1

Proposed Rules Federal Register

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER these species if, and when, we initiate scientific community, industry, and any contains notices to the public of the proposed a listing action. other interested parties concerning the issuance of rules and regulations. The DATES: To allow us adequate time to status of the nine species of mussels. We purpose of these notices is to give interested conduct this review, we request that we seek information for each of the nine persons an opportunity to participate in the species regarding: rule making prior to the adoption of the final receive information on or before [insert rules. date 60 days after date of publication in (1) The species’ biology, range, and the Federal Register]. After this date, population trends, including: you must submit information directly to (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER breeding, and sheltering; INFORMATION CONTACT section below). (b) Genetics and taxonomy; Fish and Wildlife Service Please note that we may not be able to (c) Historical and current range, address or incorporate information that including distribution patterns; 50 CFR Part 17 we receive after the above requested (d) Historical and current population date. levels, and current and projected trends; [FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076] and ADDRESSES: You may submit [92210-1111-0000 B2] (e) Past and ongoing conservation information by one of the following measures for the species or its habitat. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife methods: (2) The factors that are the basis for and Plants; 90-Day Finding on • Federal rulemaking Portal: http:// making a listing determination for a Petitions to List Nine Species of www.regulations.gov. Follow the species under section 4(a) of the Act, Mussels from Texas as Threatened or instructions for submitting comments. Endangered with Critical Habitat • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public which are: Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2- (a) The present or threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, ES-2009-0076; Division of Policy and destruction, modification, or Interior. Directives Management; U.S. Fish and curtailment of the species’ habitat or ACTION: Notice of petition finding and Wildlife Service; 4401 Fairfax Drive, range; initiation of status review. Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. (b) Overutilization for commercial, We will post all information received recreational, scientific, or educational SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and on http://www.regulations.gov. This purposes; Wildlife Service, announce a 90–day generally means that we will post any (c) Disease or predation; finding on two petitions to list nine personal information you provide us (d) The inadequacy of existing species of freshwater mussels, the Texas (see the Information Solicited section regulatory mechanisms; or fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata), Texas below for more details). (e) Other natural or manmade factors heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus), affecting their continued existence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salina mucket (Potamilus metnecktayi), (3) Information about any ongoing Stephen D. Parris, Field Supervisor, golden orb (Quadrula aurea), smooth conservation measures for, or threats to, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis), the species and their habitats. Office, 17629 El Camino Real, Ste. 211, Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), Please include sufficient information Houston, TX 77058; telephone 281-286- false spike (Quincuncina mitchelli), with your submission (such as full 8282, extension 230. If you use a Mexican fawnsfoot (Truncilla cognata), references) to allow us to verify any telecommunications device for the deaf and Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla scientific or commercial information (TDD), call the Federal Information macrodon), as threatened or endangered you include. under the Endangered Species Act of Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. If, after the status review, we 1973, as amended (Act) and designate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: determine that listing any of the nine critical habitat. Based on our review, we species of mussels under the Act is find that the petitions present Information Solicited warranted, we will propose critical substantial scientific or commercial When we make a finding that a habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) information indicating that listing these petition presents substantial of the Act), in accordance with section species may be warranted. Therefore, information indicating that listing a 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent with the publication of this notice, we species may be warranted, we are prudent and determinable at the time are initiating a status review of the nine required to promptly review the status we would propose to list the species. species of mussels to determine if listing of the species (status review). For the Therefore, within the geographical range them is warranted. To ensure that the status review to be complete and based currently occupied by the nine species status review is comprehensive, we are on the best available scientific and of mussels, we also request data and soliciting scientific and commercial data commercial information, we request information on: and other information regarding these information on the nine species of (1) What may constitute physical or species. At the conclusion of this mussels (Texas fatmucket, Texas biological features essential to the review, we will issue a 12–month heelsplitter, Salina mucket, golden orb, conservation of the species, finding on the petitions, which will smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback, (2) Where these features are currently address whether the petitioned actions false spike, Mexican fawnsfoot, and found, and are warranted, as provided in section Texas fawnsfoot). We request (3) Whether any of these features may 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. We will make a information from governmental require special management determination on critical habitat for agencies, Native American Tribes, the considerations or protection.

