51322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
Code for reading third column: § 73.202 [Amended] Background Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Buchanan (1980), Cummings and Susp.—Suspension. Allotments under New York, is Mayer (1992), Oesch (1995), and Watters Dated: September 28, 2001. amended by adding Granby, Channel (1995) provide descriptions of the Robert F. Shea, 288A, and removing Channel 288A from scaleshell mussel. The shell grows to Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Oswego. approximately three to ten centimeters Mitigation Administration. Federal Communications Commission. (one to four inches) in length. The shells [FR Doc. 01–25242 Filed 10–5–01; 8:45 am] John A. Karousos, are elongate, very thin, and compressed. The anterior (front) end is rounded. In BILLING CODE 6718–05–P Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. males, the posterior (rear) end is bluntly pointed. In females, the periostracum [FR Doc. 01–25116 Filed 10–5–01; 8:45 am] (the outside layer or covering of the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BILLING CODE 6712–01–P COMMISSION shell) forms a wavy, fluted extension of the posterior end of the shell. The dorsal 47 CFR Part 73 (top) margin is straight and the ventral DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (bottom) margin is gently rounded. [DA 01–2205; MM Docket No. 00–169; RM– Beaks (the raised or domed part of the 9953] Fish and Wildlife Service dorsal margin of the shell) are small and Radio Broadcasting Services; Oswego low, and nearly even with the hinge and Granby, NY 50 CFR Part 17 line. The beak sculpture is inconspicuously compressed and AGENCY: Federal Communications consists of four or five double-looped RIN 1018–AF57 Commission. ridges. The periostracum is smooth, ACTION: Final rule. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife yellowish green or brown, with and Plants; Determination of numerous faint green rays. The SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of Endangered Status for the Scaleshell pseudocardinal teeth (the triangular, Proposed Rule Making, 65 FR 57800 Mussel often serrated, teeth located on the (September 26, 2000) this document upper part of the shell) are reduced to reallots Channel 288A from Oswego to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, a small thickened ridge. The lateral Granby, New York and provides Granby Interior. teeth (the elongated teeth along the with its first local aural transmission ACTION: Final rule. hinge line of the shell) are moderately service. The coordinates for Channel long with two indistinct teeth occurring 288A at Granby are 43–17–44 North SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and in the left valve (shell) and one fine Latitude and 76–26–16 West Longitude. Wildlife Service (Service), determine tooth in the right. The beak cavity (a DATES: Effective November 5, 2001. the scaleshell mussel (Leptodea cavity located inside the shell that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. leptodon) to be an endangered species extends into the beak) is very shallow. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, under the Endangered Species Act of The nacre (the interior layer of the shell) (202) 418–2180. 1973, as amended (Act). The scaleshell is pinkish white or light purple and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a mussel historically occurred in 55 rivers highly iridescent. in 13 states in the eastern United States. synopsis of the Commission’s Report Life History and Order, MM Docket No. 00–169, Currently, the species is known to exist adopted September 12, 2001, and in 14 rivers (and may occur in 6 others) The biology of the scaleshell mussel released September 21, 2001. The full within the Mississippi River Basin in is similar to the biology of other text of this Commission decision is Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Its bivalved mollusks belonging to the available for inspection and copying abundance and distribution have family Unionidae. Adult unionids are during normal business hours in the decreased markedly due to habitat loss filter-feeders, spending their entire lives FCC’s Reference Information Center at and adverse effects associated with partially or completely buried in the Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, water quality degradation, stream bottom (Murray and Leonard SW., Washington, DC. The complete sedimentation, channelization, sand and 1962). The posterior margin of the shell text of this decision may also be gravel mining, dredging, and reservoir is usually exposed and the siphons purchased from the Commission’s copy construction. extended to facilitate feeding. During contractor: Qualex International, Portals DATES: This final rule is effective on periods of activity, movement is II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY–B402, November 8, 2001. accomplished by extending and contracting a single muscular foot Washington, D.C. 20554. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this between the valves. Extension of the List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 rule is available for inspection, by foot also enables the mussel to wedge appointment, during normal business itself into the river bottom. Their food Radio broadcasting. hours at the Columbia Field Office, U.S. Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of includes detritus (disintegrated organic Fish and Wildlife Service, 608 East material), plankton, and other Federal Regulations is amended as Cherry Street, Room 200, Columbia, follows: microorganisms (Fuller 1974). Some Missouri 65201. freshwater mussel species are long- PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: lived. Individuals of many species live SERVICES Andy Roberts (at the above address or more than 10 years and some have been telephone 573–876–1911, ext. 110; fax reported to live over 100 years 1. The authority citation for Part 73 573–876–1914). TTY users may contact (Cummings and Mayer 1992). reads as follows: us through the Federal Relay Service at Unionids have an unusual and Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 1–800–877–8339. complex mode of reproduction, which 336. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: includes a brief, obligatory parasitic
VerDate 11
stage on fish. Males release sperm into of 35 individuals, and the Meramec distribution of the scaleshell mussel. the water column in the spring, Basin collection only contained 15 However, the specimens that were the summer, or early fall, and females using females out of 44 living individuals. The source of the St. Lawrence River record the incurrent water flow draw in the reason females appear to be less were later identified as wingless sperm. Fertilization takes place in the common than males in the Gasconade examples of Leptodea fragilis (fragile shell of the female. Fertilized eggs River and Meramec Basin is unknown. papershell), which are often seen in develop into microscopic larvae New York (David Strayer, Institute of Habitat Characteristics (glochidia) and are brooded within Ecosystem Studies, New York, in litt. special gill chambers of the female. The scaleshell mussel occurs in 1995). Given this and that no other Once the glochidia are mature, they are medium to large rivers with low to authentic specimens have been found expelled into the water where they must moderate gradients in a variety of (David Stansbery, Ohio State Museum, quickly attach to the gills or the fins of stream habitats. Buchanan (1980, 1994) in litt. 1995), the historical occurrence an appropriate fish host to complete and Gordon (1991) reported the of the species in St. Lawrence Basin is development. Following proper host scaleshell mussel from riffle areas with doubtful. infestation, glochidia transform into substrate consisting of gravel, cobble, Within the last 50 years the scaleshell juveniles and excyst (drop off). boulder, and occasionally mud or sand. mussel has become increasingly rare Juveniles must drop off into suitable Oesch (1995) considered the scaleshell and its range greatly restricted. habitat to survive. Host fish specificity mussel a typical riffle species, occurring Historically, the scaleshell mussel varies among unionids. Some mussel only in clear, unpolluted water with occurred in 55 rivers. Today, the species species appear to require a single host good current. Conversely, Call (1900), is known from only 14 rivers including species, while others can transform their Goodrich and Van der Schalie (1944), the Meramec, Bourbeuse, Big, glochidia into juvenile mussels on and Cummings and Mayer (1992) Gasconade, and Osage Rivers in several fish species. For further reported collections from muddy Missouri; Frog Bayou and the St. information on the life history of bottoms of medium-sized and large Francis, Spring, South Fork Spring, freshwater mussels, see Gordon and rivers. Roberts and Bruenderman (2000) South Fourche LaFave, and White Layzer (1989) and Watters (1995). collected the scaleshell mussel Rivers in Arkansas; and the Little, Mussel biologists know relatively primarily from mussel beds (areas with Mountain Fork, and Kiamichi Rivers in little about the specific life history a high concentration of mussels that Oklahoma. An additional six rivers requirements of the scaleshell mussel. contain more than one species) with (Cossatot, Little Missouri, Saline, and Baker (1928) surmised that the stable, gravel substrates. The Strawberry Rivers, and Myatt and Gates scaleshell mussel is a long-term brooder characteristic common to these sites Creeks) in Arkansas and Oklahoma may (spawns in fall months and females appears to be a stable stream bed and support the scaleshell mussel, but the brood the larvae in their gills until the good water quality. These habitat existence of the species in these rivers following spring or summer). Glochidia observations are consistent with the is uncertain. With the exception of the found in the gill chambers in current distribution of the scaleshell Meramec, Bourbeuse, and Gasconade September, October, November, and mussel. The scaleshell mussel is Rivers, all rivers listed as supporting the March support that conclusion (Gordon restricted to rivers that have maintained scaleshell mussel are based on the 1991). The scaleshell mussel uses the relatively good water quality (Oesch collection of a few or a single individual freshwater drum (Aplodinotus 1995) and to river stretches with stable specimen. grunniens) as the fish host for its larvae channels (Buchanan 1980, Harris 1992). Assessment of the Presumed Health of (Chris Barnhart, Southwest Missouri The scaleshell mussel is also usually Individual Populations State University, pers. comm. 1998). collected in mussel beds in association Other species in the genus Leptodea and with a high diversity of other mussel For the purposes of this rule, the term a closely related genus Potamilus are species. ‘‘population’’ is used in a geographical sense and, unless otherwise indicated, also known to use freshwater drum Distribution and Abundance exclusively as a host (Watters 1994). is defined as all individuals living in Little is known about the life The scaleshell mussel historically one river or stream. By using this term expectancy of the scaleshell mussel. occurred in 13 states in the eastern we do not imply that a scaleshell mussel However, recent collections from United States. While the scaleshell population is currently reproducing or Missouri indicate that it is relatively mussel had a broad distribution, it that it is a distinct genetic unit. Using short-lived compared to other species. A appears that it was a rare species locally the term in this way allows the status, sample of 33 dead specimens and 2 (Gordon 1991, Oesch 1995, Call 1900). trends, and threats to be discussed living individuals collected in 2000 Williams et al. (1993) reported the separately for each river where the from a Gasconade River site did not historical range as Alabama, Arkansas, scaleshell mussel occurs, improving the contain any individuals exceeding Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, clarity of the discussion. seven years old (Chris Barnhart, pers. Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Due to the low densities of current comm. 2000). Likewise, no individuals Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. scaleshell mussel populations, over six years old were observed out of Historical records also exist for the ascertaining status (an assessment of the 44 living individuals collected in 1997 Minnesota River, Minnesota (Clarke current existence of a population) and from the Meramec Basin (Roberts and 1996). Williams et al. (1993) also listed trends (an assessment of change in a Bruenderman 2000). Based on these Michigan and Mississippi as part of the population’s numbers and its probable collections, it appears that the life scaleshell mussel’s range, but no valid future condition) is difficult. To expectancy of the scaleshell mussel may records exist in these states. Therefore, facilitate population comparisons, a be less than 10 years. In addition, the its presence cannot be confirmed (Bob single classification system was devised sex ratio of the above collections are Jones, Mississippi Wildlife Fisheries to evaluate the probable current health significantly different from a 50/50 ratio and Parks, Museum of Natural Science, of individual populations. The (Chi-Square Test, P< 0.05). The pers. comm. 2000; Szymanski 1998). indicators of (or criteria for) the Gasconade collection only contained Gordon (1991) included a portion of the presumed health of scaleshell mussel eight females (including one living) out St. Lawrence drainage in describing the populations are as follows. The
VerDate 11
