels (Kelner & Davis conditions for spectaclecase recruitment Jefferson City. When Stansbery (1970, p. 2002, p. 36). in the Meramec had declined in the past 13) included this species in the first Meramec River: The Meramec River 20 to 30 years, but the causes were compiled list of imperiled mussels, he flows into the Mississippi River undetermined. The prevalence of larger noted that ‘‘the only population of downstream of St. Louis in east-central adults in the Meramec population may substantial size presently known is Missouri. Its spectaclecase population be cause for concern, as it appears to found in the Gasconade River.’’ In 1994, represents one of the best remaining indicate a low level of recruitment in Buchanan found over 1,000 individuals rangewide. In the late 1970s, Buchanan the population. between RM 7 and 84 (Buchanan 1994, (1980, p. 13) reported this species from Bourbeuse River: The Bourbeuse River pp. 5, 8–13). Today, one of the three 31 sites, 19 with live individuals. Live is a northern tributary of the Meramec best spectaclecase populations or fresh dead individuals occurred from River joining it at RM 68. Its remaining rangewide occurs in the RM 17.5 to 145.7. Buchanan (1980, p. 6) spectaclecase population was sampled Gasconade. The spectaclecase considered it to be common in the lower in 1997 at a single site (RM 10.3), and population occurs over approximately 108 miles (174 km) of the Meramec 7 live individuals were found (Roberts 200 miles (322 km) of the mainstem River, but locally abundant from RM & Bruenderman 2000, p. 91). Sampling from RM 4.9 upstream (Bruenderman et 17.5 to 84. In 1997, Roberts and near the mouth (RM 0.4), Buchanan al. 2001, p. 54). Baird (2000, pp. 61, 71) Bruenderman (2000, pp. 39, 44), using (1980, p. 16) found only relic shells. The studied the demographics of the similar sampling methods as Buchanan Bourbeuse population is probably Gasconade River spectaclecase

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3399

population in the late 1990s. Based on it has been extirpated from two, and two recorded from MCNP, Edmonson his limited number of sampling sites, of the remaining three are recently County, in 1995. Sampling conducted this species comprised about 20 percent represented by only one or two from 1996 to 1998 located fresh dead of the entire mussel fauna in this individuals each. specimens at two sites above MCNP, system. The mean estimated age of the Ohio River: The Ohio River is the with a relic shell at a third site farther population was 25 years. Individuals largest eastern tributary of the upstream (Cicerello 1999, pp. 17–18). At less than 10 years of age comprised 10.4 Mississippi River, with its confluence least one fresh dead specimen was percent of the Gasconade population marking the divide between the upper reported from MCNP in 2001, as well as sampled (n = 2,111), indicating a and lower portions of the Mississippi several live individuals in 2005 and significant level of recent recruitment. River system. Historically, the 2006 (Layzer 2008, pers. comm.). Historically, Stansbery (1967, p. 29) spectaclecase was documented from the A small spectaclecase population noted that ‘‘[t]he size of some Ohio River from the vicinity of remains in the upper Green River from aggregation[s] * * * is impressive,’’ and Cincinnati, Ohio, to its mouth. Although below Lock and Dam 5 upstream that ‘‘the number of individuals may no specimens are known from the through MCNP, Edmonson County, into reach a density of well over a dozen per mainstem upstream of Cincinnati, western Hart County. Most recent square foot.’’ Both statements are populations are known from two specimens have been reported from the probably in reference to the Gasconade upstream tributaries, the Muskingum upstream portion of this reach, where it River, Missouri, population, which he and Kanawha Rivers. Nearly all is generally distributed from MCNP had described in the text of his note. spectaclecase records from the Ohio upstream to western Hart County. Its Densities at the four sites Baird (2000, River were made around 1900 or before distribution is much more sporadic and pp. 61, 71) intentionally selected for (Schuster 1988, p. 186). The only recent localized in the lower portion of this their large spectaclecase populations record is for a single live individual reach due to the pooling effect of two ranged from 0.03 to 0.06 per sq. ft (0.3 found in an abandoned gill net near the locks and dams (5 and 6). In 2001, a to 0.6 per sq. m); estimated population Illinois shore in 1994 (Cummings 2008, concerted effort (approximately 15 numbers at these selected sites ranged pers. comm.). If a population of the person-hours) to locate rare mussels from 2,156 to 4,766. Baird (2000, p. 71) spectaclecase continues to occur in the below Lock and Dam 5 and at other sites thought that conditions for Ohio River, its future persistence is downstream failed to find spectaclecase spectaclecase recruitment in the extremely doubtful and continued (live or shell), although a fresh dead Gasconade River had declined in the existence seriously threatened by the shell had been collected in this area in past 20 to 30 years, but the causes were exotic zebra mussel. 1993 (Cicerello 2008, pers. comm.). The undetermined. Kanawha River: The Kanawha River is occurrence of variable-sized individuals Big Piney River: The Big Piney River, a major southern tributary of the Ohio in the 1990s indicates different year a southern tributary of the Gasconade River that drains much of West Virginia. classes but not necessarily recent River, harbors a small population of the The spectaclecase was not known from recruitment (Cicerello 2008, pers. spectaclecase. Although overlooked this stream until 2002, when a single, comm.). The long-term sustainability of during a 1999 survey (Bruenderman et very old, live individual was discovered the Green River population, primarily al. 2001, pp. 14, 28), 15 individuals near Glasgow, Kanawha County limited to an approximately 15-mile (24- were collected from the lower mainstem (Zimmerman 2002, pers. comm.). km) reach of the river, is therefore (RM 24) in 2004 (Barnhart et al. 2004, Another live individual was found in questionable, and its status is unknown. p. 5). The status of the population is the same vicinity in 2005, as well as two Cumberland River System unknown, but it is probably dependent additional weathered shells in 2006 on the much larger source population in (Clayton 2008a, pers. comm.). This site With few exceptions, most records of the Gasconade River for sustainability is approximately 20 miles (32.2 km) the spectaclecase in the Cumberland (McMurray 2008, pers. comm.). downstream of Kanawha Falls, below River system were made before the Osage Fork: The Osage Fork is a which is the only significant mussel bed 1920s. It was historically known from southwestern headwater tributary of the known from the Kanawha River. It is the mainstem and four tributaries but Gasconade River. The spectaclecase is doubtful that a recruiting spectaclecase appears currently to be restricted to the known from the lower portion of this population occurs in the Kanawha River lowermost Cumberland River a few Gasconade River tributary, specifically due to the small number of individuals miles above its confluence with the from RM 13.9. Sampling in the Osage found and their advanced age. Ohio River. Fork in 1999 yielded 26 live individuals Green River: The Green River is a Cumberland River mainstem: The from this site (Bruenderman et al. 2001, lower Ohio River tributary in west- Cumberland River is a large southern p. 9). Relative abundance of the central Kentucky. The spectaclecase has tributary of the lower Ohio River. The spectaclecase in the Osage Fork was 3.9 been collected sparingly in the Green spectaclecase was considered ‘‘not rare’’ percent, and catch-per-unit effort was River. That it was not reported in early in the Cumberland River by Hinkley and 1.3 per person-hour. This population is collections made in the system is Marsh (1885, p. 6), whereas it was found thought to be stable, but it may also be indicative of the difficulty in finding at six sites by Wilson and Clark (1914, dependent on the much larger source specimens (Price 1900, pp. 75–79). pp. 17, 19) during their survey primarily population in the Gasconade River for Stansbery (1965, p. 13) was the first to for commercial species in the long-term sustainability. The Gasconade find it in the mid-1960s at Munfordville, Cumberland River system. In a 1947– River system, including the lower Big Hart County, where he reported 47 1949 survey of the Kentucky portion of Piney, lower Osage Fork, and Gasconade mussel species collected over a several- the upper Cumberland River, Neel and mainstems, can be considered a single year period in the early 1960s. More Allen (1964, p. 453) reported live population cluster. recently, from 1987 to 1989, Cicerello specimens only from one of six and Hannan (1990, p. 20) reported mainstem sites that they sampled below Ohio River System single fresh dead specimens at six sites Cumberland Falls. Neel and Allen The spectaclecase’s continued and relic specimens from an additional (1964, p. 432) considered it to be existence in the Ohio River is extremely five sites in Mammoth Cave National ‘‘uncommon’’ in the lower Cumberland uncertain. Once known from five rivers, Park (MCNP). A single specimen was River (where they did not sample), a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3400 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

statement possibly based on its sporadic the ‘‘considerable number of dead 151 and 223, for an average of 3.5 per occurrence as reported by Wilson and shells’’ he observed. In these quotes he site. The spectaclecase population Clark (1914, pp. 17, 19). One of the last predicted the demise of the reported by Ahlstedt (1991a, pp. 89–90) mainstem records is that of a single live spectaclecase. The construction of three from the lower Clinch River between specimen found in the cold tailwaters of dams (Wilson in 1925, Wheeler in 1930, Melton Hill and Norris Dam (11 Wolf Creek Dam, Kentucky, near the Pickwick Landing in 1940) inundated specimens from 4 sites between RM 45 Tennessee border in 1982 (Miller et al. most of the historical habitat, leaving and 73) was considered to be small but 1984, p. 108). This was one of only two only small habitat remnants (Garner & stable. Once considered abundant in the live mussels found during a survey of McGregor 2001, p. 155). The largest Clinch River at Speers Ferry, Scott the dewatered river reach below the remnant habitat remaining is the Wilson County, Virginia (Bates & Dennis 1978, dam, the mussel community having Dam tailwaters, a reach adjacent to and pp. 18–19), the species is now extremely been eliminated from decades of cold downstream from Florence, Alabama. rare at this site (Neves 1991, p. 264). water releases. The most recent record With the exception of 1976–1978 Currently, the species is locally is of a single live individual found at when it was ‘‘collected infrequently’’ common in the Tennessee River system RM 10 below Barkley Lock and Dam in from below Wilson Dam (Gooch et al. only in the upper Clinch River, and 2008 (Fortenbery 2008, p. 9). A 1979, p. 90), no collections of the populations are primarily restricted to thorough search of the area yielded no spectaclecase were reported at Muscle the Tennessee portion of that stream. additional individuals. Shoals from 1931 to 1995 despite Despite low numbers (0.02 per sq. ft (0.2 surveys conducted in 1956–1957, 1963– per sq. m)) detected in quantitative Tennessee River System 1964, and 1991 (Garner & McGregor sampling (428; 2.7 sq. ft (0.25 sq. m) The spectaclecase was originally 2001, p. 156). quadrats) in 1994 (Ahlstedt & Tuberville known from the Tennessee River and Elsewhere along the Tennessee 1997, pp. 73, 81), the upper Clinch nine of its stream systems. Ortmann mainstem, a specimen was recently River in Tennessee may still yield two (1924, p. 60) reported that the reported from the Guntersville Dam to three dozen specimens under spectaclecase was ‘‘frequent… in the tailwaters in northern Alabama (Butler individual slab boulders. Three upper Tennessee,’’ while acknowledging 2002a, p. 17). From 1997–1999, 10 live, individuals were collected at RM 223.6 in an earlier paper (Ortmann 1918, p. 1 fresh dead, and 4 relic spectaclecase in Virginia in 2005, and one old 527) that it was locally abundant in were reported from three sites in this individual was collected in 2007 at RM parts of the upper Tennessee River river reach based on Ohio State 270.8, representing the farthest system, but noted that it was ‘‘generally University Museum (OSUM) records. upstream record for the species (Eckert regarded as a rare species’’ rangewide. The species is found only occasionally 2008, pers. comm.). The upper Clinch Hundreds of miles of large river in the lower Tennessee River below River population is considered to be habitat on the Tennessee mainstem have Pickwick Landing Dam in southeastern reproducing, with fairly young been converted under nine reservoirs, Tennessee, having been unreported in individuals occasionally found, but with additional dams constructed in various surveys (for example, Scruggs overall the population appears to be tributaries historically harboring this 1960, p. 12; van der Schalie 1939, p. declining (Ahlstedt 2008, pers. comm.). species (for example, Clinch, Holston, 456). Yokley (1972, p. 61) considered it The recent occurrence of a disjunct and Elk Rivers). Watters (2000, p. 262) rare, having only found fresh dead population in the lower Clinch River summarizes the tremendous loss of specimens in his 3-year study. Hubbs (separated from the upper Clinch River mussel species from various reaches of and Jones (2000, p. 28) reported two live population by Norris Reservoir) was the Tennessee. The spectaclecase is now specimens found in 1998 at RM 170, recently verified (Fraley 2008, pers. known only from the Tennessee Hardin County. The current status of comm.). The specimens sampled likely mainstem and three of its tributaries. these small populations is unknown recruited since the Norris Dam gates Despite this fact, the Tennessee River (Garner 2008, pers. comm.; Hubbs 2008, closed in 1936 (Fraley 2008, pers. system continues to represent one of the pers. comm.). comm.), despite the cold tailwaters that last strongholds of the spectaclecase Clinch River: The Clinch River is a destroyed the majority of the mussel rangewide. major tributary of the upper Tennessee fauna in this once incredibly diverse Tennessee River mainstem: The River in southwestern Virginia and river reach. Tennessee River is the largest tributary northeastern Tennessee. Bo¨pple and Nolichucky River: The Nolichucky of the Ohio River, draining portions of Coker (1912, p. 9) noted numerous River is a tributary of the lower French seven states. The 53-mile (85-km) spectaclecase shells in muskrat middens Broad River, in the upper Tennessee stretch of river in northwestern Alabama in a portion of the Clinch that is now River system in North Carolina and collectively referred to as the Muscle inundated by Norris Reservoir. Ortmann Tennessee. The spectaclecase Shoals historically harbored 69 species (1918, p. 527) reported the spectaclecase population in this river was once of mussels, making it among the most as being locally abundant in the lower sizable, judging from museum lots (for diverse mussel faunas ever known Clinch River, again in an area mostly example, 23 fresh dead, OSUM (Garner & McGregor 2001, p. 155). The flooded by Norris Reservoir. Oddly, he 1971:0372). Sampling at 41 Nolichucky historical spectaclecase population in failed to find this species upstream of River sites in 1980, Ahlstedt (1991b, pp. this reach was thought to be Claiborne County, yet, in later years, 136–137) reported 8 live spectaclecase phenomenal given the amount of one of the spectaclecase’s largest known from 6 sites between RM 11.4 to 31.9. historical habitat that was available and populations was identified in this reach. A small population of the spectaclecase literature accounts of the period. The species was locally common at sites also persists in a relatively short reach Hinkley (1906, p. 54), in 1904, in the upper Clinch River, according to of the lower river (Ahlstedt 2008, pers. considered the spectaclecase ‘‘plentiful,’’ OSUM records from the 1960s. Ahlstedt comm.). The current status of the noting 200 individuals under a single (1991a, p. 98) considered this species to Nolichucky River population is slab boulder. Twenty years later, be relatively rare in the Clinch River unknown. Ortmann (1925, p. 327) stated that ‘‘this based on survey work conducted during Duck River: The Duck River is wholly species must be, or have been, 1978 to 1983. He recorded 78 live in Tennessee and represents the farthest abundant’’ at Muscle Shoals based on specimens from 22 sites between RM downstream significant tributary of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3401