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 2

In addition, we request data and the petition and publish our notice of both the 2007 and 2008 petitions and in information on specific areas outside this finding promptly in the Federal our files did not indicate that emergency the geographical area occupied by the Register. listing of any of the petitioned species species that are essential to the Our standard for substantial scientific was warranted. That letter concluded conservation of the species. Please or commercial information within the our evaluation of the emergency aspect provide specific comments and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with of the 2008 petition. information as to what, if any, critical regard to a 90–day petition finding is On October 15, 2008, we received a habitat you think we should propose for ‘‘that amount of information that would petition dated October 9, 2008, from designation if any of the nine species of lead a reasonable person to believe that WildEarth Guardians requesting that the mussels are proposed for listing, and the measure proposed in the petition Service list six species of freshwater why such habitat meets the may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). mussels, the smooth pimpleback, Texas requirements of section 4 of the Act. If we find that substantial scientific or pimpleback, false spike, Mexican Submissions merely stating support or commercial information was presented, fawnsfoot, Texas fawnsfoot, and opposition to the action under we are required to commence a review southern hickorynut, as either consideration without providing of the status of the species, which is endangered or threatened throughout supporting information, although noted, subsequently summarized in our 12– their historic ranges within the United will not be considered in making a month finding. States and internationally. The determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the petitioner also requested the designation Petition History Act directs that determinations as to of critical habitat for each of the whether any species is an endangered or On June 25, 2007, we received a petitioned mussel species. The petition threatened species must be made solely petition dated June 18, 2007, from clearly identified itself as such and on the basis of the best scientific and Forest Guardians (now WildEarth included the identification information commercial data available. Guardians) requesting that the Service: required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In You may submit your information (1) Evaluate all full species in our addition to other information cited in concerning this status review by one of Southwest Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 the petition, the petition incorporates all the methods listed in the ADDRESSES by the organization NatureServe, except analyses, references, and documentation section. We will not consider those that are currently listed, proposed provided by NatureServe in its online submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to for listing, or candidates for listing; and database at http://www.natureserve.org/ an address not listed in the ADDRESSES (2) list each G1 or G1G2 species as (hereafter cited as NatureServe 2009) section. either endangered or threatened with into the petition. To clarify, for the first If you submit information via http:// critical habitat. The petitioned group of four species addressed in this finding www.regulations.gov, your entire species included the Texas fatmucket, (Texas fatmucket, Texas heelsplitter, submission—including any personal Texas heelsplitter, Salina mucket, and Salina mucket, and golden orb), we identifying information—will be posted golden orb. The petition incorporates all referenced the species profiles retrieved on the website. If you submit a analyses, references, and documentation from the NatureServe online database in hardcopy that includes personal provided by NatureServe in its online 2007. For the following five species identifying information, you may database at http://www.natureserve.org/ (smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback, request at the top of your document that (hereafter cited as NatureServe 2007) false spike, Mexican fawnsfoot, and we withhold this personal identifying into the petition. The information Texas fawnsfoot), we referenced the information from public review. presented by NatureServe is considered species profiles retrieved from the However, we cannot guarantee that we to be a reputable source of information NatureServe online database in 2009. In will be able to do so. We will post all with respect to taxonomy and a November 26, 2008, letter to the hardcopy submissions on http:// distribution. However, NatureServe petitioner, we acknowledged receipt of www.regulations.gov. indicates on their website that the petition and stated that the petition Information and supporting information in their database is not for the six mussel species was under documentation that we received and intended for determining whether review by staff in our Southwest (Region used in preparing this finding, will be species are warranted for listing under 2) and Southeast (Region 4) Regional available for public inspection at http:/ the Act. Where NatureServe presented Offices. This finding addresses 5 of the /www. regulations.gov, or by assertions without supporting references 6 petitioned species that occur within appointment, during normal business that allow us to verify their statements, Region 2: smooth pimpleback, Texas hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife we found that the information presented pimpleback, false spike, Mexican Service, Clear Lake Ecological Services by NatureServe was limited in its fawnsfoot, and Texas fawnsfoot. Region Field Office (see FOR FURTHER usefulness for this process. The petition 4 is addressing the southern hickorynut INFORMATION CONTACT). clearly identified itself as such and in a separate finding. In total, this 90– included the identification information day finding includes nine mussel Background required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a species; four species (Texas fatmucket, Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires letter dated July 11, 2007, to the Texas heelsplitter, Salina mucket, and that we make a finding on whether a petitioner acknowledging receipt of the golden orb) are included from the June petition to list, delist, or reclassify a petition and stating that the petition was 18, 2007, petition, and five species species presents substantial scientific or under review by staff in our Southwest (smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback, commercial information indicating that Regional Office. false spike, Mexican fawnsfoot, and the petitioned action may be warranted. On June 18, 2008, we received a Texas fawnsfoot) from the October 9, We are to base this finding on petition from WildEarth Guardians, 2008, petition. information provided in the petition, dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list supporting information submitted with 32 species, including the Salina mucket, Previous Federal Actions the petition, and information otherwise under the Administrative Procedure Act There are no previous Federal actions available in our files. To the maximum (APA) (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II) and the or previous determinations for the Texas extent practicable, we are to make this Act. In a letter dated July 22, 2008, we fatmucket, Salina mucket, golden orb, finding within 90 days of our receipt of stated that the information provided in smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 3

and Texas fawnsfoot. However, the the glochidia do not find a suitable host species inhabits flowing streams and Texas heelsplitter, the false spike, fish, they die. rivers with sand and gravel substrates Salina mucket (listed as Disconaias (NatureServe 2007). The glochidial host Texas fatmucket salinasensis), and the Mexican fish for the Salina mucket are unknown fawnsfoot were listed as Category 2 Gould described the Texas fatmucket (Howells et al. 1996, p. 104). candidate species in the 1989 Animal in 1855 (http://www. natureserve.org/ Golden orb Notice of Review (published January 6, explorer/; accessed July 2, 2007; 1989, at 54 FR 554) and again in the hereafter cited as NatureServe 2007). Lea described the golden orb in 1859 1991 and 1994 candidate species lists The shell is tan to brown, is rhomboidal (NatureServe 2007). The shell varies (56 FR 58804 and 59 FR 58982, to oval in shape, and reaches 9 from tan, reddish-brown, orange-brown, respectively). Category 2 candidate centimeters (cm) (3.5 inches (in)) in to gray-brown; is somewhat rectangular species included taxa for which length (NatureServe 2007). The Texas to broadly elliptical in shape; and information in the Service’s possession fatmucket is historically known to occur reaches an overall length of 7.7 cm (3.0 indicated that a proposed listing rule in the Colorado, Guadalupe, and San in) (Howells et al. 1996, p. 108). The was possibly appropriate, but we did Antonio river systems in Texas (Howells golden orb historically occurred in the not have sufficient data available on et al. 1996, p. 61). It is currently known Guadalupe, San Antonio, Colorado, and biological vulnerability and threats to from two tributaries of the Colorado Nueces-Frio river systems. Currently, it support a proposed rule. River, the Llano River, upper San Saba is known from the upper and central In 1996, the Service changed its River, and the upper Guadalupe River Guadalupe River, lower San Marcos definition of candidate species (see 61 (Howells 2006, p. 97). This species River, and Lake Corpus Christi in the FR 7596). Species that had been listed occurs in streams and smaller rivers lower Nueces River drainage (Howells as Category 1 species remained on the where water depths are less than 1 2006, p. 98). This species appears to be candidate list and those that were listed meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) and lives in restricted to flowing waters with sand, as Category 2 species were dropped substrates of sand, mud, and gravel gravel, and cobble bottoms at depths of from the candidate list. Therefore, the (NatureServe 2007). The glochidial host a few cm (few in) to over 3 m (9.8 ft). Texas heelsplitter, the false spike, fish include bluegill (Lepomis The glochidial host fish for the golden Salina mucket, and the Mexican macrochirus) and green sunfish (L. orb are unknown (Howellset al. 1996, p. fawnsfoot have not been on the cyanellus) (Howells et al. 1996, p. 62). 109). candidate species list since 1996. There Texas heelsplitter Smooth pimpleback are no other previous Federal actions for these species. Frierson described the Texas Lea described the smooth pimpleback heelsplitter in 1898 (NatureServe 2007). in 1859 (http://www.natureserve.org/ Species Information The shell is tan to brown, is elongated, explorer/; accessed February 12-13, All of the nine species are freshwater and 17.7 cm (7 in) in length (Howells et 2009; hereafter cited as NatureServe mussels in the family Unionidae, and all al. 1996, p. 95). The Texas heelsplitter 2009). The shell is dark brown to black, are known to occur in Texas (Howells historically and currently is known to round in shape, and generally smooth, 2007). Mussels in the family Unionidae occur in the Neches River, the lower- but it may have a few small pimples are generally referred to as unionids, central Trinity River, and the upper (bumps) and can reach a length of 6.5 and we use that term in this finding. Sabine River in Texas (Howells 2006, p. cm (2.5 in) (NatureServe 2009). The Freshwater mussels are bottom-dwelling 98). This species inhabits flowing smooth pimpleback historically and burrow into the substrate to waters, preferring mud or sand occurred in the Brazos and Colorado maintain position on the stream bottom. substrates in small to medium rivers, River systems of central Texas (Howells Some mussel species require free- but it can also be found in reservoirs 2006, p. 98). Currently, it is known from flowing streams, while other species (NatureServe 2007). The glochidial host the central Brazos, central Leon, central prefer, or are tolerant of, lentic (lake or fish for the Texas heelsplitter are Little Brazos, and Navasota rivers in the pond) habitat. All freshwater mussels unknown (Howells et al. 1996. p. 96). Brazos River system, and from the are filter-feeders, collecting algae, central Colorado River (Howells 2007, Salina mucket detritus, and bacteria from the water as slide 13). It prefers small-to moderate- it passes across the gills. Excessive Johnson described the Salina mucket sized streams and rivers, as well as amounts of suspended sediments can in 1998 (NatureServe 2007). Salina moderate-sized reservoirs, and it is interfere with a mussel’s ability to mucket has undergone taxonomic found in mixed-mud, sand, and fine efficiently filter feed. changes since the mussel’s original gravel substrate (NatureServe 2009). The Unionid reproduction requires listing on the 1989 Animal Notice of glochidial host fish for the smooth separate male and female individuals. Review. We intend to investigate these pimpleback are unknown (NatureServe Fertilization takes place when a male taxonomic revisions further during the 2009). discharges sperm into the water column status review. The shell is tan to dark and the female intakes the water-born brown or black, is oval, and reaches a Texas pimpleback sperm through siphon tubes during length of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) (Howells et al. Gould described the Texas normal feeding and respiration (Howells 1996, pp. 103-104). The Salina mucket pimpleback in 1855 (NatureServe 2009). et al. 1996, p. 9). Fertilized eggs are historically occurred in the Rio Grande The shell is glossy and tan to brown in retained in the female’s brood pouch as far north and west as New Mexico color, with some individuals displaying (Howells et al. 1996, p. 9). The larvae, and as far south as northern Mexico distinctive green and yellow markings called glochidia, are retained in the (Howells et al. 1996, p. 103). It currently (NatureServe 2009). The Texas female brood pouch until released, then is known from the Rio Grande in Texas pimpleback historically occurred in the live temporarily as obligate parasites from the Big Bend region in Brewster upper and central Brazos, Colorado, and (cannot live independently of its host) County downstream to below the Falcon Guadalupe-San Antonio river systems on a suitable host fish before Dam in Starr County (NatureServe (Howells 2006, p. 99); currently, it is transforming into bottom-dwelling 2007), although there is no mention of known from two tributaries of the juveniles (Howells et al. 1996, p. 9). If its occurrence in Falcon Reservoir. The Colorado River, the lower Concho and