presumed health of a population is TABLE 1.—PRESUMED POPULATION River (Wayne Davis, Kentucky considered ‘‘stable’’ if (1) there is no HEALTH OF EXTANT AND POTEN- Department of Fish and Wildlife, in litt. evidence of significant habitat loss or TIALLY EXTANT SCALESHELL MUSSEL 1994). All other records are pre-1950 degradation, and (2) there has been POPULATIONS. S = STABLE, D = DE- (Kevin Cummings, in litt. 1994; post-1980 collection of live or fresh Catherine Gremillion-Smith, Indiana CLINING, UK = UNKNOWN—Contin- dead mussels and, if surveys were Department of Natural Resources, in litt. thorough, evidence of recruitment was ued 1994; Ron Cicerello, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, in litt., found. The presumed health of a Presumed population is considered ‘‘declining’’ if Population health 1994; Paul Parmelee, University of (1) habitat is limiting due to its small Tennessee, pers. comm. 1995). size, or a significant decrease in habitat South Fourche LaFave (AR) ...... D Meramec River Basin (Missouri)—In quality or quantity has occurred, (2) Spring River (AR) ...... D 1979, Buchanan surveyed for mussels at there is no evidence of recruitment Strawberry (AR) ...... UK 198 sites within the Meramec River despite one or more thorough surveys, White River (AR) ...... D Basin (Buchanan 1980). Of these sites, or (3) a significant decline in number of 14 had evidence of live or dead individual mussels has occurred. The River Basin Specific Discussion of the scaleshell mussels. Seven of the 14 sites presumed health of a population is Scaleshell Mussel Status were in the lower 180 kilometers (km) considered ‘‘extirpated’’ if (1) despite Upper Mississippi River Basin (112 miles (mi)) of the Meramec River, one or more thorough post-1980 five in the lower 87 km (54 mi) of the The scaleshell mussel formerly surveys, no scaleshell mussels, or only Bourbeuse River, and two in the lower occurred in eight rivers and tributaries old dead shells, have been found, or (2) 16 km (10 mi) of the Big River. within the upper Mississippi River Buchanan found that the species all known suitable habitat has been Basin, including the Mississippi River destroyed. The presumed health of a comprised less than 0.1 percent of the in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin; the 20,589 living mussels he examined in population is considered ‘‘unknown’’ if Minnesota River in Minnesota; Burdett’s the available information is inadequate the basin. He collected live scaleshell Slough in Iowa; the Iowa and Cedar mussels at only four sites, three in the to place the population in one of the Rivers in Iowa; and the Illinois, above categories. In a few cases, Meramec and one in the Bourbeuse. Sangamon, and Pecatonica Rivers in Although the lower 174 km (108 mi) of additional biological information not Illinois. However, the scaleshell mussel listed above was used to categorize a the Meramec River had suitable habitat has not been found for more than 50 for many rare species, live scaleshell population that otherwise would have years in the upper Mississippi River been called ‘‘unknown’’ or which mussels were found only in the lower Basin and is believed extirpated from 64 km (40 mi) (Buchanan 1980). Both appeared to fit into multiple categories. that basin (Kevin Cummings, Illinois Based on the above criteria, 14 the Bourbeuse and Big Rivers had lower Natural History Survey, in litt. 1994). scaleshell mussel populations are species diversity and less suitable considered extant. Of these populations, Middle Mississippi River Basin habitat than the Meramec River. Suitable habitat occurs only in the lower the presumed health of 1 is thought to Historically, the scaleshell mussel be stable and 13 are believed to be 87 km (54 mi) of the Bourbeuse River occurred in 26 rivers and tributaries and lower 16 km (10 mi) of the Big River declining. Six other populations may within the middle Mississippi River also be extant, but their health is (Buchanan 1980). Basin including the Kaskaskia River in The Missouri Department of unknown due to lack of recent Illinois; the mainstem Ohio River in Conservation (MDC) sampled 78 sites in collections or surveys. The 14 extant Kentucky and Ohio; the Wabash River an intensive resurvey of the Meramec populations and 6 potentially extant in Illinois and Indiana; the White River River basin in 1997 (Roberts and populations are listed in Table 1 and and Sugar Creek in Indiana; the Green Bruenderman 2000). Similar to included in the discussions below. and Licking Rivers in Kentucky; the Buchanan’s findings (1980), scaleshell Scioto, St. Mary’s, and East Fork Little mussels represented only 0.4 percent of TABLE 1.—PRESUMED POPULATION Miami Rivers in Ohio; the Cumberland the living mussels. Live specimens were HEALTH OF EXTANT AND POTEN- River in Kentucky and Tennessee; collected from the mainstem Meramec TIALLY EXTANT SCALESHELL MUSSEL Beaver Creek in Kentucky; Caney Fork River (34 specimens from 9 sites), the POPULATIONS. S = STABLE, D = DE- in Tennessee; the Tennessee River in Bourbeuse River (10 specimens from 5 CLINING, UK = UNKNOWN Alabama and Tennessee; the Clinch, sites), and the Big River (2 specimens Holston, and Duck Rivers in Tennessee; from 1 site). In addition to the nine sites Population Presumed Auxvasse Creek in Missouri; the surveyed by Buchanan (1979), new sites health Meramec, Bourbeuse, South Grand, were included in the 1997 survey. Gasconade, Big, Osage, and Big Piney Big (MO) ...... D Living or dead scaleshell mussels were Bourbeuse (MO) ...... D Rivers in Missouri; and the mainstem found at four of the five sites in the Cossatot (AR) ...... UK Missouri River in South Dakota and Meramec River and two of the four sites Frog Bayou (AR) ...... D Missouri. The scaleshell mussel has in the Bourbeuse River. The three sites Gates Creek (OK) ...... UK been extirpated from most of the middle where the presence of scaleshell Gasconade (MO) ...... D Mississippi River Basin. Currently, the mussels was not reconfirmed no longer Kiamichi (OK) ...... D scaleshell mussel is extant in five rivers support suitable mussel habitat due to Little Missouri (AR) ...... UK within the Meramec River basin and stream bed degradation. Other species Little (OK) ...... D tributaries of the Missouri River that were found in mussel beds at those Meramec (MO) ...... D Mountain Fork (OK) ...... D drainages in Missouri. sites in the earlier surveys were no Myatt Creek (AR) ...... UK Ohio River Drainage—The scaleshell longer present in 1997. Although Osage River (MO) ...... D mussel has been extirpated from the portions of the Meramec River basin St. Francis (AR) ...... D entire Ohio River system. The most continue to provide suitable habitat, Saline (AR) ...... UK recent collection date from the Ohio mussel species diversity and abundance South Fork Spring (AR) ...... S River Basin is 1964 from the Greene have declined noticeably since 1980 and
VerDate 11
significant losses of mussel habitat have subsequent surveys on the Missouri remaining six sites. Overall, scaleshell occurred (Roberts and Bruenderman River just below Gavin’s Point dam. In mussels comprised less than 0.1 percent 2000). 1995, Clarke (1996) found no evidence of the mussels collected. In 1998–99, the The number of scaleshell mussel of scaleshell mussels in a survey Gasconade River was surveyed at 46 specimens the MDC collected in 1997 is conducted from Gavin’s Point Dam to 48 sites from mile 92.0 to 256.0. At sites greater than that reported by Buchanan’s river km (30 mi) downstream. However, where scaleshell mussels were study (Buchanan 1980); however, the high water conditions limited Clark’s collected, living individuals represented small number of specimens collected, search efforts, and only 10 individual less than 0.5 percent of the total number especially from the Bourbeuse and Big mussels were found. In 1999, the of mussels found. A total of 12 living Rivers, indicates that the long-term Omaha District of the U.S. Army Corps scaleshell mussels were found at 9 sites, viability of these populations is of Engineers (Corps) funded a mussel and dead shells were found at an tenuous. Moreover, the long-term survey between Gavin’s Point Dam and additional 10 sites between river miles persistence of populations in the Ponca, Nebraska, a distance of 96 river 92.0 and 230.3 (Sue Bruenderman, pers. Meramec Basin is in question because of km (60 mi). In all, 355 live and 1,709 comm. 2000). the limited availability of mussel habitat dead individual mussels were collected A scaleshell mussel has recently been and the loss of mussel beds since 1980 representing 16 species, but no living or discovered in the lower Osage River in from bank and channel degradation, dead scaleshell mussels were found Osage County, Missouri. On July 16, sedimentation, and eutrophication (Candace M. Gordon, Corps, Omaha 2001, one live male specimen was found (excessive fertilization caused by District, in litt. 2000). The second at river mile 20 (Heidi Dunn, pers. pollution of plant nutrients) (Roberts scaleshell mussel record from the comm.). This individual was found and Bruenderman 2000; Alan mainstem of the Missouri River is a during a mussel survey that is currently Buchanan, MDC, in litt. 1997; Sue single fresh dead individual that was underway in the lower 80 miles of the Bruenderman, MDC, pers. comm. 1998). collected in 1990 from Gasconade Osage River and its tributaries. To date, Missouri River drainage (South County, Missouri. This specimen was 33 sites have been surveyed including Dakota and Missouri)—Within the found during an extensive survey 24 in the mainstem. A total of 3,904 Missouri River drainage, Buchanan conducted from Gavin’s Point Dam to living mussels have been found (1980, 1994) and Oesch (1995) reported St. Louis (Hoke 2000). However, the site representing 29 living species. No other scaleshell mussels from the Missouri, of this collection was subsequently evidence of scaleshell mussels were Gasconade, Big Piney, South Grand, destroyed. found during the survey, but more Osage Rivers, and Auxvasse Creek. The Since no living scaleshell mussel has intensive sampling is planned for these last collection of scaleshell mussels been found in the Missouri River, its same sites in the near future. from Auxvasse Creek was in the late habitat cannot be determined. However, Until this recent discovery, the 1960s (Alan Buchanan, in litt. 1997). both dead shells were collected from scaleshell mussel had never been Similarly, the last known collection date areas shielded from the main flow of the reported from the Osage system in past for the South Grand is the early 1970s. river in relatively stable, sandy bottoms surveys. Utterback (1917) found 34 This collection site is now inundated by with moderate current (Hoke 2000). species in the basin. No other Truman Lake and is unsuitable for the Hoke (2000) described scaleshell mussel information is available because his scaleshell mussel (Alan Buchanan, in as ‘‘extremely rare’’ and its habitat ‘‘very notes and collections have since been litt. 1997). A single, fresh dead uncommon * * * and existing in only lost. Oesch (1995) collected mussels in specimen was collected from Big Piney widely separated locals’’ in the Missouri the 1970s at a number of sites in the River in 1981 (Sue Bruenderman, in litt. River. Based on the criteria used to basin and reported 39 species. In 1980, 1998). However, the scaleshell mussel assign presumed health to scaleshell a detailed study of mussel distribution has not been found in recent surveys of mussel populations (Table 1), we was conducted by Grace and Buchanan this river. Between 1994 and 1996, 70 consider this potential population to be (1981) of the Lower 80 miles of the sites were sampled in the Big Piney extirpated at this time. Of the two Osage River and two tributaries below River from the mouth to the headwaters. known Missouri River records for Bagnell Dam. A total of 43 sites were While 3,331 mussels of 26 species were scaleshell mussel, one locality has been surveyed and 21,593 living mussels collected, no evidence of scaleshell destroyed and recent surveys have not were found representing 36 species. No mussels were found (Janet Sternberg, found any evidence of this species at or evidence of scaleshell mussels was MDC, pers. comm. 2000). Another in the vicinity of the other site. Further, found in any of these surveys. survey was conducted in 1998, in which no other scaleshell mussel specimens This new record of the scaleshell 10 sites were sampled between river were found during Hoke’s survey from mussel does not significantly increase miles 53.6 and 96.0. Over 1,000 living Gavin’s Point Dam to St. Louis. More its range or lessen its risk of extinction. mussels were collected representing 15 information is needed on the existence Similar to other records for the species, species, but no living or dead scaleshell of the scaleshell mussel and its habitat the one individual found indicates that mussels were found (Sue Bruenderman, in the Missouri River. Furthermore, a small population is present. No other pers. comm. 2000). more information is needed on the evidence of the species was found Only two records (both single dead location of sampling sites, distribution during the 2001 survey. If a significant shells) of scaleshell mussels exist for the and habitat use of mussels, etc. from population of scaleshell mussels existed mainstem of the Missouri River. In 1981 Hoke’s survey work on the Missouri in the Osage River, dead shells would and 1982, the Missouri River was River, which is unavailable at this time. have been found. This is because dead surveyed from Santee to Omaha, Buchanan (1994) surveyed the lower shells accumulate over time, which Nebraska (Hoke 1983). A single fresh 137 km (85 mi) of the Gasconade River, makes them easier to detect than live dead shell was found during this study and documented 36 species of specimens. Additionally, there are just below Gavin’s Point Dam, South freshwater mussels. He collected significant threats to scaleshell mussel Dakota. This occurrence represents the scaleshell mussel specimens at eight in the Osage River from the operation of westernmost record of the scaleshell sites between river miles 6.0 and 57.7. Bagnell Dam and instream gravel mussel in North America. However, this Buchanan found only dead shells at two mining. Due to these habitat conditions, species has not been found in sites and eight live specimens from the we categorized the Osage River
VerDate 11
scaleshell mussel population’s failed to relocate live or dead scaleshell suitable mussel habitat was restricted to presumed health as declining. mussel individuals. However, in 1999, a a 9.6 km (6.0 mi) stretch from the Middle Mississippi River Basin single live specimen was collected from confluence of Tick Creek upstream to summary—Of the 26 rivers and the White River near Newport by John the mouth of Meadow Creek. tributaries in the middle Mississippi Harris (John Harris, Arkansas Arkansas River drainage (Oklahoma River Basin that historically supported Department of Transportation, pers. and Arkansas)—The scaleshell mussel scaleshell mussels, the species is still comm. 2000). Navigation maintenance has been collected from the following present in 5 including the Meramec, activities have relegated the mussel streams from the Arkansas River Bourbeuse, Big, Osage, and Gasconade fauna to a few refugial sites (Bates and drainage: Poteau River in Oklahoma Rivers. The presumed health of all of Dennis 1983). Specimens have not been (Gordon 1991), Frog Bayou in Arkansas these populations is thought to be collected from the James River, a (Harris and Gordon 1987), and the declining. tributary of the White River, since South Fourche LaFave and Mulberry Rivers in Arkansas (Gordon 1991; Harris Lower Mississippi River Basin before 1950 (Clarke 1996). An eight-mile section of the Spring 1992). A single scaleshell mussel The scaleshell mussel historically River in Arkansas supports a diverse specimen was collected in the Poteau occupied 21 rivers and tributaries in the assemblage of freshwater mussels River (Gordon 1980). However, it has lower Mississippi River Basin. These (Gordon et al. 1984, Arkansas Highway not been documented in subsequent include the St. Francis, White, James, and Transportation Dept 1984, Miller surveys of this river (Branson 1984; Spring, Little Missouri, Middle Fork and Hartfield 1986). The collections Harris 1994). The existence of scaleshell Little Red, Saline (of the Ouachita from this river total eight scaleshell mussels in Poteau River is doubtful. River), Ouachita, Cossatot, Saline (of the mussel specimens (Kevin Cummings, in Gordon (1980) collected two Little River), South Fourche LaFave, litt. 1994; Clarke 1996, Arkansas State scaleshell mussel specimens from Frog Mulberry, and Strawberry Rivers in Highway and Transportation Bayou. Beaver Reservoir now inundates Arkansas; South Fork Spring, Frog Department, 1984). Gordon et al. (1984) one of the Frog Bayou collection sites. Bayou, and Myatt Creek in Arkansas; surveyed the river and reported suitable The most recent collection was a fresh Poteau, Little, and Kiamichi Rivers in mussel habitat between river miles 3.2 dead individual during a 1979 survey Oklahoma; and Gates Creek and and 11.0, although species richness (Gordon 1980). Gordon noted that Mountain Fork in Oklahoma. These below river mile 9 had declined stream bank bulldozing upstream rivers are organized and discussed markedly compared to past surveys. recently disturbed this site and other below according to drainage (St. Gordon et al. (1984), as well as Miller nearby sites. He also reported in-stream Francis, White, Arkansas, and Red River and Hartfield (1986), reported that the gravel mining activities at several sites. drainages). lower 5.0 km (3.0 mi) of river were Within Frog Bayou, potential habitat is St. Francis River drainage completely depleted of mussels and restricted to the area between Rudy and (Arkansas)—Bates and Dennis (1983), contained no suitable habitat. Harris did the confluence of the Arkansas River. Clarke (1985), and Ahlstedt and not find scaleshell mussels in a 1993 Above Rudy, two reservoirs impact the Jenkinson (1987) conducted mussel survey of the Spring River (John Harris, river; one near Maddux Spring and the surveys on