Tennessee River, joining it in the occurrence in the St. Croix, Meramec, River), French Broad (Little Pigeon headwaters of Kentucky Reservoir. A Gasconade, and Clinch Rivers represent River), Little Tennessee, Clinch (North single spectaclecase, representing a new the only sizable, sustainable, and Fork Clinch, Powell Rivers), Hiwassee, drainage record, was found live in lower reproducing populations remaining, Duck Rivers)); and Duck River, Hickman County, in 1999 although the Clinch River population • Lower Mississippi River system (Hubbs 1999, p. 1; Powell 2008, pers. appears to be in decline. The (Hatchie, Black, Yazoo (Big Sunflower comm.). Since then, at least two spectaclecase has been eliminated from River), Big Black Rivers). individuals from the lower part of the three-fifths of the total number of Sheepnose Current Range and river in Humphreys County have been streams from which it was historically Distribution documented, and several relic known (19 streams currently compared specimens have been reported farther to 44 streams historically). This species Extant populations of the sheepnose upstream (Hubbs 2008, pers. comm.; has also been eliminated from long are known from 24 rivers in all 14 States Powell 2008, pers. comm.). These reaches of former habitat in thousands of historical occurrence. Current records cover an approximately 20-mile of miles of the Illinois, Ohio, populations occur in the following (32-km) reach of river, with the live Cumberland, and other rivers, and from systems (with tributaries): individual reported from the lower end long reaches of the Mississippi and • Upper Mississippi River system of this reach. The spectaclecase is Tennessee Rivers. In addition, the (Mississippi River (Chippewa considered extremely rare in the Duck species is no longer known from the (Flambeau River), Wisconsin, Kankakee, River, and its status is unknown. States of Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, and Meramec (Bourbeuse River) Rivers)); Nebraska. The extirpation of this species • Lower Missouri River system Lower Mississippi River System from numerous streams and stream (Osage Fork, Gasconade River); Ohio The spectaclecase was apparently reaches within its historical range River system (Ohio River (Allegheny, never widely distributed in the lower signifies that substantial population Muskingum (Walhonding River), Mississippi River system. Records from losses have occurred. Kanawha, Licking, Kentucky, only two streams are known, both from Tippecanoe, Eel, Green Rivers)); Arkansas. Sheepnose Historical Range and • Tennessee River system (Tennessee Mulberry River: The Mulberry River is Distribution River (Holston, Clinch, Duck (Powell a tributary of the Arkansas River in Historically, the sheepnose occurred River) Rivers)); and northwestern Arkansas. Other than the in the Mississippi, Ohio, Cumberland, • Lower Mississippi River system Ouachita River records, the only other and Tennessee River systems and their (Big Sunflower River). record of the spectaclecase in the lower tributaries, totaling at least 77 streams The 24 extant sheepnose populations Mississippi River system is a single (including 1 canal) (Butler 2002b). Its occur in the following 14 States (with specimen found in the mid-1990s in the distribution comprised portions of 14 streams): Mulberry River. There is some States (Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, • Alabama (Tennessee River), uncertainty regarding the validity of this Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, • Illinois (Mississippi, Kankakee, record, as the collectors were not Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wabash Rivers), experienced malacologists, and no Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and • Indiana (Ohio, Tippecanoe, Eel specimen or photograph is available to Wisconsin). Historical occurrence by Rivers), substantiate the record. This record is, stream system (with tributaries) include • Iowa (Mississippi River), however, accepted as valid (Harris et al. the following: • Kentucky (Ohio, Licking, Kentucky, 2009, p. 67; Harris 2010, pers. comm.). • Upper Mississippi River system Green Rivers), The status of the spectaclecase in the (Mississippi River (Minnesota, St. Croix, • Minnesota (Mississippi River), Mulberry River is unknown. Chippewa (Flambeau River), Wisconsin, • Mississippi (Big Sunflower River), Ouachita River: The Ouachita River Rock, Iowa, Des Moines, Illinois (Des • Missouri (Mississippi, Meramec, flows into lower Red River, a major Plaines, Kankakee, Fox, Mackinaw, Bourbeuse, Osage Fork Gasconade western tributary of the lower Spoon, Sangamon (Salt Creek) Rivers; Rivers), Mississippi River, draining portions of Quiver Creek; Illinois and Michigan • Ohio (Ohio, Muskingum Rivers), Arkansas and Louisiana. This species Canal), Meramec (Bourbeuse, Big • Pennsylvania (Allegheny River), was first reported in this portion of its Rivers), Kaskaskia, Saline, Castor, • Tennessee (Tennessee, Holston, range from the Ouachita River, Whitewater Rivers)); Clinch, Powell, Duck Rivers), southwestern Arkansas, in the early • Lower Missouri River system (Little • Virginia (Clinch, Powell Rivers), 1900s (Wheeler 1918, p. 121). Sioux, Little Blue, Gasconade (Osage • West Virginia (Ohio, Kanawha Spectaclecase records in the Ouachita Fork) Rivers); Rivers), and span a three-county reach of river. Only • Ohio River system (Ohio River • Wisconsin (Mississippi, St. Croix, two live specimens were found in the (Allegheny (Hemlock Creek), Chippewa, Flambeau, Wisconsin mid-1990s, both in the lower portion of Monongahela, Beaver (Duck Creek), Rivers). Ouachita County. A single relic shell Muskingum (Tuscarawas, Walhonding The sheepnose was last observed from (paired valves) was found in (Mohican River), Otter Fork Licking over two dozen streams decades ago Montgomery County, at the upper end Rivers), Kanawha, Scioto, Little Miami, (e.g., Minnesota, Rock, Iowa, Illinois, of its Ouachita River range in 2000. The Licking, Kentucky, Salt, Green (Barren Des Plaines, Fox, Mackinaw, Spoon, population is considered very small and River), Wabash (Mississinewa, Eel, Castor, Little Sioux, Little Blue, declining (Harris et al. 2009, p. 67; Tippecanoe, Vermillion, Embarras, Monongahela, Beaver, Scioto, Little Harris 2010). White (East, West Forks White River) Miami, Salt, Mississenewa, Vermilion, Rivers) Rivers); Embarras, White, Obey, Harpeth, North Summary of Extant Spectaclecase • Cumberland River system Fork Holston, French Broad, North Fork Populations (Cumberland River (Obey, Harpeth Clinch Rivers; Caney Fork). According The spectaclecase appears to be Rivers; Caney Fork)); to Parmalee and Bogan (1998, p. 177) declining rangewide, with the exception • Tennessee River system (Tennessee and Neves (1991, pp. 280–281), the of a few significant populations. Its River (Holston (North Fork Holston sheepnose has been extirpated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

throughout much of its former range or streams from which it was historically Based on the population designation reduced to isolated populations. The known (24 streams currently occupied criteria (see Species Distribution only records known from some streams compared to 77 streams historically) section, above), of the 24 sheepnose are archeological specimens (for (Table 2). This species has also been populations that are considered extant, example, Little Pigeon, Big Black, Yazoo eliminated from long reaches of former 11 are thought to be stable and 8 are Rivers; Saline River). habitat including thousands of miles of considered declining (Table 2). Five other populations (Walhonding, Sheepnose Population Estimates and the Mississippi, Wisconsin, Illinois, Gasconade, Muskingum, Osage Fork, Status Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers and dozens of other streams and and Duck Rivers) are considered extant, The sheepnose has been eliminated stream reaches. but the status of these populations is from two-thirds of the total number of unknown.

TABLE 2—SHEEPNOSE STATUS AT HISTORICAL LOCATIONS

Date of River basin Stream Current status last ob- Comments servation

Upper Mississippi River ...... Mississippi River ...... Declining ...... 2008 ...... Minnesota River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1944 .... St. Croix River ...... Extirpated ...... 1988 ...... Chippewa/Flambeau River ...... Stable ...... ~1994 .... Wisconsin River ...... Declining ...... 2002 ...... Rock River ...... Extirpated ...... 1926 ...... Iowa River ...... Extirpated ...... 1925 ...... Relic shell collected in 1999. Des Moines River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1915 .... Illinois River ...... Extirpated ...... 1940 ...... Relic shell collected in 1999. Des Plaines River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1970 .... Kankakee River ...... Stable ...... 2007 ...... Fox River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1913 .... Mackinaw River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1970 .... Spoon River ...... Extirpated ...... 1929 ...... Sangamon River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1919 .... Relic shell collected in 1989. Salt Creek ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1989. Quiver Creek ...... Extirpated ...... 1881 ...... Illinois and Michigan (I & M) Canal Extirpated ...... ? ...... Meramec River ...... Stable ...... 2002 ...... Bourbeuse River ...... Declining ...... 1997 ...... Big River ...... Extirpated ...... 1978 ...... Kaskaskia River ...... Extirpated ...... 1970 ...... Saline River ...... Extirpated ...... ? ...... Castor River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1965 .... Whitewater River ...... Extirpated ...... 1970s ..... Lower Missouri River ...... Little Sioux River ...... Extirpated ...... 1916 ...... Little Blue River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1915 .... Gasconade River ...... Unknown ...... ~1965 .... Osage Fork ...... Unknown ...... 1999 ...... Represented by single specimen, presumably near extirpation. Ohio River ...... Ohio River ...... Stable ...... 2007 ...... Allegheny River ...... Improving ...... 2008 ...... Hemlock Creek ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1991. Monongahela River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1897 .... Beaver River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1910 .... Duck Creek ...... Extirpated ...... 1930 ...... Muskingum River ...... Unknown ...... 1993 ...... Tuscarawas River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1998. Walhonding River ...... Unknown ...... 1993 ...... Mohican River ...... Extirpated ...... 1977 ...... Otter Fork Licking River ...... Extirpated ...... 1973 ...... Kanawha River ...... Stable ...... 2005 ...... Scioto River ...... Extirpated ...... 1963 ...... Little Miami River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1953 .... Licking River ...... Declining ...... 1998 ...... Kentucky River ...... Declining ...... 1996 ...... Salt River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1900 .... Green River ...... Improving ...... 2007 ...... Barren River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1993. Wabash River ...... Extirpated ...... 1988 ...... Mississinewa River ...... Extirpated ...... 1899 ...... Eel River ...... Declining ...... 1997 ...... Tippecanoe River ...... Stable ...... 1995 ...... Vermillion River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Embarras River ...... Extirpated ...... 1953 ...... White River ...... Extirpated ...... 1913 ...... East White River ...... Extirpated ...... 1969 ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3403

TABLE 2—SHEEPNOSE STATUS AT HISTORICAL LOCATIONS—Continued

Date of River basin Stream Current status last ob- Comments servation

West Fork White River ...... Extirpated ...... 1908 ...... Relic shell collected in 2000. Cumberland River ...... Cumberland River ...... Extirpated ...... 1987 ...... Obey River ...... Extirpated ...... 1939 ...... Harpeth River ...... Extirpated ...... ? ...... Caney Fork River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1990. Tennessee River ...... Tennessee River ...... Stable ...... 2004 ...... Holston River ...... Declining ...... 2007 ...... North Fork Holston River ...... Extirpated ...... 1913 ...... French Broad River ...... Extirpated ...... 1914 ...... Little Pigeon River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Little Tennessee River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1971. Clinch River ...... Stable ...... 2006 ...... North Fork Clinch River ...... Extirpated ...... ~1921 .... Powell River ...... Stable ...... 2004 ...... Hiwassee ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Relic shell collected in 1975. Duck River ...... Unknown ...... 2003 ...... Record represented by single spec- imen. Lower Mississippi River ...... Hatchie River ...... Extirpated ...... 1983 ...... Black River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Yazoo River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown Big Sunflower River ...... Declining ...... 2000 ...... Big Black River ...... Extirpated ...... Unknown

Historically, the sheepnose was fairly population status. The following river km)) (Thiel 1981, p. 10; Havlik and widespread in many Mississippi River summaries focus primarily on those Marking 1981, p. 32; Whitney et al. system streams, although rarely populations for which we have 1996, p. 17; Helms and Associates, common. Archaeological evidence on sufficient information to make status Ecological Specialists Inc. 2008, p. 16). relative abundance indicates that it has and trend determinations, and less on The status of this species in the been an uncommon or even rare species those populations that are nearly Mississippi River is highly jeopardized in many streams for centuries (Morrison extirpated, have no recruitment, or are (Butler 2002b, p. 7). 1942, p. 357; Patch 1976, pp. 44–52; of unknown status. Pools with extant populations include Parmalee et al. 1980, p. 101; Parmalee MRP 3 (last seen live or fresh dead in Upper Mississippi River System et al. 1982, p. 82; Parmalee and Bogan 2000–01), MRP 4 (2008), MRP 7 (2001), 1986, pp. 28, 30; Parmalee and Hughes Judging from the archeological record, MRP 11 (2007), MRP 14 (2006–07), MRP 1994, pp. 25–26), and relatively the sheepnose may have been common 15 (2005–06), MRP 16 (2003), MRP 17 common in only a few (Bogan 1990, p. at some sites on the Mississippi River (2004), MRP 20 (1992), and MRP 24 135). (Bogan 1990, p. 135) but over the past (1999). The 2001 MRP 7 record was for Museum collections of this species century it has become a rare species a live juvenile 1.3 inches (3.3 cm) long are almost always few in number throughout the mainstem (Grier 1922, and estimated to be 3 years old (Davis (Cummings 2010, pers. comm.), with the pp. 13–31; van der Schalie and van der 2008, pers. comm.). exception of the 1960s collections from Schalie 1950, pp. 454–457). Robust St. Croix River: The St. Croix River the Clinch and Powell Rivers, populations may have been found in population is isolated and comprised of Tennessee and Virginia. Moderate some tributary rivers. The sheepnose old individuals with little to no numbers of individuals were also has been extirpated from eight recruitment (Heath 2010b, pers. comm.). commonly recorded historically from Mississippi River tributaries Currently, the population is thought to the upper Muskingum River system in (Minnesota, Rock, Iowa, Des Moines, be restricted to the lowermost mainstem Ohio and the lower Wabash River in Kaskaskia, Saline, Castor, and below RM 1 in Washington County, Indiana and Ohio, based on museum Whitewater Rivers) and all but one Minnesota, and Pierce County, lots. Schuster and Williams (1989, p. 21) Illinois River tributary (the Kankakee Wisconsin (Heath 2010b, pers. comm.). reported the species as being not River). Today, the sheepnose is extant Three live individuals were collected in common in the Ohio River, while (though in low numbers) in ten 1988, during a mussel relocation project Cummings and Mayer (1992, p. 50) mainstem pools, and six tributary rivers for the U.S. Highway 10 bridge considered it rare throughout its range. of the Upper Mississippi River System. immediately upstream of the confluence The American Malacological Union Mississippi River mainstem: with the Mississippi River (Heath 1989, considers the sheepnose to be Sheepnose populations in the mainstem p. 16). Hornbach (2001, p. 218) analyzed threatened (Williams et al. 1993, p. 13). of the Upper Mississippi River are mussel collections throughout the St. Some known populations of the declining. Despite the discovery of a Croix River and found that the sheepnose are represented by the juvenile in Mississippi River Pool sheepnose was absent in 15 of the 16 collection of a single specimen. Other (MRP) 7 in 2001, recruitment is limited river reaches he sampled, only noting populations have seen a dramatic range at best. The mainstem population is the 1988 occurrence. One historical decline (for example, reduced from comprised of a few old individuals occurrence is known from the vicinity several hundred river miles to a single spread across a very large geographic of RM 53 in 1930; however, this is the bed of a river system) or we have range (MRP 3 through MRP 24 a only known record upstream of RM 1 limited recent information on distance of over 550 river miles (880 (Heath 2010b, pers. comm.). Because