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 4

upper San Saba rivers, as well as the orange brown to dark brown, often with by NatureServe in its online database at upper San Marcos River (Howells 2007, a pattern of broken rays (NatureServe http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter slide 13). Texas pimplebacks generally 2009). It is oval in shape and reaches a cited as NatureServe 2007) into the inhabit rivers with low flow rates with length of 5.5 cm (2.2 in) (NatureServe petition. NatureServe (2007) claims that mud, gravel, and sand substrates 2009). The Texas fawnsfoot historically poor land management activities in the (NatureServe 2009). The glochidial host occurred in the Brazos and Colorado past century have resulted in the loss fish for the Texas pimpleback are river systems. Until 2009, the only and modification of habitat, and the unknown (NatureServe 2009). known surviving population was in the reduction in abundance, of the Texas Brazos River system (NatureServe 2009). False spike fatmucket. NatureServe (2007) identifies We are aware of a recently discovered intense overgrazing as a land Simpson described the false spike in population estimated to be management activity that has been 1895 (NatureServe 2009). The shell is approximately 3,000 individuals in the harmful to the Texas fatmucket; tawny-brown to dark brown or black, upper portion of the Colorado River however, no further discussion or oval to round in shape, and up to 13.2 (Burlakova 2009, pers. comm.; Leggett reference is provided. cm (5.2 in) in length (Howells . et al 2009). We intend to investigate the Five of the six known populations, all 1996, p. 128). According to information report more thoroughly in our status in central Texas, are threatened by in the petition, it has parallel, ripple- review for the species. The species periodic flooding and possibly like ridges in the posterior and central appears to prefer flowing rivers and dewatering (NatureServe 2007). Howells portion of the shell. The false spike large streams with sand, gravel, and et al. (2003, p. 5), cited in NatureServe occurred historically in the Brazos, mixed muddy substrates (NatureServe (2007), report that the population of a Colorado, and Guadalupe river systems 2009). Living specimens have not been Colorado River tributary in Runnels in central Texas and in the Rio Grande documented in reservoirs, but in the County experienced extensive, if not system in New Mexico, Texas, and past have been found alive in flowing Mexico (NatureServe 2009). The only complete, dewatering in 1999 and 2000, rice irrigation canals (NatureServe then flood-scouring in 2000 and 2001. known extant population occurs in the 2009). The glochidial host fish for the lower San Marcos River, a tributary to No living or recently dead specimens Texas fawnsfoot are unknown could be found in a 2001 survey, and the Guadalupe River system (Howells (NatureServe 2009). 2007, slide 16). False spike has been the stream had suffered major found in medium to large rivers with Evaluation of Information for this alterations in form and structure. A substrates varying from mixed mud, Finding second population in a Concho River sand, and gravel, to cobble (NatureServe Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) tributary in Tom Green County is 2009). The glochidial host fish for the and implementing regulations at 50 CFR presumed extirpated. The small stream false spike are unknown (NatureServe 424 set forth the procedures for adding reportedly dried completely in 1999 and 2009). species to the Federal Lists of 2000, and no specimens have been Endangered and Threatened Wildlife reported from the stream from Mexican fawnsfoot and Plants. A species may be subsequent surveys (Howells et al. 2003, Lea described the Mexican fawnsfoot determined to be an endangered or p. 5). A third population in the San Saba in 1860 (NatureServe 2009). The shell is threatened species due to one or more River in Menard County experienced yellow- to gray-green, elliptical in of the five factors described in section reduced water levels in the late 1990s shape, and up to 4.4 cm (1.7 in) in 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or followed by flooding in 2000. Based on length (NatureServe 2009). The Mexican threatened destruction, modification, or post-flood examination of river and fawnsfoot historically occurred in a curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) bank structure, mussels in the San Saba large section of the Rio Grande system, overutilization for commercial, are thought to still persist (Howells et al. including the lower Pecos River near recreational, scientific, or educational 2003, p. 5). A fourth population in the Del Rio, Texas, and through the Rio purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Guadalupe River in Kerr County is Salado of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, the inadequacy of existing regulatory presumed to have been eliminated in Mexico (NatureServe 2009). Now, the mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 1998, when river levels were drawn Mexican fawnsfoot is known to inhabit manmade factors affecting its continued down to build a footbridge (Howells et only a small section of the lower Rio existence. al. 2003, p. 5). A fifth population in a Grande in Laredo, Texas (NatureServe In making this 90–day finding, we Pedernales River tributary in Gillespie 2009). Habitat preferences for the evaluated whether information County was discovered when flood Mexican fawnsfoot are largely unknown regarding the nine species of mussels, as waters stranded specimens in 2002 because environmental modifications of presented in the petitions and other (Howells et al. 2003, p. 5). This area had the Rio Grande make it difficult to information available in our files, is been surveyed prior to the flood, define clearly the habitats that are substantial, thereby indicating that the yielding no living or recently dead required or preferred by the Mexican petitioned action may be warranted. Our specimens, and the recent collection of fawnsfoot (NatureServe 2009). This evaluation of this information is a single living specimen at this site species has not been reported from presented below. The information suggests that the population is limited reservoirs, suggesting a preference for discussed below was presented by the (Howells et al. 2003, p. 5). flowing streams and rivers with sand or petitioner, unless otherwise noted. Evaluation of Information gravel bottoms (NatureServe 2009). The Texas fatmucket glochidial host fish for the Mexican In our evaluation of the petition, we fawnsfoot are unknown (NatureServe A. Present or Threatened Destruction, find that the petitioner provides 2009). Modification, or Curtailment of the substantial information indicating that Species’ Habitat or Range listing the Texas fatmucket may be Texas fawnsfoot warranted due to present or threatened Lea described the Texas fawnsfoot in Information Provided in the Petition destruction, modification, or 1850 (NatureServe 2009). Shell color The petition incorporates all analyses, curtailment of the species’ habitat or varies from gray-green, greenish-brown, references, and documentation provided range.