the St. Francis River in in litt. 1997). other at Mountainburg. Live mussels Arkansas and Missouri. Of these Scaleshell mussels were collected have not been found at the confluence surveys, scaleshell mussels were only from the South Fork of the Spring River of the Arkansas River, likely due to documented from two sites, both of in 1983 and 1990. During the 1983 dredging activities (Gordon 1980). which are single-specimen records survey, Harris (in litt. 1997) collected Although the current status of the (Clarke 1985). Records of dead shells of four specimens near Saddle, Arkansas, scaleshell mussel in Frog Bayou is various species indicate that at one time and one specimen and one valve north uncertain, any remaining individuals freshwater mussels occurred throughout of Hunt, Arkansas. During a subsequent are in potential jeopardy due to limited the river (Bates and Dennis 1983). Bates visit in 1990, Harris collected young habitat and in-stream mining activities. and Dennis (1983) determined that of adults (Harris, pers. comm. 1995). The only scaleshell mussel record the 54 sites sampled, 15 were Although juveniles were not found, the from the South Fourche LaFave River is productive, 10 marginal, and 29 had presence of young adults suggests that based on a single live specimen found either no shells or dead specimens only; reproduction recently occurred. in 1991 (Harris 1992). An 86-acre scaleshell mussels were not Records of scaleshell mussels from reservoir is approved for construction documented at any of the 54 sites. They the Strawberry River and the Myatt on Bear Creek approximately six miles identified 77 km (48 mi.) of habitat Creek are based on single specimen upstream from this site. However, the generally suitable for mussels: collections, both made in 1996 (John effect of this impoundment on Wappapello Dam to Mingo Ditch, Harris, in litt. 1997). Harris collected a scaleshell mussels is uncertain. The Missouri; Parkin to Madison, Arkansas; live specimen from the Strawberry River potential for discovering additional and Marianna to the confluence with near the confluence with Clayton Creek scaleshell mussel sites in this river is the Mississippi River at Helena, in Lawrence County. He also collected unlikely due to the limited availability Arkansas. They indicated that the a single relict (a weathered shell that of suitable substrate. Similarly, other remaining portions of the river were no has been dead a long period of time) major tributaries of the South Fourche longer suitable for mussels. If the specimen from Myatt Creek in Fulton LaFave River provide little mussel scaleshell mussel is extant in the St. County (John Harris, in litt. 1997). habitat. Like Frog Bayou, the persistence Francis River, it is restricted to the few Comprehensive surveys have not been of scaleshell mussels in this river is in patches of suitable habitat. conducted in these rivers since 1996. doubt. White River drainage (Arkansas)— The historical locality (near Shirley, Although Gordon (1991) reported Clarke (1996) noted a 1902 collection of Van Buren County, Arkansas) where a scaleshell mussels from the Mulberry a single specimen from the White River single scaleshell mussel specimen was River, documentation is lacking. Recent near Garfield, Arkansas. A late 1970s collected from the Middle Fork of the surveys did not find the species in the survey of the White River between Little Red River no longer provides Mulberry River (Craig Hilborne, U.S. Beaver Reservoir and its headwaters mussel habitat. Clarke (1987) stated that Forest Service, pers. comm. 1995;
VerDate 11
Stoeckel et al. 1995). The existence of Reservoir has not occurred. However, (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 scaleshell mussels in the Mulberry River Vaughn (in litt. 1997) indicated that (59 FR 58982). Prior to 1996, a Category is unlikely. these areas have been severely depleted 2 candidate species was one that we Red River drainage (Oklahoma and with most no longer containing live were considering for possible addition Arkansas)—The scaleshell mussel has mussels. to the Federal List of Endangered and been documented from the following If scaleshell mussels still occur in the Threatened Wildlife, but for which streams in the Red River drainage: the Red River drainage in Oklahoma, extant conclusive data on biological Kiamichi River, Gates Creek, Little populations are probably small and are vulnerability and threats were not River, Mountain Fork; and the Cossatot, likely restricted to isolated areas of available to support a proposed rule. We Ouachita, Little Missouri, and Saline suitable habitat in the Kiamichi and discontinued designating Category 2 Rivers. Isley (1925) first collected Mountain Fork Rivers. Given the species in the February 28, 1996, Notice scaleshell mussels from the Kiamichi extensive survey effort over the last of Review (61 FR 7596). We now define River in 1925. Based on his account, the decade, long-term survival of the a candidate species as a species for Kiamichi River historically supported a scaleshell mussel in Oklahoma is which we have on file sufficient diverse and abundant mussel fauna. He doubtful. information on biological vulnerability collected 36 scaleshell mussel Harris collected single scaleshell and threats to support issuance of a specimens at one of 22 stations visited. mussel specimens from the Cossatot and proposed rule. We designated the A single specimen was also collected Saline Rivers in Arkansas in 1983 (John scaleshell mussel as a candidate species from Gates Creek, a tributary of the Harris, in litt. 1997) and 1987 (John on October 16, 1998. Kiamichi River, by Valentine and Harris, pers. comm. 1995), respectively. On August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44171), we Stansbery (1971). As recently as 1987, No other information is available for published a proposal to list the Clarke described the Kiamichi River as either river. scaleshell mussel as an endangered ‘‘in remarkably good condition’’ and a The existence of scaleshell mussels in species and opened a 60-day comment ‘‘faunal treasure’’ (Clarke 1987). the Ouachita River and its two period on the proposal. On November However, despite extensive searches of tributaries, the Saline River and Little 29, 1999 (64 FR 66600), we reopened the Kiamichi River over the last 11 Missouri River, is questionable as well. the comment period for 39 days in order years, only a single fresh dead shell of Both the Little Missouri and Saline to hold a public hearing. The hearing scaleshell mussel (in 1987) has been Rivers records are based on single was held in Jefferson City, Missouri, on collected (Caryn Vaughn, Oklahoma specimens. The Saline River specimen December 8, 1999. Biological Survey, pers. comm. 1997; was collected in 1964 (Clarke 1996), and Summary of Comments and Charles Mather, University of Science the Little Missouri River collection Recommendations and Arts of Oklahoma, in litt. 1984 and record is from 1995 (John Harris, in litt. 1995). Vaughn (pers. comm. 1997) failed 1997). Four undated museum specimens In the August 13, 1999, proposed rule, to find even a dead shell during three of scaleshell mussels from the Ouachita and through associated notifications, we years (1993–1996) of surveys in the Red River in Arkadelphia, Clark County, requested all interested parties to River Basin. However, the mussel Arkansas are listed in Clarke (1996), but submit factual reports or information habitat in the Kiamichi River is in details are unavailable. Based on the that might contribute to the relatively good condition above the few collections and the limited habitat development of a final rule. We Hugo Reservoir (Clarke 1987) and may available, the long-term persistence of contacted appropriate Federal and State still support a remnant population of scaleshell mussel in Cossatot, Saline, agencies, County governments, scaleshell mussels. Little Missouri, and Ouachita Rivers scientific organizations, and interested Although there is no evidence of appears precarious. parties and requested their comments. scaleshell mussels persisting in the Lower Mississippi River Basin We published notices inviting public Little River, healthy mussel beds exist summary—Of these 21 rivers and comment in the following newspapers above the Pine Creek Reservoir (Caryn tributaries in the lower Mississippi in 1999: The Chicago Sun Times, The Vaughn, in litt. 1997). Below Pine Creek River Basin that historically supported Chicago Tribune, The Peoria Journal Reservoir, the mussel fauna is severely scaleshell mussels, nine, and possibly Star, State Journal-Register, The Journal depleted but recovers with increasing an additional six, support the species Gazette Co., The Indianapolis Star, The distance from the impoundment (Caryn today. Of these populations, the South Columbia Daily Tribune, The Kansas Vaughn, in litt. 1997). Although Fork Spring River could possibly be City Star, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, scaleshell mussels have not been stable; the St. Francis River, Kiamichi The South Bend Tribune, The Cedar documented during extensive surveys River, Little River, Mountain Fork, Rapids Gazette, Quad City Times, The throughout the length of the Little River, Spring River, Frog Bayou, South Des Moines Register, The Cincinnati suitable habitat remains and the species Fourche LaFave River, and White River Post, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, may persist (Caryn Vaughn, in litt. are presumed to be declining; and the The Columbus Dispatch, Cuba Free 1997). However, the discharge of status of the Myatt and Gates Creeks and Press, Steelville Star-Crawford Mirror, reservoir water from Pine Creek and the Strawberry, Cossatot, Saline, and Jefferson County Journal, Jefferson periodic discharge of pollution from Little Missouri Rivers populations are County Leader, Jefferson County News Rolling Fork Creek may seriously unknown. Democrat Journal, Meramec Journal, impact any remaining viable scaleshell Jefferson County Watchman, TriCounty mussel populations and prohibit any Previous Federal Action Journal, County Star Journal West, future recolonization (Clarke 1987). We had identified the scaleshell Chesterfield Journal, Clayton-St. Louis Valentine and Stansbery (1971) reported mussel as a Category 2 candidate County Watchman, North County a single specimen from Mountain Fork. species in a notice of review published Journal-West, Florissant Valley Clarke (1987) hypothesized that, based in the Federal Register on May 22, 1984 Reporter, North County Journal-East, on the presence of mussels at the (49 FR 21664). The scaleshell mussel North Side Journal, County Star Journal- confluence of Mountain Fork and remained a Category 2 candidate species East, Concord Call, Mid-County Journal, beyond the Arkansas border, damage to in subsequent notices including January Oakville Call, Oakville/Mehlville Mountain Fork from the Broken Bow 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), November 21, 1991 Journal, St. Louis Countian, South
VerDate 11
County Journal, South County Times, research and conservation actions ***’’ H.R. Rep. No. 567, Part I, 97th Southwest County Journal, Webster- specifically for the scaleshell mussel. Congress, 2nd Session 20 (1982). Thus, Kirkwood Times, West County Journal, There are currently four federally the impact of listing on private Citizen Journal, Webster/Kirkwood listed mussel species in Missouri activities, although of great interest and Journal, South County News-Times, (Missouri Natural Heritage Database importance to the public, is not a factor Press Journal, New Haven Leader, St. 1999). These are the pink mucket we may consider in our listing Clair Missourian, Sullivan Independent- (Lampsilis abrupta), Curtis determination. News, Franklin County Watchman, pearlymussel (Epioblasma florentina Issue 3: One respondent questioned Union Missourian, Washington curtisi), Higgins’ eye (Lampsilis whether the range of the scaleshell Missourian, Bland Courier, Advertiser- higginsii), and fat pocketbook mussel, particularly in the Missouri Courier, Gasconade County Republican, (Potamilus capax). We agree that where River, is based on records that were Unterrified Democrat, Dixon Pilot, The overlap of listed mussels occurs, the identified correctly. Scaleshell mussels Richland Mirror, Fort Leonard Wood prohibitions of the Act will provide can be easily confused with the fragile Essayons, and The Daily Guide. little additional protection of habitat. papershell (Leptodea fragilis) or the The Service hosted a public hearing However, the current range of scaleshell pink papershell (Potamilus ohioensis), (December 8, 1999, in Jefferson City, mussel extends to areas where there are which are more common and Missouri) at the request of Two Rivers no federally listed species. The Act will widespread. Levee and Drainage Association, Law provide protection from further habitat Response: We acknowledge that Offices of John C. Franken, Howard/ loss and degradation in these areas. scaleshell mussels may be confused Cooper County Regional Port Authority, Issue 2: One respondent was with other species by the casual and 180 private citizens. To concerned that the public will not know observer. Freshwater mussels are often accommodate this request, we reopened what impacts this listing will have on difficult to identify by shell shape alone. the comment period from November 29, activities on private property until after However, to malacologists (a person 1999, to January 7, 2000, to allow for the recovery plan is completed. The who studies mollusks) and other consideration of, and to provide an respondent was referring to potential properly trained biologists, there are no opportunity for, further comments. A impacts of recovery actions on private ambiguities in distinguishing scaleshell land in particular. mussels from other species. Female notice of the hearing and reopening of Response: While recovery plans are scaleshell mussels are unique and the comment period was published in not developed until after a species is unlikely to be mistaken with any other the Federal Register on November 29, listed, there is opportunity for public species. Females are small, very 1999 (64 FR 66600), and in legal notices input in the recovery planning stage. elongated, and the posterior edge is in the newspapers listed above. The purpose of the recovery plan is to ruffled. Male scaleshell mussels can We received 26 letters providing set recovery objectives (goals) and possibly be confused with other species, comments and information during the identify the tasks needed to meet those particularly the fragile papershell. comment periods. Additionally, six objectives before a species can be However, several external individuals provided oral statements at downlisted or delisted. As the draft characteristics distinguish male the public hearing. We have updated recovery plan is announced in the scaleshell mussels from the fragile this rule to reflect any changes in Federal Register, we will solicit papershell, the pink papershell, and information concerning distribution, comment from species experts, natural other species. These characteristics status, and threats since the publication resource managers, and other interested include the presence of green rays, light of the proposed rule. All pertinent parties. To ensure broad participation in brown periostracum, pointed posterior comments have been considered in the the review of the recovery plan, we will end, absence of dorsal wings, elongated formulation of this final rule. Written notify all interested parties that were shell, straight dorsal margin, and comments received during the comment identified during the listing process (for rounded ventral margin (Parmalee and periods and written comments and oral example, those that provided comments Bogan 1998, Oesch 1995, Watters 1995). statements presented at the public or requested to be on our mailing list). While it is possible that a small hearings are addressed in the following Although actions that could be number of scaleshell mussel specimens summary. Comments of a similar nature affected by the listing were identified in have been misidentified, we are or point are grouped together (referred the proposed rule, we acknowledge that confident that the range of this species to as ‘‘Issues’’ for the purpose of this impact upon private actions cannot be is based on valid specimens because summary) below, along with the fully assessed until a recovery plan is many records are represented by Service’s response to each. developed. However, in ascertaining voucher specimens that are housed in Issue 1: One respondent was unsure whether a species warrants Federal museums. The identification of these of what this listing would accomplish protection under the Act, we may specimens has been verified by expert beyond the recovery efforts of other consider only biological factors. In malacologists. In particular, the records mussel species already federally listed accordance with 16 U.S.C. sec. of scaleshell mussel from the Missouri in Missouri. 