May 14, 2013

Submitted Via Federal E-Rulemaking Portal

Public Comments Processing Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM Arlington, VA 22203

RE: Comments in support of listing the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) as endangered and the rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act with critical habitat.

Please accept these comments in support of the endangered and threatened species listings and critical habitat designation for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit organization with 500,000 supporters, many of which are in the states these mussels occur in. The Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot hold scientific, moral, economic and other value to our organization, our supporters, and the people who live in the areas of which they occur.

BACKGROUND

The Neosho mucket is a member of the Unionidae family and has a light brown, oblong shell with a bluish-white nacre. Young mussels can be characterized by green, discontinuous rays called chevrons. Shell thickness varies by location and age, with the Shoal Creek populations' shells being relatively thin (FWS 2010a; Shiver 2002). Also a part of the Unionidae family, the rabbitsfoot can reach about six inches in length and has an elongated shell that is usually smooth and yellow, green, or olive in color getting darker with age. Its nacre is white and iridescent, often with a gray-green tinge in the umbo cavity (FWS 2010b; Say 1817).

The Neosho mucket has been extirpated from approximately 62 percent of its former range. It is currently known to occur in the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins which all flow into the Arkansas River in northeastern Oklahoma. Historically reported to occur in various watersheds within Arkansas, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri, the Neosho mucket is thought to have been extirpated from most of its range in Kansas and Oklahoma, and is in serious danger of being extirpated in the Arkansas portion of its range in the Illinois River (Harris and Gordon 1988; Obermeyer et al. 1997a; Mather 1990; Vaughn 1996). In fact, the entire mussel community has seen a collapse in the Arkansas portion of the Illinois River which raises concern about the water quality in that area. Of the four river drainages the mucket is known to be surviving in, only one, the Spring River population, is viable (FWS 2010a).

The rabbitsfoot historically existed throughout the lower Great Lakes Sub-basin and the Mississippi River Basin which included 139 streams in 15 different states. Now, it is only known to occur in 50 of those streams, some of which only support highly fragmented populations, in 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee (FWS 2010b; Butler 2005; Matthews 2007; EAA 2008). This is a 64 percent decline in range, and Butler (2005) shows that the majority of the remaining populations are marginal to small.

The drastic decrease in both of these mussels' range and population sizes happened as a result of many threats which the mussels still face today including three of the five consideration factors for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range, inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors (FWS 2012).

The Neosho mucket was first identified as a possible candidate for listing under the ESA in the Federal Register (49 FR 21664) notice in 1984 with evidence for vulnerability, but some policy changes within the Act removed the species from the list of candidates in 1996. With new, sufficient information on biological vulnerability, it was re-proposed as a candidate for protection in the Federal Register (66 FR 54808) in 2001 with a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of five. In 2010, the LPN was elevated from five to two, indicating imminent threats of high magnitude to the species (FWS 2012).

The rabbitsfoot was first identified as a candidate for federal protection in 1994 (75 FR 69222) and suffered the same fate as the Neosho mucket of being removed from the list due to policy changes. It was reinstated as a candidate in 2009 (74 FR 57804) with an LPN of nine and has kept that status since, indicating threats of moderate magnitude that are imminent overall (FWS 2012).

On October 16, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to protect the Neosho mucket and the rabbitsfoot as endangered and threatened species, respectively, with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The critical habitats would total 484 river miles (rmi) and 1,654 rmi in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot (FWS 2012). We strongly support the designation of critical habitat to protect the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot because species with critical habitat are more likely to move towards recovery than species that lack designated habitat (Taylor et al. 2005).

According to the best available science, it is clear that the protection for the Neosho mucket and the rabbitsfoot is warranted under the Endangered Species Act based on their biological statuses and threats. A listing of "endangered" indicates that the Neosho mucket is in danger of extinction, and a "threatened" status indicates that the rabbitsfoot is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Based on their current threats, limited ranges, and isolated populations, the Center for Biological Diversity agrees that these listings under the ESA is imperative for the survival of the Neosho mucket and the rabbitsfoot.

BENEFITS

Often overlooked are the ecological and economical benefits that freshwater mussels provide. As filter feeders that consume detritus, bacteria, algae, and diatoms, they serve an important role in the food chain. Their pseudofeces provide nutrients to algae and detritus-feeding invertebrates, and their shells give substrate to the river beds and provide a place for invertebrates to colonize. This support of the lower links of the food chain serves an important role in fish nutrition which then works its way up the food chain through birds, mammals, and humans. And with the ability to filter over 18 gallons of water a day, mussels provide large economic benefits by saving us money in water purifying costs (Smith and Jepsen 2008). Freshwater mussels' sensitivity to chemical toxins and sedimentation can also be used as an early warning system for water quality issues. Unfortunately, the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot have been giving off this warning for quite some time.

THREATS

The Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot face three of the five threats, outlined below, that the FWS examines when considering listing a species as endangered or threatened. These three are: destruction, degradation, or curtailment of habitat or range; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms; other natural or manmade factors. The primary threats to the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot are related to habitat degradation from industry and land use, stream alterations, and pollution. Combined with other factors, these threats could cause these species' extinctions.

Habitat loss and degradation: The reduction of habitat and range for the Neosho mucket and the rabbitsfoot has been attributed to impoundment, sedimentation, agricultural pollutants, and lead and zinc mining (FWS 2010; Mather 1990; Obermeyer et al. 1997b). Dams are the most prevalent source of impoundments, and not only has the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot never been collected from impounded portions of their range, but the operation of dams will continue to negatively affect them due to limited thermal tolerances and channel instability such as bank scouring (FWS 2010; Obermeyer et al. 1997a).