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 5

B. Overutilization for Commercial, http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter heelsplitter is negatively affected by Recreational, Scientific, or Educational cited as NatureServe 2007) into the water drawdowns at B.A. Steinhagen Purposes petition. NatureServe (2007) claims that Reservoir, part of the Neches River The petitioner does not address Texas heelsplitter habitat is threatened drainage. These drawdowns result in overutilization for commercial, by siltation. NatureServe (2007) cites mussel mortality and overall decreased recreational, scientific or educational Neck and Howells (1995, cited in mussel abundance and diversity purposes, and we have no information NatureServe 2007 as Neck and Howells (Howells 2006, pp. 24-34). Since the in our files indicating that listing the 1994) in stating that sand and silt early 1990s, the Texas Parks and Texas fatmucket due to overutilization deposition create undesirable mussel Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the habitat and cover existing mussel beds. may be warranted. reservoir operator have employed mid- In their status survey for the species, winter water drawdowns to reduce C. Disease or Predation Neck and Howells (1995, p. 14) report aquatic plant density through drying The petitioner does not address that silt and mud deposition in the B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir, which is and cold temperatures on the reservoir disease or predation, and we have no (Howells 2006, p. 32). The water level information in our files indicating that occupied by the Texas heelsplitter, caused many areas of the reservoir to is lowered slowly to allow the mussels listing the Texas fatmucket due to to follow the receding water level, and disease or predation may be warranted. become shallow and filled some bays in the reservoir with silt. These conditions the duration of the drawdown is as short D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory do not support habitation by Texas as possible to minimize mussel Mechanisms heelsplitter. mortality; however, repeated NatureServe (2007) identifies drawdowns in the range of the Texas Information Provided in the Petition pollution as a threat to Texas heelsplitter may be decreasing the NatureServe (2007) states that few heelsplitter habitat. Neck and Howells abundance of the species (Howells 2006, occurrences of Texas fatmucket are (1995, p. 15) state that increases in p. 32). appropriately protected and managed, acidity, runoff, effluents from wood In our evaluation of the petition and and that only one Texas fatmucket pulp and paper mills, human-caused population is currently in an area nutrient enrichment, tar and oil, and information in our files, we find that designated as a no-harvest mussel increased silt loads due to land clearing there is substantial information sanctuary, meaning commercial harvest are shown to have damaging effects on indicating that listing the Texas is not permitted. NatureServe (2007) mussel habitat. Pollutants of these types heelsplitter may be warranted due to the cites Howells et al. (1997, p.126) in have been reported in the upper Trinity present or threatened destruction, stating that no-harvest sanctuary River, in Pine Island Bayou (a tributary modification, or curtailment of its designations alone afford little to the Neches River), and in the lower habitat or range. protection where environmental Neches River, all of which are situated B. Overutilization for Commercial, disturbances of terrestrial habitats result within the range of the Texas Recreational, Scientific, or Educational in subsequent loss of aquatic habitats. heelsplitter (Neck and Howells 1995, p. NatureServe (2007) states that the Texas 15). They conclude that the anticipated Purposes fatmucket is not a State or federally urban expansion of cities in Texas will The petitioner does not address protected species. likely amplify this threat in the overutilization for commercial, foreseeable future (Neck and Howells recreational, scientific or educational Evaluation of Information 1995, p. 14). purposes, and we have no information Since mussel harvest was not Neck and Howells (1995, pp. 15-16), identified as a potential threat to the which is cited in NatureServe (2007), in our files indicating that listing the Texas fatmucket, we find the petition indicate that the Texas heelsplitter is Texas heelsplitter due to overutilization does not provide substantial negatively impacted by aquatic plants, may be warranted. information indicating that listing the including water hyacinth (Eichhornia C. Disease or Predation species due to inadequacy of existing crassipes) and hydrilla (Hydrilla regulatory mechanisms may be verticillata), which have invaded The petitioner does not address warranted. reservoirs occupied by the Texas disease or predation, and we have no heelsplitter. Unmanaged, these plants information in our files indicating that E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors can eliminate mussel habitat; however, listing the Texas heelsplitter due to Affecting the Species’ Continued the techniques currently employed for disease or predation may be warranted. Existence the management of these species, The petitioner does not address other including mechanical removal, D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory natural and manmade factors, and we herbicides, and water drawdowns, also Mechanisms have no information in our files negatively affect mussel populations Information Provided in the Petition indicating that listing the Texas (Neck and Howells 1995, pp. 15-16). fatmucket due to other natural and NatureServe (2007) identifies NatureServe (2007) states that it is manmade factors may be warranted. fluctuating water levels associated with unknown whether any occurrences of Texas heelsplitter water drawdowns at reservoirs as a Texas heelsplitter are appropriately current threat for the Texas heelsplitter. protected and managed. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Evaluation of Information Modification, or Curtailment of the Evaluation of Information Species’ Habitat or Range Information in our files supports the claims made in the petition regarding We do not consider the statement by Information Provided in the Petition the present and future threat of NatureServe (2007) to be a sufficient The petition incorporates all analyses, fluctuating water levels to the Texas presentation of information indicating references, and documentation provided heelsplitter and its habitat. Howells to a reasonable person that listing may by NatureServe in its online database at (2006, p. 32) indicates that the Texas be warranted.