1533(b)(1)(A) and 50 CFR 424.11, listing River were identified by Dr. David H. Response: This action will extend the decisions are made solely on the basis Stansbery, who is a leading authority in Act’s protection to this species. Federal of the best scientific and commercial North America on freshwater mussel listing results in an increased awareness data available. The legislative history of identification at the Ohio State Museum of this species’ status and its need for the 1982 Act amendments states: ‘‘The located at Ohio State University in conservation attention. It also provides addition of the word ‘‘solely’’ is Columbus, Ohio. for opportunities for funding research, intended to remove from the process of Issue 4: The proposed rule states that management activities, and the listing or delisting of species any gravel mining has recently become a conservation actions specifically factor not related to the biological status more serious threat for scaleshell mussel targeted for this species. In addition to of the species. The Committee strongly range-wide because the Corps’ authority better funding opportunities, Federal believes that economic considerations to regulate instream gravel mining has endangered status encourages scientists have no relevance to determinations been reduced. One respondent stated and natural resource managers to focus regarding the status of the species. that this issue will probably not be
VerDate 11
overlooked by the State agencies. In less stringent than those required restrictions on the use of land, water, or other words, gravel mining will previously by the Corps (Mike Larson, other natural resources beyond the level probably be regulated by State agencies Missouri Department of Natural otherwise agreed to in the HCP. The now that the Corps has less authority to Resources, pers. comm. 2000). For government will honor these assurances regulate this activity. example, the MDNR permit does not as long as a permittee is implementing Response: Section 404 of the Clean prohibit the modification of water the terms and conditions of the HCP, Water Act of 1972 (CWA) provides conveyance, limit excavation to permit, and other associated documents regulations for discharge of dredged and unconsolidated areas, require bank and in good faith. In effect, this regulation fill materials in surface waters, water buffer strips, or minimize the states that the government will honor its including a permit program to ensure removal of aquatic and terrestrial commitment as long as HCP permittees that such discharges comply with other vegetation. All of these factors could honor theirs. State and Federal environmental adversely affect the scaleshell mussel An activity on private land could also regulations. The Corps is the Federal and its habitat. possibly be affected by this listing if that agency responsible for implementing Issue 5: Several respondents are project (1) would need to be authorized, this section of the CWA. Until 1997, concerned that this listing will impact permitted, or funded by the Federal instream mining was more strictly activities on private property. One government, (2) would be located in regulated, because incidental fallback of respondent was concerned that habitat occupied by the scaleshell material during a dredging action was impoundments will be more difficult to mussel or in designated critical habitat considered fill in surface waters, and construct after the listing. for the species, and (3) would have a thus triggered section 404 compliance. Response: This listing will protect direct or indirect effect on the species or Due to a 1997 Federal court decision, scaleshell mussels from take under its designated critical habitat. Federal however, incidental fallback of material section 9 (Prohibited Acts) of the Act. programs and activities of this nature is no longer considered fill. Take is defined by the Act as ‘‘harass, would usually require consultation with Consequently, only activities that result harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, the Service under section 7 of the Act in discharge of fill material greater than capture, collect, or attempt to engage in to evaluate the nature and extent of the incidental fallback are regulated under any such conduct.’’ Take is further adverse impacts and determine if section 404 (see factors A and D under defined by regulation to include project modification is necessary to the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the ‘‘significant habitat modification or reduce those impacts. Proposed Species’’ section for further information degradation that actually kills or injures impoundments within currently on this issue). wildlife,’’ (50 CFR 17.3 ‘‘Harm’’). Non- occupied streams and rivers are one As discussed in Issue 1, federally Federal property owners, such as type of activity that will require listed species frequently coexist with private landowners, corporations, or consultation. See the ‘‘Available scaleshell mussels. Section 7 of the Act State or local governments, wishing to Conservation Measures’’ section for requires all Federal agencies, including conduct activities on their land that additional examples of activities that the Corps, to consult with the Service might result in the incidental take of will and will not require consultation. regarding any action that may adversely scaleshell mussels can obtain an While certain activities may require affect listed species. Through this incidental take permit from the U.S. consultation, projects are rarely consultation process, the Service Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 10 of terminated due to the presence of a identifies conservation measures, which the Act provides for the issuance of federally listed species, and private minimize adverse impacts to listed permits to conduct otherwise prohibited landowners are usually not affected. species. With incidental fallback no activities. Through section 10, there is The consultation process is the longer requiring a Corps section 404 an opportunity to provide species responsibility of the Federal agencies permit, the section 7 consultation protection and habitat conservation for involved. The majority of section 7 process is no longer applicable for many non-Federal development and land use consultations are resolved informally. instream gravel mining activities. activities that may result in incidental For example, consultation is ended at an Some State agencies have authority to take of a listed species. For landowners early stage if the potential impacts of a regulate gravel mining within their and local governments, these incidental proposed project are expected to be state. In Arkansas, instream gravel take permits, and their associated discountable, insignificant, or beneficial mining is regulated by the Arkansas habitat conservation plans (HCP), to the species. Even if a significant Open-Cut Mining and Land Reclamation provide long-term assurances that their adverse effect is expected, the Code, which contains guidelines to activities will be in compliance with the consultation can usually be concluded reduce impacts (Roell 1999). The requirements of the Act. Biologically, by developing minor modifications to Missouri Department of Natural they provide the Service with a tool to project plans or designs that avoid those Resources (MDNR) also has the offset the incidental take of listed impacts. If potential impacts are of such authority to regulate gravel mining in species by reconciling species nature that a federally listed species is Missouri under the Land Reclamation conservation with economic likely to be adversely affected and such Act. However, their regulatory authority development. The HCP process allows effects cannot be removed, formal is limited. First, only commercial private development to proceed while consultation would be required. operators are required to obtain a permit promoting listed species conservation. However, section 7(b)(4) of the Act to remove gravel from streams and The No Surprises policy provides allows incidental take of the listed rivers. City, county, and state operators assurances to non-Federal landowners species resulting from Federal actions if using their own equipment and private participating in HCP efforts through the such take is not likely to jeopardize the operations are not required to obtain a section 10(a)(1)(B) process. Essentially, continued existence of the species and permit from MDNR. Also, these landowners are assured that if if reasonable and prudent measures are operators are not obligated to comply ‘‘unforeseen circumstances’’ arise, the implemented to minimize the adverse with permit conditions that are crucial Services will not require, without the impacts of such take. A General in avoiding adverse impacts to the consent of the permittee, the Accounting Office audit (1992), which stream environment. Second, MDNR’s commitment of additional land, water or found that 99.9 percent of all projects conditions for gravel mining permits are financial compensation or additional reviewed between 1988 and 1992 went
VerDate 11
forward unchanged or with only minor factors include (1) the present or contaminants, or other fluctuations in modifications as a result of the section threatened destruction, modification, or local environmental conditions. Thus, 7 consultation, attests to the regulatory curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) even without multiple years of survey flexibility afforded by the Act. overutilization for commercial, data, we know that low density mussel Issue 6: One commenter stated that recreational, scientific, or educational populations are vulnerable. Small the same threats (i.e., water pollution, purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) populations must also rely on sedimentation, channelization, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory movement of individuals among impoundments) listed as impacting mechanisms; and (5) other natural or populations to remain genetically scaleshell mussel in the past (prior to manmade factors affecting its continued viable. Thus, mussel populations that 1950) are stated for present and future existence. are isolated are threatened. In addition populations. The commenter stated that The scaleshell mussel has undergone to these biological factors, the presence these conditions have improved. In one of the most extensive range of threats, regardless of population size, Missouri, most of the channelization reductions of all the federally listed can substantially influence the was established before the 1930s. Since freshwater mussel species. It is conservation status of a population. 1950 land management practices have considered extirpated from ten states Using these factors, the health of also evolved to more effectively control and from 39 of the 55 rivers within its individual populations and the species erosion and runoff, and the impacts of historical range. Although 14 can be determined. water pollution and sedimentation have populations, and possibly six others, To ensure consistency and objectivity, been reduced. persist, the long-term viability of these Szymanski (1998) developed criteria Response: The Service recognizes that populations is threatened by a variety of based on the aforementioned factors to some of these factors have improved, ongoing threats (see ‘‘Summary of assign status and trend categories to particularly land management practices Factors Affecting the Species’’ each scaleshell mussel population. to reduce erosion and runoff. In fact, the discussion). Given the extent of range These criteria were utilized in the reason scaleshell mussels continue to reduction that has occurred and the proposed rule. However, a discussion of persist could possibly be due to these persistence of threats to the remaining status and trends using the same set of improvements. However, the same populations, we believe the scaleshell limited data was confusing and threats that contributed to scaleshell mussel is in danger of extinction redundant to readers. Therefore, in this mussels’ decline before 1950, are still throughout a significant portion of its final rule, we devised a single being observed and continue to impact range. classification system (i.e., combined scaleshell mussels. Channelization and Issue 8: Detecting population changes status and trend categories) to assess new impoundments are currently by using available data for a rare species population health (Table 1). The revised proposed within the range of the is speculative. Specifically, the classification system differs only in the scaleshell mussel, and water quality proposed rule states that the long-term presentation of the data and the results degradation and siltation has recently viability of scaleshell mussel of its application are similar to those been documented as a serious threat in populations in the Meramec basin is derived from the Szymanski (1998) areas still occupied by scaleshell tenuous. In a recent survey on the methodology. As a result of additional mussels. These threats are ongoing and Meramec River, more scaleshell mussels information that was obtained during qualify the scaleshell mussel for listing were found than in a past survey. The the public comment period, the status or (See factor A in the ‘‘Summary of respondent did not understand how trends reported in the proposed rule for Factors Affecting the Species’’ section). those data could support a conclusion a few populations differs from those The small number and low density of that the species is declining. reported herein. For example, the status the remaining populations exacerbate Response: The Service acknowledges of the White River population changed threats and adverse effects of chance that rare species are difficult to census, from extirpated to presumed declining events on the species. and thus, deriving population trends as new information documented a 1999 Issue 7: The data cited in the notice based on counts of individuals is live scaleshell mussel collection from of proposed listing provide inadequate difficult and sometimes impossible. It is this river. A discussion of the criteria support for listing the scaleshell mussel a common problem in rare species used for this classification system is as an endangered species. The decline conservation that, as numbers of a rare provided in the ‘‘Distribution and of the scaleshell mussel is not serious species continue to decline, it becomes Abundance’’ section. enough to warrant listing. The six increasingly difficult to find and count With respect to the recent survey potential additional populations (status the individuals in order to ‘‘prove’’ the work in the Meramec River, the greater unknown), which would increase the decline is continuing. However, reliable number of scaleshell mussels found in current number of populations by inferences on the status and long-term the 1997 survey was likely due to two almost 50 percent, merit further viability of individual populations, as aspects of the survey, and not a result investigation before the listing decision well as for a species as a whole, can be of a population increase (Roberts and is made. made based on ecological principles, Brunderman 2000). First, a special effort Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of small population biology theory, and was made to collect this species (i.e., the Act, a listing determination must be observations of threats and habitat loss raking the top layer of the substrate by based solely on the best scientific and from field investigations. For example, hand) because it often lies buried in the commercial data available regarding the population stability implies that substrate. This method likely increased species’ biological status and threats to recruitment exceeds mortality. For the probability of finding the species its existence. Endangered status is freshwater mussels, the presence of compared to past surveys. Second, assigned to species which are in danger juveniles serves as the best evidence for lower water levels from drought of extinction throughout all or recruitment. Thus, failure to collect conditions exposed a mussel bed at one significant portion of their range. A juvenile specimens suggests that the site, causing scaleshell mussels to species may be determined to be an population is declining. Similarly, small actively crawl on top of the substrate. endangered or threatened species due to populations are more susceptible to The collection of only 19 scaleshell one or more of the five factors described extinction due to chance events, such as mussels, when viewed in light of the in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These disease, drought, accidental spills of modified survey techniques and the