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

there have been no recent collections in portion of the river where it appears population is considered declining the St. Croix River since 1988, this stable, with evidence of recent (Roberts and Bruenderman 2000, p. 130; population is most likely extirpated. recruitment (Butler 2002b, p. 9). Roberts 2010, pers. comm.). In the late Chippewa/Flambeau River: The Records since 1986 identify the 1970s, Buchanan (1980, p. 10) found the sheepnose population in the Chippewa sheepnose in the Kankakee River from sheepnose to represent 0.1 percent of River is extant in much of the river the Iroquois River confluence the Bourbeuse River mussel fauna, with system including the lower end of its downstream approximately 30 river 10 live specimens sampled from 7 sites. tributary, the Flambeau River. This miles (48 km) (Cummings 2010, pers. Based on data collected by Buchanan population is stable with documented comm.; Helms and Associates 2005, p. (1980, p. 34) and additional survey work recruitment (Butler 2002b, p. 8). Balding 3). A mussel relocation effort for a in 1980, live or fresh-dead individuals and Balding (1996, p. 5) reported 50 live pipeline crossing in the Kankakee River were found in the Bourbeuse from RM specimens sampled from 1989–1994, in July 2002 found 11 sheepnose 6.5 to 90.0. Data from a resurvey of the but more recent collections have individuals, representing 0.32 percent of Bourbeuse River collected in 1997 expanded sites of occurrence to 20 of 67 the total mussels relocated (Helms 2004, yielded nine live sheepnose from four sites in the middle and upper portions p. D–1). Subsequent monitoring of the sites (Roberts and Bruenderman 2000, p. of the Chippewa River, with a relative site in 2004 and 2007 located four new 39) and fresh dead shells were located abundance of 0.8 percent (Balding 2001, individuals. One individual collected in at an additional site. Sheepnose relative pers. comm.). Balding (1992, p. 166) 2004 measured 1.6 inches (40 mm) and abundance was 0.4 percent. Live or found 12 live specimens and 31 dead was estimated to be a juvenile of 3 years fresh dead sheepnose were found shells from 5 of 37 sites in the lower of age. between RM 1.4 to 66.3. This river. Additional survey work extended Meramec River: The Meramec River comparison indicates a decrease in the the number of sites where it was found flows into the Mississippi River number of extant sites (7 to 4) and a live to 10 of 45 (Balding 2001, pers. downstream of St. Louis and drains range contraction of 18 river miles (29 comm.). The Flambeau River supports a east-central Missouri. The Meramec km). The sheepnose in the Meramec and small sheepnose population below its sheepnose population is stable and Bourbeuse Rivers represents a lowest dam and near its confluence with recruiting, and represents one of the population cluster. the Chippewa River (lower 8 miles (13 best rangewide (Butler 2002b, p. 9). Two km) of river), and is most likely studies (Buchanan 1980, p. 4; Roberts & Lower Missouri River System dependent on the source population in Bruenderman 2000, p. 20) extensively Osage Fork Gasconade River: The the Chippewa River. The Chippewa surveyed the mussel fauna of the Lower Missouri River system River sheepnose population is Meramec River. The most notable population is represented by a single considered one of the best known extant difference in the results of these studies sheepnose specimen and is near populations. The Flambeau River was the reduced range in which extirpation. This individual was located supports a small sheepnose population sheepnose were found. Buchanan (1980, in 1999 at RM 21.2 in the Osage Fork, below its lowest dam and near its p. 34) found live or fresh dead a tributary to the Gasconade River confluence with the Chippewa River individuals from RM 4.5 to 145.7 (141.2 (Bruenderman et al. 2001, p. 14). It is (lower 8 miles (13 km) of river), and is river miles (227.2 km)), whereas Roberts the only known record for sheepnose in most likely dependent on the source and Bruenderman (2000, p. 20) found the Gasconade River drainage for over population in the Chippewa River. live or fresh dead individuals from RM 25 years. Wisconsin River: The sheepnose is 25.6 to 91.3 (65.7 river miles (105.7 Ohio River System declining in the Wisconsin River. km)). The trend data from the late 1970s Historical records for the sheepnose are to 1997 indicate that the sheepnose Historically, the sheepnose was available throughout the lower 335 declined 75.5 river miles (121.5 km) in documented from the entire length of miles (539 km) of the 420-mile (676-km) total range within the Meramec River. the Ohio River (its type locality), and Wisconsin River (Heath 2010c, pers. The extent of the population in the was first collected there in the early comm.). In July 2002, 20 live specimens lower end appears to be shrinking 1800s. Ohio River sampling of 664 river were found in a dense mussel bed near upriver (Butler 2002b, p. 10). miles (1,068 km) along the northern Port Andrew (Seitman 2008, pers. In 2002, a site associated with a border of Kentucky yielded 41 comm.). Currently, the sheepnose is railroad crossing in St. Louis County at sheepnose (Williams 1969, p. 58). Most primarily confined to RM 133.7 RM 28 yielded 43 live specimens over of these (29) were found in the upper downstream (a reduction of over 201 3 days of sampling, including at least portions of river (from RM 317 to 538), river miles (232 km)). The sheepnose one gravid female (Roberts 2008, pers. but the population extended population is probably recruiting in the comm.). Collectively, these data downstream to RM 871. Relative river, primarily in the lower section reinforce the level of importance of the abundance was 0.7 percent for the entire (below RM 82) (Heath 2010b, pers. Meramec population for the sheepnose reach sampled. Currently, the mainstem comm.). It is unknown if the middle rangewide. Although the existing Ohio River and 10 tributary streams river population, from RM 93 to 133.7, population has been described as stable have extant sheepnose populations. is recruiting because only three living and recruitment has been documented Ohio River mainstem: The sheepnose individuals have been found in recent in the system (Butler 2002b, pp. 11–12), is generally distributed, but rare, in years (Heath 2010c, pers. comm.). the population has shrunk by half of its most mainstem pools of the Ohio River. Kankakee River: The sheepnose once former geographic range over the past 30 The population appears to be more occurred along the lower two-thirds of years. abundant in the lower section of the the Kankakee River, an Upper Illinois Bourbeuse River: The Bourbeuse River river with a smaller population in the River tributary, in Indiana and Illinois sheepnose population is distributed in upper Ohio River pools (McGregor 2008, (Wilson and Clark 1912, p. 47; Lewis the downstream 90 river miles (145 km) pers. comm.; Schuster and Williams and Brice 1980, p. 4). The sheepnose of the river (Buchanan 1980, p. 34), but 1989, p. 24; Zeto et al. 1987, p. 184). has been extirpated from the is considered rare. Although Long term monitoring data from 1993 to channelized portion of the Kankakee in recruitment has been documented in the 2007 at RM 176 shows the sheepnose is Indiana but persists in the Illinois Bourbeuse River, the sheepnose usually collected each survey,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3405

recruitment is occurring, and the the 42 between 1.2 and 2.2 inches (3.0 confluence with the Ohio River, below species comprises 1.0 percent of the and 5.6 cm) in length and described as Barkley Dam (Butler 2002b, p. 18). This mussels at the site (relative abundance) juveniles (Layzer 2008, pers. comm.). population may be influenced by the (Morrison 2008, pers. comm.). Live Sampling over the past several years lower Ohio River sheepnose population sheepnose have also been collected in (2005–2007) has documented a number (Butler 2002b, p. 18) and represents a recent years at RM 725 and RM 300 of beds experiencing recruitment population cluster. Surveys conducted (Morrison 2008, pers. comm.). The (McGregor 2008, pers. comm.). in 2007–2009 found no sheepnose population in the lower Ohio River Tippecanoe River: The Tippecanoe (Hubbs, 2010, pers. comm.) and so this mainstem is viable with documented River drains the central portion of population may be extirpated. recruitment, but the population overall northern Indiana in the upper Wabash Tennessee River System continues to show signs of decline River system. This population of (Butler 2002b, p. 12). sheepnose is considered stable with The sheepnose was originally known Allegheny River: The Allegheny River relatively recent recruitment (Butler from the Tennessee River and 10 of its drains northwestern Pennsylvania and 2002b, p. 17). Survey work between tributary streams. Historically, Ortmann western New York and joins the 1987 and 1995 documented sheepnose (1925, p. 328) considered the sheepnose Monongahela River at Pittsburgh to form at 14 sites throughout the river and to occur ‘‘sparingly’’ in the lower the Ohio River. A recruiting and extended the known range of the species Tennessee River, and to be ‘‘rare’’ in the improving population of sheepnose upstream into Marshall County (Butler upper part of the system (Ortmann 1918, exists within the middle Allegheny 2002b, p. 17). The sheepnose is now p. 545). Hundreds of miles of large river River (Villella 2008, pers. comm.). known from 45 miles (72 km) of the habitat on the Tennessee River Sampling efforts from 2006–2008 at 63 Tippecanoe River (Ecological mainstem have been converted under sites over 78 miles (125 km) of river Specialists, Inc. 1993, pp. 80–81; nine reservoirs, with additional dams produced sheepnose at 18 sites. A total Cummings and Berlocher 1990, pp. 84, constructed in tributaries historically of 244 individuals of 7 different age 98; Cummings 2008, pers. comm.; harboring the sheepnose (for example, classes were collected (Villella 2008, Fisher 2008, pers. comm.). Clinch, Holston, Little Tennessee, pers. comm.) providing ample evidence Kentucky, Wabash, Eel, Muskingum, Hiwassee Rivers) (Tennessee Valley of recent recruitment. and Walhonding Rivers: In addition to Authority 1971, p. 5). Sheepnose Kanawha River: The Kanawha River is the aforementioned populations, populations currently persist in limited a major southern tributary of the Ohio sheepnose in the Ohio River system are reaches of the Tennessee River River draining much of West Virginia known from the Kentucky, Wabash, and mainstem and four tributaries. and with headwaters in Virginia and Eel Rivers, which are each represented Tennessee River mainstem: The 53- North Carolina. The Kanawha River by two or fewer specimens collected in mile (85-km) stretch of river in harbors a small, but recruiting and the past 25 years. Populations of the northwestern Alabama referred to as the stable, population of sheepnose in sheepnose in these three river systems Muscle Shoals, historically harbored 69 Fayette County, West Virginia (Butler are considered to be declining and may species of mussels, making it the most 2002b, p. 14). The Kanawha population be nearing extirpation (Butler 2002b, p. diverse mussel fauna ever known appears to be limited to 5 river miles (8 15–16). A population cluster in two (Garner and McGregor 2001, pp. 155– km) immediately below Kanawha Falls additional rivers, the Muskingum River 157). However, with the construction of (Clayton 2008c, pers. comm.). and its tributary, the Walhonding River, three dams (Wilson in 1925, Wheeler in Sheepnose collections from this reach in have unknown populations. Although 1930, and Pickwick Landing in 1940) 1987 resulted in a density of 0.013 per Watters and Dunn (1995, p. 240) most of the historical habitat was sq. m (0.140 per sq. ft), and collections documented recruitment in the lower inundated, leaving only small, flowing from 2005 found a density of 0.016 per Muskingum River in the mid-1980s, the habitat remnants (Garner and McGregor sq. m (0.172 per sq. ft) (Clayton 2008c, sheepnose population in the river is 2001, p. 158). pers. comm.). extremely small, and distribution has The species is found only Licking River: The sheepnose is been reduced to only the lower portion occasionally in the lower Tennessee known from the lower half of the of the river where six individuals were River below Pickwick Landing Dam in Licking River, a southern tributary of collected in 1992 (Watters and Dunn southwestern Tennessee. Scruggs (1960, the Ohio River in northeastern 1995, pp. 253–254). p. 11) recorded a relative abundance of Kentucky. Currently, the species is 0.2 percent, while Yokley (1972, p. 64) known from roughly five sites in the Cumberland River System considered it to be ‘‘very rare’’ in this middle Licking River (McGregor 2008, Historical sheepnose records in the reach (relative abundance of 0.1 pers. comm.). There is no documented system are known from throughout the percent). Yokley reported only two evidence of recent recruitment, and, mainstem downstream of Cumberland specimens that were each estimated to therefore, the sustainability of the Falls and three of its tributaries (Obey, be 20 or more years old. population is unknown. It is possible Harpeth, and Caney Fork Rivers). The sheepnose persists in the this population represents a population Wilson and Clark (1914, pp. 15–19, 57) tailwaters of Guntersville, Wilson, cluster with the Ohio River. reported the species to be generally Pickwick Landing, and Kentucky Dams Green River: The Green River is a uncommon from 14 mainstem sites from on the mainstem Tennessee River, lower Ohio River tributary in west- what is now Cumberland Reservoir, where it is considered uncommon central Kentucky. Currently, a recruiting Kentucky, downstream to Stewart (Garner & McGregor 2001, p. 165; Gooch and improving population remains over County, Tennessee, a distance of nearly et al. 1979, p. 9). These populations are an approximately 25 river mile (40 river 500 miles (∼805 km). Sheepnose was considered stable overall but with very km) reach in the upper Green River from last documented in the Tennessee limited recruitment (Garner and the vicinity of Mammoth Cave National portion of the river during the early McGregor 2001, p. 165; McGregor 2008, Park upstream into Hart County (Butler 1980s (Butler 2002b, p. 67). pers. comm.). The species has been 2002b, p. 15). An investigation of The only recent record for the found in low numbers over the past 80 muskrat middens from 2002 and 2003 Cumberland River is from 1987, at the years from relic habitat in the Wilson revealed 42 sheepnose shells, with 39 of extreme lower end of the river near its Dam tailwaters, a several-mile reach

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3406 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