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 6

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors species and its habitat (Howells 2003, p. high saline conditions (Howells 2003, Affecting the Species’ Continued 67). pp. 68-69). Howells (2004b, p. 2) reports Existence that the salinity of the Pecos River Evaluation of Information creates a functional barrier between The petitioner does not address other In our evaluation of the petition, we Salina mucket specimens in the area, natural and manmade factors, and we find that the petitioner provides thus inhibiting opportunities for have no information in our files substantial information indicating that dispersal and interbreeding. This indicating that listing the Texas listing the Salina mucket may be physical separation may result in the heelsplitter due to other natural and warranted due to the present or genetic isolation of surviving Salina manmade factors may be warranted. threatened destruction, modification, or mucket populations downstream of the Salina mucket curtailment of its habitat or range. Big Bend in the area of Brewster County, Texas (Howells 2003, p. 69). A. Present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, Modification, or Curtailment of the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Evaluation of Information Species’ Habitat or Range Purposes In our evaluation of the petition, we The petitioner does not address find that the petition presents Information Provided in the Petition overutilization for commercial, substantial information indicating that The petition incorporates all analyses, recreational, scientific or educational listing the Salina mucket may be references, and documentation provided purposes, and we have no information warranted due to population isolation. in our files indicating that listing the by NatureServe in its online database at Golden orb http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter Salina mucket due to overutilization cited as NatureServe 2007) into the may be warranted. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the petition. NatureServe (2007) identifies C. Disease or Predation poor land and water management Species’ Habitat or Range The petitioner does not address practices as threats to Salina mucket Information Provided in the Petition habitat. NatureServe (2007) cites disease or predation, and we have no Howells (2003, p. 70; cited in information in our files indicating that The petition incorporates all analyses, NatureServe 2007 as Howells 2001) in listing the Salina mucket due to disease references, and documentation provided stating that the lower Rio Grande system or predation may be warranted. by NatureServe in its online database at within the range of the Salina mucket http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory cited as NatureServe 2007) into the has experienced a significant increase in Mechanisms human population and urban petition. NatureServe (2007) identifies development in the last 30 years. Land Information Provided in the Petition flooding as a threat to golden orb habitat. Howells et al. (1997, p. 118), management activities associated with NatureServe (2007) states that no cited in NatureServe (2007), report that increased human development include occurrences of Salina mucket are the greatest decline in golden orb land clearing and construction of appropriately protected and managed, numbers appears to have occurred in impervious surfaces, which contribute that no Salina mucket populations occur 1978 during a major hurricane and to increased runoff and silt loads during in State-designated no-harvest mussel subsequent flooding in the species’ storms and to additional scouring and sanctuaries, and that the Salina mucket range. NatureServe (2007) asserts that riverbed modifications (Howells 2003, is not a State or federally protected this single event appears to have p. 66). Howells (2004b, p. 2) states that species. the only known surviving Salina mucket reduced the species to four primary specimens in the Rio Grande are in Evaluation of Information populations, and that three of these areas undergoing major development Since mussel harvest was not populations in the Guadalupe River are and modification. Increased water identified as a potential threat to the still subject to flood-related scouring demands that are projected with Salina mucket, we find the petition does and large water-level fluctuations. NatureServe (2007) identifies the continuing residential and commercial not provide substantial information effects of poor land and water development in the range of the Salina indicating that listing the species due to management practices as a threat to mucket will likely compound factors inadequacy of existing regulatory golden orb habitat; however, no further currently affecting the species (Howells mechanisms may be warranted. discussion is provided. NatureServe 2004b, p. 2). E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors (2007) also identifies drought as a threat NatureServe (2007) identifies siltation Affecting Its Continued Existence to golden orb habitat; however, no as a threat to Salina mucket habitat; further discussion is provided. however, no further discussion is Information Provided in the Petition provided. NatureServe (2007) also NatureServe (2007) identifies Evaluation of Information identifies drought-related dewatering as population isolation as a threat to the The petition does not provide a threat to Salina mucket habitat. The Salina mucket. Howells (2003, p. 68) substantial information indicating that Salina mucket habitat within the Rio indicates that the Pecos River, a listing the golden orb due to poor land Grande system has been subject to tributary of the Rio Grande, is the major and water management or to drought periods of drought punctuated by severe source of elevated salinity of the waters may be warranted. However, storm events, often producing scouring in the lower Rio Grande drainage. information in our files from Howells’ floods that modify the riverbed and alter Natural salt seeps and deposits are 2006 Statewide freshwater mussel mussel habitat (Howells 2003, p. 66). present in the area, but groundwater survey supports the petitioner’s claim of Historical drought-related dewatering pumping that has lowered the water the species’ negative response to likely reduced or eliminated some table and reduced freshwater input, long flooding in its habitat. Specifically, in unionid populations in the region, and periods of reduced precipitation, and the Guadalupe River below the Upper the current decline in water flow rates brines from oil and gas drilling Guadalupe River Authority dam, no constitutes an increasing threat to the operations likely contribute to current golden orbs were found in a survey