VerDate 11
high visibility of individual mussels at on whether the specimen(s) is living or Numerous other surveys, which are not one mussel bed, is strong evidence of dead. discussed here, also have been the extreme rarity of this species. In the context of this rule, the term conducted in these streams at selected When attempting to monitor rare ‘‘population’’ refers to all the current sites for various Federal projects (e.g., species, for which surveys usually and historical occurrences of scaleshell proposed bridges, pipelines, locate only one or several surviving mussels within a single river. channelization, etc.). Surveys have been individuals, it is not uncommon for It is impossible to determine if past conducted on the Minnesota River in variations in survey methodology, and present scaleshell mussel 1977 and 1999 (Marian Havlik, weather conditions, and even time of populations are equal in size (in terms Malacological Consultants, in litt. 2000; day to affect the results of the survey. of number of individuals or length of Tim Yager, Corps, St. Paul District, in For species of extreme rarity, the effects stream inhabited), because many litt. 2000). The Mississippi River of these factors can easily obscure the surveys conducted near the turn of the mainstem, in particular, has been true population trend for the species. century were not thorough. However, it surveyed extensively since 1950. The For this reason, we usually use criteria, is believed that scaleshell mussels Illinois, Sanagamon, and Pecatonica in addition to population or density historically have always been rare Rivers have also been surveyed estimates, to evaluate the health of relative to many other mussel species. extensively in the last 15 years (Kevin individual populations and the species Inferences regarding population trend Cummings, pers. comm. 2000). as a whole. can be made from existing data (e.g., The likelihood of detecting a locally Based on the criteria described earlier, age-structure, historical vs. current rare species depends on the amount of the three scaleshell mussel populations collections, habitat availability and time spent searching and the search in the Meramec Basin (the Meramec, condition, and threats). For example, methods employed. The most common Bourbeuse, and Big Rivers) are believed scaleshell mussels were locally method used for surveys is timed to be declining at the present time. The abundant in the Kiamichi River in the searches, which produce a measurement past (with 36 specimens collected from long-term persistence of these of the number of mussels collected per one sampling station). Today, however, populations is considered questionable unit of time spent searching. Timed no living scaleshell mussel specimens because of marked habitat loss and other searches produce the most complete list and only 1 fresh dead specimen were existing threats. Furthermore, the small of species (including rare species) at a found during exhaustive survey efforts. number of individuals and low density given site (Strayer et al. 1997, Vaughn It is apparent that scaleshell mussels, of these populations exacerbate the et al. 1997). although always rare, occur today at Furthermore, the deficiency of magnitude and adverse impacts of lower densities than in the past in the suitable mussel habitat, both in quality threats (see ‘‘Summary of Factors Kiamichi River (see Issue 8 for further and quantity, remaining in this drainage Affecting the Species’’). Thus, despite discussion regarding assessing also suggest that scaleshell mussel the fact that more scaleshell mussels conservation status). Within this final persistence is highly unlikely. This is were collected from the Meramec River rule, populations that were assigned to not to say individuals may not persist in in a recent survey than in the past, other the same conservation status do not the Upper Mississippi River drainage, factors indicate that these populations necessarily have similar population size but that the best available scientific are threatened and are declining. (although all populations persist at very information indicates that population Issue 9: One respondent requested low densities) or habitat quality. viability is doubtful. clarification of references to historical Issue 10: The proposed rule states that Issue 11: One respondent believes that and existing distribution and abundance scaleshell mussels have not been found water turbulence produced by jet boat of scaleshell mussels. The respondent in the Upper Mississippi River basin in motors may be adversely affecting asked if the terms ‘‘populations’’ and over 50 years. One respondent asked scaleshell mussels and other freshwater ‘‘occurrences’’ are equivalent and if how often sampling has been conducted mussels in the Meramec River in populations are equal in size and other in the Upper Mississippi River basin, Missouri. qualities. and what is the likelihood of detecting Response: The Service recognizes that Response: A ‘‘historical record’’ is any a locally rare species. jet boats, which can produce powerful site where the scaleshell mussel has Response: The historical range of the water turbulence, could potentially have been documented regardless of when it scaleshell mussel in the Upper adverse affects on freshwater mussels was collected. The Service believes that Mississippi River basin includes the including scaleshell mussels. Jet wash recently discovered sites do not states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and from motors may contribute to substrate represent areas that have been colonized Wisconsin. Natural resource agencies in destabilization and/or could dislodge recently, but rather, they are sites that these states are confident enough to adult and juvenile mussels from suitable have existed historically (i.e., in consider the scaleshell mussel habitat, particularly from shallow riffles historical times) and have not been extirpated since it has not been where mussels typically occur. The previously known or sampled by collected in over 50 years despite a magnitude and extent to which this collectors. A description of the considerable number of surveys. Rivers factor may threaten populations, historical range of the scaleshell mussel with documented scaleshell mussel however, is unknown. includes all known records. In contrast, occurrences in the Upper Mississippi a description of the existing distribution River basin include the Mississippi, Peer Review of the scaleshell mussel would include Minnesota, Iowa, Cedar, Illinois, In accordance with our July 1, 1994, only its extant (that is, currently Sangamon, and Pecatonica Rivers, and Interagency Policy on Peer Review (59 existing) range. Burdett’s Slough of the Mississippi FR 34270) we requested the expert An ‘‘occurrence’’ refers to a site where River (see ‘‘Distribution and opinions of independent specialists a scaleshell mussel specimen has been Abundance’’). All of these rivers have regarding pertinent scientific or collected. An occurrence, which may be been surveyed in the last 10–15 years. commercial data and assumptions represented by one or more specimens, Surveys considered here are formal relating to the supportive biological and usually indicates the species is present mussel surveys published in technical ecological information in the proposed or once existed in that area, depending reports and scientific journals. rule. The purpose of such review is to
VerDate 11
ensure that the listing decision is based channelization, sand and gravel mining, it affects aquatic biota by altering the on scientifically sound data, dredging, and impoundments contribute substratum and by altering the chemical assumptions, and analyses, including to the decline of the scaleshell mussel and physical composition of the water input of appropriate experts and throughout its range and continue to (Ellis 1936, Myers et al. 1985, USSCS specialists. affect existing populations. A general 1988). Sedimentation directly affects We requested a formal scientific peer description of how these factors affect freshwater mussel survival by review from four malacologists who mussels is given below, followed by interfering with respiration and feeding. possess expertise on the scaleshell specific examples of how these threats Due to their difficulty in escaping mussel. We received a written response are affecting scaleshell mussels in its smothering conditions (Imlay 1972, and comments from two of these experts extant range. Refer to Szymanski (1998) Aldridge et al. 1987), a sudden or slow within the open comment periods. for a more detailed discussion of threats blanketing of stream bottom with These experts strongly supported the to freshwater mussels. sediment can suffocate freshwater listing proposal and agreed with the Mussel biologists generally agree that mussels (Ellis 1936). Sediment particles Service that this species is in need of contaminants are partially responsible may carry contaminants toxic to Federal protection as an endangered for the decline of mussels (Havlik and mussels (Naimo et al. 1992). Increased species. One reviewer stated that the Marking 1987, Williams et al. 1993, sediment levels may also reduce feeding Service was thorough in reviewing this Biggins et al. 1996). Mussels are efficiency (Ellis 1936), which can lead species and that the status and threats sedentary filter feeders and are to decreased growth and survival (Bayne are accurately described. This reviewer vulnerable to contaminants that are et al. 1981). felt that the threats posed by the zebra dissolved in water, associated with Channelization, sand and gravel mussel to the scaleshell mussel, as suspended particles, or deposited in mining, and dredging operations discussed in the proposed rule, should bottom sediments (Naimo et al. 1992). physically remove mussels from the not be underestimated. Additionally, Contaminants enter streams from water and may also bury or crush more information was provided in one point and nonpoint sources. Point mussels (Watters 1995). Other effects of response regarding the extant source pollution is the entry of material these activities extend upstream and distribution of the scaleshell mussel and from a discrete, identifiable source such downstream of the excavated area. threats to its existence. That information as industrial effluents, sewage treatment Headcutting, the upstream progression is incorporated into this final rule. plants, and solid waste disposal sites. of stream bed destabilization and Freshwater mussel mortality from toxic accelerated bank erosion, can affect an Summary of Factors Affecting the spills and polluted water is well area much larger than the dredging site Species documented (Ortmann 1909, Baker (Hartfield 1993). In severe cases, this After a thorough review and 1928, Cairns et al. 1971, Goudreau et al. erosional process can extend for several consideration of all information 1988). Decline and elimination of miles upstream. As relatively immobile available, we determine that the populations may be due to acute and bottom-dwelling invertebrates, mussels scaleshell mussel should be classified as chronic toxic effects that result in direct are particularly vulnerable to channel an endangered species. We followed the mortality, reduced reproductive success, degradation (Hartfield 1993). procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of or compromised health of the animal or Accelerated erosion also releases the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and host fish. sediment and pollutants, and in some regulations (50 CFR part 424) Nonpoint source pollution is the entry instances, diminishes mussel diversity implementing the listing provisions of of material into the environment from a and habitat as documented in the the Act. We may determine a species to diffuse source such as runoff from Yellow and Kankakee Rivers in Indiana, be endangered or threatened due to one cultivated fields, pastures, private the Big Vermillion River in Illinois, and or more of the five factors described in wastewater effluents, agricultural feed- the Ohio River (Fuller 1974). section 4(a)(1). These factors and their lots and poultry houses, active and Gravel mining has recently become a application to the scaleshell mussel abandoned mines, construction, and more serious threat for scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) are as follows: highway and road drainage. Stream mussels range-wide. In 1997, a court discharge from these sources may ruling changed the interpretation of the A. The Present or Threatened accelerate eutrophication (i.e., organic CWA as it applies to the regulation of Destruction, Modification, or enrichment), decrease oxygen gravel mining (Roell 1999). Previously, Curtailment of its Habitat or Range. concentration, increase acidity and gravel mining was more strictly Arguably, the scaleshell mussel has conductivity, and cause other changes regulated because ‘‘incidental fallback’’ suffered a greater range reduction than in water chemistry that are detrimental (the incidental soil movement from any other unionid. The range of this to the survival of most mussel species excavation, such as the soil that is species was once expansive, spanning and may impact host fishes (Goudreau disturbed when dirt is shoveled, or the Mississippi River Basin in at least 55 et al. 1988, Dance 1981, Fuller 1974). back-spill that comes off a bucket and rivers in 13 states (Szymanski 1998). Sediment is material that is falls into the same place from which it Today, the range is significantly suspended in the water, and is being was removed) was considered fill in reduced with known extant populations transported, or has been moved, as the surface waters, thus triggering section persisting in only 14, potentially 20, result of erosion (USSCS 1988). 404 of the CWA and the permitting rivers in three states. The scaleshell Although sedimentation is a natural process of the Corps. Prior to the 1997 mussel has been eliminated from the process, agricultural encroachment, ruling, gravel mining operators were entire upper and most of the middle channelization, impoundments, timber required to obtain a Corps section 404 Mississippi River drainages. Although harvesting within riparian zones, heavy permit and follow several conditions much of the decline occurred before recreational use, urbanization, and other outlined on the permit. Except in very 1950, population declines continue in land use activities can accelerate small tributaries, the Corps required all most portions of the species’ range, and erosion (Waters 1995, Myers et al. 1985, operators to establish a streamside and numerous threats are impacting the few Chesters and Schierow 1985). The water riparian buffer and prohibited removing remaining extant populations. Water quality impacts caused by gravel from flowing water (i.e., no in- pollution, sedimentation, sedimentation are numerous. Generally, stream mining) or from below the water