adjacent to and downstream from and, previous to 2003, the species was appears to be uncommon at best. Only Florence, Alabama (Butler 2002b, pp. thought to be extirpated. The current in the Allegheny and Green Rivers is the 20–21). status of the population is unknown. species considered to be improving in Clinch River: The Clinch River in Holston River: In July 2002, sampling population status. Several other extant southwestern Virginia and northeastern in Holston River produced live populations are thought to exhibit some Tennessee is one of the largest and most sheepnose at 16 of 20 sites sampled level of stability and have experienced significant tributaries of the upper below the Cherokee Dam. This reach relatively recent recruitment Tennessee River system. Based on extended from Nance Ferry to Monday (Chippewa/Flambeau, Meramec, Ohio, archeological evidence, the sheepnose Island (RM 14.6), Jefferson and Knox Tippecanoe, Clinch, and Powell Rivers). was ‘‘extremely rare’’ in the lower Clinch Counties (Fraley 2008, pers. comm.). A Given the compilation of current River (Parmalee and Bogan 1986, p. 28). total of 206 specimens were found with distribution, abundance, and status As of 2002, the largest lots of museum an overall relative abundance of 18.2 trend information, the sheepnose material available for the sheepnose had percent among the 18 species reported appears to exhibit a high level of been from the Clinch River and its live from this reach. The collection was imperilment. tributary, the Powell River (Watters comprised of extremely old individuals 2010, pers. comm.). Individual Clinch with no recently recruited individuals Previous Federal Actions River museum lots collected during being found. Although the population We identified the spectaclecase and 1963 to 1969 include 36, 39, 70, and 82 appeared significant in numbers, the sheepnose as candidate species in a fresh dead specimens. The sheepnose lack of recruitment in this population is notice of review published in the population in the Clinch River currently indicative of a remnant population on Federal Register on May 4, 2004 (69 FR occurs over approximately 60 river its way to extirpation (Butler 2002b, p. 24875). The spectaclecase and miles (96 km) from northern Scott 19). In 2007, Tennessee Valley sheepnose remained candidate species County, Virginia downstream into Authority biologists located sheepnose in subsequent notices, including: May Hancock County, Tennessee, and is in the Holston River while conducting 11, 2005 (70 FR 24869), September 12, considered stable with recently fish surveys; however, no additional 2006 (71 FR 53755), December 6, 2007 documented recruitment (Eckert 2008, mussel survey work has been completed (72 FR 69033), December 10, 2008 (73 pers. comm.). Survey work between in the area since 2002 (Baxter 2010, FR 75176), and November 9, 2009 (74 1979 and 1994 (Ahlstedt & Tuberville pers. comm.). FR 57804). A candidate species is a 1997, p. 73) reported low densities of species for which we have on file Lower Mississippi River System 0.009 to 0.018 individuals per sq. ft. (0.1 sufficient information on biological to 0.2 per sq. m). Sampling efforts in The sheepnose was apparently never vulnerability and threats to support 2005 and 2006 reported densities from widely distributed in the lower issuing a proposed rule to list the two sites (RM 223.6 and 213.2) in Scott Mississippi River system. The only species as endangered or threatened. County, Virginia, of 0.021 and 0.006 verified records are for Hatchie River in Summary of Factors Affecting the individuals per sq. m (0.226 and 0.064 Tennessee and the Delta region in Species per sq. ft), respectively (Eckert 2008, Mississippi. The only records for the pers. comm.). Relative abundance for Yazoo and Big Black Rivers are from Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), sheepnose at these locations was 1.5 archeological sites (Butler 2002b, p. 21). and its implementing regulations at 50 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. The sheepnose population in the Big CFR part 424, set forth the procedures Powell River: The largest sheepnose Sunflower River, Mississippi, is the for adding species to the Federal lists of collection (OSUM) known rangewide only one remaining in the lower Endangered and Threatened Wildlife was collected in the Powell River, the Mississippi River system. Once and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Clinch River’s largest tributary, and abundant judging from museum and Act, we may determine a species to be included 6 live and 141 fresh dead archeological records, there is now only endangered or threatened due to one or specimens. Today, the sheepnose a small declining population in the Big more of the following five factors: (A) population in the Powell River is Sunflower River (Jones 2008, pers. The present or threatened destruction, considered stable, and recruitment has comm.). The population is believed to modification, or curtailment of its been documented. In 1979, Ahlstedt be limited to a 12- to 15-mile (19- to 24- habitat or range; (B) overutilization for (1991b, pp. 129–130) reported 45 live km) reach upstream of Indianola in commercial, recreational, scientific, or specimens from 17 of 78 sites (an Sunflower County, Mississippi. educational purposes; (C) disease or average 2.6 individuals per site). Although no juvenile mussels have been predation; (D) the inadequacy of Ahlstedt and Tuberville (1997, p. 96) found in recent sampling efforts, existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) conducted quantitative sampling in the variably-sized individuals indicate other natural or manmade factors Powell between 1979 and 1994, and some, possibly very low, level of affecting its continued existence. Listing found the sheepnose at densities of 0.01 recruitment in the population (Jones actions may be warranted based on any to 0.08 per sq. m (0.107 and 0.861 per 2008, pers. comm.). of the above threat factors, singly or in sq. ft). Sampling efforts in 2004 reported combination. Each of these factors is Summary of Extant Sheepnose densities from two sites in Lee County, discussed below. Virginia (RM 120.3 and 117.3), of 0.012 Populations and 0.017 individuals per sq. m (0.129 The sheepnose has experienced a A. The Present or Threatened and 0.183 per sq. ft), respectively significant reduction in range, and many Destruction, Modification, or (Eckert 2008, pers. comm.). Relative of the extant populations are disjunct, Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. abundance for sheepnose was 0.82 isolated, and appear to be declining. The decline of mussels such as the percent and 0.99 percent, respectively. The extirpation of this species from over spectaclecase and sheepnose is Duck River: The Duck River 50 streams (more than 65 percent) primarily the result of habitat loss and population is recently represented by within its historical range indicates that degradation (Neves 1991, pp. 252, 265). the collection of single 10+ year old substantial population losses have Chief among the causes of decline are animal in 2003. The sheepnose was occurred. In the majority of streams impoundments, channelization, likely always rare in the Duck River with extant populations, the sheepnose chemical contaminants, mining, oil and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3407

gas development, and sedimentation Ohio, Allegheny, Muskingum, construction of the Green River Dam in (Neves 1991, pp. 252, 260–261; Neves Kentucky, Green, and Barren Rivers), 1969. Locks and dams were also 1993, pp. 1–7; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63– some high-wall dams (for example, on constructed on the lower reaches of the 72; Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 435–437; the Wisconsin, Kaskaskia, Walhonding, Allegheny, Kanawha, Muskingum, and Watters 2000, pp. 261–268; Williams et and Tippecanoe Rivers), and many low- Kentucky Rivers which disrupted al. 1993, p. 7). These threats to mussels head dams (for example, on the St. historical riverine habitat for the in general (and spectaclecase and Croix, Chippewa, Flambeau, Wisconsin, sheepnose. sheepnose where specifically known) Kankakee, and Bourbeuse Rivers) have Similarly, dams impound most of the are individually discussed below. contributed significantly to the loss of upper Mississippi River and many of its sheepnose and spectaclecase habitat tributaries. A series of 29 locks and Dams and Impoundments (Butler 2002a, pp. 11–20 2002b, pp. 9– dams constructed since the 1930s in the Dams eliminate or reduce river flow 25). mainstem resulted in profound changes within impounded areas, trap silts and The majority of the Tennessee and to the nature of the river, primarily cause sediment deposition, alter water Cumberland River main stems and replacing a free-flowing alluvial (flood temperature and dissolved oxygen many of their largest tributaries are now plain) system with a stepped gradient levels, change downstream water flow impounded. There are 36 major dams (higher pool area to riffle area ratio) and quality, decrease habitat located in the Tennessee River system river. Modifications fragmented the heterogeneity, affect normal flood and about 90 percent of the Cumberland mussel beds where spectaclecase and patterns, and block upstream and River downstream of Cumberland Falls sheepnose were found in the downstream movement of species (RM 550 (RKM 886)) is either directly Mississippi River, reduced stable (Layzer et al. 1993, pp. 68–69; Neves et impounded by U.S. Army Corps of riverine habitat, and disrupted fish host al. 1997, pp. 63–64; Watters 2000, pp. Engineers (Corps) structures or migration and habitat use. 261–264). Within impounded waters, otherwise impacted by cold tail water Dams and impoundments have decline of freshwater mollusks has been released from several dams. Major Corps fragmented and altered stream habitats attributed to sedimentation, decreased impoundments on Cumberland River throughout the Sac River Basin in the dissolved oxygen, and alteration in tributaries (for example, Stones River lower Missouri River system. Stockton resident fish populations (Neves et al. and Caney Fork) have inundated an Dam impounds 39 miles (63 km) of the 1997, pp. 63–64; Pringle et al. 2009, pp. additional 100 miles (161 km) or more upper Sac River and the Truman Dam 810–815; Watters 2000, pp. 261–264). of spectaclecase and sheepnose habitat. inundates about 8 miles (13 km) of the Dams significantly alter downstream Coldwater releases from Wolf Creek, lower Sac River and its tributaries water quality and habitats (Allen & Dale Hollow (Obey River), and Center (Hutson & Barnhart 2004, p. 7). The Flecker 1993, p. 36), and negatively Hill (Caney Fork) Dams continue to rarity of live spectaclecase in the Sac affect tailwater mussel populations degrade spectaclecase and sheepnose River, coupled with the large number of (Layzer et al. 1993, p. 69; Neves et al. habitat in the Cumberland River system. dead shells observed in a recent study, 1997, p. 63; Watters 2000, pp. 265–266). Layzer et al. (1993, p. 68) reported that suggests that this species has decreased Below dams, mussel declines are 37 of the 60 pre-impoundment mussel since the river was impounded, and that associated with changes and fluctuation species of the Caney Fork River have spectaclecase may soon be extirpated in flow regime, scouring and erosion, been extirpated. Watters (2000, pp. 262– from the Sac River system (Hutson & reduced dissolved oxygen levels and 263) summarizes the tremendous loss of Barnhart 2004, p. 17). water temperatures, and changes in mussel species from various portions of Dam construction has a secondary resident fish assemblages (Layzer et al. the Tennessee and Cumberland River effect of fragmenting the ranges of 1993, p. 69; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63– systems. Approximately one-third of the aquatic mollusk species, leaving relict 64; Pringle et al. 2009, pp. 810–815; historical sheepnose and spectaclecase habitats and populations isolated by the Watters 2000, pp. 265–266; Williams et streams are in the Tennessee and structures as well as by extensive areas al. 1992, p. 7). The decline and Cumberland River systems. of deep uninhabitable, impounded imperilment of freshwater mussels in Navigational improvements on the waters. These isolated populations are several tributaries within the Tennessee, Ohio River began in 1830, and now unable to naturally recolonize suitable Cumberland, Mississippi, Missouri, and include 21 lock and dam structures habitat that is impacted by temporary, Ohio River basins have been directly stretching from Pittsburgh, but devastating events, such as severe attributed to construction of numerous Pennsylvania, to Olmsted, Illinois, near drought, chemical spills, or impoundments in those river systems its confluence with the Mississippi unauthorized discharges (Cope et al. (Hanlon et al. 2009, pp. 11–12; Layzer River. Historically, habitat now under 1997, pp. 235–237; Layzer et al. 1993, et al. 1993, pp. 68–69; Miller et al. 1984, navigational pools once supported up to pp. 68–69; Miller & Payne 2001, pp. 14– p. 109; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63–64; 50 species of mussels, including the 15; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63–75; Pringle Sickel et al. 2007, pp. 71–78; Suloway spectaclecase and sheepnose. et al. 2009, pp. 810–815; Watters 2000, 1981, pp. 237–238; Watters 2000, pp. Tributaries to the Ohio River, such as pp. 264–265, 268; Watters & Flaute 262–263; Watters & Flaute 2010, pp. 3– the Green and Allegheny rivers, were 2010, pp. 3–7). 7; Williams & Schuster 1989, pp. 7–10). also altered by impoundments. A series Population losses due to of six locks and dams was constructed Sedimentation impoundments have likely contributed on the lower half of the Green River Nonpoint source pollution from land more to the decline and imperilment of decades ago and extend upstream to the surface runoff originates from virtually the spectaclecase and the sheepnose western boundary of Mammoth Cave all land use activities and includes than any other factor. Large river habitat National Park (MCNP). The upper two sediments; fertilizer, herbicide, and throughout nearly all of the range of locks and dams destroyed spectaclecase pesticide residues; animal or human both species has been impounded, habitat, particularly Lock and Dam 6, wastes; septic tank leakage and gray leaving generally short, isolated patches which flooded the central and western water discharge; and oils and greases. of vestigial habitat in the area below portions of MCNP. Approximately 30 Nonpoint source pollution can cause dams. Navigational locks and dams, (for river miles (48 km) of mainstem habitat excess sedimentation, nutrification, example, on the upper Mississippi, were also eliminated with the decreased dissolved oxygen

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

concentration, increased acidity and channels; and changes in channel Creek mussel fauna to an increase in conductivity, and other changes in position that may leave mussels cattle grazing and resultant nutrient water chemistry that can negatively stranded (Brim Box & Mosa 1999, pp. enrichment and loss of riparian impact freshwater mussels. Land use 109–112; Kanehl & Lyons 1992, pp. 4– vegetation along the stream, among types around the sheepnose and 5; Vannote & Minshall 1982, p. 4106). other factors. This scenario is similar in spectaclecase populations include The Chippewa River in Wisconsin, for other parts of the extant range of the pastures, row crops, timber, and urban example, has a tremendous bedload spectaclecase and sheepnose. and rural communities. composed primarily of sand that Sedimentation and urban runoff may Excessive sediments are believed to requires dredging to maintain barge also be threats to the sheepnose in the impact riverine mollusks requiring traffic on the mainstem Mississippi Kankakee River system as the Chicago clean, stable streams (Brim Box & Mosa below its confluence (Thiel 1981, p. 20). Metro area continues to expand. 1999, p. 99; Ellis 1936, pp. 39–40). The mussel diversity in the Mississippi Declines in mussel diversity observed in Impacts resulting from sediments have River below the confluence with the the Ohio River are in part due to been noted for many components of Chippewa River has predictably pollution from urban centers; in many aquatic communities. For example, declined from historical times. Lake of these areas the loss of diversity has sediments have been shown to affect Pepin, a once natural lake formed in the not recovered from water quality respiration, growth, reproductive upper Mississippi River upstream from problems that began prior to dam success, and behavior of freshwater the mouth of the Chippewa River, has construction (Watters & Flaute 2010, pp. mussels, and to affect fish growth, become increasingly silted in over the 3–7). survival, and reproduction (Waters past century, reducing habitat for the As the spectaclecase primarily 1995, pp. 173–175). Potential sediment spectaclecase and sheepnose (Thiel inhabits deep water along the outside of sources within a watershed include 1981, p. 20). bends, it may be particularly vulnerable virtually all activities that disturb the Increased sedimentation and siltation to siltation. The current often slackens land surface, and most localities may explain in part why spectaclecase in this habitat, more so than in riffles currently occupied by the spectaclecase and sheepnose mussels appear to be and runs where other mussel species are and sheepnose are affected to varying experiencing recruitment failure in typically found, and suspended degrees by sedimentation. some streams. Interstitial spaces in the sediment settles out. Spectaclecase beds Sedimentation has been implicated in substrate provide crucial habitat for covered with a thick layer of silt have the decline of mussel populations juvenile mussels. When clogged, been observed in Missouri, often nationwide, and is a threat to interstitial flow rates and spaces are downstream from reaches with eroding spectaclecase and sheepnose (Brim Box reduced (Brim Box & Mosa 1999, p. banks (Roberts 2008, pers. comm.). & Mosa 1999, p. 99; Dennis 1984, p. 212; 100), thus reducing juvenile habitat. Channelization Ellis 1936, pp. 39–40; Fraley & Ahlstedt Furthermore, sediment may act as a 2000, pp. 193–194; Poole & Downing vector for delivering contaminants such Dredging and channelization 2004, pp. 119–122; Vannote & Minshall as nutrients and pesticides to streams activities have profoundly altered 1982, pp. 4105–4106). Specific and juveniles may ingest contaminants riverine habitats nationwide. Hartfield biological impacts include reduced adsorbed to silt particles during normal (1993, pp. 131–139), Neves et al. (1997, feeding and respiratory efficiency from feeding activities. Female spectaclecase pp. 71–72), and Watters (2000, pp. 268– clogged gills, disrupted metabolic and sheepnose produce conglutinates 269) reviewed the specific effects of processes, reduced growth rates, limited that attract hosts. Such a reproductive channelization on freshwater mussels. burrowing activity, physical smothering, strategy depends on clear water during Channelization impacts stream and disrupted host fish attractant the critical time of the year when physically (for example accelerated mechanisms (Ellis 1936, pp. 39–40; mussels are releasing their glochidia. erosion, reduced depth, decreased Hartfield & Hartfield 1996, p. 373; Agricultural activities are responsible habitat diversity, geomorphic Marking & Bills 1979, p. 210; Vannote for much of the sediment (Waters 1995, instability, and loss of riparian & Minshall 1982, pp. 4105–4106; Waters p. 170) and chemical discharge into vegetation) and biologically (for 1995, pp. 173–175). In addition, mussels streams, affecting 60 percent of the example decreased fish and mussel may be indirectly affected if high impaired river miles in the country diversity, altered species composition turbidity levels significantly reduce the (EPA 2007, p. 10). Unrestricted livestock and abundance, decreased biomass, and amount of light available for access occurs on many streams and reduced growth rates) (Hartfield 1993, photosynthesis and thus the production potentially threatens their mussel pp. 131–139). Channel construction for of certain food items (Kanehl & Lyons populations (Fraley & Ahlstedt 2000, navigation increases flood heights (Belt 1992, p. 7). pp. 193–194). Grazing may reduce 1975, p. 684), partly as a result of a Studies indicate that the primary infiltration rates and increase runoff; decrease in stream length and an impacts of excess sediment on mussels trampling and vegetation removal increase in gradient (Hubbard et al. are sublethal, with detrimental effects increases the probability of erosion 1993, p. 137 (in Hartfield 1993, p. 131)). not immediately apparent (Brim Box & (Armour et al. 1991, pp. 8–10; Brim Box Flood events may thus be exacerbated, Mosa 1999, p. 101). The physical effects & Mosa 1999, p. 103). The majority of conveying into streams large quantities of sediment on mussels are multifold, the remaining spectaclecase and of sediment, potentially with adsorbed and include changes in suspended and sheepnose populations are threatened contaminants. Channel maintenance bed material load; changes in bed by some form of agricultural runoff may result in profound impacts sediment composition associated with (nutrients, pesticides, sediment). Copper downstream (Stansbery 1970, p. 10), increased sediment production and run- Creek, a tributary to the Clinch River, such as increases in turbidity and off in the watershed; changes in the for example, has a drainage area that sedimentation, which may smother form, position, and stability of channels; contains approximately 41 percent bottom-dwelling organisms. changes in depth or the width-to-depth agricultural land (Hanlon et al. 2009, p. Channel maintenance operations for ratio, which affects light penetration 3). Fraley and Ahlstedt (2000, p. 193) commercial navigation have impacted and flow regime; actively aggrading and Hanlon et al. (2009, pp. 11–12) habitat for the sheepnose and (filling) or degrading (scouring) attributed the decline of the Copper spectaclecase in many large rivers