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 7

following a 1996 flood, three were all analyses, references, and recreational, scientific or educational found dead following a second flood in documentation provided by purposes, and we have no information 1997, none were found following a high NatureServe in its online database at in our files indicating that listing the water release from the dam 4 months http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter smooth pimpleback due to later, and none were found in a 2005 cited as NatureServe 2009) into the overutilization may be warranted. survey (Howells 2006, p. 71). In our petition. The petitioner identifies evaluation of the petition and increased human activity within the C. Disease or Predation information in our files, we therefore species’ range and associated poor land The petitioner does not address find that there is substantial information and water management practices as a disease or predation, and we have no indicating that listing the golden orb threat to smooth pimpleback habitat. information in our files indicating that may be warranted due to the present or NatureServe (2009) adds that recent listing the smooth pimpleback due to threatened destruction, modification, or habitat loss continues to affect the disease or predation may be warranted. curtailment of its habitat or range. species. The petitioner identifies pollution as D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory B. Overutilization for Commercial, a threat to smooth pimpleback habitat, Mechanisms Recreational, Scientific, or Educational and cites NatureServe (2009) in Information Provided in the Petition Purposes claiming that a chemical dump on the NatureServe (2009) states that no The petitioner does not address Little Brazos River in 1993 eliminated occurrences of smooth pimpleback are overutilization for commercial, many of the mussel populations there, appropriately protected and managed, recreational, scientific, or educational including the smooth pimpleback. and that no smooth pimpleback purposes, and we have no information The petitioner cites NatureServe populations occur in State-designated in our files indicating that listing the (2009) in asserting that drought no-harvest mussel sanctuaries. The golden orb due to overutilization may be conditions that decreased surface water petitioner states that the smooth warranted. levels in the 1980s in the Leon River pimpleback is not a State or federally range caused extensive loss of smooth protected species (NatureServe 2009). C. Disease or Predation pimpleback individuals. The petitioner The petitioner does not address also cites NatureServe (2009) in Evaluation of Information disease or predation, and we have no asserting that scouring floods in 1978 Since mussel harvest was not information in our files indicating that throughout the range of the species in identified as a potential threat to the listing the golden orb due to disease or central Texas were responsible for the smooth pimpleback, we find the predation may be warranted. reduction or elimination of many petition does not provide substantial D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory mussel populations, including the information indicating that listing the Mechanisms smooth pimpleback. NatureServe (2009) species due to inadequacy of existing clarifies that the species does not Information Provided in the Petition regulatory mechanisms may be tolerate dramatic water fluctuations, warranted. NatureServe (2007) states that few scoured bedrock substrates, or shifting occurrences of golden orb are sand bottoms, all of which are E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors appropriately protected and managed, associated with floods. Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence and that none of the inhabited sites of Evaluation of Information the four known populations are Information Provided in the Petition protected. NatureServe (2007) states that Information in our files indicates that the golden orb is not a State or federally water fluctuations unrelated to drought The petitioner identifies climate protected species. occur in areas occupied by smooth change as an additional factor affecting pimplebacks. Howells (2006, p. 67) the species’ continued existence; Evaluation of Information reports that water-level drawdowns however, no specific justification or We do not consider the statements by adversely impact Inks Lake’s population reference is provided. of smooth pimplebacks. Lake elevation NatureServe (2007) to be a sufficient Evaluation of Information presentation of information indicating is rapidly reduced by 3 meters (m) (9.8 to a reasonable person that listing may ft) during biannual maintenance and The information presented on climate be warranted. repair drawdowns (Howells 2006, p. change is not specific to the smooth 67). Howells (2006, p. 67) reports that pimpleback and no specific references E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors these drawdowns occur so quickly that were provided. The petition does not Affecting the Species’ Continued any unionids occupying the shallows provide substantial information Existence are generally killed with each indicating that listing the species due to The petitioner does not address other drawdown. climate change may be warranted. We natural and manmade factors, and we In our evaluation of the petition and intend to investigate this factor more have no information in our files information in our files, we find that thoroughly in our status review of the indicating that listing the golden orb there is substantial information species. due to other natural and manmade indicating that listing the smooth Texas pimpleback factors may be warranted. pimpleback may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Smooth pimpleback modification, or curtailment of its Modification, or Curtailment of the A. Present or Threatened Destruction, habitat or range. Species’ Habitat or Range Modification, or Curtailment of the B. Overutilization for Commercial, Information Provided in the Petition Species’ Habitat or Range Recreational, Scientific, or Educational The petitioner states that dewatering Information Provided in the Petition Purposes is a threat to the species, but points out In addition to other information cited The petitioner does not address that some individuals survive severe in the petition, the petition incorporates overutilization for commercial, stream dewatering. Howells (2006, p.

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 8

61) reports that in the Concho River in slide 14). Howells (2006, p. 63) reports Evaluation of Information Concho County, low water levels and that details released over the Internet in The information presented on climate high temperatures killed large numbers 2001 disclosing the location of rare change is not specific to the Texas of Texas pimplebacks and other mussels mussels at the site may have been used pimpleback and no specific references in 1997, and in 1999 and early 2000. by rare-shell collectors to find and were provided. The petition does not The Concho River was reduced to harvest Texas pimplebacks. provide substantial information We find that the petition and stagnant pools and dry bottoms. Results indicating that listing the species due to information in our files presents from subsequent surveys indicate that climate change may be warranted. We substantial information indicating that Texas pimpleback abundance was intend to investigate this factor more listing the Texas pimpleback may be significantly reduced, presumably due thoroughly in our status review of the warranted due to overutilization for to habitat modifications that restrict species. mussel habitation (Howells 2006, p. 61). commercial, recreational, scientific, or The petitioner states that habitat educational purposes. False spike occupied by the Texas pimpleback is C. Disease or Predation A. Present or Threatened Destruction, threatened by drought and flooding; The petitioner does not address Modification, or Curtailment of the however, no further discussion is Species’ Habitat or Range provided. disease or predation, and we have no information in our files indicating that Information Provided in the Petition Evaluation of Information listing the Texas pimpleback due to disease or predation may be warranted. The petitioner claims that the Information in our files shows that dramatic land use modification of the over the 10 years from 1998 to 2007, D. The Inadequacy of Existing lower Rio Grande drainage over the past there was zero flow measured at the Regulatory Mechanisms 100 years has negatively affected the stream gage at the Concho River mussel Information Provided in the Petition false spike. The petitioner further claims survey site 26 percent of the days that continued development and (Asquith and Heitmuller 2008, pp. 810- In addition to other information cited modification, including increases in 813, 846-853). These data suggest that in the petition, the petition incorporates human activity and associated negative dewatering may be continuing in the all analyses, references, and environmental impacts, may preclude Concho River. documentation provided by future conservation of the species. Information in our files indicates that NatureServe in its online database at The petitioner identifies overgrazing scouring floods and drought-related http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter and increased runoff from rains as dewatering have caused recent losses of cited as NatureServe 2009) into the threats to false spike habitat in central Texas pimpleback populations in petition. NatureServe (2009) indicates Texas. The petitioner, citing a personal Runnels County, Texas. No live Texas that few occurrences of Texas communication with R. Howells in July pimpleback individuals were found pimpleback are appropriately protected 2008, claims that in the mid-to late during a 2005 survey in the Colorado and managed, and that only one Texas 1800s, overgrazing resulted in loss of River drainage at either a site on the San pimpleback population is currently in a terrestrial vegetative cover and soils. Saba River or one on Elm Creek where State-designated no-harvest mussel Subsequently, when rains fell, runoff they had been found previously sanctuary. The petitioner cites Howells increased, scouring riverbeds. The (Howells 2006, pp. 63-64). These sites et al. (1997, p.126) in stating that no- petitioner references the same personal showed signs of extensive flood harvest sanctuary designations alone communication in stating that prior to scouring during surveys conducted afford little protection where the 1900s, the Guadalupe River never throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, environmental disturbances of rose more than 1.8 m (6 ft), but that 6- and overall mussel abundance and terrestrial habitats result in subsequent m (20-ft) rises are now regularly diversity have been reduced (Howells loss of aquatic habitats. observed. This has resulted in scour of 2006, pp. 63-64). Evaluation of Information river bottoms to bedrock and cobble, In our evaluation of the petition and which the petitioner claims is information in our files, we find that In Factor B, the petitioner and our unacceptable habitat for unionid there is substantial information files identify overutilization for mussels. indicating that listing the Texas commercial, recreational, scientific, or The petitioner identifies drought and pimpleback may be warranted due to educational purposes as a potential flooding as threats to false spike habitat. the present or threatened destruction, threat to the Texas pimpleback. Here, Howells (2006, p. 73) states that drought modification, or curtailment of its we find that the petitioner and conditions in the late 1970s, followed habitat or range. information in our files provides by major flooding events in 1978 and substantial information indicating that B. Overutilization for Commercial, 1981 within the false spike’s range in listing the Texas pimpleback may be Recreational, Scientific, or Educational the San Marcos River, part of the warranted due to inadequacy of existing Purposes Guadalupe River drainage, likely had regulatory mechanisms to protect the negative impacts on unionid mussels in Information Provided in the Petition species from this potential threat. that area, including the false spike. The petitioner states that E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Evaluation of Information overcollection at one site has negatively Affecting the Species’ Continued impacted the Texas pimpleback; Existence Information in our files supports the however, no further discussion is petitioner’s claim that humans have provided. Information Provided in the Petition significantly modified land use in the The petitioner identifies climate Rio Grande basin in Texas and Mexico, Evaluation of Information change as an additional factor affecting and that this land use change may be a Information in our files indicates that the species’ continued existence; threat to false spike. Howells (2003, pp. the Texas pimpleback may be taken by however, no specific justification or 66, 70) states that human-caused rare-shell collectors (Howells 2004a, reference is provided. impacts appear to be the major reason