The rapid development, both urban and rural, in areas such as the Arkansas portion of the Illinois River and the Ohio River has created other habitat challenges for the mussels. Sedimentation from overgrazing, mining, construction, and agriculture has suffocated mussels, reduced recruitment in juveniles, and interfered with their feeding abilities. Heavy river navigation and dredging activities continuously stir up the ecosystem, reducing mussel settlement, and watershed alterations from nearby urban developments have further disrupted natural river hydrology.

Rural development has cleared riparian zones for pastures, and without these protective barriers around our rivers, runoff nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen cause even bigger problems in our waterways and for our mussels. The resulting eutrophication results in low dissolved oxygen levels which is lethal to mussels, and heavy growth of algae, which reduces suitable habitat for juvenile mussels (FWS 2010a; Sparks and Strayer 1998). Other sources of pollution continue to threaten the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and coal and metal mining. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and zinc, continue to be a widespread problem throughout Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma where tested sediment and water expressed concentrations that exceeded threshold limits. These areas overlap a large portion of the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot range (FWS 2010).

As development increases, so does the need for gravel and other resources. With the threat of continued stream and river degradation, it is important to consider the detrimental effects we have already seen in the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot and plan for protecting them from future harm.

Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: People or industries in opposition of listing the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot may claim that there are already adequate protections and standards in place that prevent populations from going extinct, when in fact, this is not true. The Clean Water Act, as one example, does not protect aquatic life from non-point source pollution, and this is an even larger issue for mussels because of their high sensitivity to toxins. Even with the Clean Water Act and other local regulations in place, large discharges of effluents from wastewater treatment facilities flood the rivers within the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot range, and this is viewed as a long term problem and therefore a continuous issue (FWS 2010).

Other factors: The reduction in populations that has already been seen in these mussels has inevitably resulted in genetic isolation. In these river systems especially, the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot populations have both been severely fragmented from impoundments, increasing risk of extinction.

But on top of fighting through the small population paradigm, invasive species such as the zebra mussel, Asian clam, and black carp are encroaching further and further into ranges of our threatened freshwater species. By outcompeting all native species for food and space, they pose a serious threat to the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. In addition to invasive species, the unpredictable nature and weather extremes such as floods and droughts that climate change will most likely bring also threaten these mussels' well being. Streams could either dry up or overflow and become turbid, and there is the possibility of increased water temperatures (FWS 2010a). A study done by Pandolfo et al. (2010) indicated that mussels may already be close to the upper limit of their thermal tolerance, and further changes to the temperature of their rivers could threaten their populations.

When we take into account larger, over-arching issues like climate change, the importance to control all other local sources of threats becomes even more prevalent.

CONCLUSION

Freshwater mollusks are the most imperiled group of organisms in the United States and more than 50 species have already been lost to extinction. The Service should finalize listings for these two mussels and designate critical habitat to ensure their survival.

Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

Tara Easter Conservation Biology Intern Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211

REFERENCES

Butler, R. S. 2005. Status assessment report for the rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, a freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississippi river and Great Lakes Basins. Unpublished Report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, NC. 208 pp.

EAA (Environmental Assessment Associates, LLC). 2008. Mussel monitoring and relocation, Muskingum River, Dresden Energy Plant [2007] final report, May 22, 2008. 11 pp. + figures and appendices.

Harris, J.L., and M.E. Gordon. 1988. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science 41:49-56.

Mather, C.M. 1990. Status survey of the western fanshell and the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Final Report to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK, Project E-7, 22 pp.

Matthews, M. 2007. Freshwater bivalve (Mollusca: Unionidae and Corbiculidae) assemblages in an Ozark river: structure and role in nutrient recycling. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Arkansas State University.189 pp.

Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds, C.W. Prophet, and E.J. Miller. 1997a. Freshwater mussels in the Verdigris, Neosho, and Spring River basins of Kansas and Missouri, with emphasis on species of concern. American Malacological Bulletin 14(1):41-45.

Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds, E.J. Miller, and C.W. Prophet. 1997b. Range reductions of southeast Kansas unionids. Pages 108-116 In Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II; Initiatives for the Future.

Pandolfo, T.J., et al. 2010. Upper Thermal Tolerances of Early Life Stages of Freshwater Mussels. Journal of North American Benthological Society, 29(3): 959-969.

Say, T. 1817. Article Conchology. In: W. Nicholson, editor. American Edition of the British Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Comprising an Accurate and Popular View of the Present Improved State of Human Knowledge. Vol. 2 1st ed. No pagination. Pls. 1-4. Samuel A. Mitchel and Horace Ames, Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia.

Shiver, M. A. 2002. Reproduction and propagation of the Neosho Mucket, Lampsilis rafinesqueana. Master’s thesis, Southwest Missouri State University.

Smith, Al, Jepsen, Sarina. 2008. Overlooked Gems: The Benefits of Freshwater Mussels. Wings, the Xerces Society. pp. 14-19.

Sparks, B.L. and D.L. Strayer. 1998. Effects of low dissolved oxygen on juvenile Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 17(1):129-134.

Taylor M., K. Suckling and J. Rachlinski. 2005. The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A quantitative analysis. BioScience 55:360–67.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered Status for Neosho Mucket and Threatened Status for Rabbitsfoot and Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Rule. 77 FR 63440.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Neosho mucket, Lampsilis rafinesqueana. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2010/r4/F00F_I01.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2010/r4/F03X_I01.pdf

Vaughn, C.C. 1996. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 pp.