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3409

rangewide. Periodic channel the sheepnose was originally known to proximity to coal-mining activities maintenance may continue to adversely occur in the Tennessee River and 10 of (Ahlstedt & Tuberville 1997, pp. 74–75). affect this species in the upper its tributaries (Ortmann 1925, p. 328). Known mussel toxicants, such as Mississippi, Ohio, Muskingum, and The mainstem of the Tennessee River is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Tennessee rivers. Further modifications maintained as a navigational channel, heavy metals (for example, copper, to the Mississippi River channel are and a plan to deepen it has been manganese, and zinc), and other anticipated with the recently authorized proposed (Hubbs 2008, pers. comm.). chemicals from coal mining and other Navigation and Environmental Severe bank erosion is ongoing along activities contaminate sediments in the Sustainability Program (NESP) (Water some reaches of the river below Clinch River (Ahlstedt & Tuberville Resources Development Act of 2007 Pickwick Landing Dam, with some sites 1997, p. 75). These chemicals are toxic (Pub. L. 110–114)), which will consist of losing several feet of stream bank per to juvenile mussels (Ahlstedt & construction of larger locks and other year (Hubbs 2008, pers. comm.). Tuberville 1997, p. 75). Pollutant inputs navigation improvements downstream The sheepnose population within the to the Clinch River from a coal-burning of MRP 14. Continual maintenance of Big Sunflower River is threatened by a power plant in Carbo, Virginia, were the Mississippi River navigation Corps flood control project (Jones 2008, shown to increase mortality and reduce channel requires dredging, wing and pers. comm.). Dredging for this project cellulolytic activity (breaking down closing dam reconstruction and is planned to take place downstream of cellulose) in transplanted mussels maintenance, and bank armoring. Indianaola, but head-cutting may (Farris et al. 1988, pp. 705–706). Site- Dredging, maintenance, and ultimately destabilize the substrate in specific copper toxicity studies of construction activities destabilize which sheepnose now exists. This unionid glochidia in the Clinch River instream fine sediments are likely to activity, coupled with other threats showed that freshwater mussels as a adversely affect the spectaclecase and potentially affecting sheepnose (see group were generally sensitive to the sheepnose. Spectaclecase tend to below), may lead to extirpation of the copper, the toxic constituent of the inhabit relatively deep water where they population within 10 years (Jones 2008, power plant effluent (Cherry et al. 2002, are particularly vulnerable to siltation. pers. comm.). p. 596). All of these studies indicate that The current is slower in this habitat The upper Kankakee River in Indiana acid mine runoff may have local than in riffles and runs, and suspended was channelized several decades ago. impacts on spectaclecase recruitment sediment settles out in greater volume. The sheepnose is now considered and survival in this river. Dredging to maintain barge traffic on the extirpated from the upper Kankakee, Gravel-mining activities may also be a Mississippi River below the mouth of and is restricted to the unchannelized localized threat in some streams with the Chippewa River in Wisconsin has portion of the river in Illinois extant sheepnose and spectaclecase reduced mussel diversity due to the (Cummings 2008, pers. comm.). populations. Gravel mining causes increase in unstable sand substrates Mining stream instability, increasing erosion, (Thiel 1981, p. 20; U.S. Army Corps of turbidity, and subsequent sediment Engineers 1996, p. 1, Tab 14). Instream gravel mining has been Channel maintenance dredging is also implicated in the destruction of mussel deposition (Meador & Layher 1998, pp. a major concern for mussel populations. populations (Hartfield 1993, pp. 136– 8–9). Gravel mining is common in the A large amount of spoil (dredged earth 138). Negative impacts associated with Meramec River system. Between 1997 and rock) was dumped directly on a gravel mining include stream channel and 2008, the Missouri Department of mussel bed in the Muskingum River that modifications (altered habitat, disrupted Natural Resources issued permits for included the sheepnose in the late flow patterns, and sediment transport), 102 sand- and gravel-mining sites in the 1990s (Watters 2008, pers. comm.). water quality modifications (increased Meramec River (Zeaman 2008, pers. Thousands of mussels were killed as the turbidity, reduced light penetration, and comm.). Although rigid guidelines result of this single event. Watters and increased temperature), prohibited instream mining and Dunn (1995 p. 231) also noted that the macroinvertebrate population changes required streamside buffers, a court lower ends of two mussel beds (elimination, habitat disruption, and ruling deauthorized the Corps from coincided with the mouths of Wolf and increased sedimentation), and changes regulating these habitat protective Bear Creeks. This led them to surmise in fish populations (impacts to measures. The Corps still retains that pollutants, such as sediment loads spawning and nursery habitat and food oversight for gravel mining, but many or agricultural runoff, in their web disruptions) (Kanehl & Lyons 1992, mining operations do not fall under watersheds may adversely impact pp. 4–10). Corps jurisdiction (Roberts & mussels in the mainstem Muskingum Heavy metal-rich drainage from coal Bruenderman 2000, p. 23). In the lower River below the confluences of Wolf mining and associated sedimentation Tennessee River, mining is permitted in Creek and Bear Creek. has adversely impacted portions of the 18 reaches for a total of 47.9 river miles Mussels require a stable substrate to Tennessee River system in Virginia. (77.1 km) between the Duck River survive and reproduce and are Low pH commonly associated with confluence and Pickwick Landing Dam, particularly susceptible to channel mine runoff can reduce glochidial a distance of over 95 miles (153 km) instability (Neves et al. 1997, p. 23; encystment (attachment) rates (Huebner (Hubbs 2008, pers. comm.). This is the Parmalee & Bogan 1998). Channel and & Pynnonen 1992, pp. 2350–2353). Acid reach where mussel recruitment has bank degradation have led to the loss of mine runoff may thus have local been noted for many rare species in stable substrates in the Meramec River impacts on recruitment of the mussel recent years. These activities have the Basin. Roberts and Bruenderman (2000, populations close to mines. potential to impact the river’s small pp. 7–8, 21–23) pointed to the loss of Coal-related toxins in the Clinch River sheepnose population. The Gasconade suitable stable habitat as a major cause may explain the decline and lack of River and its tributaries have been of decline in mussel abundance at sites mussel recruitment at some sites in the subject to gravel mining and other previously surveyed in 1979. Virginia portion of that stream (Ahlstedt channel modifying practices that The Tennessee River was once a 2008, pers. comm.). Patterns of mussel accelerate channel destabilization. stronghold for the spectaclecase distribution and abundances have been These physical habitat threats combined (Ortmann 1924, p. 60; 1925, p. 327), and found to be negatively correlated with with poor water quality and agricultural

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3410 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

nonpoint source pollution are serious may result in exposure of a relatively mussels (March et al. 2007, pp. 2066– threats to all existing mussel fauna in immobile species to extremely elevated 2067, 2073). the system. concentrations that far exceed toxic Current research is now starting to levels and any water quality standards focus on the contaminant sensitivity of Oil and Gas Development that might be in effect. Some notable freshwater mussel glochidia and newly- Coal, oil, and natural gas resources are spills that released large quantities of released juvenile mussels (Goudreau et present in some of the watersheds that highly concentrated chemicals resulting al. 1993, pp. 219–222; Jacobson et al. are known to support sheepnose, in mortality to mussels include: 1997, p. 2390; March et al. 2007, pp. including the Allegheny River. • Massive mussel kills on the Clinch 2068–2073; Valenti et al. 2006, pp. Exploration and extraction of these River at Carbo, Virginia occurred from a 2514–2517; Valenti et al. 2005, pp. energy resources can result in increased power plant alkaline fly ash pond spill 1244–1245; Wang et al. 2007c, pp. siltation, a changed hydrograph, and in 1967, and a sulfuric acid spill in 1970 2041–2046) and juveniles (Augspurger altered water quality even at a distance (Crossman et al. 1973, p. 6); et al. 2003, p. 2569; Bartsch et al. 2003, from the mine or well field. Sheepnose • Approximately 18,000 mussels of p. 2561; March et al. 2007, pp. 2068– habitat in larger streams can be several species, including 750 2073; Mummert et al. 2003, p. 2549; threatened by the cumulative effects of individuals from three endangered Valenti et al. 2006, pp. 2514–2517; multiple mines and well fields (adapted mussel species, were eliminated from Valenti et al. 2005, pp. 1244–1245; from Service 2008, p. 11). the upper Clinch River near Cedar Bluff, Wang et al. 2007b, pp. 2053–2055; Coal, oil, and gas resources are Virginia in 1998, when an overturned Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2041–2046) to present in a number of the basins where tanker truck released 1,600 gallons such contaminants as ammonia, metals, sheepnose occur, and extraction of these (6,056 liters) of a chemical used in chlorine, and pesticides. The toxicity resources has increased dramatically in rubber manufacturing (Jones et al. 2001, information presented in this section recent years, particularly in p. 20; Schmerfeld 2006, p. 12); and focuses on recent water-only laboratory Pennsylvania and West Virginia. • An on-going release of sodium acute (sudden and severe exposure) and Although oil and gas extraction chronic (prolonged or repeated generally occurs away from the river, dimethyl dithiocarbamate, a chemical used to reduce and precipitate exposure) toxicity tests with early life extensive road networks are required to stages of freshwater mussels using the hexachrome, starting in 1999 impacted construct and maintain wells. These standard testing methodology published approximately 10 river miles (16 km) of road networks frequently cross or occur by the American Society for Testing and the Ohio River and resulted in an near tributaries, contributing sediment Materials (ASTM) (American Society for estimated loss of one million mussels, to the receiving waterway. In addition, Testing and Materials. 2008. Standard including individuals from two the construction and operation of wells guide for conducting laboratory toxicity federally listed species (DeVault 2009, may result in the discharge of brine. tests with freshwater mussels E2455–06. pers. comm.; Clayton 2008b, pers. Point source discharges are typically In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, comm.). regulated; however, nonpoint inputs Vol 11.06. Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1442– such as silt and other contaminants may These are not the only instances 1493.) Use of this standard testing not be sufficiently regulated, where chemical spills have resulted in method generates consistent, reliable particularly those originating some the loss of high numbers of mussels toxicity data with acceptable precision distance from a waterway. In 2006, more (Brown et al. 2005, p. 1457; Jones et al. and accuracy (Wang et al. 2007a, p. than 3,700 permits were issued for oil 2001, p. 20; Neves 1991, p. 252; 2035) and was used for toxicity tests on and gas wells by the Pennsylvania Schmerfeld 2006, pp. 12–13), but are ammonia, copper, chlorine and select Department of Environmental provided as examples of the serious pesticides (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. Protection, which also issued 98 threat chemical spills pose to mussel 2025; Bringolf et al. 2007b, p. 2101; citations for permit violations at 54 species. The sheepnose and Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2087; Wang et wells (Hopey 2007; adapted from spectaclecase are especially threatened al. 2007a, p. 2029; Wang et al. 2007b, p. Service 2008, p. 12). by chemical spills because these spills 2048; Wang et al. 2007c, p. 2036). Use can occur anywhere that highways with of these tests has documented that, Chemical Contaminants tanker trucks, industries, or mines while mussels are sensitive to some Chemical contaminants are overlap with sheepnose and contaminants, they are not universally ubiquitous throughout the environment spectaclecase distribution. sensitive to all contaminants and are considered a major threat in the Exposure of mussels to lower (Augspurger et al. 2007, pp. 2025–2026). decline of freshwater mussel species concentrations of contaminants more One chemical that is particularly toxic (Cope et al. 2008, p. 451; Richter et al. likely to be found in aquatic to early life stages of mussels is 1997, p. 1081; Strayer et al. 2004, p. 436; environments can also adversely affect ammonia. Sources of ammonia include Wang et al. 2007a, p. 2029). Chemicals mussels and result in the decline of agricultural wastes (animal feedlots and enter the environment through both freshwater mussel species. Such nitrogenous fertilizers), municipal point and nonpoint discharges concentrations may not be immediately wastewater treatment plants, and including spills, industrial sources, lethal, but over time, can result in industrial waste (Augspurger et al. 2007, municipal effluents, and agricultural mortality, reduced filtration efficiency, p. 2026) as well as precipitation and runoff. These sources contribute organic reduced growth, decreased natural processes (decomposition of compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, reproduction, changes in enzyme organic nitrogen) (Augspurger et al. and a wide variety of newly emerging activity, and behavioral changes to all 2003, p. 2569; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. contaminants to the aquatic mussel life stages. Frequently, 212; Hickey & Martin 1999, p. 44; environment. As a result, water and procedures which evaluate the ‘‘safe’’ Newton 2003, p. 1243). Therefore, sediment quality can be degraded to the concentration of an environmental ammonia is considered a limiting factor extent that mussel populations are contaminant (for example, national for survival and recovery of some adversely impacted. water quality criteria) do not have data mussel species due to its ubiquity in Chemical spills can be especially for freshwater mussel species or exclude aquatic environments and high level of devastating to mussels because they data that are available for freshwater toxicity, and because the highest