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 9

for the massive reduction in mussel Evaluation of Information B. Overutilization for Commercial, fauna and diversity there, including the The information presented on climate Recreational, Scientific, or Educational apparent extinction of the false spike. change is not specific to the false spike Purposes He identifies climate change; altered and no specific references were water flows; impoundments; and The petitioner does not address provided. The petition does not provide overutilization for commercial, increased nutrient, salt, and sediment substantial information indicating that recreational, scientific, or educational pollution as the human-caused threats listing the species due to climate change purposes, and we have no information responsible for the threats (Howells may be warranted. We intend to 2003, pp. 66-70). investigate this factor more thoroughly in our files indicating that listing the The petitioner and information in our in our status review of the species. Mexican fawnsfoot due to files provide substantial information overutilization may be warranted. Mexican fawnsfoot indicating that listing the false spike C. Disease or Predation may be warranted due to the present or A. Present or Threatened Destruction, threatened destruction, modification, or Modification, or Curtailment of the The petitioner does not address curtailment of its habitat or range. Species’ Habitat or Range disease or predation, and we have no information in our files indicating that B. Overutilization for Commercial, Information Provided in the Petition Recreational, Scientific, or Educational listing the Mexican fawnsfoot due to In addition to other information cited Purposes disease or predation may be warranted. in the petition, the petition incorporates The petitioner does not address all analyses, references, and D. The Inadequacy of Existing overutilization for commercial, documentation provided by Regulatory Mechanisms recreational, scientific or educational NatureServe in its online database at Information Provided in the Petition purposes, and we have no information http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter in our files indicating that listing the cited as NatureServe 2009) into the The petitioner cites NatureServe false spike due to overutilization may be petition. NatureServe (2009) identifies (2009) in stating that no occurrences of warranted. the effects of increased human activity Mexican fawnsfoot are appropriately as a threat to Mexican fawnsfoot habitat. protected and managed, and that no C. Disease or Predation Trade and development along the U.S. Mexican fawnsfoot populations occur in The petitioner does not address (Texas)-Mexico border have had State-designated no-harvest mussel disease or predation, and we have no extensive environmental impacts on this sanctuaries. The petitioner states that information in our files indicating that area, which has already undergone great the Mexican Fawnsfoot is not a State or listing the false spike due to disease or ecological modification (NatureServe federally protected species (NatureServe 2009). The petitioner cites Howells predation may be warranted. 2009). (2004a) in stating that the only known D. The Inadequacy of Existing extant population of the Mexican Evaluation of Information Regulatory Mechanisms fawnsfoot, located near Laredo, Texas, is Since mussel harvest was not Information Provided in the Petition threatened by impacts from development. Additional landscape identified as a potential threat to the In addition to other information cited modification is anticipated, including Mexican fawnsfoot, we find the petition in the petition, the petition incorporates the proposed construction of a fence at does not provide substantial all analyses, references, and the border (Howells 2007, slide 14). The information indicating that listing the documentation provided by petitioner also identifies smothering and species due to inadequacy of existing NatureServe in its online database at siltation as a threat to the Mexican regulatory mechanisms may be http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter fawnsfoot and its habitat; however, no warranted. cited as NatureServe 2009) into the further discussion is provided. The petition. NatureServe (2009) states that petitioner cites NatureServe (2009) in E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors no occurrences of false spike are stating that the general fragility of the Affecting the Species’ Continued appropriately protected and managed. Rio Grande aquatic ecosystem and Existence ecological alterations to date are likely Evaluation of Information Information Provided in the Petition a cause of the extreme rarity of this Since mussel harvest was not species. The petition identifies climate change identified as a potential threat to the The petitioner identifies dewatering as an additional factor affecting the false spike, we find the petition does not as a threat to Mexican fawnsfoot habitat. species’ continued existence; however, provide substantial information The petitioner cites Howells (2004b, p. no specific justification or reference is indicating that listing the species due to 2) in stating that all unionid provided. inadequacy of existing regulatory assemblages in the Rio Grande basin, Evaluation of Information mechanisms may be warranted. including the Mexican fawnsfoot, have been subject to drought-related The information presented on climate E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors dewatering. Affecting the Species’ Continued change is not specific to the Mexican Existence Evaluation of Information fawnsfoot and no specific references were provided. The petition does not Information Provided in the Petition In our evaluation of the petition, we find that the petitioner provides provide substantial information The petitioner identifies climate substantial information indicating that indicating that listing the species due to change as an additional factor affecting listing the Mexican fawnsfoot may be climate change may be warranted. We the false spike’s continued existence; warranted due to the present or intend to investigate this factor more however, no specific justification or threatened destruction, modification, or thoroughly in our status review of the reference is provided. curtailment of its habitat or range. species.

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 10

Texas fawnsfoot documentation provided by The petitioner presents substantial NatureServe in its online database at information indicating that the Texas A. Present or Threatened Destruction, http://www.natureserve.org/ (hereafter heelsplitter may be threatened by Factor Modification, or Curtailment of the cited as NatureServe 2009) into the A. The petitioner does not present Species’ Habitat or Range petition. NatureServe (2009) indicates substantial information indicating that Information Provided in the Petition that few occurrences of Texas fawnsfoot Factors B, C, D, or E are currently, or in The petitioner identifies aquatic are appropriately protected and the future may be, considered a threat habitat destruction and modification managed. There are two no-harvest to the Texas heelsplitter. The petitioner presents substantial from wide-ranging terrestrial sources as sanctuaries within the range of the information indicating that the Salina a threat to the Texas fawnsfoot; Texas fawnsfoot; however, the species mucket may be threatened by Factors A however, these terrestrial sources are has not been historically or recently and E. The petition does not present not specified and no further discussion documented at these sites (NatureServe substantial information indicating that is provided. The petitioner also 2009). The petitioner states that the Texas fawnsfoot is not a State or Factors B, C, and D are currently, or in identifies smothering and siltation as a the future may be, considered a threat threat to the Texas fawnsfoot and its federally protected species (NatureServe 2009). to the Salina mucket. habitat; however, no further discussion The petitioner presents substantial is provided that is specific to the species Evaluation of Information information indicating that the golden or to the rivers and streams where it is orb may be threatened by Factor A. The known to occur. Since mussel harvest was not identified as a potential threat to the petitioner does not present substantial The petitioner identifies dewatering information indicating that Factors B, C, as a threat to Texas fawnsfoot habitat, Texas fawnsfoot, we find the petition does not provide substantial D, or E are currently, or in the future stating that in 2000, the Colorado River may be, considered a threat to the above Lake Buchanan dried, and all information indicating that listing the species due to inadequacy of existing golden orb. mussels in that area, including the The petitioner presents substantial Texas fawnsfoot, were presumed lost. regulatory mechanisms may be warranted. information indicating that the smooth The petitioner further states that pimpleback may be threatened by Factor because the species is intolerant of E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors A. The petitioner does not present impounded water bodies, the species Affecting the Species’ Continued substantial information indicating that would not be able to recolonize the Existence Factors B, C, D, or E are currently, or in dewatered area from Lake Buchanan. Information Provided in the Petition the future may be, considered a threat The petitioner also identifies scouring to the smooth pimpleback. floods during times of intense The petitioner identifies climate The petitioner presents substantial precipitation as a threat to Texas change as an additional factor affecting information indicating that the Texas fawnsfoot habitat. the species’ continued existence; pimpleback may be threatened by however, no specific justification or Evaluation of Information Factors A, B, and D. The petitioner does reference is provided. not present substantial information In our evaluation of the petition, we Evaluation of Information indicating that Factors C or E are find that the petitioner provides currently, or in the future may be, substantial information indicating that The information presented on climate considered a threat to the Texas listing the Texas fawnsfoot may be change is not specific to the Texas pimpleback. warranted due to the present or fawnsfoot and no specific references The petitioner presents substantial threatened destruction, modification, or were provided. The petition does not information indicating that the false curtailment of its habitat or range. provide substantial information spike may be threatened by Factor A. B. Overutilization for Commercial, indicating that listing the species due to The petitioner does not present Recreational, Scientific, or Educational climate change may be warranted. We substantial information indicating that Purposes intend to investigate this factor more Factors B, C, D, or E are currently, or in thoroughly in our status review for the the future may be, considered a threat The petitioner does not address species. to the false spike. overutilization for commercial, Finding The petitioner presents substantial recreational, scientific or educational information indicating that the Mexican purposes, and we have no information On the basis of our evaluation under fawnsfoot may be threatened by Factor in our files indicating that listing the section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have A. The petitioner does not present Texas fawnsfoot due to overutilization determined that the petition presents substantial information indicating that may be warranted. substantial information indicating that Factors B, C, D, or E are currently, or in C. Disease or Predation listing the Texas fatmucket, Texas the future may be, considered a threat heelsplitter, Salina mucket, golden orb, to the Mexican fawnsfoot. The petitioner does not address smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback, The petitioner presents substantial disease or predation, and we have no false spike, Mexican fawnsfoot, and information indicating that the Texas information in our files indicating that Texas fawnsfoot throughout the entire fawnsfoot may be threatened by Factor listing the Texas fawnsfoot due to range of each species may be warranted. A. The petitioner does not present disease or predation may be warranted. The petitioner presents substantial substantial information indicating that D. The Inadequacy of Existing information indicating that the Texas Factors B, C, D, or E are currently, or in Regulatory Mechanisms fatmucket may be threatened by Factor the future may be, considered a threat A. The petitioner does not present to the Texas fawnsfoot. Information Provided in the Petition substantial information indicating that Based on this review and evaluation, In addition to other information cited Factors B, C, D or E are currently, or in we find that the petitions present in the petition, the petition incorporates the future may be, considered a threat substantial scientific or commercial all analyses, references, and to the Texas fatmucket. information that listing the nine mussel

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS 11

species throughout the range of each after we have completed a thorough request from the Clear Lake Ecological species may be warranted due to current status review of the species, which is Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER and future threats presented in our conducted following a substantial 90– INFORMATION CONTACT). discussion of the five listing factors. As day finding. Because the Act’s standards Author such, we are initiating a status review to for 90–day and 12–month findings are determine whether listing these mussels different, as described above, a The primary authors of this rule are under the Act is warranted. We will substantial 90–day finding does not the Clear Lake Ecological Services Field issue one or more 12–month findings as mean that the 12–month finding will Office’s staff members (see FOR FURTHER to whether any of the petitioned actions result in a warranted finding. INFORMATION CONTACT). are warranted. The petitioner requested that we designate critical habitat for these Authority The ‘‘substantial information’’ species. If we determine in our 12– standard for a 90–day finding differs month finding(s) that listing the mussels The authority for this action is the from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and is warranted, we will address the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as commercial data’’ standard that applies designation of critical habitat at the time amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). to a status review to determine whether of the proposed rulemaking. a petitioned action is warranted. A 90– Dated: November 25, 2009 day finding does not constitute a status References Cited Daniel M. Ashe, review under the Act. In one or more A complete list of references cited in Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 12–month findings, we will determine this finding is available on the Internet [FR Doc. 09–?????? Filed ??–??– 09; 8:45 am] whether a petitioned action is warranted at http://www.regulations.gov and upon BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

VerDate Mar<04>2003 10:05 Dec 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C:\DOCUME~1\MCASH\MYDOCU~1\000XML~1\PUBLIS~1\PR_9MU~1\FINAL\9MUSSE~1.TXT FWS