VerDate 11
table (Danny McKlendon, Corps, St. This species appears to be especially mussel diversity, this stretch was nearly Louis District, pers. comm. 1998). These susceptible to contamination and devoid of mussels when resurveyed in requirements avoided most adverse sedimentation. Historically, the species 1997. Additionally, five mussel beds are effects to mussels including was widespread and occurred in diverse no longer present between miles 0.4 and headcutting, channel modification, and habitats. Today, scaleshell mussels no 137. Buchanan (in litt. 1997) and the physical crushing or removal of longer occur at disturbed sites that still Roberts and Bruenderman (2000) mussels. Furthermore, the Corps’ permit support other endangered unionids attributed this decline to habitat loss process included consultation with the (Szymanski 1998). This suggests that from sedimentation, eutrophication, and Service concerning the presence of scaleshell mussels are especially substrate destabilization. federally listed species at each proposed sensitive to degraded water quality. The Big River has the lowest species mining site. However, the 1997 ruling Given the pervasiveness of the sources diversity and abundance in the eliminated the Corps authority to of pollution and sedimentation, it is Meramec River Basin. Buchanan (1980) regulate most instream gravel mining apparent that these threats continue to attributed this to the effects of lead and activities, thereby eliminating the be problematic for the remaining barite mining. While most mining section 404 permit and the conditions scaleshell mussel populations. operations have ceased, 45 dams that protected mussel beds. Therefore, retaining mine waste and numerous Upper Mississippi River Basin the scaleshell mussel has lost much of waste piles remain in the Big River its protection from gravel mining. Only The scaleshell mussel formerly Basin. Most of those dams were activities resulting in discharge of fill occurred in eight rivers and tributaries improperly constructed or maintained. material greater than incidental fallback within the Upper Mississippi Basin. The Corps found that only one of the 45 (such as instream gravel stockpiling, However, this species has not been dams was safe and 27 received the worst stream crossings, and select removal found in more than 50 years and is possible rating and could fail during a methods) are regulated. However, many believed extirpated from this region flood. The poor condition of the dams gravel mining operations may not fall (Kevin Cummings, in litt. 1994). We has led to large influxes of mine waste under this category. believe the same factors that have into the Big River from dam collapse Impoundments negatively affect caused declines and extirpations of (MDC 1997). For example, since 1978, a mussels both upstream and downstream other mussel species including ruptured tailings dam has discharged by inducing scouring, changing water impoundments, pollution, 63,000 cubic meters (81,000 cubic temperature regimes, and altering sedimentation, and channelization and yards) of mine tailings into the Big River habitat, food, and fish host availability dredging activities, have caused the covering 40 km (25 mi) of stream bottom (Caryn Vaughn, in litt. 1997). disappearance of scaleshell mussels and negatively impacting the lower 129 Impoundments permanently flood from the Upper Mississippi River Basin. km (80 mi) of the river (Alan Buchanan, stream channels and eliminate flowing Middle Mississippi River Basin in litt. 1995), making it less suitable for water that is essential habitat for most mussels. unionids, including scaleshell mussels Similar to the Upper Mississippi While no major impoundments exist (Fuller 1974, Oesch 1995). Scouring is a River Basin, impoundments, pollution, in the Meramec River Basin, several old major cause of mussel mortality below sedimentation, and channelization and mill dams (low-head dams) affect the dams (Layzer et al. 1993). Most dredging activities are believed to have mainstem of the Big and Bourbeuse detrimental, however, is the disruption led to the extirpation of the scaleshell Rivers. Five dams are still in place along of reproductive processes. mussel from the entire Ohio River the lower 48 km (30 mi) of the Big River, Impoundments interfere with movement Basin. These same threats continue to and one dam exists in the lower of host fishes, alter fish host adversely affect extant populations in Bourbeuse River. These structures are assemblages, and isolate mussel beds the middle Mississippi River Basin. barriers to host fish movement during from each other and from host fishes Scaleshell mussel habitat in the normal flows (MDC 1997) and thus, (Stansbery 1973, Fuller 1974, Vaughn Meramec River Basin has been reduced continue to depress reproductive rates 1993, Williams et al. 1993). The result in recent years. In 1979, Buchanan of scaleshell and other mussels. is diminished recruitment (Layzer et al. found living or dead scaleshell mussels Gravel mining poses an imminent 1993). Dams are effective barriers to fish in the lower 180 km (112 mi) of the threat to scaleshell mussel populations host movement and migration that Meramec River (Buchanan 1980). In in the Meramec River Basin due to the unionids depend on for dispersal. 1997, living or dead scaleshell mussels high, and increasing, level of interest in Mussels living upstream from the dam were collected only in the lower 96 km gravel mining in the basin (Roberts and can become reproductively isolated (60 mi) of the river (Roberts and Brunderman 2000). For example, from those living downstream causing a Bruenderman 2000). While portions of between 1994 and 1998, the Corps decrease in genetic diversity. Even the lower reach continue to provide issued permits for 230 sites. Additional small, lowhead dams can hinder fish suitable habitat, mussel species sites were mined without a permit, but movement and isolate mussel beds from diversity and abundance above mile 60 the number of these unauthorized fish hosts and from each other. For have declined noticeably in the last 20 operations is unknown. (Danny example, Watters (1996) determined years and 9 mussel beds are no longer McKlendon, Corps, St. Louis District, in that the upstream distribution of two present between river mile 21.5 and litt. 1998). mussel species, the fragile papershell 145.7. Roberts and Bruenderman (2000) In 1994, several areas of the (Leptodea fragilis) and pink heelsplitter attributed this decline primarily to the Gasconade River channel were highly (Potamilus alatus) stopped at lowhead loss of channel stability. Within the unstable, possibly a result of riparian dams. These species, like the scaleshell Meramec Basin, the Bourbeuse River vegetation removal in conjunction with mussel, are believed to use the has undergone the greatest change with the 1993 flood. These areas had high cut freshwater drum as a sole host. respect to mussel populations. In mud banks with trees fallen into the The same threats that caused the particular, mussel populations have river, unstable substrate, and contained extirpation of historical populations of declined in the lower river. Whereas very few mussels. Buchanan (1994) scaleshell mussel still exist and Buchanan (1980) found this section of predicted that habitat degradation on continue to threaten extant populations. the Bourbeuse River to have the greatest this river would continue and
VerDate 11
postulated that the mussel fauna would Within Frog Bayou, potential habitat (Gordon et al. 1984). Unregulated sand be further impacted with some species is restricted to the area between Rudy and gravel mining are eliminating possibly disappearing. He noted that and the confluence of the Arkansas important pool habitat (for both below river mile 6, only one stable River. Within this area, streambank scaleshell mussels and potential fish gravel bar contained a diverse mussel modifications and in-stream gravel hosts) in the Meramec, Bourbeuse, Big, fauna. High silt deposition from the mining are degrading scaleshell mussel and Gasconade Rivers in Missouri Missouri River prohibits the formation habitat. Two reservoirs, one near (Bruenderman, MDC, pers. comm. of mussel habitat below this area. Maddux Spring and the other at 1998). Impoundments, channelization, The majority of the Osage River Mountainburg, impact the river above and other dredging activities (e.g., sand system has been impounded and is no Rudy. Below the confluence of the and gravel mining) are destroying longer suitable for freshwater mussels. Arkansas River, Gordon (1980) did not mussel beds and impairing water The majority of remaining mussel find live mussels, likely due to dredging quality in Frog Bayou, Arkansas habitat occurs below Bagnell dam in the activities (Gordon 1980). (Gordon 1980); St. Francis River, lower 80 miles of the Osage River The proposed Tuskahoma Reservoir Arkansas (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson proper. This river reach is affected by (located above Hugo Reservoir) is a 1987); White River, Arkansas (Bates and the operation of Bagnell dam, which potential threat to mussels in the Dennis 1983); Spring River, Arkansas alters flow and temperature regimes, Kiamichi River. Although the Corps has (Gordon et al. 1984); and Ouachita lowers dissolved oxygen levels, and authorized construction, the lack of a River, Arkansas (Clarke 1987). The causes channel scouring and accelerated local sponsor has rendered the project proposed Kiamichi River Reservoir, if bank erosion. Several instream gravel ‘‘inactive’’ (David Martinez, Service, constructed, will have adverse impacts mining operations currently exist in the Tulsa, pers. comm. 1997). If on any remaining populations in Osage River that physically remove constructed, the adverse effects Oklahoma. Nearly all scaleshell mussel mussels from the water and cause associated with reservoirs (including populations are now restricted to small headcutting and siltation. permanent flooding of the channel and stretches of rivers with little, if any, disruption of reproduction) are likely to Lower Mississippi River Basin potential for expansion or destroy the mussel fauna both above recolonization to other areas. For Channelization, levee construction, and below the proposed dam site. example, sewage pollution, gravel diversion ditches, control structures, Sewage pollution, gravel dredging, dredging, and reservoir construction and floodways have drastically altered and reservoirs continue to impact the have degraded the Little River in much of the St. Francis River from the Little River. Pine Creek Reservoir Oklahoma to the extent that only a few mouth above Helena, Arkansas, to impounds the mainstem of the river. small stretches are able to support Wappapello Dam, Missouri (Ahlstedt Further downstream, Broken Bow mussels. and Jenkinson 1987, Bates and Dennis Reservoir impounds a major tributary to 1983). Bates and Dennis (1983) the Little River, the Mountain Fork B. Overutilization for Commercial, determined that of the 54 sites sampled, River. Below Pine Creek Lake, the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 15 were productive, 10 were marginal, mussel fauna is severely depleted but Purposes and 29 had either no shells or dead recovers with increasing distance from It is unlikely that commercial mussel specimens only. They identified 77 km the impoundment (Caryn Vaughn, in collectors ever purposefully collected (48 mi) that may still provide suitable litt. 1997). However, the discharge of scaleshell mussels because of their mussel habitat, but did not collect reservoir water from Pine Creek and small size and thin shell. It is probable, scaleshell mussels. All the remaining periodic discharge of pollution from however, that over-harvesting activities river miles are unsuitable for mussels. Rolling Fork Creek seriously impact any that removed entire mussel beds The White River between Beaver remaining scaleshell mussels and impacted scaleshell mussel populations. Reservoir and its headwaters, due to prohibit any future recolonization For example, according to local municipal pollution, gravel dredging, (Clarke 1987). fishermen, during a period of extended and dam construction, is no longer Hydroelectric dams and artificial drought, mussel harvesters severely suitable for mussels (Gordon 1980). lakes have impacted the Ouachita River. over-collected mussel beds in the Spring Navigational maintenance activities The ‘‘Old River’’ (an oxbow system off and Black Rivers and completely continue to destroy habitat from the mainstem), is now essentially a destroyed most beds (Gordon et al. Newport to the confluence of the series of muddy, stagnant pools, with 1984). Thus, scaleshell mussel Mississippi River (Bates and Dennis water quality problems resulting from populations may have been impacted by 1983). This habitat destruction has surrounding dumps (Clarke 1987). habitat destruction (i.e., disturbance of relegated mussel species to a few In summary, many of the same threats stream bottom), trampling, and removal refugial sites. that caused the extirpation of historical of individuals from the stream. Species richness in the Spring River populations of scaleshell mussels still Individuals dislodged from the stream below river mile nine has declined exist and continue to threaten extant bottom could be washed away into markedly from past surveys, with the populations. Nonpoint and point source unsuitable habitat. Even for mussels lower 5.0 km (3.0 mi) of river pollution is currently affecting the returned to the stream, mortality can completely depleted of mussels and no Spring River in Arkansas (Gordon et al. still occur (Williams et al. 1993). Today, longer supporting suitable habitat 1984, Miller and Hartfield 1986) and the intensive mussel collecting activity will (Miller and Hartfield 1986, Gordon et al. Little River in Oklahoma (Clarke 1987, have severe adverse affects on existing 1984). Sand and gravel dredging; the Vaughn 1994). Loss of stable substrates populations, because scaleshell mussels destruction of stream banks, disturbance and sedimentation is causing now occur in very small, isolated areas. of mussel beds, and the deposition of deleterious effects in the Meramec and The destruction of only a few wastes from livestock movements; Bourbeuse Rivers, Missouri (Sue individuals could be a contributing siltation; and surface run-off of pesticide Bruenderman, pers. comm. 1998); factor in the extirpation of some and fertilizer appear to be contributing Gasconade River, Missouri (Buchanan populations. factors in the degradation of this river 1994); Frog Bayou, Arkansas (Gordon As scaleshell mussels become more reach (Gordon et al. 1984). 1980); and Spring River, Arkansas uncommon, the interest of scientific and
VerDate 11