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3411

concentrations typically occur in mussel life stage. The chronic toxicity tests spaces in the substrate where lower microhabitats (Augspurger et al. 2003, conducted determined that juveniles dissolved oxygen concentrations are p. 2574). In addition, studies have exposed to mercury greater than or more likely than on the sediment shown that ammonia concentrations equal to 8 ug/L exhibited reduced surface where adults tend to live increase with increasing temperature growth. These observed toxicity values (Sparks & Strayer 1998, pp. 132–133). and low flow conditions (Cherry et al. are below EPA’s Criteria Continuous Elevated concentrations of pesticide 2005, p. 378; Cooper et al. 2005, p. 381), Concentration and Criteria Maximum frequently occur in streams due to which may be exacerbated by the effects Concentration, which are 0.77 ug/L and pesticide runoff, overspray application of climate change, and may cause 1.4 ug/L, respectively. Based on these to row crops, and lack of adequate ammonia to become more problematic data, we believe that EPA’s water riparian buffers. Agricultural pesticide for juvenile mussels. The EPA- quality standards for mercury should be applications often coincide with the established ammonia water quality protective of juvenile mussels and reproductive and early life stages of criteria (EPA 1985, pp. 94–99) may not glochidia, except in cases of illegal mussel, and thus impacts to mussels be protective of mussels (Augspurger et dumping, permit violations, or spills. due to pesticides may be increased al. 2003, p. 2572; Sharpe 2005, p. 28) However, impacts to mussels from (Bringolf et al. 2007a, p. 2094). Little is under current and future climate mercury toxicity may be occurring in known regarding the impact of currently conditions. some streams. According to the National used pesticides to freshwater mussels Mussels are also affected by metals Summary Data reported by States to the even though some pesticides, such as (Keller & Zam 1991, p. 543), such as EPA, 3,770 monitored waters do not glyphosate (Roundup), are used cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, meet EPA standards for mercury in the globally. Recent studies tested the and zinc, which can negatively affect United States. (http://iaspub.epa.gov/ toxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, biological processes such as growth, waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_ and a surfactant (MON 0818) used in filtration efficiency, enzyme activity, report_type=T, accessed 6/28/2010). several glyphosate formulations, to early valve closure, and behavior (Jacobson et Acute mercury toxicity was determined life stages of the fatmucket (Lampsilis al. 1997, p. 2390; Keller & Zam 1991, p. to be the cause of extirpation of a siliquoidea), a native freshwater mussel 543; Naimo 1995, pp. 351–355; Valenti diverse mussel fauna for a 70-mile (112- (Bringolf et al. 2007a, p. 2094). Studies et al. 2005, p. 1244). Metals occur in km) portion of the North Fork Holston conducted with juvenile mussels and industrial and wastewater effluents and River (Brown et al. 2005, pp. 1455– glochidia determined that the surfactant are often a result of atmospheric 1457). (MON 0818) was the most toxic of the deposition from industrial processes compounds tested and that L. and incinerators. Glochidia and juvenile In addition to ammonia, agricultural siliquoidea glochidia were the most freshwater mussels have recently been sources of chemical contaminants sensitive organism tested to date studied to determine the acute and include two broad categories that have (Bringolf et al. 2007a, p. 2094). chronic toxicity of copper to these life the potential to adversely impact mussel Roundup, technical grade glyphosate stages (Wang et al. 2007b, pp. 2048– species: Nutrients and pesticides. isopropylamine salt, and 2056; Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2036– Nutrients (such as nitrogen and isopropylamine were also acutely toxic 2047). The chronic values determined phosphorus) can impact streams when to juveniles and glochidia (Bringolf et for copper ranged from 8.5 to 9.8 their concentrations reach levels that al. 2007a, p. 2097). The impacts of other micrograms per liter (ug/L) for survival cannot be assimilated, a condition pesticides including atrazine, and from 4.6 to 8.5 ug/L for growth of known as over-enrichment. Nutrient chlorpyrifos, and permethrin on juveniles. These chronic values are over-enrichment is primarily a result of glochidia and juvenile life stages have below the EPA 1996 chronic water runoff from livestock farms, feedlots, also recently been studied (Bringolf et quality criterion of 15 ug/L (hardness and heavily fertilized row crops al. 2007b, p. 2101). This study 170 mg/L) for copper (Wang et al. (Peterjohn & Correll 1984, p. 1471). determined that chlorpyrifos was toxic 2007b, pp. 2052–2055). March (2007, Over-enriched conditions are to both L. siliquoidea glochidia and pp. 2066, 2073) identifies that copper exacerbated by low-flow conditions, juveniles (Bringolf et al. 2007b, p. 2104). water quality criteria and modified State such as those experienced during The above results indicate the potential water quality standards may not be typical summer-season flows and that toxicity of commonly applied pesticides protective of mussels. might occur with greater frequency and and the threat to mussel species as a Mercury is another heavy metal that magnitude as a result of climate change. result of the widespread use of these has the potential to negatively affect Bauer (1988, p. 244) found that pesticides. All of these pesticides are mussel populations, and it is receiving excessive nitrogen concentrations can commonly used throughout the range of attention due to its widespread be detrimental to the adult freshwater the sheepnose and spectaclecase. distribution and potential to adversely pearl mussel (Margaritifera A potential, but undocumented, threat impact the environment. Mercury has margaritifera), as was evident by the to freshwater mussel species, including been detected throughout aquatic positive linear relationship between sheepnose and spectaclecase, are environments as a product of municipal mortality and nitrate concentration. contaminants referred to as ‘‘emerging and industrial waste and atmospheric Also, a study of mussel life span and contaminants’’ that are being detected in deposition from coal-burning plants. size (Bauer 1992, p. 425) showed a aquatic ecosystems at an increasing rate. One recent study evaluated the negative correlation between growth Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other sensitivity of early life stages of mussels rate and eutrophication, and longevity organic contaminants have been to mercury (Valenti et al. 2005, p. 1242). was reduced as the concentration of detected downstream from urban areas This study determined that for the nitrates increased. Nutrient over- and livestock production (Kolpin et al. mussel species used (rainbow mussel, enrichment can result in an increase in 2002, p. 1202). A large potential source Villosa iris) glochidia were more primary productivity, and the of these emerging contaminants is sensitive to mercury than were juvenile subsequent respiration depletes wastewater being discharged through mussels, with the median lethal dissolved oxygen levels. This may be both permitted (National Pollutant concentration value of 14 ug/L particularly detrimental to juvenile Discharge Elimination System, or compared to 114 ug/L for the juvenile mussels that inhabit the interstitial NPDES) and non-permitted sites

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3412 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

throughout the country. Permitted significant impact on the spectaclecase larvae, and crayfish, may feed on discharge sites are ubiquitous in and sheepnose. juvenile mussels (Neves 2008, pers. watersheds with sheepnose and On the basis of this analysis, we find comm.). Although predation by spectaclecase populations, providing that overutilization for commercial, naturally occurring predators is a ample opportunities for contaminants to recreational, scientific, or educational normal aspect of the population impact the species (for example, there purposes is not now a threat to the dynamics of a healthy mussel are more than 250 NPDES sites in the spectaclecase or sheepnose in any population, predation may amplify Meramec River, Missouri system, which portion of its range or likely to become declines in small populations of this harbors large, but declining, populations a significant threat in the foreseeable species. In addition, the potential now of sheepnose and spectaclecase; Roberts future. exists for the black carp and Bruenderman 2000, p. 78). C. Disease or Predation (Mylopharyngodon piceus), a mollusk- The information presented in this eating Asian fish recently introduced Little is known about diseases in section represents some of the threats into the waters of the United States freshwater mussels (Grizzle & Brunner from chemical contaminants that have (Strayer 1999, p. 89), to eventually 2007, p. 6). However, mussel die-offs been documented both in the laboratory disperse throughout the range of the have been documented in spectaclecase and field and demonstrates that spectaclecase and sheepnose. and sheepnose streams (Neves 1986, p. chemical contaminants pose a The life cycle of freshwater mussels is 9), and some researchers believe that substantial threat to sheepnose and intimately related to that of the disease may be a factor contributing to spectaclecase. This information freshwater fish they use as hosts for the die-offs (Buchanan 1986, p. 53; indicates the potential for contaminants their parasitic glochidia. For this reason, Neves 1986, p. 11). Mussel parasites diseases that impact populations of from spills that are immediately lethal include water mites, trematodes, to species, to chronic contaminant freshwater fishes also pose a significant oligochaetes, leeches, copepods, threat to mussels. Viral hemorrhagic exposure, which results in death, bacteria, and protozoa (Grizzle & reduced growth, or reduced septicemia (VHS) disease has been Brunner 2007, p. 4). Generally, parasites confirmed from much of the Great Lakes reproduction of sheepnose and are not suspected of being a major spectaclecase to contribute to declining and St. Lawrence River system. In June limiting factor (Oesch 1984, p. 6), but a 2008, muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) sheepnose and spectaclecase recent study provides contrary populations. from Clearfork Reservoir, near evidence. Reproductive output and Mansfield, Ohio, tested positive for Summary of Factor A physiological condition were negatively carrying VHS virus. This is the first correlated with mite and trematode known occurrence of VHS virus in the The decline of the freshwater mussels abundance, respectively (Gangloff et al. Mississippi River basin. in the eastern United States is primarily 2008, pp. 28–30). Stressors that reduce The VHS virus has been implicated as the result of the long-lasting effects of fitness may make mussels more a mortality factor in fish kills habitat alterations such as susceptible to parasites (Butler 2007, p. throughout the Great Lakes region. It has impoundments, channelization, 90). Furthermore, nonnative mussels been confirmed in 28 fish species, but chemical contaminants, mining, oil and may carry diseases and parasites that are no identified hosts for sheepnose are on gas development, and sedimentation. potentially devastating to the native the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Although efforts have been made to mussel fauna, including spectaclecase Animal and Plant Health Inspection restore habitat in some areas, the long- and sheepnose (Strayer 1999, p. 88). Service (APHIS) list of fish species term effects of large-scale and wide- The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) is susceptible to VHS (APHIS 2008, pp. 1– ranging habitat modification, cited as the most prevalent mussel 2). Since the host for spectaclecase is destruction, and curtailment will predator (Convey et al. 1989, p. 654– unknown, we do not know how VHS continue into the foreseeable future. 655; Hanson et al. 1989, pp. 15–16; could affect reproduction for B. Overutilization for Commercial, Kunz 1898, p. 328). Muskrat predation spectaclecase. If the VHS virus Recreational, Scientific, or Educational may limit the recovery potential of successfully migrates out of the Purposes endangered mussels or contribute to Clearfork Reservoir and into the Ohio local extirpations of previously stressed River, it could spread rapidly and cause The spectaclecase and sheepnose are populations, according to Neves and fish kills throughout the Mississippi not commercially valuable species but Odom (1989, p. 940), but they consider River basin. Few spectaclecase and may be increasingly sought by collectors it primarily a seasonal or localized sheepnose populations are currently as they become rarer. Although threat. Bo¨pple and Coker (1912, p. 9) recruiting at sustainable levels, and fish scientific collecting is not thought to noted the occurrence of ‘‘large piles of kills could further reduce encounters represent a significant threat, shells made by the muskrats’’ on an with hosts and potentially reduce unregulated collecting could adversely island in the Clinch River, Tennessee, recruitment. affect localized spectaclecase and composed of ‘‘about one-third’’ In summary, disease in freshwater sheepnose populations. spectaclecase shells. Predation by mollusks is poorly known and not Mussel harvest is illegal in some muskrats may be a seasonal and currently considered a threat. Although States (for example, Indiana and Ohio), localized threat to spectaclecase and there is no direct evidence at this time but regulated in others (for example, sheepnose populations but is probably that predation is detrimentally affecting Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and not a significant threat rangewide. the spectaclecase or sheepnose, their Wisconsin). These species may be Some species of fish feed on mussels small populations and limited ranges inadvertently harvested by (for example, common carp (Cyprinus leaves them vulnerable to threats of inexperienced commercial harvesters carpio), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus predation from natural or introduced unfamiliar with species identification. grunniens), redear sunfish (Lepomis predators. Therefore, we conclude that Although illegal harvest of protected microlophus)) and potentially on this predation currently represents a threat mussel beds occurs (Watters and Dunn species when young. Various of low magnitude, but it could 1995, p. 225, 247–250), commercial invertebrates, such as flatworms, hydra, potentially become a significant future harvest is not known to have a non-biting midge larvae, dragonfly threat to the spectaclecase and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3413

sheepnose due to their small population a permit for gravel-mining activities that maximums, depending on the species sizes. deposit fill into streams under section (Watters & O’Dee 2000, p. 136). 404 of the Clean Water Act. Abnormal temperature changes may D. The Inadequacy of Existing Additionally, a Corps permit is required cause particular problems to mussels Regulatory Mechanisms under section 10 of the Rivers and whose reproductive cycles may be States with extant spectaclecase and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) for linked to fish reproductive cycles (for sheepnose populations prohibit the navigable waterways including the example,Young & Williams 1984). taking of mussels for scientific purposes lower 50 miles (80 km) of the Meramec Climate Change without a State collecting permit. River. However, many gravel-mining However, enforcement of this permit operations do not fall under these two It is a widely accepted fact that requirement is difficult. categories. changes in climate are occurring The level of protection that Despite these existing regulatory worldwide (IPCC 2007, p. 30). spectaclecase and sheepnose receive mechanisms, the spectaclecase and Understanding the effects of climate from State listing varies from State to sheepnose continue to decline due to change on freshwater mussels is of State. The sheepnose is State-listed in the effects of habitat destruction, poor crucial importance, because the extreme every State that keeps such a list. water quality, contaminants, and other fragmentation of freshwater drainage Collection of sheepnose in Pennsylvania factors. We find that these regulatory systems, coupled with the limited for use as fish bait is limited to 50 measures have been insufficient to ability of mussels to migrate, will make individuals per day. The spectaclecase significantly reduce or remove the it particularly difficult for mussels to is State-listed in 8 of the 10 States that threats to the spectaclecase and adjust their range in response to changes harbor extant populations. Only in sheepnose, and therefore that the in climate (Strayer 2008, p. 30). For Missouri and Tennessee is the inadequacy of existing regulatory example, changes in temperature and spectaclecase not assigned conservation mechanisms is a threat to these species precipitation can increase the likelihood status and West Virginia does not have throughout all of their ranges. of flooding or increase drought duration any State-specific legislation similar to Based on our analysis of the best and intensity, resulting in direct the Act. available information, we have no impacts to freshwater mussels (Golladay Nonpoint source pollution is reason to believe that the et al. 2004, p. 503; Hastie et al. 2003, pp. considered a primary threat to aforementioned regulations will offer 40–43). Indirect effects of climate sheepnose and spectaclecase habitat; adequate protection to the spectaclecase change may include declines in host however, current laws do not and sheepnose in the foreseeable future. fish stocks, sea level rise, habitat adequately protect spectaclecase and reduction, and changes in human sheepnose habitat from nonpoint source E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors activity in response to climate change pollution, as the laws to prevent Affecting Its Continued Existence (Hastie et al. 2003, pp. 43–44). sediment entering water ways are poorly Temperature enforced. Best management practices for Population Fragmentation and Isolation sediment and erosion control are often Natural temperature regimes can be Most of the remaining spectaclecase recommended or required by local altered by impoundments, water and sheepnose populations are small ordinances for construction projects; releases from dams, industrial and and isolated and thus are susceptible to however, compliance, monitoring, and municipal effluents, and changes in genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and enforcement of these recommendations riparian habitat. Critical thermal limits random or chance changes to the are often poorly implemented. for survival and normal functioning of environment, such as toxic chemical Furthermore, there are currently no many freshwater mussel species are spills (Avise and Hamrick 1996, pp. requirements within the scope of unknown. High temperatures can 463–466; Smith 1990, pp. 311–321; Federal environmental laws to reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations Watters and Dunn 1995, pp. 257–258 specifically consider the spectaclecase in the water, which slows growth, Inbreeding depression can result in and sheepnose during Federal activities. reduces glycogen stores, impairs death, decreased fertility, smaller body Point source discharges within the respiration, and may inhibit size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and range of the spectaclecase and reproduction (Fuller 1974, pp. 240– various chromosome abnormalities sheepnose have been reduced since the 241). Low temperatures can (Smith 1990, pp. 311–321). Despite any inception of the Clean Water Act (33 significantly delay or prevent evolutionary adaptations for rarity, U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), but this may not metamorphosis (Watters & O’Dee 1999, habitat loss and degradation increase a provide adequate protection for filter pp. 454–455). Water temperature species’ vulnerability to extinction feeding organisms that can be impacted increases have been documented to (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 58–62). by extremely low levels of contaminants shorten the period of glochidial Numerous authors (including Noss and (see ‘‘Chemical Contaminants’’ encystment, reduce righting speed, Cooperrider 1994, pp. 58–62; Thomas discussion under Factor A). There is no increase oxygen consumption, and slow 1994, p. 373) have indicated that the specific information on the sensitivity of burrowing and movement responses probability of extinction increases with the spectaclecase and sheepnose to (Bartsch et al. 2000, p. 237; Fuller 1974, decreasing habitat availability. Although common industrial and municipal pp. 240–241; Schwalb & Pusch 2007, changes in the environment may cause pollutants, and very little information pp. 264–265; Watters et al. 2001, p. populations to fluctuate naturally, small on other freshwater mussels. Therefore, 546). Several studies have documented and low-density populations are more it appears that a lack of adequate the influence of temperature on the likely to fluctuate below a minimum research and data prevents existing timing of aspects of mussel viable population (the minimum or regulations, such as the Clean Water Act reproduction (for example, Allen et al. threshold number of individuals needed (administered by the EPA and the 2007, p. 85; Gray et al. 2002, p. 156; in a population to persist in a viable Corps), from being fully used or Steingraeber et al. 2007, pp. 303–309). state for a given interval) (Gilpin and effective. Peak glochidial releases are associated Soule 1986, pp. 25–33; Shaffer 1981, p. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with water temperature thresholds that 131; Shaffer and Samson 1985, pp. 148– retains oversight authority and requires can be thermal minimums or thermal 150).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:48 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3414 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