shell collectors will increase. Scaleshell Bourbeuse Rivers. Large numbers of the Arkansas Open-Cut Mining and mussel occurrences are generally mussels of all species, including Land Reclamation Code, which contains localized, easily accessible, and exposed scaleshell, were lost. Buchanan (1986) required conditions to reduce impacts during low flow periods, and, therefore, presumed an epizootic or other disease (Roell 1999). are also vulnerable to take for fish bait, caused the die-off since no Additionally, since MDNR is not a curiosity, or vandalism. Up to five environmental impact was reported or Federal agency, section 7 of the Act, freshwater mussels per day, including could be found. which required the Corps to consult scaleshell, may be legally collected in with the Service regarding the presence D. The Inadequacy of Existing Missouri and used for fishing bait (Sue of federally listed species at proposed Regulatory Mechanisms Bruenderman, pers. comm. 1998). gravel mining sites, is no longer However, the low density of scaleshell The passage of the CWA resulted in applicable. Without the section 7 mussels minimizes the likelihood of a many positive consequences for consultation process, mussel beds scaleshell being collected. freshwater ecosystems (including a containing federally listed species could decrease in lead and fecal coliform be adversely affected by gravel mining C. Disease or Predation bacteria), and set the stage for the operations. Although natural predation is usually regulations and the water standards that The Corps will still retain oversight not a factor for stable, healthy mussel exist today. Goals of the CWA include authority and require a permit for gravel populations, small mammal predation the protection and enhancement of fish, mining activities that deposit fill into could pose a problem for scaleshell shellfish, and wildlife; providing streams under section 404 of the CWA. mussel populations (Gordon 1991). conditions suitable for recreation in Additionally, a Corps permit would be While the large size or thick shells of surface waters; and eliminating the required under section 10 of the Rivers some species afford protection from discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters. and Harbors Act for navigable small mammal predators, the small size However, despite the implementation of waterways including the lower 80 km and fragile shell of the scaleshell mussel the CWA, degraded water quality still (50 mi) of the Meramec River. However, makes it an easy and desirable prey presents problems for sensitive aquatic many gravel mining operations do not species. Small mammals, such as organisms such as freshwater mussels. fall under these two categories. muskrats and racoons, may be common Specifically, nationwide stream and Although recognized by species predators of scaleshell mussels lake sampling has indicated continuing experts as threatened in Arkansas, the throughout their range, particularly increases in nitrate, chloride, arsenic, scaleshell mussel is not afforded state during periods of low water. For and cadmium concentrations (Neves protection. Missouri and Oklahoma list example, fresh scaleshell mussel shells 1993). Nonpoint pollution sources the scaleshell mussel as a species of were found among other species at appear to be the cause of increases in conservation concern (Sue several active raccoon middens (feeding nitrogen. Many of the impacts discussed Bruenderman, in litt. 1998; Caryn areas) during a freshwater mussel above occurred in the past as Vaughn, pers. comm. 1995). However, survey of the Meramec and Bourbeuse unintended consequences of human these designations are primarily used Rivers (Roberts and Bruenderman 2000). development. Improved understanding for planning and communication These mammals are so effective at of these consequences has led to purposes and do not afford any finding and eating freshwater mussels regulatory (e.g., CWA) and voluntary significant State protection from direct that malacologists consider collecting measures (e.g., best management take and habitat destruction (David dead shells from middens a good way to practices for agriculture and Martinez, pers. comm. 1997; Paul determine the presence of rare species. silviculture) and improved land use McKenzie, Service, Columbia, MO, pers. Extant scaleshell mussel populations in practices that are generally compatible comm. 1997). Therefore, scaleshell Arkansas and Oklahoma are small, with the continued existence of the mussels may be collected, harmed, or isolated, and have very limited scaleshell mussel. Nonetheless, the killed in Missouri and Oklahoma recolonization potential. Thus, the scaleshell mussel is highly restricted in without a permit. Without additional removal of even a small number of numbers and distribution and shows regulations providing habitat protection, individuals could significantly affect little evidence of recovering from as well as protection from direct and these populations. Small populations historical habitat degradation and indirect take, populations of scaleshell are less resilient to these natural losses. mussels will continue to decline and predators, and therefore, are much more As discussed previously (see Factor A disappear. threatened by them. Consequently, under ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting predation could exacerbate ongoing the Species’’ and Issue 4), a 1997 court E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors population declines of scaleshell ruling reduced the Corps’ authority to Affecting Its Continued Existence mussels. regulate instream gravel mining. The As a consequence of the above factors, Bacteria and protozoans persist at MDNR is currently responsible for the inherent biological traits of unnaturally high concentrations in regulating gravel mining in Missouri, freshwater mussels increase their streams with high sediment load or in but has limited regulatory authority, and vulnerability to extinction (Neves 1993). water bodies affected by point source several conditions that were previously For example, the larval stage pollution, such as sewage treatment required by the Corps are no longer in (glochidium) of most mussels is plants (Goudreau et al. 1988). At such place. These guidelines avoided many dependent on a few or one specific host concentrations, mussel ova and adverse effects to mussels including fish (Neves 1993). The scaleshell mussel glochidia are more subject to infection headcutting, channel modification, and is believed to use the freshwater drum (Ellis 1929). Disease and parasites may the physical removal of mussels. as its sole host fish species. This trait have caused major die-offs of freshwater Further, city, county, and State greatly reduces the likelihood of contact mussels in the late 1970s throughout the operators using their own equipment between glochidia and suitable hosts. eastern United States (Neves 1986). For and private operations are not required Watters (1995) postulated that the example, significant die-offs of to obtain a MDNR permit for instream glochidia must acquire suitable hosts freshwater mussels occurred in 1977 gravel mining. In Arkansas, instream within 24 hours to survive. Therefore, a and 1978 in the Meramec and gravel mining will still be controlled by reduction or loss of host fish
VerDate 11
populations will lead to reduced to either of these problems usually have prolific species has spread throughout glochidial survival and a decline in low genetic diversity, which reduces the Mississippi River and many of its reproductive success, which will fertility, survivorship, and the ability to tributaries including the Illinois and inevitably adversely impact scaleshell adapt to environmental changes. Also, Ohio basins and the Arkansas and mussel populations. chance variation in age and sex ratios Tennessee rivers. Zebra mussels starve Once a larva successfully transforms can affect birth and deaths rates. and suffocate native mussels by on a host, it is further challenged with Skewing of these ratios may lead to attaching to their shells in large dropping off onto suitable habitat. death rates exceeding the birth rates, numbers. The spread of this prolific Watters (1995) reported that estimated and when this occurs in small species has caused severe declines of chances of successful glochidial populations there is a higher risk of native freshwater mussel species in transformation and excystment extinction. many areas (Tucker et al. 1993; Kent (detachment) range between 0.0001 Similarly, the fertilization success of Kroonemeyer, Service in litt. 1994; percent (Jansen and Hanson 1991) and mussels may be related to population Illinois Natural History Survey, in litt. 0.000001 percent (Young and Williams density, with a threshold density 1995; Corps, in litt. 2000). 1984). As a result of fish host-specificity required for any reproductive success to Given that recreational and and the difficulty of locating suitable occur (Downing et al. 1993). Small commercial vessels greatly facilitate the habitat, even under optimal conditions, mussel populations may have spread of zebra mussels, and because of freshwater mussel population growth individuals too scattered to reproduce the proliferation and spread that has occurs very slowly. Furthermore, the effectively. Many of the remaining already occurred, invasion of the zebra sedentary nature of mussels limits their scaleshell mussel populations may be at mussel into portions of the middle and dispersal capability. This trait, coupled or below this threshold density. These lower Mississippi Basin is likely (Alan with low recruitment success, translates populations will be, if the Buchanan, pers. comm. 1995). If zebra into the need for decades of immigration aforementioned threats go unabated, mussels successfully colonize rivers and recruitment for re-establishment of forced below or forced to remain below occupied by scaleshell mussels, its self-sustaining populations. the minimum threshold. As a result, continued survival will be further The small number and low density of reproduction is diminished or ceases, jeopardized. The zebra mussel has been the remaining scaleshell mussel and the current decline to extinction found recently within the scaleshell populations exacerbate the threats to its will be accelerated. mussels’ extant range in the middle survival posed by the above factors. Furthermore, species that occur in Mississippi Basin. In the summer of Although the scaleshell mussel was low numbers must rely on dispersal and 1999, a live zebra mussel was collected always locally rare though broadly immigration for long-term persistence. in the Lower Meramec River at river distributed, the widespread loss of In order to retain genetic viability and mile 6.9 (Chris Barnhart, in litt. 1999). populations and the limited number of guard against chance extinction, The Meramec Basin appears to support collections in recent years indicates that movement between populations must the largest remaining populations of the current population densities are occur. Although the scaleshell mussel scaleshell mussels. Zebra mussels are much lower (due to the previously naturally occurs in patches within a likely to successfully colonize the identified threats) than historical levels. river and necessarily possesses Meramec River, because it appears to be Despite any evolutionary adaptations for mechanisms to adapt to such a similar in most ways to other tributaries rarity, habitat loss and degradation discontinuous distribution, of the Mississippi River that already increase a species’ vulnerability to anthropogenic (man-made) influences have established populations of zebra extinction (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). have fragmented and further lengthened mussels. Another live zebra mussel was Numerous studies have shown that with the distance between patches. Empirical collected in 1999 from the Missouri decreasing habitat availability, the studies have shown that with increasing River near Sioux City, Iowa (John probability of extinction increases. isolation, immigration and colonization LaRandeau, in litt. 1999). If zebra Similarly, as the number of occupied rates decrease. Also, as previously mussels have successfully colonized the sites decreases, and the distances explained, natural recolonization of Missouri River, it is likely that they will between them increases, the likelihood mussels occurs at a very low rate spread into the Gasconade River, which of extinction increases (Vaughn 1993). (Vaughn 1993). Therefore, preservation has perhaps the largest population of This increased vulnerability is the result of a population (including all partially scaleshell mussels next to those in the of chance events. Environmental isolated patches in a river) structure is Meramec Basin. variation, random or predictable, imperative for long-term freshwater naturally causes fluctuations in mussel survival. Unfortunately, many of Conclusion populations. However, small and low the extant scaleshell mussel populations Significant habitat loss, range density populations are more likely to now occur as single, isolated sites. restriction, and population fluctuate below the minimum viable These highly isolated populations are fragmentation and size reduction have population (i.e., the minimum number very susceptible to chance events and rendered the scaleshell mussel of individuals needed in a population to local extirpation with no chance of vulnerable to extinction. The scaleshell persist). If population levels stay below recolonization. mussel has disappeared from the entire this minimum size, an inevitable, and Lastly, the recent invasion of the upper and most of the middle often irreversible, slide toward exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena Mississippi River drainages. Of the 55 extinction will occur. Further, the polymorpha) poses a substantial threat known historical populations, 14 and shorter life span of the scaleshell mussel to native unionids (Herbert et al. 1989). possibly 20, remain. Although much of may render it less able to tolerate The introduction of Dreissena into the decline occurred before 1950, periods of poor recruitment or increased North America probably resulted from population declines continue in most of mortality than are longer-lived mussel an ocean-crossing vessel that discharged the species’ range, and numerous species (Chris Barnhart, in litt. 1999). freshwater ballast from Europe threats, including water quality Small populations are also more containing free-swimming larvae of the degradation, loss of stable substrates, susceptible to inbreeding depression zebra mussel (Griffiths et al. 1991). sedimentation, channelization, gravel and genetic drift. Populations subjected Since its introduction in 1985, this mining, dredging, and impoundments,
VerDate 11