These species were widespread lived species (most host fishes) Exotic Species throughout much of the upper two- theoretically die out within a decade or Various exotic or nonnative species of thirds of the Mississippi River system, so, while below-threshold populations aquatic organisms are firmly established for example, when few natural barriers of long-lived species, such as the in the range of the spectaclecase and existed to prevent migration (via host spectaclecase and sheepnose, might take sheepnose. The exotic species that poses species) among suitable habitats. decades to die out even given years of the most significant threat to the Construction of dams, however, total recruitment failure. Without spectaclecase and sheepnose is the destroyed many spectaclecase and historical barriers to genetic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). sheepnose populations and isolated interchange, small, isolated populations Its invasion of freshwater habitats in the others. Recruitment reduction or failure could be slowly expiring, a United States poses a threat to mussel is a potential problem for many small phenomenon termed the extinction debt faunas in many regions, and species’ sheepnose populations rangewide, a (Tilman et al. 1994, pp. 65–66). Even extinctions are expected as a result of its potential condition exacerbated by its given the totally improbable absence of continued spread in the eastern United reduced range and increasingly isolated anthropogenic threats, we may lose States (Ricciardi et al. 1998, p. 615). populations. If these trends continue, disjunct populations to below-threshold Strayer (1999, pp. 75–80) reviewed in further significant declines in total effective population size. However, detail the mechanisms in which zebra sheepnose population size and evidence indicates that general mussels impact native mussels. The consequent reduction in long-term degradation continues to decrease primary means of impact is direct survivability may soon become habitat patch size and to act insidiously fouling of the shells of live native apparent. in the decline of spectaclecase and mussels. Zebra mussels attach in large Spectaclecase are long-lived (up to 70 sheepnose populations. years; Havlik 1994, p. 19) while Spectaclecase and sheepnose mussels’ numbers to the shells of live native sheepnose are relatively long-lived scarcity and decreased population size mussels and are implicated in the loss (approximately 30 years; Watters et al. makes maintaining adequate of entire native mussel beds. Fouling 2009, p. 221) Therefore, it may take heterogeneity problematic for resource impacts include impeding locomotion decades for non-reproducing managers. Neves (1997b, p. 6) warned (both laterally and vertically), populations of both species to become that ‘‘[i]f we let conservation genetics interfering with normal valve extinct following their isolation by, for become the goal rather than the movements, deforming valve margins, example, the construction of a dam. The guidelines for restoring and recovering and locally depleting food resources and occasional discovery of relatively young mussel populations, then we will be increasing waste products. Heavy spectaclecase in river reaches between doomed to failure with rare species.’’ infestations of zebra mussels on native impoundments indicates that some Habitat alteration, not lack of genetic mussels may overly stress the animals post-impoundment recruitment has variability, is the driving force of by reducing their energy stores. They occurred. The level of recruitment in population extirpation (Caro and may also reduce food concentrations to these cases, however, appears to be Laurenson 1994, pp. 485–486; Neves et levels too low to support reproduction, insufficient to ensure the long-term al. 1997, p. 60). Nevertheless, genetics or even survival in extreme cases. sustainability of the spectaclecase. issues should be considered in Other ways zebra mussels may impact Small isolated populations of maintaining high levels of spectaclecase and sheepnose is through spectaclecase and sheepnose that may heterozygosity during spectaclecase filtering their sperm and possibly now be comprised predominantly of recovery efforts. Treating disjunct glochidia from the water column, thus adult specimens could be dying out occurrences of this wide-ranging species reducing reproductive potential. Habitat slowly in the absence of recruitment, as a metapopulation would facilitate for native mussels may also be degraded even without other threats described conservation management while by large deposits of zebra mussel above. Isolated populations usually face increasing recovery options (for pseudofeces (undigested waste material other threats that result in continually example, translocating adults or passed out of the incurrent siphon) decreasing patches of suitable habitat. introducing infested hosts and (Vaughan 1997, p. 11). Because Genetic considerations for managing propagated juveniles) to establish and spectaclecase are found in pools and imperiled mussels and for captive maintain viable populations (Neves zebra mussel veligers (larvae) attach to propagation were reviewed by Neves 1997b, p. 6). Due to small population hard substrates at the point at which (1997a, p. 1422) and Jones et al. (2006, size and probable reduction of genetic they settle out from the water column, pp. 527–535), respectively. The diversity within populations, efforts spectaclecase are particularly vulnerable likelihood is high that some populations should be made to maximize genetic to zebra mussel invasion. The of the spectaclecase and sheepnose are heterogeneity to avoid both inbreeding spectaclecase’s colonial tendency could below the effective population size (Templeton & Read 1984, p. 189) and allow for very large numbers to be (EPS) (Soule 1980, pp. 162–164) outbreeding depression (Avise & affected by a single favorable year for necessary to adapt to environmental Hamrick 1996, pp. 463–466) whenever zebra mussels. change and persist in the long term. feasible in propagation and Zebra mussels are established Isolated populations eventually die out translocation efforts (Jones et al. 2006, throughout the upper Mississippi, lower when population size drops below the p. 529). St. Croix, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers, EPS or threshold level of sustainability. We find that fragmentation and overlapping much of the current range Evidence of recruitment in many isolation of small remaining populations of the spectaclecase and sheepnose. The populations of these two species is of the spectaclecase and sheepnose are greatest potential for present zebra scant, making recruitment reduction or current and ongoing threats to both mussel impacts to the spectaclecase and outright failure suspect. These species throughout all of their ranges sheepnose appears to be in the upper populations may be experiencing the that will continue into the foreseeable Mississippi River. Kelner and Davis bottleneck effect of not attaining the future. Further, stochastic events may (2002, p. ii) stated that zebra mussels in effective population size. Small, play a magnified role in population the Mississippi River from Mississippi isolated, below effective population extirpation when small, isolated River Pool 4 downstream are ‘‘extremely size-threshold populations of short- populations are involved. abundant and are decimating the native

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3415

mussel communities.’’ Huge numbers of impeding mussel population expansion Summary of Threats dead and live zebra mussels cover the (Vaughn & Spooner 2006, pp. 335–336). The decline of the spectaclecase and bottom of the river in some localities up A molluscivore (mollusk eater), the sheepnose in the eastern United States to 1 to 2 inches (2.5 to 5.1 centimeters black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) is (described by Butler 2002a, entire; (cm)) deep (Havlik 2001a, p. 16), where a potential threat to native mussels Butler 2002b, entire) is primarily the they have reduced significantly the (Strayer 1999, p. 89); it has been result of habitat loss and degradation quality of the habitat with their introduced into North America since the (Neves 1991, p. 252). These losses have pseudofeces (Fraley 2008, pers. comm.). 1970s. The species has been proposed been well documented since the mid- Zebra mussels likely have reduced for widespread use by aquaculturists to 19th century (Higgins 1858, p. 550). spectaclecase and sheepnose control snails, the intermediate host of Chief among the causes of decline are populations in these heavily infested a trematode (flatworm) parasite that impoundments, channelization, waters. affects catfish in commercial culture chemical contaminants, mining, and As zebra mussels may maintain high ponds in the southeast and lower sedimentation (Neves 1991, p. 252; densities in big rivers, large tributaries, Midwest. Black carp are known to eat Neves 1993, pp. 4–6; Neves et al. 1997, and below infested reservoirs, clams (Corbicula spp.) and unionid spectaclecase and sheepnose pp. 60, 63–75; Watters 2000, pp. 262– mussels in China, in addition to snails. populations in affected areas may be 267; Williams et al. 1993, pp. 7–9). They are the largest of the Asian carp significantly impacted. For example, These stressors have had profound species, reaching more than 4 ft. in zebra mussel densities in the Tennessee impacts on sheepnose and spectaclecase River remained low until 2002, but are length and achieving a weight in excess populations and their habitat. now abundant enough below Wilson of 150 pounds (Nico & Williams 1996, The majority of the remaining Dam to be measured quantitatively p. 6). Foraging rates for a 4-year-old fish populations of the spectaclecase and (Garner 2008, pers. comm.). In addition, average 3 or 4 pounds (1.4–1.8 kg) a day, sheepnose are generally small and there is long-term potential for zebra indicating that a single individual could geographically isolated (Butler 2002a, p. mussel invasions into other systems that consume 10 tons (9,072 kg) of native 27; 2002b, p. 27). The patchy currently harbor spectaclecase and mollusks over its lifetime (MICRA 2005, distributional pattern of populations in sheepnose populations. Zebra mussels p. 1). In 1994, 30 black carp escaped short river reaches makes them much occur in the lower St. Croix River, one from an aquaculture facility in Missouri more susceptible to extirpation from of the strongholds for spectaclecase, during a flood. Other escapes into the single catastrophic events, such as toxic although it is unclear whether they are wild by non-sterile black carp are likely chemical spills (Watters and Dunn 1995, likely to spread much further upstream to occur. p. 257). Furthermore, this level of due to the transition from lake-like The round goby (Neogobius isolation makes natural repopulation of conditions to almost exclusively melanostomus) is another exotic fish any extirpated population virtually riverine conditions above RM 25. species released into the Great Lakes impossible without human intervention. The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) that is well established and likely to In addition, the fish host of has spread throughout the range of the spread through the Mississippi River spectaclecase is unknown; thus, spectaclecase and sheepnose since its system (Strayer 1999, pp. 87–88). This propagation to reestablish the species in introduction in the mid-1900s. Asian species is an aggressive competitor of restored habitats and to maintain non- clams compete with native mussels, similar sized benthic fishes (sculpins, reproducing populations and focused especially juveniles, for food, nutrients, darters), as well as a voracious conservation of its fish host are and space (Leff et al. 1990, p. 415; Neves carnivore, despite its size (less than 10 currently not possible. Although there & Widlak 1987, p. 6) and may ingest in. (25.4 cm) in length), preying on a are ongoing attempts to alleviate some unionid sperm, glochidia, and newly variety of foods, including small of these threats at some locations, there metamorphosed juveniles of native mussels and fishes that could serve as appear to be no populations without mussels (Strayer 1999, p. 82; Yeager et glochidial hosts (Janssen and Jude 2001, significant threats, and many threats are al. 2000, p. 255). Dense Asian clam p. 325; Strayer 1999, p. 88). Round without obvious or readily available populations actively disturb sediments gobies may therefore have important solutions. that may reduce habitat for juveniles of indirect effects on the spectaclecase and Recruitment reduction or failure is a native mussels (Strayer 1999, p. 82). sheepnose through negative effects to threat for many small spectaclecase and Asian clam densities vary widely in their hosts. sheepnose populations rangewide, a the absence of native mussels or in condition exacerbated by reduced range patches with sparse mussel Additional exotic species will and increasingly isolated populations concentrations, but Asian clam density invariably become established in the (Butler 2002a, p. 28; 2002b, p. 28). If is never high in dense mussel beds, foreseeable future (Strayer 1999, pp. 88– these trends continue, further indicating that the clam is unable to 89). Added to potential direct threats, significant declines in total successfully invade small-scale habitat exotic species could carry diseases and spectaclecase and sheepnose population patches with high unionid biomass parasites that may be devastating to the size and consequent reduction in long- (Vaughn & Spooner 2006, pp. 334–335). native biota. Because of our ignorance of term viability may soon become The invading clam therefore appears to mollusk diseases and parasites, ‘‘it is apparent. preferentially invade sites where imprudent to conclude that alien Various exotic species of aquatic mussels are already in decline (Strayer diseases and parasites are unimportant’’ organisms are firmly established in the 1999, pp. 82–83; Vaughn & Spooner (Strayer 1999, p. 88). range of the spectaclecase and 2006, pp. 332–336) and does not appear Exotic species, such as those sheepnose. The exotic species that poses be a causative factor in the decline of described above, are an ongoing threat the most significant threat to the mussels in dense beds. However, an to the spectaclecase and sheepnose—a spectaclecase and sheepnose is the Asian clam population that thrives in threat that is likely to increase as these zebra mussel. The invasion of the zebra previously stressed, sparse mussel exotic species expand their occupancy mussel poses a serious threat to mussel populations might exacerbate unionid within the ranges of the spectaclecase faunas in many regions, and species imperilment through competition and and sheepnose. extinctions are expected as a result of its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3416 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