are impacting the few remaining viable requires us to consider economic and In the absence of a finding that critical extant populations. The small number other relevant impacts of designating a habitat would increase threats to a and low density of the remaining particular area as critical habitat on the species, if any benefits would result scaleshell mussel populations basis of the best scientific data available. from a critical habitat designation, then exacerbate the threats and adverse The Secretary may exclude any area a prudent finding is warranted. In the effects of chance events to scaleshell from critical habitat if she/he case of scaleshell mussel, designation of mussels. Only one of the remaining determines that the benefits of such critical habitat may provide some populations is believed to be stable. exclusion outweigh the benefits of its benefits. We have carefully assessed the best inclusion, unless to do so would result In general, critical habitat identifies scientific and commercial information in the extinction of the species. Our areas that may require special available regarding the past, present, regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that management considerations or and future threats faced by the designation of critical habitat is not protection, and its designation may scaleshell mussel in determining this prudent when one or both of the provide protection to areas where rule final. The present distribution and following situations exist—(i) the significant threats to a species have been abundance of the scaleshell mussel are species is threatened by taking or other identified. Critical habitat receives at risk given the potential for these activity and the identification of critical protection from destruction or adverse impacts to continue. Therefore, based habitat can be expected to increase the modification through required on this evaluation, it is appropriate that degree of threat to the species or (ii) consultation under section 7 of the Act the scaleshell mussel be listed as an such designation of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, endangered species. The Act defines an would not be beneficial to the species. funded, or authorized by a Federal endangered species as one that is in In the proposed rule, we indicated agency. Section 7 also requires danger of extinction throughout all or a that designation of critical habitat was conferences on Federal actions that are significant portion of its range. A not prudent because of a concern that likely to result in the adverse threatened species is one that is likely publication of precise maps and modification or destruction of proposed to become an endangered species in the descriptions of critical habitat in the critical habitat. Aside from the foreseeable future throughout all or a Federal Register could increase the protection that may be provided under significant portion of its range. vulnerability of this species to incidents section 7, the Act does not provide any Endangered status is appropriate for the of collection and vandalism. We also other forms of protection to lands scaleshell mussel given the extent and indicated that designation of critical designated as critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires magnitude of habitat loss, range habitat was not prudent because we Federal agencies to consult with the restriction, and population believed it would not provide any Service to ensure that any action they fragmentation that has occurred, and the additional benefit beyond that provided continued vulnerability of this species carry out, authorize, or fund does not by the listing as endangered. to such threats. These threats are jeopardize the continued existence of a In the last few years, a series of court ongoing, and there is clear evidence that federally listed species or destroy or some of them, such as sand and gravel decisions have overturned Service adversely modify designated critical mining in the core of the species’ determinations regarding a variety of habitat. A critical habitat designation for current range, have actually increased species that designation of critical habitat currently occupied by a species their adverse impacts on mussel habitat habitat would not be prudent (e.g., would usually result in the same in the last several years. Natural Resources Defense Council v. outcome under section 7 consultation as U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. would occur if the critical habitat had Critical Habitat 3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation not been designated, because an action Critical habitat is defined in section 3 Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. that destroys or adversely modifies such of the Act as: (i) The specific areas 2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the critical habitat would also be likely to within the geographical area occupied standards applied in those judicial result in jeopardy for the species. by a species, at the time it is listed in opinions, we have reexamined the However, there may be instances where accordance with the Act, on which are question of whether critical habitat for section 7 consultation, and subsequent found those physical or biological the scaleshell mussel would be prudent. protection, would be triggered only if features (I) essential to the conservation Due to small population size, the critical habitat is designated, such as of the species and (II) that may require scaleshell mussel is vulnerable to areas where a species is not believed to special management considerations or unrestricted collection, vandalism, or currently exist, but where protection; and (ii) specific areas other disturbance. We remain concerned reestablishment is needed to conserve outside the geographical area occupied that these threats might be exacerbated the species. In the case of the scaleshell by a species at the time it is listed, upon by the publication of critical habitat mussel, the species’ low numbers and a determination that such areas are maps and further dissemination of highly fragmented distribution will essential for the conservation of the locational information. However, we likely require the establishment of species. Conservation means the use of have examined the evidence available additional populations beyond the 14 all methods and procedures needed to for the scaleshell mussel and have not known extant populations. Critical bring the species to the point at which found specific evidence of taking, habitat designation of areas most listing under the Act is no longer vandalism, collection, or trade of these suitable for future establishment of necessary. species or any similarly situated scaleshell mussel populations would Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as species. Consequently, consistent with provide habitat protection by triggering amended, and implementing regulations applicable regulations (50 CFR section 7 consultations for Federal (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, at agency actions. maximum extent prudent and this time we do not expect that the Designation of critical habitat can determinable, the Secretary designate identification of critical habitat will help focus conservation activities for a critical habitat at the time the species is increase the degree of threat to this listed species by identifying areas that determined to be endangered or species of taking or other human contain the physical and biological threatened. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act activity. features essential for the conservation of
VerDate 11
that species, regardless of whether the be carried out for all listed species. The unlikely to result in a violation of areas are currently used by the species. protection required of Federal agencies section 9: Designation of critical habitat alerts the and the prohibitions against taking and (1) Existing discharges into waters public as well as land-managing harm are discussed, in part, below. supporting these species, provided these agencies to the importance of these Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, activities are carried out in accordance areas. requires Federal agencies to evaluate with existing regulations and permit We find that critical habitat their actions with respect to any species requirements (e.g., activities subject to designation is prudent for the scaleshell that is listed as endangered or sections 402, 404, and 405 of the CWA mussel due to the probable benefits to threatened and with respect to its and discharges regulated under the the species described above. We find critical habitat, if any is being National Pollutant Discharge that these benefits are not outweighed designated. Regulations implementing Elimination System). by potential increased threats from this interagency cooperation provision (2) Actions that may affect the designating critical habitat. of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part scaleshell mussel and are authorized, However, our budget for listing 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires funded or carried out by a Federal activities is currently insufficient to Federal agencies to ensure that activities agency when the action is conducted in allow us to immediately complete all of they authorize, fund, or carry out are not accordance with any reasonable and the listing actions required by the Act. likely to jeopardize the continued prudent measures we have specified in Listing the scaleshell mussel without existence of such a species or to destroy accordance with section 7 of the Act. designation of critical habitat will allow or adversely modify its critical habitat. us to concentrate our limited resources If a Federal action may affect a listed (3) Development and construction on other listing actions that must be species or its critical habitat, the activities designed and implemented addressed, while allowing us to invoke responsible Federal agency must enter pursuant to Federal, State, and local protections needed for the conservation into consultation with us. water quality regulations and of this species without further delay. Federal activities that could occur and implemented using approved best This is consistent with section impact the scaleshell mussel, include, management practices. 4(b)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, which states that but are not limited to, issuance of (4) Existing recreational activities final listing decisions may be issued permits for reservoir construction, such as swimming, wading, canoeing, without critical habitat designations stream alterations, waste-water facility and fishing, that are in accordance with when it is essential that such development, water withdrawal State and local regulations, provided if determinations be promptly published. projects, pesticide registration, a scaleshell mussel is collected it is The legislative history of the 1982 Act agricultural assistance programs, immediately released, unharmed. amendments also emphasized this mining, road and bridge construction, Activities that we believe could point: ‘‘The Committee feels strongly, Federal loan programs, water allocation, potentially result in take of scaleshell however, that, where biology relating to and hydropower licensing or mussels include but are not limited to: the status of the species is clear, it relicensing. In our experience, nearly all (1) Illegal collection or capture of the should not be denied the protection of section 7 consultations result in species; the Act because of the inability of the protecting the species while still (2) Unlawful destruction or alteration Secretary to complete the work meeting the project’s objectives. of the species’ occupied habitat (e.g., necessary to designate critical habitat. The Act and implementing unpermitted instream dredging, * * * The committee expects the regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set channelization, or discharge of fill agencies to make the strongest attempt forth a series of general prohibitions and material); exceptions that apply to all endangered possible to determine critical habitat (3) Violation of any discharge or water wildlife. The prohibitions in part, make within the time period designated for withdrawal permit within the species’ it illegal for any person subject to the listing, but stresses that the listing of occupied range; and species is not to be delayed in any jurisdiction of the United States to take instance past the time period allocated (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, (4) Illegal discharge or dumping of for such listing if the biological data is shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or toxic chemicals or other pollutants into clear but the habitat designation process collect; or to attempt any of these), waters supporting scaleshell mussels. is not complete’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 97–567 import or export, ship in interstate We will review other activities not at 20 (1982)). We will prepare a critical commerce in the course of commercial identified above on a case-by-case basis habitat designation in the future as soon activity, or sell or offer for sale in to determine whether they are likely to as there are resources available and interstate or foreign commerce any result in a violation of section 9 of the other listing duties under the Act will endangered species. It also is illegal to Act. We do not consider these lists to be allow. possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or exhaustive and provide them as ship any such wildlife that has been information to the public. Available Conservation Measures taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply You should direct questions regarding Conservation measures provided to to our agents and agents of State whether specific activities may species listed as endangered or conservation agencies. constitute a future violation of section 9 threatened under the Act include Our policy, as published in the to the Field Supervisor of the Service’s recognition, recovery actions, Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Columbia, Missouri Field office (see requirements for Federal protection, and 34272), is to identify, to the maximum ADDRESSES). You may request copies of prohibitions against certain practices. extent practicable, those activities that the regulations regarding listed wildlife Recognition through listing encourages would or would not likely constitute a from, and address questions about and results in conservation actions by violation of section 9 of the Act. The prohibitions and permits to, the U.S. Federal, State, and local agencies, intent of this policy is to increase public Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological private organizations, and individuals. awareness as to the potential effects of Services Division, Whipple Federal The Act provides for possible land this final listing on future and ongoing Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, acquisition and cooperation with the activities within a species’ range. We MN 55111 (Phone 612/713–5350; Fax States and requires that recovery actions believe that the following activities are 612/713–5292).
VerDate 11
National Environmental Policy Act currently valid control number. For Regulation Promulgation We have determined that we do not additional information concerning Accordingly, we hereby amend part need to prepare an Environmental permit and associated requirements for 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of Assessment, as defined under the endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22. the Code of Federal Regulations, as set authority of the National Environmental References Cited Policy Act of 1969, in connection with forth below: A complete list of all references cited regulations adopted pursuant to section PART 17—[AMENDED] 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as herein, as well as others, is available upon request from the Field Supervisor amended. We published a notice 1. The authority citation for part 17 (see ADDRESSES). outlining our reasons for this continues to read as follows: determination in the Federal Register Authors on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. The primary authors of this final rule 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– Paperwork Reduction Act are Mr. Andy Roberts (see FOR FURTHER 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. This rule does not contain any new INFORMATION CONTACT) and Ms. Jennifer 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by collections of information other than Szymanski (U.S. Fish and Wildlife adding the following, in alphabetical those already approved under the Service, Whipple Federal Building, 1 order, under Clams to the List of Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111– Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of 4056). read as follows: Management and Budget control List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 number 1018–0094. An agency may not § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Endangered and threatened species, required to respond to a collection of Exports, Imports, Reporting and record * * * * * information, unless it displays a keeping requirements, Transportation. (h) * * *
Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules
******* CLAMS
******* Mussel, scaleshell ... Leptodea leptodon .. U.S.A. (AL, AR, IA, NA ...... E 714 NA NA IL, IN, KY, MN, MO, OH, OK, SD, TN, WI).
*******
Dated: September 28, 2001. Marshall P. Jones, Jr. Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 01–24804 Filed 10–5–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate 11