continued spread in the eastern United agencies, private organizations, and Examples of recovery actions include States (Ricciardi et al. 1998, p. 618). individuals. The Act encourages habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of cooperation with the States and requires native vegetation), research, captive Proposed Determination that recovery actions be carried out for propagation and reintroduction, and The Act defines an endangered all listed species. The protection outreach and education. The recovery of species as any species that is ‘‘in danger required of Federal agencies and the many listed species cannot be of extinction throughout all or a prohibitions against take and harm are accomplished solely on Federal lands significant portion of its range’’ and a discussed, in part, below. because their range may occur primarily threatened species as any species ‘‘that The primary purpose of the Act is the or solely on non-Federal lands. To is likely to become endangered conservation of endangered and achieve recovery of these species throughout all or a significant portion of threatened species and the ecosystems requires cooperative conservation efforts its range within the foreseeable future.’’ upon which they depend. The ultimate on private, State, and Tribal lands. We find that the spectaclecase and goal of such conservation efforts is the Listing will also require the Service to sheepnose are presently in danger of recovery of these listed species, so that review any actions on Federal lands and extinction throughout their entire range, they no longer need the protective activities under Federal jurisdiction that based on the immediacy, severity, and measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of may adversely affect the two species; scope of the threats described under the Act requires the Service to develop allow State plans to be developed under Factors A, D, and E, above. Although and implement recovery plans for the section 6 of the Act; encourage scientific there are ongoing attempts to alleviate conservation of endangered and investigations of efforts to enhance the some threats, there appear to be no threatened species, unless such a plan propagation or survival of the animals populations without current significant will not promote the conservation of the under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; and threats, and many threats are without species. The recovery planning process promote habitat conservation plans on obvious or readily available solutions. involves the identification of actions non-Federal lands and activities under These isolated species have a limited that are necessary to halt or reverse the section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. ability to recolonize historically species’ decline by addressing the Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, occupied stream and river reaches and threats to its survival and recovery. The requires Federal agencies to evaluate are vulnerable to natural or human- goal of this process is to restore listed their actions with respect to any species caused changes in their stream and river species to a point where they are secure, that is proposed or listed as endangered habitats. Their range curtailment, small self-sustaining, and functioning or threatened and with respect to its population size, and isolation make the components of their ecosystems. critical habitat, if any is designated. spectaclecase and sheepnose more Recovery planning includes the Regulations implementing this vulnerable to threats such as development of a recovery outline interagency cooperation provision of the sedimentation, disturbance of riparian shortly after a species is listed, Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. corridors, changes in channel preparation of a draft and final recovery Federal agencies are required to confer morphology, point and nonpoint source plan, and revisions to the plan as with us informally on any action that is pollutants, urbanization, and introduced significant new information becomes likely to jeopardize the continued species and to stochastic events (for available. The recovery outline guides existence of a proposed species. Section example, chemical spills). Therefore, on the immediate implementation of urgent 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to the basis of the best available scientific recovery actions and describes the confer with the Service on any action and commercial information, we process to be used to develop a recovery that is likely to jeopardize the continued propose listing the spectaclecase and plan. The recovery plan identifies site- existence of a species proposed for sheepnose as endangered in accordance specific management actions that will listing or result in destruction or with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. achieve recovery of the species, adverse modification of proposed Under the Act and our implementing measurable criteria that determine when critical habitat. If a species is listed regulations, a species may warrant a species may be downlisted or delisted, subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires listing if it is endangered or threatened and methods for monitoring recovery Federal agencies to ensure that activities throughout all or a significant portion of progress. Recovery plans also establish they authorize, fund, or carry out are not its range. Threats to the spectaclecase a framework for agencies to coordinate likely to jeopardize the continued and sheepnose occur throughout their their recovery efforts and provide existence of the species or destroy or ranges; therefore, we assessed the status estimates of the cost of implementing adversely modify its critical habitat. If a of the species throughout their entire recovery tasks. Recovery teams Federal action may adversely affect a ranges. The threats to the survival of the (comprised of species experts, Federal listed species or its critical habitat, the species occur throughout the species’ and State agencies, non-government responsible Federal agency must enter ranges and are not restricted to any organizations, and stakeholders) are into formal consultation with the particular significant portion of those often established to develop recovery Service. ranges. Accordingly, our assessment and plans. When completed, the recovery Federal activities that may affect the proposed determination applies to both outline, draft recovery plan, and the sheepnose and spectaclecase include, species throughout their entire ranges. final recovery plan will be available on but are not limited to, the funding of, our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ carrying out of, or the issuance of Available Conservation Measures endangered), or from our Rock Island, permits for reservoir construction, Conservation measures provided to Illinois, Ecological Services Field Office natural gas extraction, stream species listed as endangered or (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT alterations, discharges, wastewater threatened under the Act include section). facility development, water withdrawal recognition, recovery actions, Implementation of recovery actions projects, pesticide registration, mining, requirements for Federal protection, and generally requires the participation of a and road and bridge construction. prohibitions against certain practices. broad range of partners, including other Recognition through listing encourages Federal agencies, States, Tribal, Jeopardy Standard and results in public awareness and nongovernmental organizations, Prior to and following listing and conservation by Federal, State, and local businesses, and private landowners. designation of critical habitat, if prudent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3417

and determinable, the Service applies unlikely to result in a violation of Division, Henry Whipple Federal an analytical framework for jeopardy section 9: Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, analyses that relies heavily on the (1) Existing discharges into waters MN 55111 (Phone (612) 713–5350; Fax importance of core area populations to supporting these species, provided these (612) 713–5292). the survival and recovery of the species. activities are carried out in accordance Critical Habitat The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused with existing regulations and permit not only on these populations but also requirements (for example, activities Background subject to sections 402, 404, and 405 of on the habitat conditions necessary to Critical habitat is defined in section 3 the Clean Water Act and discharges support them. of the Act as: The jeopardy analysis usually regulated under the National Pollutant (i) The specific areas within the expresses the survival and recovery Discharge Elimination System). geographical area occupied by a species, (2) Actions that may affect the needs of the species in a qualitative at the time it is listed in accordance spectaclecase or sheepnose and are fashion without making distinctions with the Act, on which are found those authorized, funded, or carried out by a between what is necessary for survival physical or biological features Federal agency when the action is and what is necessary for recovery. (I) Essential to the conservation of the conducted in accordance with any Generally, if a proposed Federal action species, and reasonable and prudent measures we is incompatible with the viability of the (II) That may require special have specified in accordance with affected core area population(s), management considerations or section 7 of the Act. inclusive of associated habitat protection; and conditions, a jeopardy finding is (3) Development and construction activities designed and implemented (ii) Specific areas outside the considered to be warranted, because of geographical area occupied by a species the relationship of each core area under Federal, State, and local water quality regulations and implemented at the time it is listed, upon a population to the survival and recovery determination that such areas are of the species as a whole. using approved best management practices. essential for the conservation of the Section 9 Take (4) Existing recreational activities, species. such as swimming, wading, canoeing, Conservation is defined in section 3 of Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and its the Act as the use of all methods and implementing regulations found at 50 and fishing, that are in accordance with State and local regulations, provided procedures needed to bring the species CFR 17.21, set forth a series of general to the point at which listing under the prohibitions and exceptions that apply that if a spectaclecase or sheepnose is collected, it is immediately released, Act is no longer necessary. to all endangered wildlife. These Critical habitat receives protection prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for unharmed. Activities that we believe could under section 7 of the Act through the any person subject to the jurisdiction of prohibition against Federal agencies the United States to take (includes potentially result in take of spectaclecase or sheepnose include but carrying out, funding, or authorizing the harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, destruction or adverse modification of wound, kill, trap, or collect, or to are not limited to: (1) Illegal collection or capture of the critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires attempt any of these), import or export, species; consultation on Federal actions that ship in interstate commerce in the (2) Unlawful destruction or alteration may affect critical habitat. The course of commercial activity, or sell or of the species’ occupied habitat (for designation of critical habitat does not offer for sale in interstate or foreign example, unpermitted instream affect land ownership or establish a commerce any listed species. It also is dredging, channelization, or discharge refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or illegal to knowingly possess, sell, of fill material); other conservation area. Such deliver, carry, transport, or ship any (3) Violation of any discharge or water designation does not allow the wildlife that has been taken illegally. withdrawal permit within the species’ government or public to access private Certain exceptions apply to agents of the occupied range; and lands. Such designation does not Service and State conservation agencies. (4) Illegal discharge or dumping of require implementation of restoration, We may issue permits to carry out toxic chemicals or other pollutants into recovery, or enhancement measures by otherwise prohibited activities waters supporting spectaclecase or non-Federal landowners. Where a involving endangered wildlife species sheepnose. landowner seeks or requests Federal under certain circumstances. We will review other activities not agency funding or authorization for an Regulations governing permits are at 50 identified above on a case-by-case basis action that may affect a listed species or CFR 17.22 for endangered species. Such to determine whether they are likely to critical habitat, the consultation permits are available for scientific result in a violation of section 9 of the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the purposes, to enhance the propagation or Act. We do not consider these lists to be Act would apply, but even in the event survival of the species, or for incidental exhaustive and provide them as of a destruction or adverse modification take in connection with otherwise information to the public. finding, the obligation of the Federal lawful activities. You should direct questions regarding action agency and the applicant is not Our policy, as published in the whether specific activities may to restore or recover the species, but to Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR constitute a future violation of section 9 implement reasonable and prudent 34272), is to identify, to the maximum to the Field Supervisor of the Service’s alternatives to avoid destruction or extent practicable, those activities that Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Services adverse modification of critical habitat. would or would not likely constitute a Field Office (see FOR FURTHER violation of section 9 of the Act. The INFORMATION CONTACT section). You may Prudency Determination intent of this policy is to increase public request copies of the regulations Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as awareness as to the potential effects of regarding listed wildlife from and amended, and implementing regulations this final listing on future and ongoing address questions about prohibitions (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the activities within a species’ range. We and permits to the U.S. Fish and maximum extent prudent and believe that the following activities are Wildlife Service, Ecological Services determinable, we designate critical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3418 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

habitat at the time the species is designation of critical habitat is prudent pollutants). Population dynamics, such determined to be endangered or for the spectaclecase and sheepnose. as species’ interactions and community threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR structure, population trends, and Primary Constituent Elements 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation population size and age class structure of critical habitat is not prudent when In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) necessary to maintain a long-term one or both of the following situations and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations viability, have not been determined for exist: (1) The species is threatened by at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which these species. Basics of reproductive taking or other human activity, and areas to propose as critical habitat, we biology for these species are unknown, identification of critical habitat can be must consider those physical and such as age and size at earliest maturity, expected to increase the degree of threat biological features—primary constituent reproductive longevity, and the level of to the species, or (2) such designation of elements in the necessary and recruitment needed for species survival critical habitat would not be beneficial appropriate quantity and spatial and long-term viability. Of particular to the species. arrangement—essential to the concern to the spectaclecase is the lack There is currently no imminent threat conservation of the species. We must of known host(s) species essential for of take attributed to collection or also consider those areas essential to the glochidia survival and reproductive vandalism under Factor B conservation of the species that are success. Similarly, although recent (overutilization for commercial, outside the geographical area occupied laboratory studies have produced recreational, scientific, or educational by the species. Primary constituent successful transformation of sheepnose purposes) for sheepnose and elements include, but are not limited to: glochidia on a few fish species, many spectaclecase and identification of (1) Space for individual and questions remain concerning the natural critical habitat is not expected to initiate population growth and for normal interactions between the sheepnose and such a threat. In the absence of finding behavior; its known hosts. Because the host(s) for that the designation of critical habitat (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or spectaclecase is unknown and little is would increase threats to a species, if other nutritional or physiological known about the sheepnose hosts, there there are any benefits to a critical requirements; is a degree of uncertainty at this time as habitat designation, then a prudent (3) Cover or shelter; to which specific areas might be finding is warranted. The potential (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, essential to the conservation of these benefits include: (1) Triggering and rearing (or development) of species (for example, the host(s)’s consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the offspring; and biological needs and population sizes Act, in new areas for actions in which (5) Habitats that are protected from necessary to support mussel there may be a Federal nexus where it disturbance or are representative of the reproduction and population viability) would not otherwise occur because the historical, geographical, and ecological and thus meet a key aspect of the species may not be present; (2) focusing distribution of a species. definition of critical habitat. As we are conservation activities on the most We are currently unable to identify unable to identify many physical and essential habitat features and areas; (3) the primary constituent elements for biological features essential to the increasing awareness of important spectaclecase and sheepnose because conservation of spectaclecase and habitat areas among State or county information on the physical and sheepnose, we are unable to identify governments or private entities; and (4) biological features that are considered areas that contain these features. preventing inadvertent harm to the essential to the conservation of these Therefore, although we have determined species. species is not known at this time. The that the designation of critical habitat is Critical habitat designation includes apparent poor viability of the species’ prudent for spectaclecase and the identification of the physical and occurrences observed in recent years sheepnose, because the biological and biological features of the habitat indicates that current conditions are not physical requirements of these species essential to the conservation of each sufficient to meet the basic biological are not sufficiently known, we find that species that may require special requirements of these species in many critical habitat for spectaclecase and management and protection. As such, rivers. Since spectaclecase and sheepnose is not determinable at this these designations will provide useful sheepnose have not been observed for time. information to individuals, local and decades in many of their historical State governments, and other entities locations, and much of the habitat in Peer Review engaged in activities or long-range which they still persists has been In accordance with our policy, planning that may affect areas essential drastically altered, the optimal ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative to the conservation of the species. conditions that would provide the Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Conservation of the spectaclecase and biological or ecological requisites of Species Act Activities,’’ that was sheepnose and essential features of their these species are not known. Although published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR habitats will require habitat we can surmise that habitat degradation 34270), we will seek the expert opinion management, protection, and from a variety of factors has contributed of at least three appropriate restoration, which will be facilitated by to the decline of these species, we do independent specialists regarding this disseminating information on the not know specifically what essential proposed rule. The purpose of such locations and the key physical and physical or biological features of that review is to ensure listing decisions are biological features of those habitats. In habitat are currently lacking for based on scientifically sound data, the case of spectaclecase and sheepnose, spectaclecase and sheepnose. assumptions, and analysis. We will send these aspects of critical habitat Key features of the basic life history, copies of this proposed rule to the peer designation would potentially benefit ecology, reproductive biology, and reviewers immediately following the conservation of the species. habitat requirements of most mussels, publication in the Federal Register. We Therefore, since we have determined including spectaclecase and sheepnose, will invite these peer reviewers to that the designation of critical habitat are unknown. Species-specific comment, during the public comment will not likely increase the degree of ecological requirements have not been period, on the specific assumptions and threat to these species and may provide determined (for example, minimum the data that are the basis for our some measure of benefit, we find that water flow and effects of particular conclusions regarding the proposal to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 3419

list spectaclecase and sheepnose as undertaking certain actions. This rule is Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field endangered and our proposal regarding not expected to significantly affect Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION critical habitat for this species. energy supplies, distribution, or use. CONTACT section). Therefore, this action is not a significant Required Determinations Authors energy action, and no Statement of Clarity of the Rule Energy Effects is required. The primary authors of this proposed We are required by Executive Orders Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 rule are the staff members of the 12866 and 12988 and by the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Service’s Rock Island and Twin Cities Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Field Offices (see FOR FURTHER This proposed rule does not contain INFORMATION CONTACT section). 1998, to write all rules in plain any new collections of information that language. This means that each rule we require approval by the Office of List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 publish must: Management and Budget (OMB) under (a) Be logically organized; Endangered and threatened species, the Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule Exports, Imports, Reporting and (b) Use the active voice to address would not impose new recordkeeping or readers directly; recordkeeping requirements, reporting requirements on State or local Transportation. (c) Use clear language rather than governments, individuals, businesses, or jargon; organizations. We may not conduct or Proposed Regulation Promulgation (d) Be divided into short sections and sponsor, and you are not required to Accordingly, we propose to amend sentences; and respond to, a collection of information part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title (e) Use lists and tables wherever unless it displays a currently valid OMB 50 of the Code of Feral Regulations, as possible. control number. If you feel that we have not met these follows: requirements, send us comments by one National Environmental Policy Act PART 17—[AMENDED] of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES We determined that we do not need section. To better help us revise the to prepare an environmental 1. The authority citation for part 17 rule, your comments should be as assessment, as defined under the continues to read as follows: specific as possible. For example, you authority of the National Environmental should tell us the names of the sections Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– or paragraphs that are unclearly written, seq.), in connection with regulations 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. which sections or sentences are too adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. long, the sections where you feel lists or We published a notice outlining our 2. In § 17.11(h) add the entries for tables would be useful, etc. reasons for this determination in the ‘‘Sheepnose’’ and ‘‘Spectaclecase’’ in Federal Register on October 25, 1983 alphabetical order under CLAMS to the Executive Order 13211 (48 FR 49244). List of Endangered and Threatened On May 18, 2001, the President issued Wildlife, as follows: Executive Order 13211 on regulations References Cited that significantly affect energy supply, A complete list of all references cited § 17.11 Endangered and threatened distribution, and use. Executive Order in this rule is available on the Internet wildlife. 13211 requires agencies to prepare at http://www.regulations.gov or upon * * * * * Statements of Energy Effects when request from the Field Supervisor, Rock (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population where When Critical Special Historical range endangered or Status listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

******* CLAMS

******* Sheepnose ...... Plethobasus cyphyus U.S.A. (AL, IL, IN, IA, NA ...... E NA NA KY, MN, MS, MO, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV, WI).

******* Spectaclecase Cumberlandia U.S.A. (AL, AR, IL, NA ...... E NA NA monodonta. IN, IA, KS, KY, MN, MO, NE, OH, TN, VA, WV, WI).

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:48 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 3420 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * Dated: December 16, 2010. Rowan W. Gould, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2011–469 Filed 1–18–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Jan 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19JAP2.SGM 19JAP2 EMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS