Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat, 60803-60882 [2012-24019]
Download as PDF
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 193
October 4, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60804
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
INFORMATION CONTACT
section by
November 19, 2012.
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0004;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY06
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and
Slabside Pearlymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the fluted kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus subtentum) and
slabside pearlymussel (Pleuronaia
dolabelloides) as endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), and we propose
to designate critical habitat for both
species. These two species are endemic
to portions of the Cumberland and
Tennessee River systems of Alabama,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Virginia. In total, approximately 2,218
river kilometers (1,380 river miles) are
being proposed for designation as
critical habitat. The proposed critical
habitat for fluted kidneyshell is located
in Limestone County, Alabama; Jackson,
Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle,
and Wayne Counties, Kentucky;
Bedford, Claiborne, Cocke, Fentress,
Franklin, Giles, Grainger, Greene,
Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman,
Humphreys, Jefferson, Knox, Lincoln,
Marshall, Maury, Moore, Morgan,
Overton, Perry, Pickett, Polk, Scott, and
Sevier Counties, Tennessee; and Bland,
Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell,
Washington, and Wythe Counties,
Virginia. The proposed critical habitat
for slabside pearlymussel is located in
Colbert, Jackson, Limestone, Madison,
and Marshall Counties, Alabama;
Tishomingo County, Mississippi;
Bedford, Bledsoe, Claiborne, Cocke,
Franklin, Giles, Greene, Hamblen,
Hancock, Hickman, Humphreys,
Lincoln, Marion, Marshall, Maury,
Moore, Perry, Polk, and Sequatchie
Counties, Tennessee; and Bland, Lee,
Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell,
Washington, and Wythe Counties,
Virginia.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
December 3, 2012. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Document availability: This
proposed rule is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and https://www.fws.gov/cookeville/.
Written comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search
field, enter Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–
2012–0004, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, click the
Search button. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0004; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Requested section below for
more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at https://www.fws.gov/
cookeville, https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. [FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0004], and at the Tennessee Ecological
Services Field Office) (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional
tools or supporting information that we
may develop for this critical habitat
designation will also be available at the
above locations.
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 229001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office, 446
Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501;
telephone 931–528–6481; facsimile
931–528–7075. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
This
document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list the fluted kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus subtentum) and
slabside pearlymussel (Pleuronaia
dolabelloides) as endangered species;
and (2) proposed critical habitat
designations for these two species.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, a species or subspecies may
warrant protection through listing if it is
an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Both species have been
eliminated from more than 50 percent of
the streams from which they were
historically known, and are now limited
to a handful of viable populations, all of
which are facing a variety of threats,
including impoundments, mining, poor
water quality, excessive sedimentation,
and environmental contaminants.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any
of five factors: (A) Destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequate
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors. These
two mussel species are facing threats
due to three of these five factors (A, D,
and E). The Act also requires that the
Service designate critical habitat at the
time of listing provided that it is
prudent and determinable. We have
determined that designating critical
habitat is both prudent and
determinable (see Critical Habitat for the
Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside
Pearlymussel section below), and
propose a total of approximately 2,218
river kilometers (rkm) (1,380 river miles
(rmi)) of critical habitat in five States.
Twenty-four units covering
approximately 1,899 river kilometers
(rkm) (1,181 river miles (rmi)) of critical
habitat are being proposed for the fluted
kidneyshell in Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia. Thirteen units
covering approximately 1,562 rkm (970
rmi) of critical habitat are being
proposed for the slabside pearlymussel
in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
and Virginia.
We will seek peer review. In addition
to seeking public comments, we will
solicit peer review of this proposal from
at least three experts knowledgeable in
mussel biology and basic conservation
biology principles and concepts.
Because we will consider all comments
and information received during the
comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this
proposal
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species
and regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of
either of these species, including the
locations of any additional populations.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of these
species, and ongoing conservation
measures for the species and their
habitat.
(4) Any information regarding water
quality data that may be helpful in
determining the water quality
parameters necessary for the fluted
kidneyshell and the slabside
pearlymussel.
(5) Current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species and
possible impacts of these activities on
these species.
(6) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(7) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act
including whether there are threats to
these species from human activity, the
degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation
such that the designation of critical
habitat may not be prudent.
(8) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at
the time of the proposed listing and that
contain features essential to the
conservation of these species, should be
included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
proposing, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the
time of the proposed listing are essential
for the conservation of these species and
why.
(9) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(10) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on these species and proposed
critical habitat.
(11) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation; in
particular, we seek information on any
impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(12) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(13) Any impact that critical habitat
designation would have, positive or
negative, on conservation efforts
associated with designated nonessential
experimental populations for other
listed species in the lower Holston and
French Broad river systems in
Tennessee, or the North Fork Holston
River in Virginia.
(14) Information on habitat suitability
for these two mussels in the proposed
units that are not occupied at the time
of the proposed listing, including the
Rockcastle River, Kentucky, and the
Sequatchie River, Tennessee.
(15) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60805
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
The fluted kidneyshell was first
identified as a candidate for protection
under the Act in the October 25, 1999,
Federal Register (64 FR 57534).
Candidate species are those taxa for
which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status
and threats to list as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act but for
which the development of a listing
regulation has been precluded to date by
other higher priority listing activities.
Candidates are assigned listing priority
numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy
and the magnitude of threat, as well as
their taxonomic status. A lower LPN
corresponds to a higher conservation
priority, and we consider the LPN when
prioritizing and funding conservation
actions. In our 1999 (64 FR 57534), 2001
(66 FR 54808), 2002 (67 FR 40657), 2004
(69 FR 24876), 2005 (70 FR 24870), and
2006 (71 FR 53756) Federal Register
Candidate Notices of Review, we
identified the species as having an LPN
of five, in accordance with our priority
guidance published on September 21,
1983 (48 FR 43098). An LPN of five
reflects threats that are nonimminent
and high in magnitude, as well as the
taxonomic classification of the fluted
kidneyshell as a full species. We also
determined that publication of a
proposed rule to list the fluted
kidneyshell was precluded by our work
on higher priority listing actions. On
May 11, 2004, we received a petition to
list the fluted kidneyshell as an
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60806
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
endangered species. We published our
petition finding in the 2005 Candidate
Notice of Review (70 FR 24869), and
have done so annually in subsequent
years.
On December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034),
we changed the LPN for the fluted
kidneyshell from five to two. A listing
priority of two reflects threats that are
both imminent and high in magnitude,
as well as the taxonomic classification
of the fluted kidneyshell as a full
species. In our 2008 (73 FR 75176), 2009
(74 FR 57804), 2010 (75 FR 69222), and
2011 (76 FR 66370) Candidate Notices
of Review, we retained a listing priority
number of two for this species.
The slabside pearlymussel was first
identified as a candidate for protection
under the Act in the May 22, 1984,
Federal Register (49 FR 21664). As a
candidate, it was assigned a ‘‘Category
2’’ designation, which was given to
those species with some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which additional
biological information was needed to
support a proposed rule to list as
endangered or threatened. In our 1989
(54 FR 554), 1991 (56 FR 58804), and
1994 (59 FR 58982) Federal Register
Candidate Notices of Review, we
retained a Category 2 designation for
this species. Assigning categories to
candidate species was discontinued in
our Candidate Notice of Review dated
February 28, 1996, and only species for
which the Service had sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support issuance of a
proposed rule were retained as
candidate species (61 FR 7596).
On October 25, 1999, we identified
the slabside pearlymussel in the Federal
Register as a candidate species with a
listing priority number of five (64 FR
57534). In our 2001 (66 FR 54808), 2002
(67 FR 40657), 2004 (69 FR 24876), 2005
(70 FR 24870), 2006 (71 FR 53756), and
2007 (72 FR 69034) Candidate Notices
of Review, we determined that
publication of a proposed rule to list the
species was precluded by our work on
higher priority listing actions and
retained a listing priority number of five
for this species, in accordance with our
priority guidance published on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). We
published a petition finding for slabside
pearlymussel in the 2005 Candidate
Notice of Review (70 FR 24870) in
response to a petition received on May
11, 2004, and have published annual
petition findings in subsequent
Candidate Notices of Review.
On December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176),
we changed the listing priority number
for the slabside pearlymussel from five
to two. In our 2009 (74 FR 57804), 2010
(75 FR 69222), and 2011 (76 FR 66370)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Candidate Notices of Review, we
retained a listing priority number of two
for this species.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the listing and
critical habitat designations for the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel in this proposed rule. A
summary of topics relevant to this
proposed rule is provided below.
Additional information on both species
may be found in the most recent
Candidate Notice of Review, which was
published October 26, 2011 (76 FR
66370).
Introduction
North American mussel fauna are
more biologically diverse than
anywhere else in the world, and
historically numbered around 300
species (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6).
Mussels are in decline, however, and in
the past century have become more
imperiled than any other group of
organisms (Williams et al. 2008, p. 55).
Approximately 72 percent of North
America’s mussel species are
considered vulnerable to extinction or
possibly extinct (Williams et al. 1993, p.
6). Within North America, the
southeastern United States is the hot
spot for mussel diversity. Seventy-five
percent of southeastern mussel species
are in varying degrees of rarity or
possibly extinct (Neves et al. 1997, pp.
47–51). The central reason for the
decline of mussels is the modification
and destruction of their habitat,
especially from dams, degraded water
quality, and sedimentation (Neves et al.
1997, p. 60; Bogan 1998, p. 376). These
two mussels, like many other
southeastern mussel species, have
undergone considerable reductions in
total range and population density.
Most studies of the distribution and
population status of the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
presented below were conducted after
the early 1960s. Gordon and Layzer
(1989, entire), Winston and Neves
(1997, entire), and Parmalee and Bogan
(1998, pp. 204–205) give most of the
references for regional stream surveys.
In addition to these publications, we
have obtained more current,
unpublished distribution and status
information from State heritage
programs, agency biologists, and other
knowledgeable individuals.
These two species are bivalve mussels
and are endemic to the Cumberland and
Tennessee River drainages. The
Cumberland River drainage originates in
southeastern Kentucky and flows
southwest across Tennessee before
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
turning north and reentering Kentucky
to empty into the lower Ohio River. The
Cumberland River drainage spans the
Appalachian Plateaus and Interior Low
Plateaus Physiographic Provinces. The
Tennessee River originates in southwest
Virginia and western North Carolina,
eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia
and flows southwesterly into western
Tennessee and Alabama, then turns
north and flows into Kentucky, before
emptying into the Ohio River. The larger
Tennessee River drainage spans five
physiographic provinces, including the
Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge,
Appalachian Plateaus, Interior Low
Plateaus, and Coastal Plain.
Fluted Kidneyshell
Taxonomy and Species Description
The fluted kidneyshell,
Ptychobranchus subtentum (Say, 1825),
is in the family Unionidae (Turgeon et
al. 1998, p. 36). The following
description, biology, and life history of
the fluted kidneyshell is taken from
Parmalee and Bogan (1998, pp. 204–
205) and Williams et al. (2008, pp. 627–
629). The fluted kidneyshell is a
relatively large mussel that reaches
about 13 centimeters (cm) (5 inches (in))
in length. The shape of the shell is
roughly oval elongate, and the solid,
relatively heavy valves (shells) are
moderately inflated. A series of flutings
(parallel ridges or grooves) characterizes
the posterior slope of each valve. Shell
texture is smooth and somewhat shiny
in young specimens, becoming duller
with age. Shell color is greenish yellow,
becoming brownish with age, with
several broken, wide green rays.
Internally, there are two types of teeth,
which are raised, interlocking structures
used to stabilize opposing shell halves.
The pseudocardinal teeth are stumpy
and triangular in shape. The lateral
teeth are relatively heavy and nearly
straight, with two in the left valve and
one in the right valve. The color of the
nacre (mother-of-pearl) is bluish-white
to dull white with a wash of salmon in
the older part of the shell (beak cavity).
Habitat and Life History
Mussels generally live embedded in
the bottom of rivers and other bodies of
water. They siphon water into their
shells and across four gills that are
specialized for respiration, food
collection, and brooding larvae in
females. Food items include detritus
(disintegrated organic debris), algae,
diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et al.
2004, pp. 430–431). Adult mussels can
obtain their food by deposit feeding,
pulling in food from the sediment and
its interstitial (pore) water, and pedal-
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
feeding directly from the sediment
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217–221;
Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001, 1432–
1438). Adults are filter feeders and
generally orient themselves on or near
the substrate surface to take in food and
oxygen from the water column.
Juveniles typically burrow completely
beneath the substrate surface and are
deposit or pedal (foot) feeders, meaning
that they bring food particles that
adhere to the foot while it is extended
outside the shell inside the shell for
ingestion, until the structures for filter
feeding are more fully developed
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 200–221;
Gatenby et al. 1996, p. 604). However,
adults are also capable of deposit
feeding and may do so depending on the
availability of food resources (Nichols et
al. 2005, pp. 90–93).
Mussels tend to grow relatively
rapidly for the first few years; then
growth slows appreciably after sexual
maturity, when energy is being diverted
from growth to reproductive activities.
Mussel longevity varies tremendously
among species (from 4 to 5 years to well
over 100 years), but most species live 10
to 50 years (Haag and Rypel 2011, pp.
230–236). Relatively large, heavyshelled riverine species tend to be
slower growing and have longer life
spans. By thin-sectioning the valves,
various authors have aged fluted
kidneyshell from the Clinch River at 26
and 55 years (Henley et al. 2002, p. 19;
Davis and Layzer 2012, p. 92). Females
can become sexually mature at age 5
(Davis and Layzer 2012, p. 79).
The gametogenic cycle (annual cycle
in the development of reproductive cells
or gametes) of fluted kidneyshell, like
most mussels, is probably regulated by
annual temperature regimes (Davis and
Layzer, p. 90). Most mussels, including
the fluted kidneyshell, have separate
sexes. Males expel sperm into the water
column, which are drawn in by females
through their incurrent apertures or
siphons. It has been hypothesized that
pheromones might trigger synchronous
sperm release among males, because all
fertilization observed by females from
the Clinch River occurred in fewer than
5 days (Davis and Layzer 2012, p. 90).
Fertilization takes place internally, and
the resulting zygotes develop into
specialized larvae, termed glochidia,
inside the water tubes of the females’
gills. The fluted kidneyshell, along with
other members of its genus, is unique in
that the marsupial portion of the outer
gills (portion of a brooding female’s gill
which holds embryos and glochidia) are
folded in a curtain-like fashion. The
fluted kidneyshell is thought to have a
late summer or early fall fertilization
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
period with the glochidia overwintering.
Davis and Layzer (2012, p. 90) observed
embryo development within the
marsupium (brood pouch) at 4 weeks
after fertilization. The following spring
or early summer, glochidia are released
as conglutinates, which are similar to
cold capsules or gelatinous containers
with scores of glochidia within. Davis
and Layzer (2012, p. 86) report an
average of 208 conglutinates and an
average fecundity (total reproductive
output) of 247,000 glochidia per female.
Davis and Layzer (2012, p. 92) report a
skewed adult sex ratio of 1.9 females per
1 male in the Clinch River, in
Tennessee, although the cause of the
skewed ratio is unknown. Using the
observed sex ratio and percent of
females that were gravid, Davis and
Layzer (2012, p. 92) hypothesized that
some females go through reproductive
‘‘pausing’’ periods to acquire the energy
reserves needed to produce gametes in
subsequent years.
Glochidia must come into contact
with a specific host fish(es) quickly in
order for their survival to be ensured.
Without the proper species of host fish,
the glochidia will perish. Conglutinate
masses often mimic food items of
glochidial fish hosts in order to attract
and infest potential host fishes. Fluted
kidneyshell conglutinates are shaped
like black fly (Simuliidae) pupae and
have an adhesive end that sticks to siltfree stones on the stream bottom, with
an orientation that is also similar to that
of blackfly pupae (Barnhart and Roberts
1997, p. 17; Barnhart et al. 2008, p. 377;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 628). Insects are
common food items of many stream
fishes, including the fluted
kidneyshell’s host fishes, which include
the barcheek darter (Etheostoma
obeyense), fantail darter (E. flabellare),
rainbow darter (E. caeruleum), redline
darter (E. rufilineatum), bluebreast
darter (E. camurum), dusky darter
(Percina sciera), and banded sculpin
(Cottus carolinae). These fishes are
tricked into thinking that they have an
easy insect meal when in fact they have
infected themselves with parasitic
mussel glochidia (Parmalee and Bogan
1998, p. 205; Davis and Layzer 2012, p.
88).
After a few weeks parasitizing the
host fish’s gill, newly metamorphosed
juveniles drop off to begin a free-living
existence on the stream bottom. Unless
they drop off in suitable habitat, they
will perish. Thus, the complex life
history of the fluted kidneyshell and
other mussels has many critical steps
that may prevent successful
reproduction or recruitment of juveniles
into existing populations or both.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60807
The fluted kidneyshell occurs in
medium-sized creeks to large rivers,
inhabiting sand and gravel substrates in
relatively shallow riffles and shoals
with moderate to swift current
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 628). In
comparison to some co-occurring
species, the fluted kidneyshell
demonstrates strong habitat specificity
by being associated with faster flows,
greater shear stress (force of water
pressure and velocity on the substrate),
and low substrate embeddedness (Ostby
2005, pp. 51, 142–3).
Historical Range and Distribution
The fluted kidneyshell is a
Cumberlandian Region mussel, meaning
it is restricted to the Cumberland (in
Kentucky and Tennessee) and
Tennessee (in Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia) River systems.
Historically, this species occurred in the
Cumberland River mainstem from below
Cumberland Falls in southeastern
Kentucky downstream through the
Tennessee portion of the river to the
vicinity of the Kentucky-Tennessee
State line. In the Tennessee River
mainstem it occurred from eastern to
western Tennessee. Records are known
from the following Cumberland River
tributaries: Horse Lick Creek [KY],
Middle Fork Rockcastle River [KY],
Rockcastle River [KY], Buck Creek [KY],
Rock Creek [KY], Kennedy Creek [KY],
Little South Fork [KY], Big South Fork
[KY, TN], Pitman Creek [KY], Otter
Creek [KY], Wolf River [TN], Town
Branch [TN], West Fork Obey River
[TN], Obey River [TN], Caney Fork [TN],
South Harpeth River [TN], and West
Fork Red River [KY]. In addition, it is
known from the following Tennessee
River tributaries: South Fork Powell
River [VA], Powell River [TN, VA],
Indian Creek [VA], Little River [VA],
Clinch River [TN, VA], Copper Creek
[VA], North Fork Holston River [TN,
VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA], Middle
Fork Holston River [VA], South Fork
Holston River [TN, VA], Holston River
[TN], Nolichucky River [TN], West
Prong Little Pigeon River [TN], Tellico
River [TN], French Broad River [TN],
Little Tennessee River [TN], Hiwassee
River [TN], Flint River [AL], Limestone
Creek [AL], Elk River [AL, TN], Shoal
Creek [AL], Buffalo River [TN], and
Duck River [TN] (Gordon and Layzer
1989, entire; Winston and Neves 1997,
entire; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp.
204–205; Layzer and Scott 2006, p. 481).
The fluted kidneyshell’s known
historical and current occurrences, by
water body and county, are shown in
Table 1 below.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60808
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL
Water body
Drainage
County
Cumberland River ......................................
Cumberland River ......................................
Middle Fork Rockcastle River ....................
Horse Lick Creek .......................................
Rockcastle River ........................................
Buck Creek .................................................
Big South Fork Cumberland River .............
Big South Fork Cumberland River .............
Rock Creek ................................................
Little South Fork Cumberland River ..........
Kennedy Creek ..........................................
Pitman Creek .............................................
Otter Creek .................................................
Wolf River ...................................................
Town Branch ..............................................
Obey River .................................................
West Fork Obey River ...............................
Caney Fork River .......................................
South Harpeth River ..................................
West Fork Red River .................................
South Fork Powell River ............................
Powell River ...............................................
Powell River ...............................................
Powell River ...............................................
Indian Creek ...............................................
Clinch River ................................................
Clinch River ................................................
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Clinch River ................................................
Little River ..................................................
Copper Creek .............................................
North Fork Holston River ...........................
North Fork Holston River ...........................
Big Moccasin Creek ...................................
Middle Fork Holston River .........................
South Fork Holston River ...........................
South Fork Holston River ...........................
Holston River ..............................................
French Broad River ....................................
Tennessee River ........................................
Tennessee River ........................................
Nolichucky River ........................................
West Prong Little Pigeon River ..................
Tellico River ...............................................
Little Tennessee River ...............................
Hiwassee River ..........................................
Flint River ...................................................
Limestone Creek ........................................
Elk River .....................................................
Elk River .....................................................
Shoal Creek ...............................................
Duck River ..................................................
Buffalo River ...............................................
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
McCreary, Pulaski, Russell ........................
Stewart .......................................................
Jackson ......................................................
Jackson, Rockcastle ..................................
Laurel, Pulaski, Rockcastle ........................
Pulaski ........................................................
McCreary, Pulaski ......................................
Fentress, Morgan, Scott .............................
McCreary ....................................................
McCreary, Wayne ......................................
Wayne ........................................................
Pulaski ........................................................
Wayne ........................................................
Fentress, Pickett ........................................
Pickett .........................................................
? .................................................................
Overton .......................................................
? .................................................................
Davidson ....................................................
Todd ...........................................................
Wise ...........................................................
Claiborne, Hancock ....................................
Campbell, Union .........................................
Lee .............................................................
Tazewell .....................................................
Hancock .....................................................
Anderson, Claiborne, Grainger, Roane,
Union.
Russell, Scott, Tazewell, Wise ...................
Russell, Tazewell .......................................
Scott ...........................................................
Hawkins, Sullivan .......................................
Bland, Scott, Smyth, Washington ..............
Scott ...........................................................
Smyth .........................................................
Sullivan .......................................................
Washington ................................................
Grainger, Hamblen, Jefferson, Knox .........
? .................................................................
Colbert, Jackson, Lauderdale ....................
Decatur, Knox, Meigs, Rhea ......................
Greene .......................................................
Sevier .........................................................
Monroe .......................................................
Monroe .......................................................
Polk ............................................................
Madison ......................................................
Limestone ...................................................
Limestone ...................................................
Coffee, Franklin ..........................................
Limestone ...................................................
Bedford, Marshall, Maury ...........................
Lewis ..........................................................
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
State
Historical or current
KY
TN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
TN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
KY
VA
TN
TN
VA
VA
TN
TN
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
VA
VA
VA
TN
VA
VA
VA
TN
VA
TN
TN
AL
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
AL
AL
AL
TN
AL
TN
TN
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Note: A ? represents a lack of specific locational information in the museum and literature record.
Prior to 1980, the fluted kidneyshell
was fairly widespread and common in
many Cumberlandian Region streams
based on collections in museums and
from the literature record. The
extirpation of this species from
numerous streams within its historical
range indicates that substantial
population losses and range reductions
have occurred.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Current Range and Distribution
In this document, populations of the
fluted kidneyshell are generally
considered extant (current) if live
individuals or fresh dead specimens
have been collected since circa 1980.
This criterion (circa 1980) was chosen
because a large number of collections
were conducted in the 1980s in the
Cumberland and Tennessee River
systems and due to the longevity of
these species (40–55 years), they are still
thought to occur in these areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Some of the historical occurences
have not been surveyed since the 1980s.
Based on this criterion, the species
appears to be limited to Horse Lick
Creek [KY], Middle Fork Rockcastle
River [KY], Buck Creek [KY], Rock
Creek [KY], Little South Fork
Cumberland River [KY], Big South Fork
Cumberland River [KY, TN], Wolf River
[TN], Town Branch [TN], and West Fork
Obey River [TN] in the Cumberland
River system; and the Powell River [TN,
VA], Indian Creek [VA], Little River
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
[VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], Copper
Creek [VA], North Fork Holston River
[VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA], Middle
Fork Holston River [VA], Nolichucky
River [TN], and Duck River [TN] in the
Tennessee River system (see Table 1).
Where two or more stream populations
occur contiguously with no barriers,
such as impoundments or long reaches
of unoccupied habitat, they are
considered single population segments
or clusters. Multi-stream population
segments include the Wolf River and its
tributary Town Branch in the
Cumberland River system, and Clinch
River and Copper Creek (but not the
other two upper Clinch tributaries,
Indian Creek and Little River) in the
Tennessee River system. Thus, we
consider 17 of 40 populations of fluted
kidneyshell to be extant. The fluted
kidneyshell has been eliminated from
more than 50 percent of streams from
which it was historically known.
Other populations considered extant
at the time this species was elevated to
candidate status in 1999 (e.g.,
Rockcastle River, Kennedy Creek) are
now considered to be extirpated. In
addition, the population in the upper
North Fork Holston River, although still
large, has declined substantially since
circa 2000. The North Fork Holston
River population is predominately
composed of large individuals, unlike
the Clinch River population, which is
skewed towards smaller size classes
(Ostby et al. 2010, pp. 7, 22–24). These
differences in population characteristics
are a clear indication that recruitment in
the Clinch River population is more
observable than the population in the
North Fork Holston River.
Resource managers have been making
attempts to reintroduce the fluted
kidneyshell into historical habitat over
the past decade. In Tennessee,
thousands of individuals of the species
have been reintroduced into three sites
in the upper Duck River, and into two
sites in the Nolichucky River, by
Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency
(TWRA) biologists translocating adult
individuals from the Clinch River
(Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). In 2010, six
individuals were collected during a
quantitative survey at Lillard’s Mill in
the Duck River, confirming some level
of survival and persistence of the
reintroduced population (Hubbs 2011,
unpubl. data). The individuals collected
appeared in good condition and had
grown noticeably since their release (as
evidenced by external shell marks), but
recruitment has yet to be documented
(Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). In 2008, the
Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources (KDFWR)
translocated 144 individuals from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Clinch River into the Big South Fork of
the Cumberland River, Kentucky (Hubbs
2011, unpubl. data). It is not known if
the Nolichucky or Big South Fork
reintroductions have been successful.
Approximately 691 adult individuals of
the species have been translocated from
the Clinch River, Tennessee, into the
Little Tennessee River bypass reach
below Calderwood Dam, Tennessee
(Moles 2012, pers. comm.). The Virginia
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (VDGIF) reintroduced 58
adults into Indian Creek, a tributary to
the Clinch River, using Clinch River
stock. They have also propagated and
released 562 juveniles into the North
Fork Holston River (Duncan 2012, pers.
comm.).
The extant fluted kidneyshell
populations (including the potentially
reintroduced populations) in the
Cumberlandian Region generally
represent small, isolated occurrences.
Only in the Clinch River is a population
of the fluted kidneyshell known to be
large, stable, and viable, but in a
relatively short reach of river primarily
in the vicinity of the Tennessee-Virginia
State line. Jones (2012, unpub. data)
estimates 500,000 to 1,000,000
individuals occur in the Clinch River
from just a 32-river-kilometer (rkm) (20river-mile (rmi)) reach (rkm 309 to 277
(rmi 172 to 192)). Live adults and
juveniles have been observed over the
past 10 years in shoal habitats in the
upper Clinch River, Virginia,
particularly at and above Cleveland
Islands, and many more fresh dead
shells have been collected in muskrat
middens in this reach. Eckert and
Pinder (2010, pp. 23–30) collected 18
individuals in quantitative samples and
11 individuals in semi-quantitative
samples in the Clinch River at
Cleveland Island in 2008, and 15
individuals in quantitative samples and
62 individuals in semi-quantitative
samples in the Clinch River at
Cleveland Island in 2002. Ostby and
Angermeier (2011, entire) found two
live individuals in the Little River
(tributary to Clinch River). Henley et al.
(1999, pp. 20, 22) collected live
individuals at 6 of 25 sites surveyed in
the Middle Fork Holston River in 1997
and 1998. The fluted kidneyshell was
found in Copper Creek between creek
rkm 2 and 31 (rmi 1 and 19) (Hanlon et
al. 2009, pp. 15–17). Petty et al. (2006,
pp. 4, 36) found the species between
Copper Creek rkm 24 and 31 (rmi 15
and 19) and reported evidence of
reproduction and recruitment of the
species at these locations. In 2008–09,
35 live individuals were found at 5 of
21 sites sampled in the Powell River, in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60809
both Tennessee and Virginia, and there
was some indication of relatively recent
recruitment (Johnson et al. in press,
Table 4). Ostby et al. (2010, pp. 16–20)
observed 772 individuals during
qualitative surveys and 10 individuals
in quantitative surveys in the North
Fork Holston River, Virginia.
Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Middle Fork Rockcastle
River since the mid-1980s (Layzer and
Anderson 1992, p. 64). Haag and Warren
(2004, p. 16) collected only fresh dead
shell material in Horse Lick Creek, and
reported that a small, extremely
vulnerable population of the fluted
kidneyshell may exist there, but at very
low levels that they were not able to
detect. Warren and Haag (2005, pp.
1384, 1388–1396) reported a vast
reduction of the once sizable Little
South Fork population since the late
1980s. Live fluted kidneyshell have not
been collected in the Big South Fork
since the mid-1980s (Ahlstedt et al.
2003–2004, p. 65). In 2010, two
individuals were found in Buck Creek
and collected for future propagation
efforts (McGregor 2010, unpub. data).
Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in Rock Creek since 1988
(Layzer and Anderson 1992, p. 68).
Layzer and Anderson (1992, p. 22)
collected fluted kidneyshell at two sites
in the West Fork Obey River. A small
but recruiting population occurs in the
Wolf River, Tennessee, based on 2005–
06 sampling (Moles et al. 2007, p. 79).
This may be the best population
remaining in the entire Cumberland
River system, where most populations
are very restricted in range and are
highly imperiled. Given its longevity,
small populations of this long-lived
species may persist for decades despite
total recruitment failure. Therefore, at
least 5 of the extant populations may be
functionally extirpated (e.g., Horse Lick
Creek, Middle Fork Rockcastle River,
Little South Fork Cumberland River,
Rock Creek, West Fork Obey River).
Population Estimates and Status
Extirpated from both the Cumberland
and Tennessee River mainstems, the
fluted kidneyshell has been eliminated
from approximately 50 percent of the
total number of streams from which it
was historically known. Population size
data gathered during the past decade or
two indicate that the fluted kidneyshell
is rare in nearly all extant populations,
the Clinch River being a notable
exception. The fluted kidneyshell is
particularly imperiled in Kentucky.
Haag and Warren (2004, p. 16) reported
that a small, extremely vulnerable
population of the fluted kidneyshell
may exist in Horse Lick Creek, but at
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60810
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
extremely low levels that they were not
able to detect. They only collected fresh
dead shell material in Horse Lick Creek.
The vast reduction of the once sizable
Little South Fork population since the
late 1980s (Warren and Haag 2005, pp.
1384, 1388–1396) and the tenuous
status of the other Cumberland River
system populations put the species at
risk of total extirpation from that
Cumberland River system. In addition,
the populations in the Powell River
(post-1980) and the Middle Fork (post1995) and upper North Fork (post-2000)
Holston Rivers in Virginia have
declined in recent years based on recent
survey efforts (Henley et al. 1999, p. 23;
Ahlstedt et al. 2005, p. 9; Jones and
Neves 2007, p. 477; Johnson et al. in
press). Populations of the fluted
kidneyshell remain locally abundant in
certain reaches of the North Fork
Holston River but are reduced in overall
range within the river (Ostby and Neves
2005, 2006a, and 2006b, entire; Dinkins
2010a, p. 3–1). Declines in mussel
community abundance in the North
Fork Holston River have been in the
form of several die-offs. The cause for
the observed die-offs is unknown (Jones
and Neves 2007, p. 479), but may be
related to agricultural runoff (Hanlon et
al. 2009, p. 11).
In summary, the fluted kidneyshell
has been eliminated from approximately
50 percent of the total number of
streams from which it was historically
known. Populations in Buck Creek,
Little South Fork, Horse Lick Creek,
Powell River, and North Fork Holston
River have clearly declined over the
past two decades. Based on recent
information, the overall population
status of the fluted kidneyshell
rangewide is declining. A few
populations are considered to be viable
(e.g., Wolf, Clinch, Little, North Fork
Holston Rivers). However, all other
populations are of questionable
viability, with some on the verge of
extirpation (e.g., Horse Lick and Rock
Creeks). Newly reintroduced
populations will hopefully begin to
reverse the overall downward trend of
this species.
The fluted kidneyshell was
considered a species of special concern
by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14), but two
decades later is considered endangered
in a reassessment of the North American
mussel fauna by the Endangered Species
Committee of the American Fisheries
Society (Butler 2012, pers. comm.). The
fluted kidneyshell is listed as a species
of Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) in
the Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia
State Wildlife Action Plans (KDFWR
2005; TWRA 2005; VDGIF 2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Slabside Pearlymussel
Habitat and Life History
Taxonomy and Species Description
General life history information for
the slabside pearlymussel is similar to
that given for the fluted kidneyshell
above. Samples from approximately 150
shells of the slabside pearlymussel from
the North Fork Holston River were thinsectioned for age determination. The
maximum age exceeded 40 years
(Grobler et al. 2005, p. 65).
The slabside pearlymussel utilizes all
four gills as a marsupium for its
glochidia. It is thought to have a spring
or early summer fertilization period
with the glochidia being released during
the late summer in the form of
conglutinates. Slabside pearlymussel
conglutinates have not been described.
The slabside pearlymussel’s host fishes
include 11 species of minnows (popeye
shiner, Notropis ariommus; rosyface
shiner, N. rubellus; saffron shiner, N.
rubricroceus; silver shiner, N.
photogenis; telescope shiner, N.
telescopus; Tennessee shiner, N.
leuciodus; whitetail shiner, Cyprinella
galactura; striped shiner, Luxilus
chrysocephalus; warpaint shiner, L.
coccogenis; white shiner, L. albeolus;
and eastern blacknose dace, Rhinichthys
atratulus) (Kitchel 1985 and Neves 1991
in Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp. 150–
152; Jones and Neves 2002, pp. 18–20).
The slabside pearlymussel is
primarily a large creek to large river
species, inhabiting sand, fine gravel,
and cobble substrates in relatively
shallow riffles and shoals with moderate
current (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p.
152; Williams et al. 2008, p. 590). This
species requires flowing, welloxygenated waters to thrive.
The taxonomic status of the slabside
pearlymussel (family Unionidae) as a
distinct species is undisputed within
the scientific community. The species is
recognized as Lexingtonia dolabelloides
(I. Lea, 1840) in the ‘‘Common and
Scientific Names of Aquatic
Invertebrates from the United States and
Canada: Mollusks, Second Edition’’
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 35). However,
there are currently differing opinions on
the appropriate genus to use for the
species. Genetic analyses by Bogan et al.
(unpublished data), as cited by Williams
et al. (2008, p. 584), suggests that the
type genus of Lexingtonia, Unio
subplana Conrad, 1837, is synonymous
with Fusconaia masoni (Conrad, 1834).
Lexingtonia is therefore a junior
synonym of Fusconaia, making
Lexingtonia no longer available as a
valid genus of mussel under the rules of
the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (Williams 2011, pers.
comm.). Analyses by Campbell et al.
(2005, pp. 141, 143, 147) and Campbell
and Lydeard (2012a, pp. 3–6, 9; 2012b,
pp. 25–27, 30, 34) suggest that
‘‘Lexingtonia’’ dolabelloides,
‘‘Fusconaia’’ barnesiana, and
‘‘Pleurobema’’ gibberum do not
correspond to their currently assigned
genera but form a closely related group.
Williams et al. (2008, pp. 584–593) and
Campbell and Lydeard (2012b, pp. 30,
34) picked the next available genus
name for dolabelloides, which appears
to be Pleuronaia (Frierson 1927). Based
on this latest information, we currently
consider Pleuronaia to be the most
appropriate generic name for the
slabside pearlymussel.
The following description, biology,
and life history of the slabside
pearlymussel is taken from data
summarized in Parmalee and Bogan
(1998, pp. 150–152). The slabside
pearlymussel is a moderately sized
mussel that reaches about 9 cm (3.5 in)
in length. The shape of the shell is
subtriangular, and the very solid, heavy
valves are moderately inflated. Shell
texture is smooth and somewhat shiny
in young specimens, becoming duller
with age. Shell color is greenish yellow,
becoming brownish with age, with a few
broken green rays or blotches,
particularly in young individuals.
Internally, the pseudocardinal teeth are
triangular or blade-like in shape. The
lateral teeth are slightly curved, with
two in the left valve and one in the right
valve. The color of the nacre is white,
or rarely, straw-colored.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Historical Range and Distribution
Historically, the slabside
pearlymussel occurred in the lower
Cumberland River mainstem from the
vicinity of the Kentucky State line
downstream to the the Caney Fork
River, Tennessee, and in the Tennessee
River mainstem from eastern Tennessee
to western Tennessee. Records are
known from two Cumberland River
tributaries, the Caney Fork [TN] and Red
Rivers [KY, TN]. In addition, it is known
from 30 Tennessee River system
tributaries, including the South Fork
Powell River [VA], Powell River [TN,
VA], Puckell Creek [VA], Clinch River
[TN, VA], North Fork Holston River
[TN, VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA],
Middle Fork Holston River [VA], South
Fork Holston River [TN], Holston River
[TN], Nolichucky River [TN], West
Prong Little Pigeon River [TN], French
Broad River [TN], Tellico River [TN],
Little Tennessee River [TN], Hiwassee
River [TN], Sequatchie River [TN],
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Larkin Fork [AL], Estill Fork [AL],
Hurricane Creek [AL], Paint Rock River
[AL], Flint River [AL], Flint Creek [AL],
Limestone Creek [AL], Elk River [AL,
TN], Sugar Creek [AL], Bear Creek [AL,
MS], North Fork Creek [TN], Big Rock
Creek [TN], Buffalo River [TN], and
Duck River [TN] (Gordon and Layzer
1989, entire; Winston and Neves 1997,
entire; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp.
60811
150–152). The slabside pearlymussel’s
known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county,
are shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2—KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES FOR THE SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL
Drainage
County
Cumberland River ......................................
Caney Fork River .......................................
Red River ...................................................
Red River ...................................................
South Fork Powell River ............................
Powell River ...............................................
Powell River ...............................................
Powell River ...............................................
Puckell Creek .............................................
Clinch River ................................................
Clinch River ................................................
Clinch River ................................................
North Fork Holston River ...........................
North Fork Holston River ...........................
Big Moccasin Creek ...................................
Middle Fork Holston River .........................
South Fork Holston River ...........................
Holston River ..............................................
French Broad River ....................................
Tennessee River ........................................
Tennessee River ........................................
Nolichucky River ........................................
West Prong Little Pigeon River ..................
Tellico River ...............................................
Little Tennessee River ...............................
Hiwassee River ..........................................
Sequatchie River ........................................
Larkin Fork .................................................
Estill Fork ...................................................
Hurricane Creek .........................................
Paint Rock River ........................................
Flint River ...................................................
Flint Creek ..................................................
Limestone Creek ........................................
Elk River .....................................................
Elk River .....................................................
Elk River .....................................................
Sugar Creek ...............................................
Bear Creek .................................................
Bear Creek .................................................
Duck River ..................................................
Duck River ..................................................
North Fork Creek .......................................
Big Rock Creek ..........................................
Buffalo River ...............................................
Buffalo River ...............................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Water body
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Cumberland ......
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Tennessee ........
Davidson, Smith .........................................
? .................................................................
Logan .........................................................
? .................................................................
Wise ...........................................................
Claiborne ....................................................
Hancock .....................................................
Lee .............................................................
Lee .............................................................
Hancock .....................................................
Anderson, Campbell, Claiborne, Knox .......
Russell, Scott, Tazewell, Wise ...................
Hawkins, Sullivan .......................................
Bland, Scott, Smyth, Washington ..............
Russell, Scott .............................................
Smyth, Washington, Wythe ........................
Sullivan .......................................................
? .................................................................
Sevier .........................................................
Colbert, Jackson, Lauderdale ....................
Hamilton, Hardin, Knox, Meigs, Rhea .......
Cocke, Greene, Hamblen ..........................
Sevier .........................................................
Monroe .......................................................
Monroe .......................................................
Polk ............................................................
Sequatchie .................................................
Jackson ......................................................
Jackson ......................................................
Jackson ......................................................
Jackson, Madison, Marshall .......................
Madison ......................................................
Morgan .......................................................
Limestone ...................................................
Limestone ...................................................
Lincoln ........................................................
Coffee, Franklin, Moore .............................
Limestone ...................................................
Franklin .......................................................
Tishomingo .................................................
Bedford, Hickman, Marshall, Maury ...........
Coffee .........................................................
Bedford .......................................................
Marshall ......................................................
Humphreys, Perry ......................................
Lewis ..........................................................
Based on collections made in the
early 1900s, the slabside pearlymussel
was historically fairly widespread and
common in many Cumberlandian
Region streams. However, its decline in
certain streams may have begun before
European colonization. The slabside
pearlymussel was considered rare by
mussel experts as early as 1970
(Stansbery 1971, p.13), which represents
the first attempt to compile such a list.
The extirpation of this species from
numerous streams within its historical
range indicates that substantial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
population losses and range reductions
have occurred.
Current Range and Distribution
In this document, populations of the
slabside pearlymussel are generally
considered extant (current) if live
individuals or fresh dead specimens
have been collected since circa 1980.
This criterion (circa 1980) was chosen
because a large number of collections
were conducted in the 1980s in the
Cumberland and Tennessee River
systems and due to the longevity of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
State
TN
TN
KY
TN
VA
TN
TN
VA
VA
TN
TN
VA
TN
VA
VA
VA
TN
TN
TN
AL
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
TN
TN
AL
AL
MS
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Historical or current
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
these species (40–55 years), they are still
thought to occur in these areas.
Some of the historical occurences
have not been surveyed since the 1980s.
Based on this criterion, extant
populations remain in the Powell River
[TN, VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], North
Fork Holston River [VA], Nolichucky
River [TN], Big Moccasin Creek [VA],
Middle Fork Holston River [VA],
Hiwassee River [TN], Sequatchie River
[TN], Paint Rock River [AL], Larkin Fork
[AL], Estill Fork [AL], Hurricane Creek
[AL], Elk River [AL, TN], Buffalo River
[TN], Duck River [TN], and Bear Creek
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60812
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
[AL, MS] (see Table 2). Where two or
more stream populations occur
contiguously with no absolute barriers
(e.g., large impoundments) or long
reaches of unoccupied habitat, they are
considered to represent a single
population segment. The Paint Rock
River system (including Larkin Fork,
Estill Fork, and Hurricane Creek) is
considered a single population segment
or cluster but it occurs only in the lower
mile or so of the three tributary streams.
Thus, we consider 13 of 30 populations
of the slabside pearlymussel to be
extant. The slabside pearlymussel has
been eliminated from more than 50
percent of streams from which it was
historically known.
The extant occurrences in the
Tennessee River system represent 11
isolated populations. Population size
data gathered during the past two
decades indicate that the slabside
pearlymussel is rare (experienced
surveyors may find four or fewer
specimens per site of occurrence) in
about half of its extant populations.
Only a few individuals have been found
in the Powell River since 1988;
therefore, this population is considered
extremely rare (Ahlstedt et al. 2005, p.
9). In 2009, 4 individuals were collected
in the Powell River (Johnson 2010, p.
39). A single live individual was found
in 2006 in Big Moccasin Creek, Virginia
(Ostby et al. 2006, p. 3). The slabside
pearlymussel is uncommon to rare in
the Clinch River, with only a few
individuals found per effort (Ahlstedt et
al. 2005, p. 8). Eckert and Pinder (2010,
pp. 23–30) collected 1 individual in
quantitative samples and 5 individuals
in semi-quantitative samples in the
Clinch River at Cleveland Island in
2008, and 2 individuals in quantitative
samples and 13 individuals in semiquantitative samples in the Clinch River
at Cleveland Island in 2002. In 2005,
approximately 20 individuals were
found near Harms Mill (one of five sites
surveyed) in the Elk River, Tennessee,
and 13 individuals (at two of five survey
sites, spanning approximately 48 rkm
(30 rmi)) were found in 2008 (Howard
2009, pers. comm.; Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) 2009, p. 59). In 2002,
one live individual was found in the
Hiwassee River (Ahlstedt 2003, p. 3).
The slabside pearlymussel was last
found in the Sequatchie River 2 miles
north of Dunlap, Tennessee, in 1980
(Hatcher and Ahlstedt 1982, p. 9). A
small population is limited to Bear
Creek in Mississippi, its only
occurrence in that State (Jones 2012,
pers. comm.). In 2009, TVA collected 9
individuals at one site in Bear Creek
(TVA 2010, p. 69). This population is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
recruiting as evidenced by collection of
fresh dead juvenile shells in 2011
(Johnson 2011, pers. comm.). Given its
longevity, small populations of this
long-lived species may persist for
decades despite total recruitment
failure. The species has undergone
decline in the North and Middle Forks
of the Holston River (Jones and Neves
2005, pp. 8–9). This is especially true
for the North Fork, where the species
has been nearly eliminated (Hanlon
2006, unpub. data). The cause for the
observed die-offs is unknown (Jones and
Neves 2007, p. 479). Ostby et al. (2010,
pp. 16–20) observed 8 individuals in
qualitative surveys at one site, but did
not observe the species in quantitative
surveys in the Upper North Fork
Holston River. Slabside pearlymussels
have declined at 3 of 4 survey sites on
the Middle Fork Holston River (Henley
2011, pers. comm.). A single valve of a
fresh dead specimen was found in the
Nolichucky River in 2011 (Dinkins
2010b, p. 2–1). In 2011, TVA collected
one live individual in the Buffalo River
(Wales 2012, pers. comm.).
The Duck and Paint Rock Rivers
appear to have the best populations
remaining rangewide based on
population size and the evidence of
recent recruitment. The slabside
pearlymussel is found at numerous sites
in the Duck River within a 64-rkm (40rmi) reach, and is found at numerous
sites within a 72-rkm (45-rmi) reach of
the Paint Rock River (Ahlstedt et al.
2004, p. 84; Fobian et al. 2008, pp. 15–
16). A 2010 quantitative survey of the
Duck River found the slabside
pearlymussel present but rare at 4 of 6
sites sampled (Hubbs et al. 2011, pp.
19–25).
Population Estimates and Status
A recent study of major population
centers concluded that all populations
of the species were fairly similar in
genetic structure (Grobler et al. 2005, p.
1). However, the population in the Duck
River was deemed relatively distinct
enough from those in the middle (i.e.,
Paint Rock River) and upper (i.e.,
Clinch, North and Middle Forks Holston
Rivers) Tennessee River system to
warrant recognition as a distinct
management unit.
Current status information for most of
the 13 extant populations is available
from recent periodic sampling efforts
(sometimes annually) and other field
studies. Comprehensive surveys have
taken place in the Middle and North
Forks Holston River, Paint Rock River,
and Duck River in the past several years.
Based on this information, the overall
population of the slabside pearlymussel
appears to be declining rangewide, and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the species remains in relatively good
numbers and appears viable in just two
streams (Duck and Paint Rock Rivers).
Two of the four largest populations in
the mid-1990s have undergone drastic
recent declines (i.e., North and Middle
Forks Holston Rivers), especially in the
North Fork. Most of the other
populations are of questionable viability
and may be on the verge of extirpation
(e.g., Powell and Hiwassee Rivers; Big
Moccasin Creek).
The slabside pearlymussel was
considered threatened by Williams et al.
(1993, p. 13), but two decades later is
considered endangered in a
reassessment of the North American
mussel fauna by the Endangered Species
Committee of the American Fisheries
Society (Butler 2012, pers. comm.). The
slabside pearlymussel is listed as a
species of Greatest Conservation Need
(GCN) in the Alabama, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia State Wildlife
Action Plans (Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources,
Division of Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries, 2005; KDFWR 2005;
Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks, 2005; TWRA 2005;
VDGIF 2005).
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act, and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we may list a species based on any
of the following five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is
discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The decline of the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel in the
Cumberlandian Region and other
mussel species in the eastern United
States is primarily the result of habitat
loss and degradation. Chief among the
causes of decline are impoundments,
gravel and coal mining, sedimentation,
water pollution, and stream channel
alterations (Neves 1993, pp. 4–5;
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al.
1997, pp. 60–78).
Impoundments
Impoundments result in the dramatic
modification of riffle and shoal habitats
and the resulting loss of mussel
resources, especially in larger rivers.
Impoundment impacts are most
profound in riffle and shoal areas,
which harbor the largest assemblages of
mussel species, including the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
Mussels are relatively immobile and,
therefore, require a stable substrate to
survive and reproduce, and are
particularly susceptible to channel
instability (Neves et al. 1997, p. 23) and
alteration in the dynamic processes
involved in maintaining stream
stability. Dams interrupt most of a
river’s ecological processes by
modifying flood pulses; controlling
impounded water elevations; altering
water flow, sediments, nutrients, energy
inputs, and outputs; increasing depth;
decreasing habitat heterogeneity; and
decreasing bottom stability due to
subsequent sedimentation. In addition,
dams can also seriously alter
downstream water quality and riverine
habitat and negatively impact tailwater
mussel populations. These changes
include thermal alterations immediately
below dams; changes in channel
characteristics, habitat availability, and
flow regime; daily discharge
fluctuations; increased silt loads; and
altered host fish communities. For these
above-mentioned reasons, the
reproductive process of riverine mussels
is generally disrupted by
impoundments, making them unable to
successfully reproduce and recruit
under reservoir conditions. Coldwater
releases from large non-navigational
dams and scouring of the river bed from
highly fluctuating, turbulent tailwater
flows have also been implicated in the
demise of mussel faunas (see critical
habitat descriptions for Units FK19 and
FK20, below).
The damming of rivers has been a
major factor contributing to the demise
of mussels (Bogan 1993, p. 604). Dams
eliminate or reduce river flow within
impounded areas, trap silts and cause
sediment deposition, alter water
temperature and dissolved oxygen
levels, change downstream water flow
and quality, affect normal flood
patterns, and block upstream and
downstream movement of mussels and
their host fishes (Bogan 1993, p. 604;
Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp. 915–917;
Watters 1999, pp. 261–264; McAllister
et al. 2000, p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005,
pp. 20–21). Below dams, mollusk
declines are associated with changes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring
and erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen
levels, reduced food availability, water
temperature alteration, and changes in
resident fish assemblages (Williams et
al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63–
64; Watters 1999, pp. 261–264;
Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20–21; Moles
and Layzer 2008, p. 220). Because rivers
are linear systems, these alterations can
cause mussel declines for many miles
below the dam (Moles and Layzer 2008,
p. 220; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p.
916).
Population losses due to
impoundments have probably
contributed more to the decline of the
fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and other Cumberlandian
Region mussels than has any other
single factor. The majority of the
Cumberland and Tennessee River
mainstems and many of their largest
tributaries are now impounded, and
therefore, are unsuitable for
Cumberlandian Region mussels. For
example, approximately 90 percent of
the 904-rkm (562-rmi) length of the
Cumberland River downstream of
Cumberland Falls is either impounded
(three locks and dams and Wolf Creek
Dam) or otherwise adversely impacted
by coldwater discharges from Wolf
Creek Dam. Other major U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps)
impoundments on Cumberland River
tributaries (e.g., Obey River, Caney Fork)
have inundated over 161 rkm (100 rmi)
of riverine habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and the slabside
pearlymussel. Layzer et al. (1993, p. 68)
reported that 37 of the 60 mussel
species present in the Caney Fork River
pre-impoundment have been extirpated.
By 1971, approximately 3,700 rkm
(2,300 rmi) (about 20 percent) of the
Tennessee River and its tributaries with
drainage areas of 65 square rkm (25
square rmi) or greater were impounded
by the TVA (TVA 1971, p. 5). The
subsequent completion of additional
major impoundments on tributary
streams (e.g., Duck River in 1976, Little
Tennessee River in 1979) significantly
increased the total river kilometers
(miles) impounded behind the 36 major
dams in the Tennessee River system.
Given projected population increases
and the need for municipal water
supply, other proposals for small
impoundment construction are likely in
the future within the Cumberland and
Tennessee River systems.
Mining and Commercial Navigation
Instream gravel mining has been
implicated in the destruction of mussel
populations. Negative impacts
associated with gravel mining include
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60813
stream channel modifications (e.g.,
altered habitat, disrupted flow patterns,
sediment transport), water quality
modifications (e.g., increased turbidity,
reduced light penetration, increased
temperature), macroinvertebrate
population changes (e.g., elimination,
habitat disruption, increased
sedimentation), and changes in fish
populations (e.g., impacts to spawning
and nursery habitat, food web
disruptions) (Kanehl and Lyons 1992,
pp. 26–27).
Gravel mining activities negatively
impact the habitat of the fluted
kidneyshell in Buck Creek, one of the
few remaining populations of this
species in the entire Cumberland River
system. Gravel mining activities also
negatively impact the habitat of the
slabside pearlymussel in the Powell and
Elk Rivers in the Tennessee River
system.
Channel modification for commercial
navigation has been shown to increase
flood heights (Belt 1975, p. 684), partly
as a result of an increase in stream bed
slope (Hubbard et al. 1993, p. 137).
Flood events are exacerbated, conveying
large quantities of sediment, potentially
with adsorbed contaminants, into
streams. Channel maintenance often
results in increased turbidity and
sedimentation that often smothers
mussels (Stansbery 1970, p. 10).
Heavy metal-rich drainage from coal
mining and associated sedimentation
has adversely impacted upper
Cumberland and Tennessee River
system streams with historically diverse
mussel faunas. Strip mining continues
to threaten mussel habitats in coal field
drainages of the Cumberland Plateau,
including streams harboring small
fluted kidneyshell populations (e.g.,
Horse Lick Creek, Little South Fork,
Powell River, Indian Creek). Portions of
the upper Tennessee River system are
also influenced by coal mining
activities. Powell River mussel
populations were inversely correlated
with coal fines in the substrate; when
coal fines were present, decreased
filtration times and increased
movements were noted in laboratoryheld mussels (Kitchel et al. 1981, p. 25).
In a quantitative study in the Powell
River, a decline of federally listed
mussels and the long-term decrease in
overall species composition since about
1980 was attributed to general stream
degradation due primarily to coal
mining activities in the headwaters
(Ahlstedt and Tuberville 1997, pp. 74–
76). Numerous gray-water and blackwater spill events have been
documented in the Powell and Clinch
River drainages over the past several
years. The habitats of Fluted
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60814
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
other mussels in the Clinch and Powell
rivers are increasingly being threatened
by coal mining activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Oil and Natural Gas Development
Oil and natural gas resources are
present in some of the watersheds that
are known or historically were known to
support the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel, including the
Clinch, Powell, and Big South Fork
Rivers. Exploration and extraction of
these energy resources has the potential
to result in increased siltation, a
changed hydrograph (flow regime), and
altered water quantity and quality even
at a distance from the mine or well field.
Although oil and natural gas extraction
generally occurs away from the river,
extensive road and pipeline networks
are required to construct and maintain
wells and transport the extracted
resources. These road and pipeline
networks frequently cross or occur near
tributaries, contributing sediment to the
receiving waterway. In addition, the
construction and operation of wells may
result in the illegal discharge of
chemical contaminants and subsurface
minerals.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation is one of the most
significant pollution problems for
aquatic organisms (Waters 1995, pp. 2–
3), and has been determined to be a
major factor in mussel declines (Ellis
1936, pp. 39–40). Sources of silt and
sediment include poorly designed and
executed timber harvesting operations
and associated activities; complete
clearing of riparian vegetation for
agricultural, silvicultural, or other
purposes; and those construction,
mining, and other practices that allow
exposed earth to enter streams.
Agricultural activities, specifically an
increase in cattle grazing and the
resultant nutrient enrichment and loss
of riparian vegetation along the stream,
are responsible for much of the
sediment (Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000, p.
193; Hanlon et al. 2009, pp. 11–12).
Heavy sediment loads can destroy
mussel habitat, resulting in a
corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100).
Excessive sedimentation can lead to
rapid changes in stream channel
position, channel shape, and bed
elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p.
102). Sedimentation has also been
shown to impair the filter feeding ability
of mussels, and high amounts of
suspended sediments can dilute their
food source (Dennis 1984, p. 212). We
will describe the detrimental actions of
sedimentation in Factor E, below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
instream oxygen deficiencies, excess
nutrification, and excessive algal
Chemical contaminants are
ubiquitous throughout the environment growths. Furthermore, these threats
and are considered a major threat in the faced by the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel are imminent; the
decline of mussel species (Richter et al.
result of ongoing projects that are
1997, p. 1081; Strayer et al. 2004, p. 436;
expected to continue indefinitely,
Wang et al. 2007a, p. 2029; Cope et al.
therefore perpetuating these impacts. As
2008, p. 451). Chemicals enter the
a result of the imminence of these
environment through both point and
threats, combined with the vulnerability
nonpoint discharges including spills,
of the remaining small, isolated
industrial sources, municipal effluents,
populations to extirpation from natural
and agricultural runoff. These sources
and manmade threats, we have
contribute organic compounds, heavy
determined that the present or
metals, pesticides, and a wide variety of
threatened destruction, modification, or
newly emerging contaminants to the
curtailment of the habitat and range of
aquatic environment. As a result, water
these species represents a threat to both
and sediment quality can be degraded to the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
the extent that mussel habitats and
pearlymussel.
populations are adversely impacted. We
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
will describe the detrimental actions of
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
chemicals in Factor E, below.
Purposes
Other Stream Channel Alterations
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside
Other stream channel alterations that
pearlymussel are not commercially
can impact mussel habitats include
valuable species, but may be
bridges, other road crossing structures,
increasingly sought by collectors, due to
and activities that lower water tables
their increasing rarity. Although
(withdrawals). Culverts can act as
scientific collecting is not thought to
barriers to fish passage (Wheeler et al.
represent a significant threat, localized
2005, p. 149), particularly by increasing populations could become impacted,
flow velocity (Warren and Pardew 1998, and possibly extirpated, by
p. 637). Stream channels become
overcollecting, particularly if
destabilized when improperly designed regulations governing collection activity
culverts or bridges change the
(currently scientific collection is
morphology and interrupt the transport
controlled by the States through the
of woody debris, substrate, and water
issuance of collection permits; see
(Wheeler et al. 2005, p. 152). Water
Factor D below) are not enforced.
withdrawals for irrigation, municipal,
In summary, the fluted kidneyshell
and industrial water supplies are an
and slabside pearlymussel are not
increasing concern. U.S. water
commercially utilized but might be
consumption doubled from 1960 to
increasingly sought for scientific or
2000, and is likely to increase further
educational purposes as their rarity
(Naiman and Turner 2000, p. 960).
becomes known. We do not consider
Therefore, we anticipate road crossings, overutilization for commercial,
water withdrawals, and potential stream recreational, scientific, or educational
dewatering to be threats to the habitat of purposes to be a threat to either species
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
now or likely to become a threat in the
pearlymussel.
future.
Chemical Contaminants
Summary of Factor A
Habitat loss and degradation
negatively impact the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel. Severe
degradation from impoundments, gravel
and coal mining, oil and natural gas
development, sedimentation, chemical
contaminants, and stream channel
alterations threaten the stream habitat
and water quality on which these
species depend. Contaminants
associated with coal mining (metals,
other dissolved solids), municipal
effluents (bacteria, nutrients,
pharmaceuticals), and agriculture
(fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
animal waste) cause degradation of
water quality and habitats through
increased acidity and conductivity,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Disease or Predation
Little is known about diseases in
mussels (Grizzle and Brunner 2007, p.
6). Several mussel dieoffs have been
documented during the past 20 years
(Neves 1987, pp. 8–11). Although the
ultimate cause is unknown, some
researchers believe that disease may be
a factor. Warren and Haag (2005, p.
1394) hypothesized that declines in the
Little South Fork Cumberland River,
Kentucky, mussel fauna, including the
once abundant fluted kidneyshell
population, may have been at least
partially attributed to disease, but no
definitive cause has been determined.
We have no specific documentation
indicating that disease poses a threat to
slabside pearlymussel populations.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Juvenile and adult mussels are prey
items for some invertebrate predators
and parasites (for example, nematodes
and mites), and are prey for a few
vertebrate species (for example,
raccoons, muskrats, otters, and turtles)
(Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 225–240).
Mussel parasites include water mites,
trematodes, oligochaetes, leeches,
copepods, bacteria, and protozoa
(Grizzle and Brunner 2007, p. 6).
Generally, parasites are not suspected of
being a major limiting factor (Oesch
1984, p. 16); however, Gangloff et al.
(2008, pp. 28–30) found that
reproductive output and physiological
condition were negatively correlated
with mite and trematodes abundance,
respectively. Stressors that reduce
fitness may make mussels more
susceptible to parasites (Butler 2007, p.
90).
Muskrat predation on the fluted
kidneyshell represents a localized
threat, as determined by Neves and
Odum (1989, entire) in the upper North
Fork Holston River in Virginia. They
concluded that muskrat predation could
limit the recovery potential of
endangered mussel species or contribute
to the local extirpation of already
depleted mussel populations. Although
other mammals (e.g., raccoon, mink)
occasionally feed on mussels, the threat
from these predators is not considered
to be significant. Predation does occur,
but it is considered to be a normal
aspect of the species’ population
dynamics.
In summary, there is little information
on disease in mussels, and disease is not
currently considered to be a threat to the
fluted kidneyshell or slabside
pearlymussel and it is not likely to
become so in the future. Although
predation does occur and impacts local
populations, we conclude that predation
is not a threat to these species as a
whole or likely to become so in the
future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The objective of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), is to
restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the
nation’s waters by preventing point and
nonpoint pollution sources. The CWA
has a stated goal that ‘‘* * * wherever
attainable, an interim goal of water
quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be
achieved by July 1, 1983.’’ States are
responsible for setting and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
implementing water quality standards
that align with the requirements of the
CWA. Overall, implementation of the
CWA could benefit both mussel species
through the point and nonpoint
programs.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
comes from many diffuse sources,
unlike pollution from industrial and
sewage treatment plants. NPS pollution
is caused by rainfall or snowmelt
moving over and through the ground. As
the runoff moves, it transports natural
and human-made pollutants to lakes,
rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and
ground waters. States report that
nonpoint source pollution is the leading
remaining cause of water quality
problems. The effects of nonpoint
source pollutants on specific waters
vary and may not always be fully
assessed. However, these pollutants
have harmful effects on fisheries and
wildlife (https://www.epa.gov/owow_
keep/NPS/whatis.html).
Sources of NPS pollution within the
watersheds occupied by both mussels
include agriculture, clearing of riparian
vegetation, urbanization, road
construction, and other practices that
allow bare earth to enter streams. The
Service has no information concerning
the implementation of the CWA
regarding NPS pollution specific to
protection of both mussels. However,
insufficient implementation could
become a threat to both mussel species
if they continue to decline in numbers.
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel continue to decline due to
the effects of habitat destruction, poor
water quality, contaminants, and other
factors. However, there is no specific
information known about the sensitivity
of these mussels to common point
source pollutants like industrial and
municipal pollutants and very little
information on other freshwater
mussels. Because there is very little
information known about water quality
parameters necessary to fully protect
freshwater mussels, such as the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel,
it is difficult to determine whether the
CWA is adequately addressing the
habitat and water quality threats to
these species. However, given that a
goal of the CWA is to establish water
quality standards that protect shellfish
and given that documented declines of
these mussel species still continue due
to poor water quality and other factors,
we take a conservative approach in
favor of the species and conclude that
the CWA has been insufficient to
significantly reduce or remove the
threats to the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel. We invite public
comment on this matter, and solicit
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60815
information especially regarding water
quality data that may be helpful in
determining the water quality
parameters necessary for these species’
survival (see Information Requested,
item #4).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the CWA has a stated
goal to establish water quality standards
that protect aquatic species, including
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. However, the CWA has
generally been insufficient at protecting
mussels, and adequate water quality
criteria that are protective of all life
stages, particularly glochidia and
juveniles, may not be established. Little
information is known about specific
sensitivities of mussels to various
pollutants, but both species continue to
decline due to the effects of habitat
destruction, poor water quality,
contaminants, and other factors. Based
on our analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial data, we
conclude that the current
implementation of the provisions under
the CWA to protect water quality for
aquatic species is inadequate to reduce
or remove threats to the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
throughout all of their range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Altered Temperature Regimes
Natural temperature regimes can be
altered by impoundments, water
releases from dams, industrial and
municipal effluents, and changes in
riparian habitat. Critical thermal limits
for survival and normal functioning of
many mussel species are unknown.
High temperatures can reduce dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the water,
which slows growth, reduces glycogen
stores, impairs respiration, and may
inhibit reproduction (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 240–241). Low temperatures
can significantly delay or prevent
metamorphosis (Watters and O’Dee
1999, pp. 454–455). Water temperature
increases have been documented to
shorten the period of glochidial
encystment, reduce the speed in which
they turn upright, increase oxygen
consumption, and slow burrowing and
movement responses (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 240–241; Bartsch et al. 2000,
p. 237; Watters et al. 2001, p. 546;
Schwalb and Pusch 2007, pp. 264–265).
Several studies have documented the
influence of temperature on the timing
of aspects of mussel reproduction (for
example, Gray et al. 2002, p. 156; Allen
et al. 2007, p. 85; Steingraeber et al.
2007, pp. 303–309). Peak glochidial
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60816
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
releases are associated with water
temperature thresholds that can be
thermal minimums or thermal
maximums, depending on the species
(Watters and O’Dee 2000, p. 136).
Abnormal temperature changes may
cause particular problems to mussels
whose reproductive cycles may be
linked to fish reproductive cycles Young
and Williams 1984, entire).
Chemical Contaminants
Chemical spills can be especially
devastating to mussels because they
may result in exposure of a relatively
immobile species to extremely elevated
contaminant concentrations that far
exceed toxic levels and any water
quality standards that might be in effect.
Some notable spills that released large
quantities of highly concentrated
chemicals resulting in mortality to
mussels and host fish include a kill on
the Clinch River at Carbo, Virginia, from
a power plant alkaline fly ash pond spill
in 1967, and a sulfuric acid spill in 1970
(Crossman et al. 1973, p. 6).
Approximately 18,000 mussels of
several species, including the fluted
kidneyshell and 750 individuals from
three endangered mussel species (tan
riffleshell, Epioblasma florentina
walkeri; purple bean, Villosa
perpurpurea; and rough rabbitsfoot,
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), were
eliminated from the upper Clinch River
near Cedar Bluff, Virginia, in 1998,
when an overturned tanker truck
released approximately 6,100 liters
(1,600 gallons) of a chemical used in
rubber manufacturing (Jones et al. 2001,
p. 20; Schmerfeld 2006, p. 12). These
are not the only instances where
chemical spills have resulted in the loss
of high numbers of mussels (Neves
1991, p. 252; Jones et al. 2001, p. 20;
Brown et al. 2005, p. 1457; Schmerfeld
2006, pp. 12–13), but are provided as
examples of the serious threat chemical
spills pose to mussel species, such as
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Cope et al. (2008, p. 451) evaluated
the pathways of exposure to
environmental pollutants for all four
mollusk life stages (free glochidia,
encysted glochidia, juveniles, and
adults) and found that each life stage
has both common and unique
characteristics that contribute to
observed differences in contaminant
exposure and sensitivity. Very little is
known of the potential mechanisms and
consequences of waterborne toxicants
on sperm viability. However, Watters
(2011) demonstrated that the
spermatozeugmata (sperm ball)
produced and released by male mussels
are sensitive to varying levels of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
salinity. When exposed to high enough
salinity levels, the spermatozeugmata
disassociate and can be rendered
nonviable if they disassociate prior to
entering a female mussel. This may pose
yet another significant challenge for
mussels to successfully fertilize eggs
and promote recruitment if exposed to
elevated salinity or conductivity levels
in the ambient water column.
In the female mollusk, the marsupial
region of the gill currently is thought to
be physiologically isolated from
respiratory functions, and this isolation
may provide some level of protection
from contaminant interference with a
female’s ability to achieve fertilization
or brood glochidia (Cope et al. 2008, p.
454). A major exception to this assertion
is with chemicals that act directly on
the neuroendocrine pathways
controlling reproduction (see discussion
below). Nutritional and ionic exchange
is possible between a brooding female
and her glochidia, providing a route for
chemicals (accumulated or waterborne)
to disrupt biochemical and
physiological pathways (such as
maternal calcium transport for
construction of the glochidial shell).
Juvenile mussels typically remain
burrowed beneath the sediment surface
for 2 to 4 years. Residence beneath the
sediment surface necessitates deposit
(pedal) feeding and a reliance on
interstitial (pore) water for dissolved
oxygen (Watters 2007, p. 56). The
relative importance of juvenile fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
exposure to contaminants in overlying
surface water, interstitial (pore) water,
whole sediment, or food has not been
adequately assessed. Exposure to
contaminants from each of these routes
varies with certain periods and
environmental conditions (Cope et al.
2008, pp. 453, 457).
The primary routes of exposure to
contaminants for adult fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
are surface water, sediment, interstitial
(pore) water, and diet; adults can be
exposed when either partially or
completely burrowed in the substrate
(Cope et al. 2008, p. 453). Adult mussels
have some ability to detect certain
toxicants in the water and close their
valves to avoid exposure (Van Hassel
and Farris 2007, p. 6). Adult mussel
toxicity and relative sensitivity
(exposure and uptake of toxicants) may
be reduced at high rather than at low
toxicant concentrations because uptake
is affected by the prolonged or periodic
toxicant avoidance responses (when the
avoidance behavior can no longer be
sustained for physiological reasons)
(Cope et al. 2008, p. 454). Toxicity
results based on low-level exposure of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adults are similar to estimates for
glochidia and juveniles for some
toxicants (for example, copper). The
duration of any toxicant avoidance
response by an adult mussel is likely to
be affected by several variables, such as
species, age, shell thickness and gape,
properties of the toxicant, and water
temperature. There is a lack of
information on toxicant response(s)
specific to adult mussels (including the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel), but results of tests using
glochidia and juveniles may be valuable
for protecting adults (Cope et al. 2008,
p. 454).
Exposure to lower concentrations of
contaminants, more likely to be found
in aquatic environments, can also
adversely affect mussels and result in
the decline of mussel species. Such
concentrations may not be immediately
lethal, but over time, can result in
mortality, reduced filtration efficiency,
reduced growth, decreased
reproduction, changes in enzyme
activity, and behavioral changes to all
mussel life stages. Frequently,
procedures that evaluate the ‘safe’
concentration of an environmental
contaminant (e.g., national water quality
criteria) do not have data for mussel
species or exclude data that is available
for mussels (March et al. 2007, pp.
2066–2067, 2073).
Current research is now focusing on
the contaminant sensitivity of mussel
glochidia and newly-released juvenile
mussels (Goudreau et al. 1993, pp. 219–
222; Jacobson et al. 1997, p. 2390;
Valenti et al. 2005, pp. 1244–1245;
Valenti et al. 2006, pp. 2514–2517;
March et al. 2007, pp. 2068–2073; Wang
et al. 2007b, pp. 2041–2046) and
juveniles (Augspurger et al. 2003, p.
2569; Bartsch et al. 2003, p. 2561;
Mummert et al. 2003, p. 2549; Valenti
et al. 2005, pp. 1244–1245; Valenti et al.
2006, pp. 2514–2517; March et al. 2007,
pp. 2068–2073; Wang et al. 2007b, pp.
2041–2046; Wang et al. 2007c, pp.
2053–2055) to such contaminants as
ammonia, metals, chlorine, and
pesticides.
One chemical that is particularly toxic
to early life stages of mussels is
ammonia. Sources of ammonia include
agriculture (animal feedlots and
nitrogenous fertilizers), municipal
wastewater treatment plants, and
industrial waste (Augspurger et al. 2007,
p. 2026) as well as precipitation and
natural processes (i.e., decomposition of
organic nitrogen) (Goudreau et al. 1993,
p. 212; Hickey and Martin 1999, p. 44;
Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569; Newton
2003, p. 1243). Therefore, ammonia is
considered a limiting factor for survival
and recovery of some mussel species
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
due to its ubiquity in aquatic
environments and high level of toxicity,
and because the highest concentrations
typically occur within microhabitats
inhabited by mussels (Augspurger et al.
2003, p. 2574). In addition, studies have
shown that ammonia concentrations
increase with increasing temperature
and low flow conditions (Cherry et al.
2005, p. 378; Cooper et al. 2005, p. 381),
which may be exacerbated by the effects
of climate change, and may cause
ammonia to become more problematic
for juvenile mussels.
Mussels are also affected by heavy
metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p. 543)
such as cadmium, chromium, copper,
mercury, and zinc, which can negatively
affect biological processes such as
growth, filtration efficiency, enzyme
activity, valve closure, and behavior
(Keller and Zam 1991, p. 543; Naimo
1995, pp. 351–355; Jacobson et al. 1997,
p. 2390; Valenti et al. 2005, p. 1244).
Heavy metals occur in industrial and
wastewater effluents and are often a
result of atmospheric deposition from
industrial processes and incinerators.
Glochidia and juvenile mussels have
recently been studied to determine the
acute and chronic toxicity of copper to
these life stages (Wang et al. 2007b, pp.
2036–2047; Wang et al. 2007c, pp.
2048–2056). The chronic values
determined for copper for survival and
growth of juveniles are below the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1996 chronic water quality criterion for
copper (Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2052–
2055). March (2007, pp. 2066 and 2073)
identified that copper water quality
criteria and modified State water quality
standards may not be protective of
mussels.
Mercury is another heavy metal that
has the potential to negatively affect
mussel populations, and it is receiving
attention due to its widespread
distribution and potential to adversely
impact the environment. Mercury has
been detected throughout aquatic
environments as a product of municipal
and industrial waste and atmospheric
deposition from coal burning plants.
Valenti et al. (2005, p. 1242) determined
that for rainbow mussel, Villosa iris,
glochidia were more sensitive to
mercury than juvenile mussels, and that
reduced growth in juveniles is seen
when observed concentrations are
higher than EPA’s criteria for mercury.
Based on these data, we believe that
EPA’s water quality standards for
mercury should be protective of juvenile
mussels and glochidia, except in cases
of illegal dumping, permit violations, or
spills. However, impacts to mussels
from mercury toxicity may be occurring
in some streams. According to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
National Summary Data reported by
States to the EPA, 4,716 monitored
waters do not meet EPA standards for
mercury in the United States (https://
iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_
nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T,
accessed 6/28/2012). Acute mercury
toxicity was determined to be the cause
of extirpation of a diverse mussel fauna
for a 112-rkm (70-rmi) portion of the
North Fork Holston River (Brown et al.
2005, pp. 1455–1457).
In addition to ammonia, agricultural
sources of chemical contaminants
include two broad categories that have
the potential to adversely impact mussel
species: nutrients and pesticides.
Nutrients (such as nitrogen and
phosphorus) can impact streams when
their concentrations reach levels that
cannot be assimilated, a condition
known as over-enrichment. Nutrient
over-enrichment is primarily a result of
runoff from livestock farms, feedlots,
and heavily fertilized row crops
(Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1471).
Over-enriched conditions are
exacerbated by low-flow conditions,
such as those experienced during
typical summer-season flows and that
might occur with greater frequency and
magnitude as a result of climate change.
Bauer (1988, p. 244) found that
excessive nitrogen concentrations can
be detrimental to the adult pearl mussel
(Margaritifera margaritifera), as was
evident by the positive linear
relationship between mortality and
nitrate concentration. Also, a study of
mussel life span and size (Bauer 1992,
p. 425) showed a negative correlation
between growth rate and eutrophication,
and longevity was reduced as the
concentration of nitrates increased.
Nutrient over-enrichment can result in
an increase in primary productivity, and
the subsequent respiration depletes
dissolved oxygen levels. This may be
particularly detrimental to juvenile
mussels, which inhabit the interstitial
spaces in the substrate, where lower
dissolved oxygen concentrations are
more likely than on the sediment
surface where adults tend to live
(Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 132–133).
Elevated concentrations of pesticide
frequently occur in streams due to
runoff, overspray application to row
crops, and lack of adequate riparian
buffers. Agricultural pesticide
applications and the reproductive and
early life stages of mussels often
coincide in the spring and summer, and
thus impacts to mussels due to
pesticides may be increased (Bringolf et
al. 2007c, p. 2094). Little is known
regarding the impact of currently used
pesticides to mussels even though some
pesticides, such as glyphosate (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60817
RoundupTM), are used globally. Recent
studies tested the toxicity of glyphosate,
its formulations, and a surfactant (MON
0818) used in several glyphosate
formulations, to early life stages of the
fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea)
(Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2094). Studies
conducted with juvenile mussels and
glochidia determined that the surfactant
(MON 0818) was the most toxic of the
compounds tested and that fatmucket
glochidia were the most sensitive of
organisms tested to date (Bringolf et al.
2007c, p. 2094). RoundupTM), technical
grade glyphosate isopropylamine salt,
and isopropylamine were also acutely
toxic to juveniles and glochidia
(Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2097). The
impacts of other pesticides including
atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin
on glochidia and juvenile life stages
have also recently been studied
(Bringolf et al. 2007a, p. 2101). This
study determined that chlorpyrifos was
toxic to both fatmucket glochidia and
juveniles (Bringolf et al. 2007a, p. 2104).
The above results indicate the potential
toxicity of commonly applied pesticides
and the threat to mussel species as a
result of the widespread use of these
pesticides. All of these pesticides are
commonly used throughout the range of
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Pharmaceutical chemicals used in
commonly consumed drugs are
increasingly found in surface waters
downstream from municipal effluents.
A recent nationwide study sampling 139
stream sites in 30 States detected the
presence of numerous pharmaceuticals,
hormones, and other organic wastewater
contaminants downstream from urban
development and livestock production
areas (Kolpin et al. 2002, pp. 1208–
1210). Exposure to waterborne and,
potentially to sediment, toxicant
chemicals that act directly on the
neuroendocrine pathways controlling
reproduction can cause premature
release of viable or nonviable glochidia.
For example, the active ingredient in
many human prescription antidepressant drugs belonging to the class
of selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors may exert negative
reproductive effects on mussels because
of their action on serotonin and other
neuroendocrine pathways (Cope et al.
2008, pp. 455). These waterborne
chemicals alter mussel behavior and
influence successful attachment of
glochidia on fish hosts and, therefore,
may have population level implications
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
This information indicates it is likely
that chemical contaminants have
contributed to declining fluted
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60818
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
populations, and will likely continue to
be a threat to these species in the future.
These threats result from spills that are
immediately lethal to species, as well as
chronic contaminant exposure, which
results in death, reduced growth, or
reduced reproduction of fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Sedimentation
Impacts resulting from sediments
have been noted for many components
of aquatic communities. For example,
sediments have been shown to abrade or
suffocate periphyton (organisms
attached to underwater surfaces); affect
respiration, growth, reproductive
success, and behavior of aquatic insects
and mussels; and affect fish growth,
survival, and reproduction (Waters
1995, pp. 173–175). When in high silt
environments, mussels may keep their
valves closed more often, resulting in
reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p.
30).
Increased turbidity from suspended
sediment can reduce or eliminate
juvenile mussel recruitment (Negus
1966, p. 525; Box and Mossa 1999, pp.
101–102). Many mussel species use
visual cues to attract host fishes; such a
reproductive strategy depends on clear
water for success. For example,
increased turbidity may impact the
southern sandshell, Hamiota australis,
life cycle by reducing the chance that a
sight-feeding host fish will encounter
the visual display of its
superconglutinate lure (Haag et al. 1995,
p. 475; Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p.
1885). If the superconglutinate is not
encountered by a host within a short
time period, the glochidia will become
nonviable (O’Brien and Brim Box 1999,
p. 133). Also, evidence suggests that
conglutinates of the southern
kidneyshell (another species of
Ptychobranchus, P. jonesi), once
released from the female mussel in an
attempt to lure potential host fish, must
adhere to hard surfaces in order to be
seen by its fish host. If the surface
becomes covered in fine sediments, the
conglutinate cannot attach and is swept
away (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p.
373).
Population Fragmentation and Isolation
Population isolation prohibits the
natural interchange of genetic material
between populations, and small
population size reduces the reservoir of
genetic diversity within populations,
which can lead to inbreeding depression
(Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117–
146). Small, isolated populations,
therefore, are more susceptible to
environmental pressures, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
habitat degradation and stochastic
events, and thus are the most
susceptible to extinction (Primack 2008,
pp. 151–153). It is likely that some
populations of the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel are below the
´
effective population size (Soule 1980,
pp. 162–264; Allendorf and Luikart
2007, pp. 147–170) required to maintain
long-term genetic and population
viability.
The present distribution and status of
the fluted kidneyshell in the upper
Cumberland River system in Kentucky
may provide an excellent example of the
detrimental bottleneck effect resulting
when a minimum viable population size
is not maintained. A once large
population of this species occurred
throughout the upper Cumberland River
mainstem below Cumberland Falls and
in several larger tributary systems. In
this region, there were no absolute
barriers to genetic interchange among its
subpopulations (and those of its host
fishes) that occurred in various streams.
With the completion of Wolf Creek Dam
in the late 1960s, the mainstem
population was soon extirpated, and the
remaining populations isolated by the
filling of Cumberland Reservoir.
Whereas small, isolated, tributary
populations of imperiled short-lived
species (e.g., most fishes) would have
died out within a decade or so after
impoundment, the long-lived fluted
kidneyshell would potentially take
decades to expire post-impoundment.
Without the level of genetic interchange
the species experienced historically
(i.e., without the reservoir barrier),
isolated populations may be slowly
dying out. The fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel were similarly
isolated by the completion of multiple
reservoirs in the Tennessee River
system. Even given the improbable
absence of anthropogenic impacts, we
may lose smaller isolated populations of
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel to the devastating
consequences of below-threshold
effective population size (the minimum
population size that is needed for the
population to reproduce and continue to
be viable). In reality, degradation of
these isolated stream reaches and the
resulting decline in suitable habitat is
contributing to the decline of both
species.
Random Catastrophic Events
The remaining populations of the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are generally small and
geographically isolated. The patchy
distribution pattern of populations in
short river reaches makes them much
more susceptible to extirpation from
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
single catastrophic events, such as toxic
chemical spills. Such a spill occurred in
the upper Clinch River in 1998, killing
many fluted kidneyshell and thousands
of specimens of other mussel species,
including three federally listed species
(Henley et al. 2002, entire). High levels
of isolation makes natural
recolonization of any extirpated
population impossible.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include
consideration of ongoing and projected
changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’
and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the
mean (average) and variability of
different types of weather conditions
over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although
shorter or longer periods also may be
used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term
‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change
in the mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types
of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects
may be positive, neutral, or negative and
they may change over time, depending
on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of
interactions of climate with other
variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation)
(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our
analyses, we use our expert judgment to
weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
There is a growing concern that
climate change may lead to increased
frequency of severe storms and droughts
(McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook
et al. 2004, p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004,
p. 504). Specific effects of climate
change to mussels, their habitat, and
their fish hosts could include changes in
stream temperature regimes, the timing
and levels of precipitation causing more
frequent and severe floods and
droughts, and nonindigenous species
introductions. Increases in temperature
and reductions in flow may also lower
dissolved oxygen levels in interstitial
habitats which can be lethal to juveniles
(Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 131–133).
Effects to mussel populations from these
environmental changes could include
reduced abundance and biomass,
altered species composition, and
reduced host fish availability (Galbraith
et al. 2010, pp. 1180–1182). The present
conservation status, complex life
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
histories, and specific habitat
requirements of mussels suggest that
they may be quite sensitive to the effects
of climate change (Hastie et al. 2003, p.
45).
During high flows, flood scour can
dislodge mussels where they may be
injured, buried, swept into unsuitable
habitats, or stranded and perish when
flood waters recede (Vannote and
Minshall 1982, p. 4105; Tucker 1996, p.
435; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 107–115;
Peterson et al. 2011, unpaginated).
During drought, stream channels may
become disconnected pools where
mussels are exposed to higher water
temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen
levels, and easier collection by
predators, or channels may become
dewatered entirely. Increased human
demand and competition for surface and
ground water resources for irrigation
and consumption during drought can
cause drastic reductions in stream flows
and alterations to hydrology (Golladay
et al. 2004, p. 504; Golladay et al. 2007,
unpaginated). Extended droughts
occurred in the Southeast during 1998
to 2002, and again in 2006 to 2008. The
effects of these recent droughts on these
mussels are unknown; however,
substantial declines in mussel diversity
and abundance as a direct result of
drought have been documented in
southeastern streams (Golladay et al.
2004, pp. 494–503; Haag and Warren
2008, p. 1165).
Nonindigenous Species
The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)
has been introduced to the Cumberland
and Tennessee River drainages and may
be adversely affecting the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
through direct competition for space
and resources. The Asian clam may
pose a direct threat to native mussels,
particularly as juveniles, as a competitor
for resources such as food, nutrients,
and space (Neves and Widlak 1987, p.
6). Dense populations of Asian clams
may ingest large numbers of unionid
sperm, glochidia, and newly
metamorphosed juveniles, and may
actively disturb sediments, reducing
habitable space for juvenile native
mussels or displacing them downstream
(Strayer 1999, p. 82; Yeager et al. 2000,
pp. 255–256).
Asian clam densities vary widely in
the absence of native mussels or in
patches with sparse mussel
concentrations, but Asian clam density
is rarely observed to be high in dense
mussel beds, indicating that the clam is
unable to successfully invade smallscale habitat patches with high unionid
biomass (Vaughn and Spooner 2006, pp.
334–335). The invading clam, therefore,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
appears to preferentially invade sites
where mussels are already in decline
(Strayer 1999, pp. 82–83; Vaughn and
Spooner 2006, pp. 332–336) and does
not appear to be a causative factor in the
decline of mussels in dense beds.
However, an Asian clam population that
thrives in previously stressed, sparse
mussel populations might exacerbate
unionid imperilment through
competition and impeding mussel
population expansion (Vaughn and
Spooner 2006, pp. 335–336).
Summary for Factor E
We have determined that other
natural and manmade factors, such as
alteration of natural temperature
regimes; chemical contaminants;
sedimentation; small, isolated
populations; and low genetic diversity,
combined with localized extinctions
from point source pollution or
accidental toxic chemical spills, habitat
modification and progressive
degradation by nonpoint source
pollutants, natural catastrophic changes
to habitat through flood scour or
drought, and nonindigenous species are
threats to remaining populations of the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel across their respective
ranges.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
Section 3(6) of the Act defines an
endangered species as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and section 3(20) of the Act
defines a threatened species as ‘‘any
species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ As
described in detail above, these two
species occupy only portions of their
historical ranges, are limited to a
handful of viable populations, and are
currently at risk throughout all of their
respective ranges due to ongoing threats
of habitat destruction and modification
(Factor A), inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and
other natural or manmade factors
affecting their continued existence
(Factor E). Specifically, these threats
include impoundments, mining, oil and
gas exploration, sedimentation,
chemical contaminants, temperature
regime alterations, recurring drought
and flooding, population fragmentation
and isolation, loss of fish hosts, and the
introduced Asian clam. We believe
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60819
these threats are currently impacting
these species and are projected to
continue and potentially worsen in the
future.
Species with small ranges, few
populations, and small or declining
population sizes are the most vulnerable
to extinction (Primack 2008, p. 137).
The effects of certain factors,
particularly habitat degradation and
loss, catastrophic events, and
introduced species, increase in
magnitude when population size is
´
small (Soule 1987, pp. 33, 71; Primack
2008, pp. 133–135, 152). We believe
that, when combining the effects of
historical, current, and future habitat
loss and degradation; historical and
ongoing drought; and the exacerbating
effects of small and declining
population sizes and curtailed ranges,
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are in danger of extinction
throughout all of their ranges. In
addition, any factor (i.e., habitat loss or
natural and manmade factors) that
results in a further decline in habitat or
individuals may be problematic for the
long-term recovery of these species.
Therefore, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we propose to list the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel as
endangered species throughout all of
their ranges. We believe that, when
combining the effects of historical,
current, and future habitat loss and
degradation; historical and ongoing
drought; and the exacerbating effects of
small and declining population sizes
and curtailed ranges, the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
are in danger of extinction throughout
all of their ranges. Furthermore, we
examined both species to analyze if any
significant portions of their ranges may
warrant a different status. However,
because of their limited and curtailed
ranges, and uniformity of the threats
throughout their entire respective
ranges, we find there are no significant
portions of any of the species’ ranges
that may warrant a different
determination of status.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, and local agencies;
private organizations; and individuals.
The Act encourages cooperation with
the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60820
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
species. The protection measures
required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed wildlife are discussed
in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
and are further discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed,
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan, and revisions to the plan as
significant new information becomes
available. The recovery outline guides
the immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when
a species may be downlisted or delisted,
and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprised of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernment
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribal,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, under section 6 of the Act,
States would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection and
recovery of these two species.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel are only proposed
for listing under the Act at this time,
please let us know if you are interested
in participating in recovery efforts for
this species. Additionally, we invite you
to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available
and any information you may have for
recovery planning purposes (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into formal
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management of and any other
landscape altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Service; issuance of section 404 CWA
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; licensing of hydroelectric
dams, and construction and
management of gas pipeline and power
line rights-of-way approved by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
issuance of 26a permits by the
Tennessee Valley Authority;
construction and maintenance of roads
or highways funded by the Federal
Highway Administration; and land
management practices administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It
has been the experience of the Service
from consultations on other species,
however, that nearly all section 7
consultations have been resolved so that
the species have been protected and the
project objectives have been met.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21
for endangered wildlife, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to take (includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
to attempt any of these), import, export,
ship in interstate commerce in the
course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any listed species. Under the
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C.
3371–3378), it is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship
any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify, to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of species proposed for listing.
The following activities could
potentially result in a violation of
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act.
(2) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete with or prey upon these
mussel species, such as the zebra
mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and
Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea).
(3) Unauthorized modification of the
channel, substrate, temperature, or
water flow of any stream or water body
in which these species are known to
occur.
(4) Unauthorized discharge of
chemicals or fill material into any
waters in which the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel are known to
occur.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for
copies of the regulations concerning
listed animals and general inquiries
regarding prohibitions and permits may
be addressed to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Permits, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, GA 30345; telephone: 404–
679–7140; facsimile: 404–679–7081.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Critical Habitat for the Fluted
Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel
Background
It is our intent to discuss below only
those topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel in this section of the
proposed rule.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action
that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would
apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification
finding, the obligation of the Federal
action agency and the landowner is not
to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
must contain physical or biological
features (PBFs) which are (1) essential to
the conservation of the species and (2)
which may require special management
considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, those PBFs that are essential
to the conservation of the species (such
as space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical
and biological features within an area,
we focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60821
constituent elements such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands,
water quality, tide, soil type) that are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements
are the specific elements of PBFs that
provide for a species’ life-history
processes.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its range would
be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity because the
interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and
current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325–326).
We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60822
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may
affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools
would continue to contribute to
recovery of these species. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the
basis of the best available information at
the time of designation would not
control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if
new information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time the species is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50
CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The
species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the
species, or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
As discussed above under Factor B,
there is currently no imminent threat of
take attributed to collection or
vandalism for these species, and
identification and mapping of critical
habitat is not expected to initiate any
such threat. In the absence of finding
that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to a species, if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
there are any benefits to a critical
habitat designation, then a prudent
finding is warranted. The potential
benefits of designation include: (1)
Triggering consultation under section 7
of the Act, in new areas for actions in
which there may be a Federal nexus
where it would not otherwise occur
because, for example, it is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is
in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features
and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments
or private entities; and (4) preventing
people from causing inadvertent harm
to the species. Therefore, because we
have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase
the degree of threat to the species and
may provide some measure of benefit,
we find that designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the two species is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the
designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as
critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act allows the Service
an additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where these species are
located. This and other information
represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that
critical habitat is determinable for these
two species.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in
determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing to propose as critical habitat,
we consider the PBFs essential to the
conservation of the species which may
require special management
considerations or protection. These
include, but are not limited to:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs required
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel based on their biological
needs. Little is known of the specific
habitat requirements of these two
mussel species other than they require
flowing water, stable stream channels,
adequate water quality, and fish hosts
for development of larva to
metamorphose into juvenile mussels. To
identify the physical and biological
needs of the species, we have relied on
current conditions at locations where
the species survive, the limited
information available on these two
mussels and their close relatives, and
factors associated with the decline and
extirpation of these and other mussels
from portions of the Cumberland and
Tennessee River systems. Additional
information can be found in the
Background section of this proposed
rule. We have determined that the
following PBFs are essential for the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are historically associated
with the Cumberland and Tennessee
River drainages in Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia.
Mussels generally live embedded in the
bottom of stable streams and other
bodies of water, and within riffle areas
of sufficient current velocities to remove
finer sediments and provide welloxygenated waters. The fluted
kidneyshell is primarily a medium-sized
creek to large river species, inhabiting
sand and gravel substrates in relatively
shallow riffles and shoals with moderate
to swift current (Parmalee and Bogan
1998, p. 205). In comparison to cooccurring species, the fluted kidneyshell
demonstrates strong habitat specificity.
It is associated with faster flows, greater
baseflow shear stress, and low substrate
embeddedness (Ostby 2005, pp. 51,
142–143). The slabside pearlymussel is
primarily a large creek to large river
species, inhabiting sand, fine gravel,
and cobble substrates in relatively
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
shallow riffles and shoals with moderate
current (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p.
152).
Fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, similar to other mussels,
are dependent on areas with flow
refuges where shear stress is relatively
low, although the fluted kidneyshell is
more tolerant of shear stress than other
species, and sediments remain stable
during flood events (Layzer and
Madison 1995, p. 341; Strayer 1999, pp.
468 and 472; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 111–
114). Flow refuges conceivably allow
relatively immobile mussels such as the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel to remain in the same
general location throughout their entire
lives.
Natural river or creek channel
stability are achieved by allowing the
river or creek to develop a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile such
that, over time, channel features are
maintained and the river or creek
system neither aggrades nor degrades.
Channel instability occurs when the
scouring process leads to degradation,
or excessive sediment deposition results
in aggradation. Stable rivers and creeks
consistently transport their sediment
load, both in size and type, associated
with local deposition and scour (Rosgen
1996, p. 1–3). Sedimentation has been
determined to be a major factor in
habitat destruction, resulting in
corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102).
Stable stream bottom substrates not only
provide space for populations of these
mussel species, but also provide cover
and shelter and sites for breeding,
reproduction, and growth of offspring.
Habitat conditions described in the
previous paragraphs provide space,
cover, shelter, and sites for breeding,
reproduction, and growth of offspring
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. These habitats are
dynamic and are formed and
maintained by water quantity, channel
features (dimension, pattern, and
profile), and sediment input to the
system through periodic flooding,
which maintains connectivity and
interaction with the flood plain.
Changes in one or more of these
parameters can result in channel
degradation or aggradation, with serious
effects to mussels.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify riffles of large creeks
and rivers with sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates; areas of moderate to high
amount of flow, but with refugia of low
shear stress; stream channel stability;
and floodplain connectivity to be PBFs
for both of these species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Mussels, such as these two species,
siphon water into their shells and across
four gills that are specialized for
respiration, food collection, and
brooding larvae in females. Food items
include detritus (disintegrated organic
debris), algae, diatoms, and bacteria
(Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430–431).
Encysted glochidia are nourished by
their fish hosts and feed for a period of
one week to several months. Nutrient
uptake by glochidia is not well
understood, but probably occurs
through the microvillae of the mantle
(Watters 2007, p. 55). For the first
several months, juvenile mussels
partially employ pedal (foot) feeding,
extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus
from the sediment, although they also
may filter interstitial (pore) water
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217–221).
However, their gills are rudimentary
and generally incapable of filtering
particles (Watters 2007, p. 56). Adult
mussels also can obtain their food by
deposit feeding, pulling in food from the
sediment and its interstitial (pore) water
and pedal feeding directly from the
sediment (Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217–
221; Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001, pp.
1432–1438). Food availability and
quality for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel in their habitats
are affected by habitat stability,
floodplain connectivity, flow, and water
and sediment quality. Excessive
sedimentation has been shown to impair
the filter feeding ability of mussels.
When in high silt environments,
mussels may keep their valves closed
more often, resulting in reduced feeding
activity (Ellis 1936, p. 30), and high
amounts of suspended sediments can
dilute their food source (Dennis 1984, p.
212). Adequate food availability and
quality is essential for normal behavior,
growth, and viability during all life
stages of these two species. Excessive
sedimentation often results in fine silt
particles culminating within interstitial
spaces, embedding and even
concretizing the substrate and virtually
altering habitat to such a degree that it
becomes uninhabitable for mussels,
particularly juveniles.
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are riverine species that
depend upon adequate water flow.
Continuously flowing water is a habitat
feature associated with both of these
species. Flowing water maintains the
stream bottom habitats where these
species are found, transports food items
to the sedentary juvenile and adult life
stages, removes wastes, and provides
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60823
oxygen for respiration. A natural flow
regime that includes periodic flooding
and maintains connectivity and
interaction with the floodplain is
critical for the exchange of nutrients,
movement of and spawning activities
for potential fish hosts, and
maintenance of flow refuges in riffle and
run habitats. Further, riffle areas are
often defined by an abundance and
diversity of organisms that likely have
dependent and competitive interactions
yet unknown, but that are important for
riffle-dwelling mussel species such as
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
The ranges of standard physical and
chemical water quality parameters (such
as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and conductivity) that define suitable
habitat conditions for the two species
have not been investigated or are poorly
understood. However, as relatively
sedentary animals, mussels must
tolerate the full range of such
parameters that occur naturally within
the streams where they persist. The
pathways of exposure to a variety of
environmental pollutants for all four
mussel life stages (free and encysted
glochidia, juveniles, and adults) and
differences in exposure and sensitivity
were previously discussed (see Factor
A). Environmental contamination is a
causal (contributing) factor in the
decline of mussel populations.
We currently believe that most
numeric standards for pollutants and
water quality parameters (for example,
dissolved oxygen, pH, and heavy
metals) that have been adopted by the
States under the CWA represent levels
that are essential to the conservation of
both mussels. The Service is currently
in consultation with the EPA to evaluate
the protectiveness of criteria approved
in EPA’s water quality standards for
endangered and threatened species and
their critical habitats as described in the
Memorandum of Agreement that our
agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201,
February 22, 2001). Other factors that
can potentially alter water quality are
droughts and periods of low flow,
nonpoint source runoff from adjacent
land surfaces (for example, excessive
amounts of sediments, nutrients, and
pesticides), point source discharges
from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities (for
example, excessive amounts of
ammonia, chlorine, and metals), thermal
and flow modifications resulting from
hydropower generation, and random
spills or unregulated discharge events.
This could be particularly harmful
during drought conditions, when flows
are depressed and pollutants are more
concentrated.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60824
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Both the amount (flow) and the
physical and chemical conditions (water
quality) where both species currently
exist vary widely according to season,
precipitation events, and seasonal
human activities within the watershed.
Conditions across their historical ranges
vary even more due to watershed size,
geology, geography, and differences in
human population densities and land
uses. In general, both of the species
survive in areas where the magnitude,
frequency, duration, and seasonality of
water flow are adequate to maintain
stable habitats (for example, sufficient
flow to remove fine particles and
sediments without causing degradation),
and where water quality is adequate for
year-round survival (for example,
moderate to high levels of dissolved
oxygen, low to moderate input of
nutrients, and relatively unpolluted
water and sediments). Therefore, based
on the information above, we identify
adequate food items for all life stages,
sufficient water flow, and adequate
water quality to be PBFs for both of
these species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing
Mussels require a host fish for
transformation of larval mussels
(glochidia) to juvenile mussels
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 68). Thus, the
presence of the appropriate host fishes
to complete the reproductive life cycle
is essential to the conservation of these
two mussels. The known host fishes of
the fluted kidneyshell include: barcheek
darter (Etheostoma obeyense), fantail
darter (E. flabellare), rainbow darter (E.
caeruleum), redline darter (E.
rufilineatum), bluebreast darter (E.
camurum), dusky darter (Percina
sciera), and banded sculpin (Cottus
carolinae). The known host fishes of the
slabside pearlymussel include: popeye
shiner (Notropis ariommus), rosyface
shiner (N. rubellus), saffron shiner (N.
rubricroceus), silver shiner (N.
photogenis), telescope shiner (N.
telescopus), Tennessee shiner (N.
leuciodus), whitetail shiner (Cyprinella
galactura), striped shiner (Luxilus
chrysocephalus), warpaint shiner (L.
coccogenis), white shiner (L. albeolus),
and eastern blacknose dace (Rhinichthys
atratulus). There are likely other
suitable host fishes that have not yet
been studied or confirmed.
Juvenile mussels require stable
bottom habitats for growth and survival.
Fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel juveniles require stable
habitats with adequate water quantity
and quality as previously described for
growth and survival. Excessive
sediments or dense growth of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
filamentous algae can expose juvenile
mussels to entrainment or predation and
be detrimental to the survival of
juvenile mussels (Hartfield and
Hartfield 1996, pp. 372–374).
Geomorphic instability can result in the
loss of interstitial habitats and juvenile
mussels due to scouring or deposition
(Hartfield 1993, pp. 372–373). Water
quality, sediment quality, stable habitat,
health of fish hosts, and diet (of all life
stages) all influence survival of each life
stage and subsequent reproduction and
recruitment (Cope et al. 2008, p. 452).
Periodic floodplain connectivity that
occurs during wet years provides
habitats for spawning and foraging
activities for fish hosts that require
floodplain habitats for successful
reproduction and recruitment to
adulthood. Barko et al. (2006, pp. 252–
256) found that several fish host or
potential host species (none of which
are documented hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel)
benefited from resource exploitation of
floodplain habitats that were not
typically available for use during years
of normal flows. Furthermore, Kwak
(1988, pp. 243–247) and Slipke and
Maceina (2005, p. 289) indicated that
periodic inundation of floodplain
habitats increased successful fish
reproduction, which leads to increased
availability of native host fishes for
mussel reproduction. However, Rypel et
al. (2009, p. 502) indicated that mussels
tended to exhibit minimal growth
during high flow years. Therefore,
optimal flooding of these habitats would
not be too frequent and may need to
occur at similar frequencies to that of
the natural hydrologic regime of the
rivers and creeks inhabited by the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
Natural temperature regimes can be
altered by impoundments, water
releases from dams, industrial and
municipal effluents, and changes in
riparian habitat. Critical thermal limits
for survival and normal functioning of
many mussel species are unknown.
High temperatures can reduce dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the water,
which slows growth, reduces glycogen
stores, impairs respiration, and may
inhibit reproduction (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 240–241). Low temperatures
can significantly delay or prevent
metamorphosis (Watters and O’Dee
1999, pp. 454–455). Water temperature
increases have been documented to
shorten the period of glochidial
encystment, reduce the speed in which
they turn upright, increase oxygen
consumption, and slow burrowing and
movement responses (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 240–241; Bartsch et al. 2000,
p. 237; Watters et al. 2001, p. 546;
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Schwalb and Pusch 2007, pp. 264–265).
Several studies have documented the
influence of temperature on the timing
of aspects of mussel reproduction (for
example, Gray et al. 2002, p. 156; Allen
et al. 2007, p. 85; Steingraeber et al.
2007, pp. 303–309). Peak glochidial
releases are associated with water
temperature thresholds that can be
thermal minimums or maximums,
depending on the species (Watters and
O’Dee 2000, p. 136). Abnormal
temperature changes may cause
particular problems to mussels whose
reproductive cycles may be linked to
fish reproductive cycles (for example,
Young and Williams 1984, entire).
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify health of fish hosts,
water quality, sediment quality, stable
habitat, food for all life stages, periodic
flooding of floodplain habitat, and a
natural temperature regime to be PBFs
for both of these species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside
Pearlymussel
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the PBFs essential to the conservation of
these mussel species in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the
features’ primary constituent elements
(PCEs). We consider PCEs to be the
elements of PBFs that provide for a
species’ life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Based on the above needs and our
current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species and
the habitat requirements for sustaining
the essential life-history functions of the
species, we have determined that the
PCEs for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel are:
(1) Riffle habitats within large,
geomorphically stable stream channels
(channels that maintain lateral
dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an
aggrading or degrading bed elevation).
(2) Stable substrates of sand, gravel,
and cobble with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and
containing flow refugia with low shear
stress.
(3) A natural hydrologic flow regime
(the magnitude, frequency, duration,
and seasonality of discharge over time)
necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species are found, and
connectivity of rivers with the
floodplain, allowing the exchange of
nutrients and sediment for habitat
maintenance, food availability for all
life stages, and spawning habitat for
native fishes.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(4) Water quality with low levels of
pollutants and including a natural
temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to
8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
milligrams per liter (mg/L)), hardness,
and turbidity necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages.
(5) The presence of abundant fish
hosts necessary for recruitment of the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The 29
occupied units we are proposing for
designation as critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell (16) and slabside
pearlymussel (13) will require some
level of management to address the
current and future threats to the PBFs of
the species. Of the 29 total occupied
units, a portion of 5 units are located on
the Daniel Boone National Forest
(DBNF), 14 are almost entirely on
private land, 1 is located on the Big
South Fork National River and
Recreational Area (BSFNRRA), 1 is
located on the Cherokee National Forest
(CNF), and 8 units have mixed
ownership with private, State park, and
national wildlife refuge lands.
Due to their location on the DBNF, at
least a portion of 5 of the 29 occupied
proposed critical habitat units are being
managed and protected under DBNF’s
Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP), and the Hiwassee River unit is
protected under CNF’s LRMP (United
States Forest Service (USFS) 2004a, pp.
1–14; 2004b, entire). The LRMPs are
implemented through a series of projectlevel decisions based on appropriate
site-specific analysis and disclosure.
The LRMPs do not contain a
commitment to select any specific
project; rather, they set up a framework
of desired future conditions with goals,
objectives, and standards to guide
project proposals. Projects are proposed
to solve resource management problems,
move the forest environment toward
desired future conditions, and supply
goods and services to the public (USFS
2004a, pp. 1–14). The LRMPs contain a
number of protective standards that in
general are designed to avoid and
minimize potential adverse effects to the
fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and federally listed
species; however, the DBNF and CNF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
would continue to conduct projectspecific section 7 consultations under
the Act when their activities may
adversely affect the fluted kidneyshell,
slabside pearlymussel, and other
federally listed species or adversely
modify their designated critical habitats.
Fourteen of the 29 occupied proposed
critical habitat units are located almost
entirely on private property and are not
presently under the special management
or protection provided by a legally
operative plan or agreement for the
conservation of the species.
One of the 29 occupied proposed
critical habitat units (Big South Fork
Cumberland River) is located almost
entirely on Federal lands within the
BSFNRRA. Land and resource
management decisions and activities
within the BSFNRRA are guided by the
National Park Service General
Management Plan, Field Management
Plan, and Draft Non-Federal Oil and Gas
Management Plan (NPS 2005, entire;
NPS 2006, pp. 1–12; NPS 2011, entire).
Eight of the 29 occupied proposed
critical habitat units (Clinch and Duck
Rivers) have mixed ownership with
private, State park, and national wildlife
refuge lands. These lands are operated
under various plans that may or may not
provide the special management or
protection provided by a legally
operative plan or agreement for the
conservation of these species.
Various activities in or adjacent to
each of the occupied critical habitat
units described in this proposed rule
may affect one or more of the PCEs.
Some of these activities include, but are
not limited to, those discussed in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species, above (e.g., impoundments,
gravel and coal mining, water pollution,
invasive species; see Factors A, D, and
E, above). Other activities that may
affect PBFs in the proposed critical
habitat units include those listed in
Available Conservation Measures above.
Management activities that could
ameliorate threats on both Federal and
non-Federal lands include, but are not
limited to: Use of BMPs designed to
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and
stream bank alteration; moderation of
surface and ground water withdrawals
to maintain natural flow regimes;
increase of stormwater management and
reduction of stormwater flows into the
systems; preservation of headwater
streams; regulation of off-road vehicle
use; and reduction of other watershed
and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into
the water.
In summary, we find that the areas we
are proposing as occupied critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60825
slabside pearlymussel contain the PBFs
necessary for the species, and that these
features may require special
management considerations or
protection. Special management
consideration or protection may be
required to eliminate, or to reduce to
negligible levels, the threats affecting
the PBFs of each unit. Additional
discussion of threats facing individual
units is provided in the individual unit
descriptions below.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we use the best scientific and
commercial data to designate critical
habitat. We review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species. In
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we consider whether
designating additional areas—outside
those currently occupied as well as
those occupied at the time of listing (if
listing occurs before designation of a
species’ critical habitat)—are necessary
to ensure the conservation of the
species. We are proposing to designate
critical habitat in areas within the
geographic area currently occupied by
the species. We also are proposing to
designate specific areas outside the
geographic area currently occupied by
the species, which were historically
occupied but are presently unoccupied,
because such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
We began our analysis by considering
historical and current ranges of both
species. We used various sources
including published literature and
museum collection databases, as well as
surveys, reports, and field notes
prepared by biologists (see Background
section). We then identified the specific
areas that are occupied by both mussels
and that contain one or more of the
PBFs. We defined occupied habitat as
those stream reaches known to be
currently occupied by either of the two
species. To identify the currently
occupied stream reaches, we used post1980 survey data. To identify the
unoccupied stream reaches, we used
survey data between the late 1800s and
1979. Therefore, if a species was known
to occur in an area prior to 1980, but
was not collected since then, the stream
reach is considered unoccupied. This
criterion was chosen because a large
number of collections were conducted
in the 1980s in the Cumberland and
Tennessee River systems. Some of the
historical occurrences have not been
surveyed since the 1980s. However,
because of the longevity of these species
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60826
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(40–55 years), they are still thought to
occur in these areas.
We then evaluated occupied stream
reaches to delineate the probable
upstream and downstream extent of
each species’ distribution. Known
occurrences for some mussel species are
extremely localized, and rare mussels
can be difficult to locate. In addition,
stream habitats are highly dependent
upon upstream and downstream
channel habitat conditions for their
maintenance. Therefore, where more
than one occurrence record of a
particular species was found within a
stream reach, we considered the entire
reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied
habitat.
We then considered whether this
essential area was adequate for the
conservation of both species. Small,
isolated, aquatic populations are subject
to chance catastrophic events and to
changes in human activities and land
use practices that may result in their
elimination. Larger, more contiguous
populations can reduce the threat of
extinction due to habitat fragmentation
and isolation. For these reasons, we
believe that conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell, but not the slabside
pearlymussel, requires expanding its
range into currently unoccupied
portions of its historical habitat. Given
that threats to the fluted kidneyshell are
compounded by its limited distribution
and isolation, it is unlikely that
currently occupied habitat is adequate
for its conservation. The range of the
fluted kidneyshell has been severely
curtailed, occupied habitats are limited
and isolated, and population sizes are
generally small (see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species). For example, the
fluted kidneyshell is no longer believed
to occur in the Rockcastle, Hiwassee,
Elk, Holston, or French Broad rivers.
The inclusion of essential unoccupied
areas will provide habitat for population
reintroduction and will decrease the
risk of extinction. Based on the best
scientific data available, we believe
these areas not currently occupied by
the fluted kidneyshell are essential for
their conservation.
However, we eliminated from
consideration as unoccupied critical
habitat the Red and Harpeth River
drainages; the Caney Fork, mainstem
Cumberland, mainstem Tennessee,
Tellico, Obey, South Fork Powell, South
Fork Holston, West Prong Little Pigeon,
Little Tennessee Rivers; and Kennedy,
Pittman, Otter, Flint, Sugar, Limestone,
Shoal, Puckell, North Fork, and Big
Rock Creeks for both of these mussels.
These areas are not essential for the
conservation of the mussels and were
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
eliminated from consideration because
of stream channel alterations, a limited
amount of available habitat coupled
with being isolated from other
populations, a lack of a native mussel
fauna, poor habitat or water quality, or
a lack of available fish hosts.
All of the stream habitat areas
proposed as unoccupied critical habitat
have sufficient water quality and fish
hosts necessary for the fluted
kidneyshell. The stream reaches also
lack major anthropogenic disturbances,
and have potential for reoccupation by
the species through future
reintroduction efforts. Based on the
above factors, all unoccupied stream
reaches included in the proposed
designations for the fluted kidneyshell
are essential for its conservation.
Following the identification of
occupied and unoccupied stream
reaches, the next step was to delineate
the probable upstream and downstream
extent of each species’ distribution. We
used USGS 1:100,000 digital stream
maps to delineate these boundaries of
proposed critical habitat units according
to the criteria explained below. The
upstream boundary of a unit in a stream
is the first perennial, named tributary
confluence, a road-crossing bridge, or a
permanent barrier to fish passage (such
as a dam) above the upstream-most
current occurrence record. The
confluence of a tributary typically marks
a significant change in the size of the
stream and is a logical and recognizable
upstream terminus. When a named
tributary was not available, a roadcrossing bridge was used to mark the
boundary. Likewise, a dam or other
barrier to fish passage marks the
upstream extent to which mussels may
disperse via their fish hosts. The
downstream boundary of a unit in a
stream is the confluence of a named
tributary, or the upstream extent of an
impoundment, below the downstreammost occurrence record. In the unit
descriptions, distances between
landmarks marking the upstream or
downstream extent of a stream segment
are given in river kilometers and
equivalent miles, as measured tracing
the course of the stream, not straightline distance.
Because mussels are naturally
restricted by certain physical conditions
within a stream reach (i.e., flow,
substrate), they may be unevenly
distributed within these habitat units.
Uncertainty on upstream and
downstream distributional limits of
some populations may have resulted in
small areas of occupied habitat
excluded from, or areas of unoccupied
habitat included in, the designation. We
recognize that both historical and recent
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collection records upon which we relied
are incomplete, and that there may be
river segments or small tributaries not
included in this proposed designation
that harbor small, limited populations of
one or both species considered in this
designation, or that others may become
suitable in the future. The exclusion of
such areas does not diminish their
potential individual or cumulative
importance to the conservation of these
species. However, we believe that, with
proper management, each of the 37
critical habitat units (24 fluted
kidneyshell units, and 13 slabside
pearlymussel units; 10 overlap between
the two species) are capable of
supporting one or both of these mussel
species, and that populations within
occupied units will serve as source
populations for artificial reintroduction
into unoccupied units, as well as
assisted or natural migration into
adjacent undesignated or designated
streams within each river drainage. The
habitat areas contained within the units
described below constitute our best
evaluation of areas needed for the
conservation of these species at this
time. Critical habitat may be revised for
any or all of these species should new
information become available.
The areas proposed for critical habitat
below include only stream channels
within the ordinary high-water line, and
do not contain developed areas or
structures. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical
habitat is finalized as proposed, a
Federal action involving these lands
would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific action would affect
the PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We
include more detailed information on
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://www.
regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R4–
ES–2012–0004, on our Internet site at
https://www.fws.gov/cookeville, and at
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the Fish and Wildlife office responsible
for the designation (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
In total, we are proposing a total of 37
critical habitat units encompassing
approximately 2,218 rkm (1,380 rmi) in
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia—10 of the units
overlap and are proposed as critical
habitat for both species. For the fluted
kidneyshell, we are proposing 24
critical habitat units encompassing
approximately 1,899 rkm (1,181 rmi) of
stream channel in Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia. The critical
habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. The
24 areas we propose as critical habitat
are as follows: (1) Horse Lick Creek, KY;
(2) Middle Fork Rockcastle River, KY;
(3) Rockcastle River, KY; (4) Buck Creek,
KY; (5) Rock Creek, KY; (6) Little South
Fork Cumberland River, KY; (7) Big
South Fork Cumberland River, KY, TN;
(8) Wolf River and Town Branch, TN;
(9) West Fork Obey River, TN; (10)
Indian Creek, VA; (11) Little River
[tributary to the Clinch River], VA; (12)
North Fork Holston River, VA; (13)
Middle Fork Holston River, VA; (14) Big
Moccasin Creek, VA; (15) Copper Creek,
VA; (16) Clinch River, TN, VA; (17)
Powell River, TN, VA; (18) Nolichucky
River, TN; (19) Holston River, TN; (20)
French Broad River, TN; (21) Hiwassee
River, TN; (22) Elk River, AL, TN; (23)
Duck River, TN; and (24) Buffalo River,
TN.
We are proposing 13 critical habitat
units encompassing approximately
1,562 rkm (970 rmi) of stream channel
in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
and Virginia for the slabside
pearlymussel. The critical habitat areas
we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for
the slabside pearlymussel. The 13 areas
we propose as critical habitat are as
follows: (1) North Fork Holston River,
VA; (2) Middle Fork Holston River, VA;
(3) Big Moccasin Creek, VA; (4) Clinch
River, TN, VA; (5) Powell River, TN,
VA; (6) Nolichucky River, TN; (7)
Hiwassee River, TN; (8) Sequatchie
River, TN; (9) Paint Rock River, AL; (10)
Elk River, AL, TN; (11) Bear Creek, AL,
MS; (12) Duck River, TN; and (13)
Buffalo River, TN.
Unit name, location, and the
approximate stream length of each
proposed critical habitat unit are shown
in Table 3 for the fluted kidneyshell and
Table 4 for the slabside pearlymussel.
The proposed critical habitat units
include the stream channels within the
ordinary high-water line only. For this
purpose, we have applied the definition
found at 33 CFR 329.11, and consider
the ordinary high-water mark on
60827
nontidal rivers to be the line on the
shore established by the fluctuations of
water and indicated by physical
characteristics, such as a clear, natural
line impressed on the bank; shelving;
changes in the character of soil;
destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the
presence of litter and debris; or other
appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas.
States were granted ownership of
lands beneath navigable waters up to
the ordinary high-water line upon
achieving Statehood (Pollard v. Hagan,
44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior
sovereigns or the States may have made
grants to private parties that included
lands below the ordinary high-water
mark of some navigable waters that are
included in this proposal. We believe
that most, if not all, lands beneath the
navigable waters included in this
proposed rule are owned by the States.
The lands beneath most nonnavigable
waters included in this proposed rule
are in private ownership. In Alabama,
the riparian landowner owns the stream
to the middle of the channel for nonnavigable streams. Riparian lands along
the waters are either in private
ownership, or are owned by county,
State, or Federal entities. Lands under
county, State, and Federal ownership
consist of managed conservation areas,
and are considered to have some level
of protection.
TABLE 3—FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL OCCUPANCY STATUS AND RIPARIAN LANDS OWNERSHIP ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS
Federal, state,
county, city
ownership
rkm (rmi)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit
Location
Occupied by
species
Private
ownership
rkm (rmi)
FK1 ..........
FK2 ..........
FK3 ..........
FK4 ..........
FK5 ..........
FK6 ..........
FK7 ..........
FK8 ..........
FK9 ..........
FK10 ........
FK11 ........
FK12 ........
FK13 ........
FK14 ........
FK15 ........
FK16 ........
FK17 ........
FK18 ........
FK19 ........
FK20 ........
FK21 ........
FK22 ........
FK23 ........
FK24 ........
Horse Lick Creek, KY ......................................................
Middle Fork Rockcastle River, KY ...................................
Rockcastle River, KY .......................................................
Buck Creek, KY ................................................................
Rock Creek, KY ...............................................................
Little South Fork Cumberland River, KY .........................
Big South Fork Cumberland River, KY, TN .....................
Wolf River and Town Branch, TN ....................................
West Fork Obey River, TN ..............................................
Indian Creek, VA ..............................................................
Little River, VA .................................................................
North Fork Holston River, VA ..........................................
Middle Fork Holston River, VA ........................................
Big Moccasin Creek, VA ..................................................
Copper Creek, VA ............................................................
Clinch River, TN, VA ........................................................
Powell River, TN, VA .......................................................
Nolichucky River, TN .......................................................
Holston River, TN .............................................................
French Broad River, TN ...................................................
Hiwassee River, TN .........................................................
Elk River, AL, TN .............................................................
Duck River, TN .................................................................
Buffalo River, TN ..............................................................
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
No ................
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
No ................
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
No ................
No ................
No ................
No ................
No ................
Yes ..............
No ................
3.6 (2.3)
6.0 (3.7)
11.7 (7.3)
59.7 (37.1)
1.5 (0.9)
61.1 (38.0)
1.5 (1.0)
38.7 (24.0)
19.3 (12.0)
6.7 (4.2)
50.4 (31.3)
66.4 (41.3)
89.0 (55.3)
33.1 (20.6)
55.5 (34.5)
256.3 (159.2)
152.4 (94.7)
50.9 (31.6)
85.1 (52.9)
54.4 (33.8)
0
162.8 (101.2)
284.0 (176.5)
50.0 (31.0)
15.8 (10.1)
6.5 (4.0)
58.2 (36.2)
1.3 (0.8)
17.7 (11.0)
4.4 (2.7)
90.0 (55.9)
5.7 (3.5)
0
0
0
0.9 (0.5)
0
0
0
6.4 (4.0)
0.3 (0.2)
0.9 (0.6)
0
1.7 (1.1)
24.4 (15.2)
1.5 (0.9)
63.5 (39.4)
0
19.4 (12.4)
12.5 (7.7)
69.9 (43.5)
61.0 (37.9)
19.2 (11.9)
65.5 (40.7)
91.5 (56.9)
44.4 (27.5)
19.3 (12.0)
6.7 (4.2)
50.4 (31.3)
67.3 (41.8)
89.0 (55.3)
33.1 (20.6)
55.5 (34.5)
262.7 (163.2)
152.7 (94.9)
51.9 (32.2)
85.1 (52.9)
56.1 (34.9)
24.4 (15.2)
164.3 (102.1)
347.5 (215.9)
50.0 (31.0)
Total ..
...........................................................................................
.....................
............................
............................
1,899.4 (1,180.5)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Total length
rkm (rmi)
60828
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—OCCUPANCY AND OWNERSHIP OF RIPARIAN LANDS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR
THE SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL
Private ownership
rkm (rmi)
Total length
rkm (rmi)
Location
SP1 ..........
SP2 ..........
SP3 ..........
SP4 ..........
SP5 ..........
SP6 ..........
SP7 ..........
SP8 ..........
SP9 ..........
SP10 ........
SP11 ........
SP12 ........
SP13 ........
North Fork Holston River, VA ..........................................
Middle Fork Holston River, VA ........................................
Big Moccasin Creek, VA ..................................................
Clinch River, TN, VA ........................................................
Powell River, TN, VA .......................................................
Nolichucky River, TN .......................................................
Hiwassee River, TN .........................................................
Sequatchie River, TN .......................................................
Paint Rock River, AL ........................................................
Elk River, AL, TN .............................................................
Bear Creek, AL, MS .........................................................
Duck River, TN .................................................................
Buffalo River, TN ..............................................................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
66.4 (41.3)
89.0 (55.3)
33.1 (20.6)
256.3 (159.2)
152.4 (94.7)
50.9 (31.6)
0
151.5 (94.1)
119.2 (74.1)
162.8 (101.2)
36.3 (22.5)
284.0 (176.5)
50.0 (31.0)
0.9 (0.5)
0
0
6.4 (4.0)
0.3 (0.2)
0.9 (0.6)
24.4 (15.2)
0
5.8 (3.6)
1.5 (0.9)
6.1 (3.8)
63.5 (39.4)
0
67.3 (41.8)
89.0 (55.3)
33.1 (20.6)
262.7 (163.2)
152.7 (94.9)
51.9 (32.2)
24.4 (15.2)
151.5 (94.1)
125.0 (77.7)
164.3 (102.1)
42.4 (26.3)
347.5 (215.9)
50.0 (31.0)
Total ..
...........................................................................................
.....................
............................
............................
1,561.8 (970.3)
Eleven critical habitat units proposed
for both the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel are currently
designated as critical habitat under the
Act for other species, including the
purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea),
oyster mussel (Epioblasma
capsaeformis), Cumberlandian
combshell (E. brevidens), Cumberland
elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea),
rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica
strigillata), slender chub (Erimystax
cahni), and yellowfin madtom (Noturus
flavipinnis) (42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840,
69 FR 53136), or are proposed as critical
habitat under the Act for the rabbitsfoot
(Q. c. cylindrica) (see Table 5). The
Occupied
Federal, state,
county, city ownership
rkm (rmi)
Unit
proposed units for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
completely or partially overlap existing
units in the Powell, Clinch, Nolichucky,
Big South Fork Cumberland, Duck, and
Paint Rock Rivers and in the Buck,
Rock, Indian, Copper, and Bear Creeks;
however, the exact unit descriptions
(lengths) differ due to mapping
refinement since the earlier
designations. No other critical habitat
units proposed for these species have
been designated or proposed as critical
habitat for other species under the Act.
Three critical habitat units proposed
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are currently designated
under section 10(j) of the Act as
nonessential experimental populations
for other species, including the
yellowfin madtom in the North Fork
Holston River, VA; and 15 mussels, 1
snail, and 5 fishes in the lower Holston
and French Broad Rivers, TN (53 FR
29335, 72 FR 52434, see Table 5).
All of the critical habitat units
proposed for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel contain historical
or extant records of federally listed or
proposed species, except for the Wolf
River and Town Branch and West Fork
Obey River, TN (see Table 6).
TABLE 5—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL WHICH
ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED OR PROPOSED AS CRITICAL HABITAT FOR OTHER FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Unit (Unit No.)
Species
Critical habitat
Nonessential
experimental
population
Buck Creek (FK4) ............................
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell.
Cumberland elktoe ..........................
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell, Cumberland elktoe.
Purple bean, ...................................
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell, Rough rabbitsfoot.
Yellowfin madtom ...........................
69 FR 53136 ...................................
...........................
61 (38)
69 FR 53136 ...................................
69 FR 53136 ...................................
...........................
...........................
19 (12)
92 (57)
69 FR 53136 ...................................
...........................
7 (4)
.........................................................
53 FR 29335 ....
58 (36)
69 FR 53136, ..................................
42 FR 45526, ..................................
42 FR 47840 ...................................
.........................................................
69 FR 53136, ..................................
42 FR 45526, ..................................
42 FR 47840 ...................................
...........................
21 (13)
56 (35)
56 (35)
...........................
263 (163)
263 (163)
263 (163)
69 FR 53136, ..................................
42 FR 45526, ..................................
42 FR 47840 ...................................
...........................
153 (95)
153 (95)
153 (95)
Rock Creek (FK5) ............................
Big South Fork Cumberland River
(FK7).
Indian Creek (FK10) ........................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
North Fork Holston River (FK12,
SP1).
Copper Creek (FK15) ......................
Clinch River (FK16, SP4) ................
Powell River (FK17, SP5) ................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Purple bean, Oyster mussel,
Cumberlandian
combshell,
Rough
rabbitsfoot,
Yellowfin
madtom.
Purple bean, Oyster mussel,
Cumberlandian
combshell,
Rough rabbitsfoot, Slender chub,
Yellowfin madtom.
Purple
bean,
Cumberlandian
combshell,
Oyster
mussel,
Rough rabbitsfoot, Slender chub,
Yellowfin madtom.
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Length of
overlap
rkm (rmi)
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
60829
TABLE 5—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL WHICH
ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED OR PROPOSED AS CRITICAL HABITAT FOR OTHER FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES—Continued
Unit (Unit No.)
Species
Critical habitat
Nonessential
experimental
population
Nolichucky River (FK18, SP6) .........
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell.
15 Mussels, 1 Snail, and 5 Fishes
15 Mussels, 1 Snail, and 5 Fishes
Rabbitsfoot ......................................
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell, Rabbitsfoot.
Oyster mussel, Cumberlandian
combshell, Rabbitsfoot.
69 FR 53136 ...................................
...........................
8 (5)
.........................................................
.........................................................
TBD .................................................
69 FR 53136 ...................................
72 FR 52434 ....
72 FR 52434 ....
...........................
...........................
69 FR 53136 ...................................
...........................
85 (53)
56 (35)
80 (50)
42 (26)
234 (136)
74 (46)
234 (146)
.........................................................
.........................................................
...........................
Holston River (FK19) .......................
French Broad River (FK20) .............
Paint Rock River (SP9) ...................
Bear Creek (SP11) ..........................
Duck River (FK23, SP12) ................
Total ..........................................
Length of
overlap
rkm (rmi)
1221 (760)
TABLE 6—FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED SPECIES WITH HISTORICAL OR EXTANT RECORDS FROM THE PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT STREAMS FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL
Federally listed or proposed species present
Unit
Location
FK1 ...............
Horse Lick Creek, KY ..............................
FK2 ...............
FK3 ...............
Middle Fork Rockcastle River, KY ...........
Rockcastle River, KY ...............................
FK4 ...............
Buck Creek, KY .......................................
FK5 ...............
FK6 ...............
Rock Creek, KY .......................................
Little South Fork Cumberland River, KY
FK7 ...............
Big South Fork Cumberland River, KY ...
FK8 ...............
FK9 ...............
FK10 .............
Wolf River and Town Branch, TN ...........
West Fork Obey River, TN ......................
Indian Creek, VA .....................................
Little River, VA .........................................
FK12, SP1 ....
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
FK11 .............
North Fork Holston River, VA ..................
FK13, SP2 ....
Middle Fork Holston River, VA ................
Cumberland bean ....................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
snuffbox ...................................................
yellow blossom ........................................
Cumberland elktoe ...................................
Cumberland bean ....................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
snuffbox ...................................................
palezone shiner .......................................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland elktoe ...................................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
duskytail darter ........................................
None.
None.
purple bean ..............................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
purple bean ..............................................
rough rabbitsfoot ......................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spotfin chub .............................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
yellow blossom ........................................
spotfin chub .............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
Villosa trabalis.
Pegias fabula.
Villosa trabalis.
Villosa trabalis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Villosa trabalis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Alasmidonta atropurpurea.
Villosa trabalis.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Notropis albizonatus.
Villosa trabalis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Alasmidonta atropurpurea.
Dromus dromas.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri
walkeri).
Etheostoma percnurum.
Villosa perpurpurea.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri
walkeri).
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Pegias fabula.
Villosa perpurpurea.
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Erimonax monachus.
Pegias fabula.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri
walkeri).
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Erimonax monachus.
04OCP3
(=E.
(=E.
(=E.
60830
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED SPECIES WITH HISTORICAL OR EXTANT RECORDS FROM THE PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT STREAMS FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL—Continued
Federally listed or proposed species present
Unit
Location
FK14, SP3 ....
Big Moccasin Creek, VA ..........................
FK15 .............
Copper Creek, VA ...................................
.......................
FK16, SP4 ....
..................................................................
Clinch River, TN, VA ...............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
FK17, SP5 ....
Powell River, TN, VA ...............................
FK18, SP6 ....
Nolichucky River, TN ...............................
FK19 .............
Holston River, TN ....................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
rough rabbitsfoot ......................................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
purple bean ..............................................
rough rabbitsfoot ......................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
duskytail darter ........................................
yellowfin madtom .....................................
Appalachian monkeyface .........................
birdwing pearlymussel .............................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland monkeyface .........................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
fanshell .....................................................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
green blossom pearlymussel ...................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
pink mucket ..............................................
purple bean ..............................................
rayed bean ...............................................
rough pigtoe .............................................
rough rabbitsfoot ......................................
sheepnose ...............................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
yellow blossom ........................................
pygmy madtom ........................................
slender chub ............................................
Appalachian monkeyface .........................
birdwing pearlymussel .............................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland monkeyface .........................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
green blossom pearlymussel ...................
oyster mussel ...........................................
purple bean ..............................................
rayed bean ...............................................
rough rabbitsfoot ......................................
sheepnose ...............................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
white wartyback .......................................
yellow blossom ........................................
slender chub ............................................
yellowfin madtom .....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
green blossom pearlymussel ...................
pink mucket ..............................................
rayed bean ...............................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
snail darter ...............................................
Appalachian Monkeyface .........................
birdwing pearlymussel .............................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Villosa perpurpurea.
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata.
Fusconaia cor.
Etheostoma percnurum
Noturus flavipinnis.
Quadrula sparsa.
Lemiox rimosus.
Hemistena lata.
Villosa trabalis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Quadrula intermedia.
Dromus dromas.
Cyprogenia stegaria.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum.
Pegias fabula.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Villosa perpurpurea.
Villosa fabalis.
Pleurobema plenum.
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Noturus stanauli.
Erimystax cahni.
Quadrula sparsa.
Lemiox rimosus.
Hemistena lata.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Quadrula intermedia.
Dromus dromas.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Villosa perpurpurea.
Villosa fabalis.
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
Plethobasus cicatricosus.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Erimystax cahni.
Noturus flavipinnis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Villosa fabalis.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Percina tanasi.
Quadrula sparsa.
Lemiox rimosus.
Hemistena lata.
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
60831
TABLE 6—FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED SPECIES WITH HISTORICAL OR EXTANT RECORDS FROM THE PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT STREAMS FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL—Continued
Federally listed or proposed species present
Unit
Location
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland monkeyface .........................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
green blossom pearlymussel ...................
oyster mussel ...........................................
ring pink ...................................................
sheepnose ...............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
FK20 .............
French Broad River, TN ..........................
FK21, SP7 ....
Hiwassee River, TN .................................
Sequatchie River, TN ..............................
SP9 ...............
Paint Rock River, AL ...............................
FK22, SP10 ..
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SP8 ...............
Elk River, AL, TN .....................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
turgid blossom pearlymussel ...................
white wartyback .......................................
yellow blossom ........................................
slender chub ............................................
snail darter ...............................................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
fanshell .....................................................
orangefoot pimpleback ............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
pink mucket ..............................................
ring pink ...................................................
rough pigtoe .............................................
sheepnose ...............................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
tubercled blossom pearlymussel .............
yellow blossom ........................................
snail darter ...............................................
Appalachian monkeyface .........................
Cumberland bean ....................................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
orangefoot pimpleback ............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
rough pigtoe .............................................
sheepnose ...............................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
tubercled blossom pearlymussel .............
yellow blossom ........................................
Anthony’s riversnail ..................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
snail darter ...............................................
Alabama lampmussel ..............................
Cumberland bean ....................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
pale lilliput ................................................
pink mucket ..............................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
yellow blossom ........................................
palezone shiner .......................................
snail darter ...............................................
rabbitsfoot ................................................
Alabama lampmussel ..............................
birdwing pearlymussel .............................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland monkeyface .........................
dromedary pearlymussel .........................
fanshell .....................................................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
pale lilliput ................................................
rabbitsfoot ................................................
rayed bean ...............................................
shiny pigtoe ..............................................
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
Epioblasma brevidens.
Quadrula intermedia.
Dromus dromas.
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Obovaria retusa.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
Epioblasma turgidula.
Plethobasus cicatricosus.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Erimystax cahni.
Percina tanasi.
Hemistena lata.
Dromus dromas.
Cyprogenia stegaria.
Plethobasus cooperianus.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Obovaria retusa.
Pleurobema plenum.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Percina tanasi.
Quadrula sparsa.
Villosa trabalis.
Dromus dromas.
Plethobasus cooperianus.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Pleurobema plenum.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Athearnia anthonyi.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Percina tanasi.
Lampsilis virescens.
Villosa trabalis.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Toxolasma cylindrellus.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Fusconaia cor.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Notropis albizonatus.
Percina tanasi.
Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica.
Lampsilis virescens.
Lemiox rimosus.
Hemistena lata.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Quadrula intermedia.
Dromus dromas.
Cyprogenia stegaria.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Pegias fabula.
Toxolasma cylindrellus.
Quadrula c. cylindrica.
Villosa fabalis.
Fusconaia cor.
04OCP3
60832
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED SPECIES WITH HISTORICAL OR EXTANT RECORDS FROM THE PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT STREAMS FOR THE FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL AND SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL—Continued
Federally listed or proposed species present
Unit
Location
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
SP11 .............
Bear Creek, AL, MS ................................
FK23, SP12 ..
Duck River, TN ........................................
FK24, SP13 ..
Buffalo River, TN .....................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
For each stream reach proposed as a
critical habitat unit, the upstream and
downstream boundaries are described
generally below. More precise
definitions are provided in the Proposed
Regulation Promulgation at the end of
this proposed rule. Fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel status and
distribution for each critical habitat unit
was previously described in the
Background section.
Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside
Pearlymussel Proposed Critical Habitat
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
must contain PBFs which are (1)
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
tubercled blossom pearlymussel .............
turgid blossom pearlymussel ...................
yellow blossom ........................................
boulder darter ..........................................
snail darter ...............................................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
finerayed pigtoe .......................................
oyster mussel ...........................................
pink mucket ..............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
turgid blossom pearlymussel ...................
yellow blossom ........................................
rabbitsfoot ................................................
birdwing pearlymussel .............................
clubshell ...................................................
cracking pearlymussel .............................
Cumberlandian combshell .......................
Cumberland monkeyface .........................
littlewing pearlymussel .............................
orangefoot pimpleback ............................
oyster mussel ...........................................
pale lilliput ................................................
pink mucket ..............................................
rayed bean ...............................................
sheepnose ...............................................
snuffbox ...................................................
spectaclecase ..........................................
tan riffleshell .............................................
tubercled blossom pearlymussel .............
turgid blossom pearlymussel ...................
winged mapleleaf .....................................
yellow blossom ........................................
pygmy madtom ........................................
rabbitsfoot ................................................
pale lilliput ................................................
spotfin chub .............................................
rabbitsfoot ................................................
special management considerations or
protection. For those units occupied by
either the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, or both species, we
describe the principal PCEs essential to
the conservation of the species and the
special management considerations or
protections that may be needed for each
unit below.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. For those units unoccupied by
the fluted kidneyshell, or slabside
pearlymussel, we are proposing to
designate these units because we have
determined that they are essential for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri
walkeri).
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa.
Epioblasma turgidula.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Etheostoma wapiti.
Percina tanasi.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Fusconaia cuneolus.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Epioblasma turgidula.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Quadrula c. cylindrica.
Lemiox rimosus.
Pleurobema clava.
Hemistena lata.
Epioblasma brevidens.
Quadrula intermedia.
Pegias fabula.
Plethobasus cooperianus.
Epioblasma capsaeformis.
Toxolasma cylindrellus.
Lampsilis abrupta.
Villosa fabalis.
Plethobasus cyphyus.
Epioblasma triquetra.
Cumberlandia monodonta.
Epioblasma florentina walkeri
walkeri).
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa.
Epioblasma turgidula.
Quadrula fragosa.
Epioblasma florentina florentina.
Noturus stanauli.
Quadrula c. cylindrica.
Toxolasma cylindrellus.
Erimonax monachus.
Quadrula c. cylindrica.
(=E.
(=E.
the conservation of the species due to
the need to re-establish the species
within other portions of its historical
range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events.
For five of the units (Big Moccasin
Creek, Nolichucky, Hiwassee, Elk, and
Buffalo Rivers), we are designating
critical habitat for the slabside
pearlymussel under prong one of the
Act (occupied), while at the same time
designating the unit under prong two of
the Act for the fluted kidneyshell
species (unoccupied). Therefore, the
principal PCEs and special management
considerations or protections given for
these units only apply to the species for
which the unit is occupied critical
habitat (slabside pearlymussel).
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Unit FK1: Horse Lick Creek, Rockcastle
and Jackson Counties, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK1 encompasses
approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of Horse
Lick Creek, in Rockcastle and Jackson
Counties, KY. It includes the mainstem
of Horse Lick Creek from its confluence
with the Rockcastle River upstream to
Clover Bottom Creek. The unit is within
the Cumberland River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by the fluted
kidneyshell at the time of listing. This
unit is located almost entirely on private
lands; however, approximately 16 rkm
(10 rmi) are federal lands within the
DBNF. Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the
DBNF are guided by DBNF’s LRMP
(USFS 2004a, pp. 1–14).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK1 is relatively stable, with an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within proposed Unit FK1, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with legacy coal
mines and coal mining activities,
silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, illegal off-road
vehicle use and other recreational
activities, and nonpoint source
pollution originating in headwater
reaches.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit FK2: Middle Fork Rockcastle River,
Jackson County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK2 includes 12.5 rkm
(7.7 rmi) of the Middle Fork Rockcastle
River from its confluence with the
Rockcastle River upstream to its
confluence with Indian Creek and
Laurel Fork in Jackson County, KY. The
unit is within the Cumberland River
system and is proposed as occupied
critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. About half of this unit
(approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi)) is in
public ownership (DBNF), and half is in
private ownership. Land and resource
management decisions and activities
within the DBNF are guided by DBNF’s
LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1–14).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK2 is relatively stable and has an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Within this unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects caused by resource extraction
(coal mining, silviculture, natural gas
and oil exploration activities),
agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county
roads, illegal off-road vehicle use,
nonpoint source pollution arising from
a wide variety of human activities, and
potentially canopy loss caused by
infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid, Adelges tsugae, an invasive
pest threatening eastern hemlock trees
(Tsuga canadensis) in the eastern
United States. Hemlocks are an
important component of riparian
vegetation throughout the range of the
two mussels.
Unit FK3: Rockcastle River, Pulaski,
Laurel, and Rockcastle Counties,
Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK3 includes
approximately 70 rkm (43 rmi) of the
Rockcastle River from the backwaters of
Lake Cumberland near its confluence
with Cane Creek along the Laurel and
Pulaski County line, KY, upstream to its
confluence with Horse Lick Creek along
the Laurel and Rockcastle County line,
KY. The unit is within the Cumberland
River system and is considered
unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell at
the time of listing, but within the
species’ historical range. Live fluted
kidneyshell have not been collected
within proposed Unit 3 since 1911;
however, it persists in adjacent
tributaries such as Horse Lick Creek and
shell material has been found as
recently as 1985 (Wilson and Clark 1914
and Thompson 1985 in Cicerello 1993,
p. 12). In 2010, surveys of the
Rockcastle River showed that the river
had a diverse mussel fauna, including
the federally endangered Cumberland
bean (McGregor 2010, unpubl. data).
We consider this unit essential for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell
due to the need to re-establish the
species within other portions of its
historical range in order to reduce
threats from stochastic events.
Therefore, this unit is proposed as
unoccupied critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. A portion of this unit
(approximately 12 rkm (7 rmi)) is in
private ownership, but the majority is in
public ownership (DBNF). Land and
resource management decisions and
activities within the DBNF are guided
by DBNF’s LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1–
14).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60833
Unit FK4: Buck Creek, Pulaski County,
Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK4 includes
approximately 61 rkm (38 rmi) of Buck
Creek from State Route 192 upstream to
Route 328, Pulaski County, KY. The unit
is within the Cumberland River basin
and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included
in the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. A portion
of this unit (1.3 rkm (0.8 rmi)) is in
public ownership (DBNF), but the
majority is in private ownership. Land
and resource management decisions and
activities within the DBNF are guided
by DBNF’s LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1–
14). The unit completely overlaps
existing critical habitat for the oyster
mussel and Cumberlandian combshell
(69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK4 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with instream gravel
mining, silviculture-related activities,
illegal off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, and nonpoint
source pollution from agricultural and
developmental activities.
Unit FK5: Rock Creek, McCreary County,
Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK5 includes
approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of Rock
Creek from its confluence with White
Oak Creek upstream to the low water
crossing at rkm 25.6 (rmi 15.9) in
McCreary County, KY. The unit is
within the Cumberland River system
and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included
in the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. A portion
of this unit (1.5 rkm (0.9 rmi)) is in
private ownership, but the majority is in
public ownership (DBNF). Land and
resource management decisions and
activities within the DBNF are guided
by DBNF’s LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1–
14). The unit completely overlaps
existing critical habitat for the
Cumberland elktoe (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK5 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60834
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects caused by resource extraction
(coal mining, silviculture, natural gas
and oil exploration activities),
agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county
roads, illegal off-road vehicle use,
nonpoint source pollution arising from
a wide variety of human activities, and
potentially canopy loss caused by
infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK6: Little South Fork Cumberland
River, McCreary and Wayne Counties,
Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK6 includes 65.5 rkm
(40.7 rmi) of the Little South Fork
Cumberland River from its confluence
with the Big South Fork Cumberland
River, where it is the dividing line
between Wayne and McCreary Counties,
upstream to its confluence with Dobbs
Creek in Wayne County, KY. The unit
is within the Cumberland River system
and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included
in the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. A portion
of this unit (4.4 rkm (2.7 rmi)) is in
public ownership (DBNF), but the
majority is in private ownership. Land
and resource management decisions and
activities within the DBNF are guided
by DBNF’s LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1–
14).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK6 is relatively stable, with an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects caused by resource extraction
(coal mining, silviculture, natural gas
and oil exploration activities),
agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county
roads, illegal off-road vehicle use,
nonpoint source pollution arising from
a wide variety of human activities, and
potentially canopy loss caused by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK7: Big South Fork Cumberland
River, Fentress, Morgan, and Scott
Counties, Tennessee, and McCreary
County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK7 includes a
combined total of 92.0 rkm (57.1 rmi) of
the Big South Fork of the Cumberland
River, Clear Fork of the New River, and
the New River in Tennessee and
Kentucky. Proposed Unit FK7 includes
approximately 45 rkm (28 rmi) of the
Big South Fork Cumberland River from
its confluence with Laurel Crossing
Branch downstream of Big Shoals,
McCreary County, KY, upstream to its
confluence with Clear Fork and of the
New River, Scott County, TN. This unit
also includes 32.3 rkm (20.0 rmi) of
Clear Fork from its confluence with the
Big South Fork and New River in Scott
County, TN, upstream to its confluence
with Crooked Creek along the Fentress
and Morgan County line, TN. This unit
also includes 14.7 rkm (9.1 rmi) of the
New River from its confluence with the
Big South Fork upstream to the
Highway 27 Bridge crossing in Scott
County, TN. The unit is within the
Cumberland River system and is
proposed as occupied critical habitat for
the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is
included in the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing. A portion of this unit (92 rkm
(57 rmi)) has been designated as critical
habitat for the Cumberlandian
combshell, oyster mussel, and
Cumberland elktoe (69 FR 53136).
This unit is located almost entirely on
federal lands within the BSFNRRA.
Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the
BSFNRRA are guided by the National
Park Service General Management Plan,
Field Management Plan, and Draft NonFederal Oil and Gas Management Plan
(NPS 2005, entire; NPS 2006, pp. 1–12;
NPS 2011, entire).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK7 is relatively stable, with relatively
silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE
2) and adequate instream flows (PCE 3).
A diverse fish fauna, including fish
host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects caused by resource extraction
(coal mining, silviculture, natural gas
and oil exploration activities), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of roads, recreational
horse riding, illegal off-road vehicle use,
nonpoint source pollution arising from
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a wide variety of human activities, and
potential canopy loss caused by
infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK8: Wolf River and Town Branch,
Pickett and Fentress Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK8 includes 41.0 rkm
(25.5 rmi) of the Wolf River from its
inundation at Dale Hollow Lake in
Pickett County, TN, upstream to its
confluence with Delk Creek in Fentress
County, TN, and 3.4 rkm (2.0 rmi) of
Town Branch from its confluence with
Wolf River upstream to its headwaters
in Pickett County, TN. The unit is
within the Cumberland River system
and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included
in the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. A portion
of this unit (6 rkm (4 rmi)) is in public
ownership (Corps lands adjacent to Dale
Hollow Reservoir and Sgt. Alvin C. York
State Historic Park), but the majority is
in private ownership.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK8 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2) and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with coal mining,
silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate
riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads,
off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, nonpoint source
pollution originating in headwater
reaches, and potential canopy loss
caused by infestations of the hemlock
wooly adelgid.
Unit FK9: West Fork Obey River,
Overton County, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK9 includes
approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of the
West Fork Obey River from the Highway
52 Bridge crossing upstream to its
confluence with Dry Hollow Creek in
Overton County, TN. The unit is within
the Cumberland River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. This unit
is located almost entirely on private
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK9 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish host(s) for the
fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with coal mining,
silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, off-road vehicle use
and other recreational activities,
agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county
roads, nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches, and
potential canopy loss caused by
infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK10: Indian Creek, Tazewell
County, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK10 includes 6.7 rkm
(4.2 rmi) of Indian Creek from its
confluence with the Clinch River
upstream to the fourth Norfolk Southern
Railroad crossing at Van Dyke in
Tazewell County, VA. The unit is
within the Tennessee River system and
is proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. This unit
is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements. The unit
completely overlaps critical habitat for
the Cumberlandian combshell, rough
rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster
mussel (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK10 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with residential
development, coal mining, silviculturerelated activities, natural gas and oil
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
exploration activities in headwater
reaches, illegal off-road vehicle use and
other recreational activities, and
nonpoint source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK11: Little River, Russell and
Tazewell Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK11 includes
approximately 50 rkm (31 rmi) of Little
River from its confluence with the
Clinch River in Russell County, VA,
upstream to its confluence with Liberty
and Maiden Spring Creeks in Tazewell
County, VA. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system and is proposed
critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by fluted
kidneyshell at the time of listing. This
unit is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements. The
Nature Conservancy also owns a small
portion of adjacent property.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK11 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel,
are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitats may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with silviculturerelated activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater
reaches, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK12 and SP1: North Fork Holston
River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia
Proposed Unit FK12 and SP1 includes
approximately 67 rkm (42 rmi) of the
North Fork Holston River from its
confluence with Beaver Creek, upstream
of Saltville, in Smyth County, VA,
upstream to Ceres, Bland County, VA.
The unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by both
species at the time of listing. This unit
is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings, road easements, and a small
portion that is adjacent to the George
Washington and Jefferson National
Forests. The Nature Conservancy and
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation also
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60835
own a small portion of adjacent
property. A portion of this unit (58 rkm
(36 rmi)) has been designated as a
nonessential experimental population
(NEP) for the yellowfin madtom (53 FR
29335).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK12 and SP1 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
their habitats may require special
management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with agricultural
activities (livestock), silviculture-related
activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater
reaches, lack of adequate riparian
buffers, construction and maintenance
of State and county roads, and nonpoint
source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK13 and SP2: Middle Fork
Holston River, Washington, Smyth, and
Wythe Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK13 and SP2 includes
approximately 89 rkm (55 rmi) of the
Middle Fork Holston River from its
inundation at South Holston Lake in
Washington County, VA, upstream to its
headwaters in Wythe County, VA. The
unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by both
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel at the time of listing. This
unit is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK13 and SP2 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
their habitats may require special
management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with agricultural
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60836
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
activities, lack of adequate riparian
buffers, silviculture-related activities,
and nonpoint source pollution.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit FK14 and SP3: Big Moccasin Creek,
Scott and Russell Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK14 and SP3 includes
approximately 33 rkm (21 rmi) of Big
Moccasin Creek from the Highway 71
Bridge crossing in Scott County, VA,
upstream to the Route 612 Bridge
crossing near Collinwood in Russell
County, VA. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system and is proposed
as critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by slabside
pearlymussel at the time of listing. This
unit is considered unoccupied by the
fluted kidneyshell, but within the
species’ historical range. Live fluted
kidneyshell have not been collected in
Big Moccasin Creek since the early
1900s (Ortmann 1918, p. 608). However,
this unit is proposed for critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell because it is
considered essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit is
located almost entirely on private land,
except for any small amount that is
publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK14 and SP3 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitats
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, silviculturerelated activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater
reaches, illegal off-road vehicle use and
other recreational activities, and
nonpoint source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK15: Copper Creek, Scott County,
Virginia
Proposed Unit FK15 includes 55.5
rkm (34.5 rmi) of Copper Creek from its
confluence with the Clinch River
upstream to the Highway 71 Bridge
crossing in Scott County, VA. The unit
is within the Tennessee River system
and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included
in the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. This unit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that
is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements. A portion
of this unit (21 rkm (13 rmi)) has been
designated as critical habitat for the
Cumberlandian combshell, rough
rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster
mussel, and a portion of this unit (55.5
rkm (34.5 rmi)) has been designated as
critical habitat for the yellowfin madtom
(42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840, 69 FR
53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK15 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell and its habitat may require
special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with agricultural
activities (livestock), silviculture-related
activities, lack of adequate riparian
buffers, construction and maintenance
of State and county roads, and nonpoint
source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK16 and SP4: Clinch River,
Hancock County, Tennessee, and Scott,
Russell, and Tazewell Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK16 and SP4 includes
approximately 263 rkm (163 rmi) of the
Clinch River from rkm 255 (rmi 159)
immediately below Grissom Island in
Hancock County, TN, upstream to its
confluence with Indian Creek near
Cedar Bluff, Tazewell County, VA. The
unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by both
species at the time of listing.
Approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi) of this unit
is in public ownership, including
portions of the Kyles Ford State
Managed Area, George Washington
National Forest, Jefferson National
Forest, Cleveland Barrens State Natural
Area Preserve (SNAP), and the Pinnacle
SNAP. The Nature Conservancy also
owns a small portion of adjacent
property. The unit completely overlaps
critical habitat for the Cumberlandian
combshell, rough rabbitsfoot, purple
bean, and oyster mussel, and the entire
length of this unit has been designated
as critical habitat for the slender chub
and yellowfin madtom (42 FR 45526, 42
FR 47840, 69 FR 53136).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The channel within proposed Unit
FK16 and SP4 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
their habitats may require special
management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with coal mining,
silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate
riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads,
and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK17 and SP5: Powell River,
Claiborne and Hancock Counties,
Tennessee, and Lee County, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK17 and SP5 includes
approximately 153 rkm (95 rmi) of the
Powell River from the U.S. 25E Bridge
in Claiborne County, TN, upstream to
rkm 256 (rmi 159) (upstream of Rock
Island in the vicinity of Pughs) in Lee
County, VA. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system and is proposed
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is
included in the geographical area
occupied by both species at the time of
listing. This unit is located almost
entirely on private land, except for any
small amount that is publicly owned in
the form of bridge crossings, road
easements, and a small portion that is
adjacent to the Cedars SNAP. The
Nature Conservancy also owns a small
portion of adjacent property. The unit
completely overlaps critical habitat for
the Cumberlandian combshell, rough
rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster
mussel, and the entire length of this unit
has been designated as critical habitat
for the slender chub and yellowfin
madtom (42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840, 69
FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK17 and SP5 is relatively stable, with
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel,
are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
their habitats may require special
management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with coal mining,
silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate
riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads,
and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit FK18 and SP6: Nolichucky River,
Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK18 and SP6 includes
approximately 52 rkm (32 rmi) of the
Nolichucky River from rkm 14 (rmi 9),
approximately 0.6 rkm (0.4 rmi)
upstream of Enka Dam, where it divides
Hamblen and Cocke Counties, TN,
upstream to its confluence with Pigeon
Creek, just upstream of the Highway 321
Bridge crossing, in Greene County, TN.
The unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by
slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. This unit is considered
unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell at
the time of listing, but within the
species’ historical range. Live fluted
kidneyshell have not been collected in
the Nolichucky River since the mid1960s (Tennessee Natural Heritage
Inventory Program Database, accessed
2012). However, the TWRA has
reintroduced the species into at least
two sites in the Nolichucky River by
translocating adult individuals from the
Clinch River (Hubbs 2011, unpubl.
data). It is not known if the
reintroductions have been successful.
This unit is proposed for critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell because it is
considered essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit is
located almost entirely on private land,
except for any small amount that is
publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings, road easements, and a small
portion that is within Mullins Island
Wildlife Management Area. A portion of
this unit (8 rkm (5 rmi)) has been
designated as a critical habitat for the
oyster mussel and Cumberlandian
combshell (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK18 and SP6 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitats
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
agricultural activities, silviculturerelated activities, rock mining, lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county
roads, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK19: Holston River, Knox,
Grainger, and Jefferson Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK19 includes
approximately 85 rkm (53 rmi) of the
Holston River from its confluence with
the French Broad River in Knox County,
TN, upstream to the base of Cherokee
Dam at rkm 83.7 (rmi 52.3) along the
Grainger and Jefferson County, TN, line.
The unit is within the Tennessee River
system. This unit is considered
unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel, but within
the species’ historical ranges. Live
fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Holston River since the
early 1900s (Ortmann 1918, p. 614). As
discussed below, we consider Unit
FK19 essential for the conservation of
the fluted kidneyshell, but not the
slabside pearlymussel, and so it is
proposed as critical habitat only for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is located
almost entirely on private land, except
for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings
and road easements. The unit
completely overlaps a designated
nonessential experimental population
for 15 mussels, 1 snail, and 5 fishes (72
FR 52434).
We consider this unit essential for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell
due to the need to re-establish the
species within other portions of its
historical range in order to reduce
threats from stochastic events. Although
live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Holston River since the
early 1900s (Ortmann 1918, p. 614),
TVA has improved conditions for
aquatic species within this unit.
Between 1988 and 1995, TVA
implemented reservoir release
improvements below Cherokee Dam on
the Holston River. These improvements
included the establishment of minimum
flows and increasing the amount of
dissolved oxygen in the tailwater below
the reservoir (Scott et al. 1996, p. 21).
The unit does currently support
populations of three federally listed
species (threatened snail darter and
endangered pink mucket and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60837
sheepnose). In addition, other mussel
species co-occur with these species
along with a diverse fish fauna,
including hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell. These host fishes are
bottom-dwelling species that are able to
move into refugia of low flows during
high discharges from the hydropower
dam upstream. Therefore, the fluted
kidneyshell glochidia may come into
contact and infest the host fishes. The
slabside pearlymussel and its host fishes
are known from the French Broad River
drainage; however, hydropower
operations make this habitat unsuitable
for mid-water column fishes, such as the
shiners that are hosts for the slabside
pearlymussel (Layzer and Scott 2006,
pp. 481, 488–9). Therefore, we are not
designating Unit FK19 as critical habitat
for the slabside pearlymussel at this
time.
Unit FK20: French Broad River, Knox
and Sevier Counties, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK20 includes
approximately 56 rkm (35 rmi) of the
French Broad River from its confluence
with the Holston River in Knox County,
TN, upstream to the base of Douglas
Dam at rkm 51.7 (rmi 32.3) in Sevier
County, TN. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel,
but within the species’ historical ranges.
Fluted kidneyshell are only known from
archaeological records in the French
Broad River (Parmalee 1988 in Layzer
and Scott 2006, pp. 481–482). As
discussed below, we consider Unit
FK20 essential for the conservation of
the fluted kidneyshell, but not the
slabside pearlymussel, and so it is
proposed as critical habitat only for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is located
almost entirely on private land, except
for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings
and road easements and a small portion
that is within Forks of the River Wildlife
Management Area. The unit completely
overlaps a nonessential experimental
population for 15 mussels, 1 snail, and
5 fishes (72 FR 52434).
We consider this unit essential for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell
due to the need to re-establish the
species within other portions of its
historical range in order to reduce
threats from stochastic events. Fluted
kidneyshell are only known from
archaeological records in the French
Broad River (Parmalee 1988 in Layzer
and Scott 2006, p. 481–482). However,
between 1987 and 1995, TVA
implemented reservoir release
improvements below Douglas Dam on
the French Broad River. These
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60838
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
improvements included the
establishment of minimum flows and
increasing the amount of dissolved
oxygen in the tailwater below the
reservoir (Scott et al. 1996, p. 11–12),
improving conditions for the fluted
kidneyshell and other aquatic species.
The unit does currently support
populations of the federally threatened
snail darter and endangered pink
mucket. In addition, other mussel
species co-occur with these species and
a diverse fish fauna, including hosts for
the fluted kidneyshell. These host fishes
are bottom-dwelling species that are
able to move into refugia of low flows
during high discharges from the
hydropower dam upstream. Therefore,
the fluted kidneyshell glochidia may
come into contact and infest the host
fishes. The slabside pearlymussel and
its host fishes are known from the
French Broad River drainage; however,
hydropower operations make this
habitat unsuitable for mid-water column
fishes, such as the shiners that are hosts
for the slabside pearlymussel (Layzer
and Scott 2006, pp. 481, 488–9).
Therefore, we are not designating Unit
FK20 as critical habitat for the slabside
pearlymussel at this time.
sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2).
Diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitats
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
silviculture-related activities, nonpoint
source pollution, water diversion
through Apalachia tunnel, and potential
canopy loss caused by infestations of
the hemlock wooly adelgid. Another
threat to the species and their habitat
which may require special management
of the PCEs includes the potential for
significant changes in the existing flow
regime and water quality due to
upstream impoundment As discussed in
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species, under ‘‘Impoundments,’’
mollusk declines below dams are
associated with changes and fluctuation
in flow regime, scouring and erosion,
reduced dissolved oxygen levels and
water temperatures, and changes in
resident fish assemblages. These
alterations can cause mussel declines
for many miles below the dam.
Unit FK21 and SP7: Hiwassee River,
Polk County, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK21 and SP7 includes
approximately 24 rkm (15 rmi) of the
Hiwassee River from the Highway 315
Bridge crossing upstream to the
Highway 68 Bridge crossing in Polk
County, TN. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system and is proposed
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is
included in the geographical area
occupied by slabside pearlymussel at
the time of listing. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted
kidneyshell at the time of listing, but
within the species’ historical range.
Fluted kidneyshell are only known from
archaeological records in the Hiwassee
River (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p.
205). This unit is considered essential
for the conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell. A portion of this unit is
considered a ‘‘cut-off’’ reach, because
most of the water flow bypasses the
reach through a tunnel from Apalachia
Dam to the Apalachia powerhouse for
the production of electricity. This unit
is located entirely on federal lands
within the Cherokee National Forest.
Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the CNF
are guided by CNF’s LRMP (USFS
2004b, pp. 28–37, entire).
The channel within proposed Unit
FK21 and SP7 has an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free
Unit SP8: Sequatchie River, Marion,
Sequatchie, and Bledsoe Counties,
Tennessee
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Proposed Unit SP8 includes
approximately 151 rkm (94 rmi) of the
Sequatchie River from the Highway 41,
64, 72, 2 Bridge crossing in Marion
County, TN, upstream to the Ninemile
Cross Road Bridge crossing in Bledsoe
County, TN. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system. This unit is
included in the geographical area
occupied by slabside pearlymussel at
the time of listing. This unit is located
almost entirely on private land, except
for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings
and road easements.
Proposed Unit SP8 has an abundance
of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively
silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE
2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3).
A diverse fish fauna, including fish
hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the slabside
pearlymussel and its habitat may
require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by
agricultural activities, coal mining,
silvicultural activities, lack of adequate
riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads,
and nonpoint source pollution arising
from a wide variety of human activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit SP9: Paint Rock River, Madison,
Marshall, and Jackson Counties,
Alabama
Proposed Unit SP9 includes
approximately 86 rkm (53 rmi) of the
Paint Rock River from the Highway 431
Bridge crossing along the Madison and
Marshall County line, AL, upstream to
and including approximately 11 rkm (7
rmi) of the tributary headwaters of
Larkin Fork upstream to its confluence
with Bear Creek; approximately 13 rkm
(8 rmi) of Estill Fork upstream to its
confluence with Bull Run; and
approximately 16 rkm (10 rmi) of
Hurricane Creek upstream to its
confluence with Turkey Creek in
Jackson County, AL. The unit is within
the Tennessee River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the slabside
pearlymussel. The unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by the
slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. Approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi) of
this unit is federally or State-owned and
adjacent to the Fern Cave National
Wildlife Refuge and Walls of Jericho
State Management Area; the remainder
is privately owned, including a small
parcel owned by the Alabama Land
Trust. A portion of this unit (80 rkm (50
rmi)) has been proposed as critical
habitat for the rabbitsfoot.
The channel within proposed Unit
SP9 is relatively stable, with excellent
instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the
slabside pearlymussel, are known from
this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitat
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
agricultural activities, silvicultural
activities, off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, and nonpoint
source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK22 and SP10: Elk River,
Limestone County, Alabama, and Giles,
Lincoln, Franklin, and Moore Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK22 and SP10
includes approximately 164 rkm (102
rmi) of the Elk River from its inundation
at Wheeler Lake in Limestone County,
AL, upstream to its confluence with
Farris Creek at the dividing line
between Franklin and Moore Counties,
TN. The unit is within the Tennessee
River system and is proposed critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
slabside pearlymussel. This unit is
included in the geographical area
occupied by slabside pearlymussel at
the time of listing. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted
kidneyshell, but within the species’
historical range. Live fluted kidneyshell
have not been collected in the Elk River
since the late-1960s (Isom et al. 1973, p.
440). The unit is considered essential
for the conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is located almost
entirely on private land, except for any
small amount that is publicly owned in
the form of bridge crossings and road
easements and a small portion that is
within TVA-owned lands near Wheeler
Reservoir.
Proposed Unit FK22 and SP10 has an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1),
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the
slabside pearlymussel, are known from
this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitats
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
hydropower generation from Tims Ford
Dam, agriculture, nonpoint source
pollution, and instream gravel mining.
Another threat to the species and their
habitat which may require special
management of the PCEs includes the
potential for significant changes in the
existing flow regime and water quality
due to upstream impoundment. As
discussed in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, under
‘‘Impoundments,’’ mollusk declines
below dams are associated with changes
and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring
and erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen
levels and water temperatures, and
changes in resident fish assemblages.
These alterations can cause mussel
declines for many miles below the dam.
Unit SP11: Bear Creek, Colbert County,
Alabama, and Tishomingo County,
Mississippi
Proposed Unit SP11 includes
approximately 42 rkm (26 rmi) of Bear
Creek from its inundation at Pickwick
Lake at rkm 37 (rmi 23) in Colbert
County, AL, upstream through
Tishomingo County, MS, and ending at
the Mississippi/Alabama State line. The
unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the slabside pearlymussel. This unit
is included in the geographical area
occupied by the slabside pearlymussel
at the time of listing. This unit is located
almost entirely on private land, except
for any small amount that is publicly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
owned in the form of bridge crossings
and road easements, and that within
Tishomingo State Park and the Natchez
Trace Parkway. The unit completely
overlaps critical habitat for the oyster
mussel and Cumberlandian combshell
(69 FR 53136; August 31, 2004) and a
portion (42 rkm (26 rmi)) of this unit has
been proposed as critical habitat for the
rabbitsfoot (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit
SP11 has an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitat
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
releases from upstream impoundments,
agriculture, and nonpoint source
pollution originating in headwater
reaches.
Unit FK23 and SP12: Duck River,
Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK23 and SP12
includes approximately 348 rkm (216
rmi) of the Duck River from its
inundation at Kentucky Lake in
Humphreys County, TN, upstream to its
confluence with Flat Creek near
Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN. The
unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by both
species at the time of listing. The fluted
kidneyshell population is a result of a
successful reintroduction program
implemented by TWRA and other
conservation partners. Approximately
64 rkm (39 rmi) of this unit is federally
or State-owned and adjacent to the
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge,
Natchez Trace Parkway, Yanahli
Wildlife Management Area, and Henry
Horton State Park; the remainder is
privately owned. A portion of this unit
(74 rkm (46 rmi)) has been designated as
a critical habitat for the oyster mussel
and Cumberlandian combshell (69 FR
53136) and a portion of this unit (234
rkm (146 rmi)) has been proposed as
critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK23 and SP12 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60839
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit
(PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
their habitats may require special
management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse
effects associated with agricultural
activities (livestock), water withdrawals,
lack of adequate riparian buffers,
construction and maintenance of State
and county roads, and nonpoint source
pollution originating in headwater
reaches.
Unit FK24 and SP13: Buffalo River,
Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK24 and SP13
includes approximately 50 rkm (31 rmi)
of the Buffalo River from its confluence
with the Duck River in Humphreys
County, TN, upstream to its confluence
with Cane Creek in Perry County, TN.
The unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by
slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. This unit is considered
unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell,
but within the species’ historical range.
Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Buffalo River since the
early 1920s (Ortmann 1924, p. 28). The
unit is considered essential for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell.
This unit is located almost entirely on
private land, except for any small
amount that is publicly owned in the
form of bridge crossings and road
easements.
The channel within proposed Unit
FK24 and SP13 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1).
There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts
for the slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the
slabside pearlymussel and its habitats
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with
agriculture and nonpoint source
pollution.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7
Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60840
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeal have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d
434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not
rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the provisions of the Act,
we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the CWA or a permit from
the Service under section 10 of the Act)
or that involve some other Federal
action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, or are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the PBFs to an extent
that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for
fluted kidneyshell or slabside
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pearlymussel. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs and provide for the
conservation of these species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for the fluted
kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel.
These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the
geomorphology of their stream and river
habitats. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, instream
excavation or dredging, impoundment,
channelization, sand and gravel mining,
clearing riparian vegetation, and
discharge of fill materials. These
activities could cause aggradation or
degradation of the channel bed
elevation or significant bank erosion
and result in entrainment or burial of
these mussels, and could cause other
direct or cumulative adverse effects to
these species and their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter the existing flow regime where
these species occur. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to;
impoundment, urban development,
water diversion, water withdrawal,
water draw-down, and hydropower
generation. These activities could
eliminate or reduce the habitat
necessary for growth and reproduction
of these mussels and their fish hosts.
(3) Actions that would significantly
alter water chemistry or water quality
(for example, temperature, pH,
contaminants, and excess nutrients).
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, hydropower discharges,
or the release of chemicals, biological
pollutants, or heated effluents into
surface water or connected groundwater
at a point source or by dispersed release
(nonpoint source). These activities
could alter water conditions that are
beyond the tolerances of these mussels
and their fish hosts or both, and result
in direct or cumulative adverse effects
to the species throughout their life
cycles.
(4) Actions that would significantly
alter stream bed material composition
and quality by increasing sediment
deposition or filamentous algal growth.
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, construction projects,
gravel and sand mining, oil and gas
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
development, coal mining, livestock
grazing, timber harvest, and other
watershed and floodplain disturbances
that release sediments or nutrients into
the water. These activities could
eliminate or reduce habitats necessary
for the growth and reproduction of these
mussels or their fish hosts or both, by
causing excessive sedimentation and
burial of the species or their habitats, or
nutrification leading to excessive
filamentous algal growth. Excessive
filamentous algal growth can cause
reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen
levels through respiration, and prevent
juvenile mussels from settling into
stream sediments.
Exemptions
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands with a completed INRMP within
the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. In
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related
factors.
We will announce the availability of
the draft economic analysis as soon as
it is completed. At that time, copies of
the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60841
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
or by contacting the Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office directly
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other
new information, and areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the
lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
are not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense, and, therefore,
we anticipate no impact on national
security.
Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any HCPs or other management plans
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for the
fluted kidneyshell or slabside
pearlymussel, and the proposed
designation does not include any tribal
lands or trust resources. Therefore, we
anticipate no impact on tribal lands or
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation.
Nonessential Experimental Populations
Congress made significant changes to
the Act, with the addition of section
10(j) in 1982, which provides for the
designation of specific reintroduced
populations of listed species as
‘‘experimental populations.’’ This
section was designed to provide us with
an innovative means to introduce a
listed species into unoccupied habitat
within its historical range when doing
so would foster the conservation and
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60842
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
recovery of the species. Experimental
populations provide us with a flexible,
proactive means to meet recovery
criteria while not alienating
stakeholders, such as other agencies,
municipalities, and landowners, whose
cooperation is essential for eventual
success of the reintroduced population.
Section 10(j) increases our flexibility
in managing an experimental
population by allowing us to treat a
population as a threatened species,
regardless of the species’ status
elsewhere in its range. Threatened
species status gives us more discretion
in developing and implementing
management programs and special
regulations for a population and allows
us to develop any regulations we
consider necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of a
threatened species under Section 4(d) of
the Act. This flexibility allows us to
manage the experimental population in
a manner that will ensure that current
and future land, water, or air uses and
activities will not be unnecessarily
restricted and the population can be
managed for recovery purposes.
When we designate a population as
experimental, section 10(j) of the Act
requires that we determine whether that
population is either essential or
nonessential to the continued existence
of the species, on the basis of the best
available information. Nonessential
experimental populations (NEPs)
located outside the National Wildlife
Refuge System or National Park System
lands are treated, for the purposes of
section 7 of the Act, as if they are
proposed for listing as a threatened
species, while on National Wildlife
Refuges or National Parks the species is
treated as a threatened species. Section
7(a)(2) of the Act, which requires
Federal agencies to ensure that their
activities are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species,
would not apply except on National
Wildlife Refuge System and National
Park System lands. Experimental
populations determined to be
‘‘essential’’ to the survival of the species
would remain subject to the
consultation provisions of section
7(a)(2) of the Act.
As mentioned earlier in the unit
descriptions and referenced in Table 5,
there are two nonessential experimental
populations (NEPs) for listed aquatic
species that overlap with the proposed
critical habitat designation. These
include the NEP for the yellowfin
madtom in the North Fork of the
Holston River (53 FR 29335), which
overlaps with Unit FK12 and SP1, and
the NEP for 21 listed aquatic species
(including the yellowfin madtom) in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
lower French Broad and Holston Rivers
(72 FR 52434), which overlaps with
Units FK19 and FK20. These NEPs were
not established specifically for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell or
slabside pearlymussel, which were
candidate species when the NEPs were
published, but rather to promote the
reintroduction of their target listed
species into historical habitat. They
were developed with the support of
numerous partners, including the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Virginia
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, and others. We would need to
amend the NEPs through the rulemaking
process in order for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
to be included.
The North Fork of the Holston River
is considered occupied by both the
slabside pearlymussel and the fluted
kidneyshell, and presently contains
numerous PCEs (see ‘‘Proposed Critical
Habitat Designation’’) and is therefore
being proposed as critical habitat. The
lower Holston River (below Cherokee
Dam) and French Broad River (below
Douglas Dam) are being proposed as
unoccupied habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell because we have
determined these river reaches are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Accordingly, at this time the Secretary
does not propose to exert his discretion
to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on other relevant
impacts. However, we recognize that
exclusion of river reaches covered by
these NEPs from critical habitat may
continue to encourage conservation and
reintroduction efforts for numerous
imperiled aquatic species in the upper
Tennessee River Basin. Therefore, we
are requesting information on whether
the benefits of the exclusion of river
reaches covered by these NEPs would
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on
information received during the
comment period, the Secretary may
reconsider exclusion in the final rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our proposed listing determination
and critical habitat designation are
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
during this public comment period on
this proposed rule.
We will consider all comments and
information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
We will schedule public hearings on
this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as
manufacturing and mining concerns
with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than
100 employees, retail and service
businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy
construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
forestry and logging operations with
fewer than 500 employees and annual
business less than $7 million. To
determine whether small entities may
be affected, we will consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well
as types of project modifications that
may result. In general, the term
‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant
to apply to a typical small business
firm’s business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts
of a rule must be both significant and
substantial to prevent certification of the
rule under the RFA and to require the
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial
number of small entities are affected by
the proposed critical habitat
designation, but the per-entity economic
impact is not significant, the Service
may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity
economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected
entities is not substantial, the Service
may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and
following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to
evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself, and not the potential impacts to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
indirectly affected entities. The
regulatory mechanism through which
critical habitat protections are realized
is section 7 of the Act, which requires
Federal agencies, in consultation with
the Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried by the
Agency is not likely to adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Under these
circumstances, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be
directly regulated by this designation.
Therefore, because Federal agencies are
not small entities, the Service may
certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in
some cases, third-party proponents of
the action subject to permitting or
funding may participate in a section 7
consultation, and thus may be indirectly
affected. We believe it is good policy to
assess these impacts if we have
sufficient data before us to complete the
necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA.
While this regulation does not directly
regulate these entities, in our draft
economic analysis we will conduct a
brief evaluation of the potential number
of third parties participating in
consultations on an annual basis in
order to ensure a more complete
examination of the incremental effects
of this proposed rule in the context of
the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based
on our interpretation of directly
regulated entities under the RFA and
relevant case law, this designation of
critical habitat will only directly
regulate Federal agencies, which are not
by definition small business entities. As
such, certify that, if promulgated, this
designation of critical habitat would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
However, although not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft
economic analysis for this proposal we
will consider and evaluate the potential
effects to third parties that may be
involved with consultations with
Federal action agencies related to this
action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60843
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. We
do not expect the designation of this
proposed critical habitat designation to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Natural gas and oil
exploration and development activities
occur or could potentially occur in all
proposed critical habitat units.
However, compliance with State
regulatory requirements or voluntary
best management practices would be
expected to minimize impacts of natural
gas and oil exploration and
development in the areas of proposed
critical habitat for both species. The
measures for natural gas and oil
exploration and development are
generally not considered a substantial
cost compared with overall project costs
and are already being implemented by
oil and gas companies.
Coal mining occurs or could
potentially occur in proposed critical
habitat units in Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Virginia, and was identified as an
activity that may have adverse effects on
these species and their habitat.
Incidental take for listed species
associated with surface coal mining
activities is currently covered under a
programmatic, non-jeopardy biological
opinion between the Office of Surface
Mining and the Service, completed in
1996 (Service 1996, entire). The
biological opinion covers existing,
proposed, and future endangered and
threatened species that may be affected
by the implementation and
administration of surface coal mining
programs under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Through its
analysis, the Service concluded that the
proposed action (surface coal mining
and reclamation activities) was not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened,
endangered, or proposed species or
result in adverse modification of
designated or proposed critical habitat.
Based on this conclusion, we do not
anticipate that the designation of critical
habitat would constitute a significant
energy action, and have therefore not
completed a Statement of Energy
Effects. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our
economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
Hydropower generation occurs
upstream of proposed critical habitat
units in the mainstem Holston, French
Broad, Hiwassee, and Elk Rivers.
Incidental take for listed species (which
does not include the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel), associated
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60844
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
with hydropower generation, is
currently covered under two
programmatic, non-jeopardy biological
opinions between the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) and the Service,
completed in 2004 and 2006 (Service,
2004, entire; Service 2006, entire).
These biological opinions cover TVA’s
routine operations and maintenance of
water control structures in the
Tennessee River System and species
that were listed at that time. The Service
concluded that the proposed action
(operation and maintenance activities at
TVA dams—including hydropower
generation) was not likely to jeopardize
continued existence of any listed
species. Based on our experience with
the currently listed species and their
critical habitat, we do not anticipate this
action will qualify as a significant
energy action, and therefore we have not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
at this time. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our
economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or [T]ribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and [T]ribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Family Support Welfare Services; and
Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal
private sector mandate’’ includes a
regulation that ‘‘would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private
sector, except (i) a condition of Federal
assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal entities or private
parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7 of the Act. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell or slabside
pearlymussel would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments
because these mussel species occur
primarily in State-owned river channels,
or in remote privately owned stream
channels. As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. We will,
however, further evaluate this issue as
we conduct our economic analysis and
revise this assessment if appropriate.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel in a takings
implications assessment. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner
actions that do not require Federal
funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take
permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go
forward. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
designation of critical habitat for these
species does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule
does not have significant Federalism
effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping
with Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies
in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia. The
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the PBFs essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the features of the
habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified.
This information does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
PBFs within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
60845
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA in connection with
listing a species or designating critical
habitat under the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This
position was upheld by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516
U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no
Tribal lands currently occupied by the
species that contain the features
Species
Vertebrate
population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
Scientific name
*
*
*
essential for the conservation of, and no
Tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation of, these two species.
Therefore, we have not proposed
designation of critical habitat for these
species on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries
for ‘‘Kidneyshell, fluted’’ and
‘‘Pearlymussel, slabside’’ in alphabetical
order under ‘‘CLAMS’’ to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
Status
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
*
Critical
habitat
*
Special
rules
*
CLAMS
*
Kidneyshell, fluted ........
*
Ptychobranchus
subtentum.
*
*
U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN,
VA).
NA
*
E
*
....................
17.95(f)
*
Pearlymussel, slabside
*
Pleuronaia
dolabelloides.
*
*
U.S.A. (AL, KY, MS,
TN, VA).
NA
*
E
*
....................
17.95(f)
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
NA
*
NA
60846
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Species
Vertebrate
population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
*
Scientific name
*
*
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by
adding entries for ‘‘Fluted Kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus subtentum)’’ and
‘‘Slabside Pearlymussel (Pleuronaia
dolabelloides)’’ in that order
immediately following the entry for
Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio
spinosa), to read as follows:
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Clams and Snails.
*
*
*
*
*
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
subtentum)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
on the maps below for Limestone
County, Alabama; Jackson, Laurel,
McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle, and
Wayne Counties, Kentucky; Bedford,
Claiborne, Cocke, Fentress, Franklin,
Giles, Grainger, Greene, Hamblen,
Hancock, Hickman, Humphreys,
Jefferson, Knox, Lincoln, Marshall,
Maury, Moore, Morgan, Overton, Perry,
Pickett, Polk, Scott, and Sevier
Counties, Tennessee; and Bland, Lee,
Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell,
Washington, and Wythe Counties,
Virginia.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of fluted kidneyshell
consist of five components:
(i) Riffle habitats within large,
geomorphically stable stream channels
(channels that maintain lateral
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
*
Status
*
dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an
aggrading or degrading bed elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand, gravel,
and cobble with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and
containing flow refugia with low shear
stress.
(iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime
(magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time)
necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species are found, and
connectivity of rivers with the
floodplain, allowing the exchange of
nutrients and sediment for habitat
maintenance, food availability for all
life stages, and spawning habitat for
native fishes.
(iv) Water quality with low levels of
pollutants and including a natural
temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to
8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
milligrams/liter), hardness, and
turbidity necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages.
(v) The presence of abundant fish
hosts necessary for recruitment of the
fluted kidneyshell.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, dams, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
with USGS National Hydrography
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
When listed
Sfmt 4702
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
*
Dataset (NHD+) GIS data. The 1:100,000
river reach (route) files were used to
calculate river kilometers and miles.
ESRIs ArcGIS 10.0 software was used to
determine longitude and latitude
coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units
was USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area
Conic USGS version, NAD 83, meters.
The following data sources were
referenced to identify features (like
roads and streams) used to delineate the
upstream and downstream extents of
critical habitat units: NHD+ flowline and
waterbody data, 2011 Navteq roads data,
USA Topo ESRI online basemap service,
DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps.
The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text,
establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the
field office Internet site (https://
www.fws.gov/cookeville), https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0004, and at the
Service’s Tennessee Fish and Wildlife
Office. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) An overview of critical habitat
locations for the fluted kidneyshell in
Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Virginia follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(rmi)) of Horse Lick Creek, in Rockcastle
and Jackson Counties, KY. It includes
the mainstem of Horse Lick Creek from
its confluence with the Rockcastle River
(¥84.13780, 37.31991) upstream to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Clover Bottom Creek (¥84.12200,
37.40879).
(ii) Map of Units FK1 and FK2
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.001
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(6) Unit FK1: Horse Lick Creek,
Rockcastle and Jackson Counties,
Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately
19 river kilometers (rkm) (12 river miles
60847
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(7) Unit FK2: Middle Fork Rockcastle
River, Jackson County, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes 12.5 rkm (7.7
rmi) of the Middle Fork Rockcastle
River from its confluence with the
Rockcastle River (¥84.11895, 37.33581)
upstream to its confluence with Indian
Creek and Laurel Fork E (¥84.04897,
37.36765) in Jackson County, KY.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(ii) Map of Units FK1 and FK2 is
provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this
entry.
(8) Unit FK3: Rockcastle River,
Pulaski, Laurel, and Rockcastle
Counties, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately
70 rkm (43 rmi) of the Rockcastle River
from the backwaters of Lake
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cumberland near its confluence with
Cane Creek along the Laurel and Pulaski
County line, KY (¥84.30594, 37.03423),
upstream to its confluence with Horse
Lick Creek along the Laurel and
Rockcastle County line, KY (¥84.13766,
37.31944).
(ii) Map of Unit FK3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.002
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60848
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) This unit includes 61 rkm (38 rmi)
of Buck Creek from State Route 192
(¥84.42681, 37.05977) upstream to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Route 328 (¥84.55492, 37.32430),
Pulaski County, KY.
(ii) Map of Unit FK4 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.003
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(9) Unit FK4: Buck Creek, Pulaski
County, Kentucky.
60849
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(10) Unit FK5: Rock Creek, McCreary
County, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately
19 rkm (12 rmi) of Rock Creek from its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
confluence with White Oak Creek
(¥84.69103, 36.65145) upstream to the
low water crossing at rkm 25.6 (rmi
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15.9) (¥84.58888, 36.70800) in
McCreary County, KY.
(ii) Map of Units FK5 and FK6
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.004
60850
(11) Unit FK6: Little South Fork
Cumberland River, McCreary and
Wayne Counties, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes 65.5 rkm (40.7
rmi) of the Little South Fork
Cumberland River from its confluence
with the Big South Fork Cumberland
River (¥84.58269, 36.82690), where it is
the dividing line between Wayne and
McCreary Counties, upstream to its
confluence with Dobbs Creek
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(¥84.85344, 36.62588) in Wayne
County, KY.
(ii) Map of Units FK5 and FK6 is
provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this
entry.
(12) Unit FK7: Big South Fork
Cumberland River, Fentress, Morgan,
and Scott Counties, Tennessee, and
McCreary County, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately
45 rkm (28 rmi) of the Big South Fork
of the Cumberland River from its
confluence with Laurel Crossing Branch
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60851
downstream of Big Shoals (¥84.53642,
36.64114), McCreary County, KY,
upstream to its confluence with Clear
Fork and of the New River (¥84.62394,
36.42475), Scott County, TN. This unit
also includes 32.3 rkm (20.0 rmi) of
Clear Fork from its confluence with the
Big South Fork and New River
(¥84.62394, 36.42475) in Scott County,
TN, upstream to its confluence with
Crooked Creek (¥84.78637, 36.32533)
along the Fentress and Morgan County
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.005
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
60852
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(¥84.62394, 36.42475) upstream to the
Highway 27 Bridge crossing
(¥84.55290, 36.38279) in Scott County,
TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK7 follows:
(13) Unit FK8: Wolf River and Town
Branch, Pickett and Fentress Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes 41.0 rkm (25.5
rmi) of the Wolf River from its
inundation at Dale Hollow Lake
(¥85.14414, 36.60670) in Pickett
County, TN, upstream to its confluence
with Delk Creek (¥84.91064, 36.52784)
in Fentress County, TN. This unit also
includes 3.4 rkm (2.0 rmi) of Town
Branch from its confluence with Wolf
River (¥85.11787, 36.58321) upstream
to its headwaters (¥85.12136, 36.55947)
in Pickett County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK8 follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.006
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
line, TN. This unit also includes 14.7
rkm (9.1 rmi) of the New River from its
confluence with the Big South Fork
(14) Unit FK9: West Fork Obey River,
Overton County, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
19 rkm (12 rmi) of the West Fork Obey
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
River from the Highway 52 Bridge
crossing (¥85.17410, 36.39731)
upstream to its confluence with Dry
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60853
Hollow Creek (¥85.20747, 36.25989) in
Overton County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.007
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(15) Unit FK10: Indian Creek,
Tazewell County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 6.7 rkm (4.2 rmi)
of Indian Creek from its confluence with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the Clinch River (¥81.76608, 37.08893)
upstream to the fourth Norfolk Southern
Railroad crossing at Van Dyke
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(¥81.71975, 37.11206) in Tazewell
County, VA.
(ii) Map of Units FK10 and FK11
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.008
60854
(16) Unit FK11: Little River, Russell
and Tazewell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
50 rkm (31 rmi) of Little River from its
confluence with the Clinch River
(¥81.92582, 37.00223) in Russell
County, VA, upstream to its confluence
with Liberty and Maiden Spring Creeks
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(¥81.67240, 37.03760) in Tazewell
County, VA.
(ii) Map of Units FK10 and FK11 is
provided at paragraph (15)(ii) of this
entry.
(17) Unit FK12: North Fork Holston
River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60855
(i) The unit includes approximately
67 rkm (42 rmi) of the North Fork
Holston River from its confluence with
Beaver Creek (¥81.70277, 36.90825),
upstream of Saltville, in Smyth County,
VA, upstream to Ceres (¥81.33775,
37.01035), Bland County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK12 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.009
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(18) Unit FK13: Middle Fork Holston
River, Washington, Smyth, and Wythe
Counties, Virginia.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
89 rkm (55 rmi) of the Middle Fork
Holston River from its inundation at
South Holston Lake (¥81.90427,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
36.66338) in Washington County, VA,
upstream to its headwaters (¥81.31345,
36.88666) in Wythe County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK13 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.010
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60856
(19) Unit FK14: Big Moccasin Creek,
Scott and Russell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
33 rkm (21 rmi) of Big Moccasin Creek
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the Highway 71 Bridge crossing
(¥82.48361, 36.69109) in Scott County,
VA, upstream to the Route 612 Bridge
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60857
crossing (¥82.32348, 36.73740) near
Collinwood in Russell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK14 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.011
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(20) Unit FK15: Copper Creek, Scott
County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 55.5 rkm (34.5
rmi) of Copper Creek from its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
confluence with the Clinch River
(¥82.74538, 36.65544) upstream to the
Highway 71 Bridge crossing
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(¥82.43514, 36.73473) in Scott County,
VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK15 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.012
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60858
(21) Unit FK16: Clinch River,
Hancock County, Tennessee, and Scott,
Russell, and Tazewell Counties,
Virginia.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes 263 rkm (163
rmi) of the Clinch River from rkm 255
(rmi 159) immediately below Grissom
Island (¥83.40106, 36.43081) in
Hancock County, TN, upstream to its
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60859
confluence with Indian Creek near
Cedar Bluff (¥81.74999, 37.07995),
Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK16 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(22) Unit FK17: Powell River,
Claiborne and Hancock Counties,
Tennessee, and Lee County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
153 rkm (95 rmi) of the Powell River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the U.S. 25E Bridge (¥83.63102,
36.54143) in Claiborne County, TN,
upstream to rkm 256 (rmi 159)
(¥82.98111, 36.75730, upstream of
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rock Island in the vicinity of Pughs) in
Lee County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK17 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.014
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60860
(23) Unit FK18: Nolichucky River,
Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
52 rkm (32 rmi) of the Nolichucky River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from rkm 14 (rmi 9), approximately 0.6
rkm (0.4 rmi) upstream of Enka Dam
(¥83.19630, 36.12970), where it divides
Hamblen and Cocke Counties, TN,
upstream to its confluence with Pigeon
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60861
Creek, just upstream of the Highway 321
Bridge crossing (¥82.92926, 36.07545),
in Greene County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK18 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.015
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(24) Unit FK19: Holston River, Knox,
Grainger, and Jefferson Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
85 rkm (53 rmi) of the Holston River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from its confluence with the French
Broad River (¥83.84967, 35.95903) in
Knox County, TN, upstream to the base
of Cherokee Dam at rkm 83.7 (rmi 52.3)
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(¥83.49855, 36.16666) along the
Grainger and Jefferson County, TN, line.
(ii) Map of Units FK19 and FK20
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.016
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60862
(25) Unit FK20: French Broad River,
Knox and Sevier Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
56 rkm (35 rmi) of the French Broad
River from its confluence with the
Holston River (¥83.84967, 35.95903) in
Knox County, TN, upstream to the base
of Douglas Dam at rkm 51.7 (rmi 32.3)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(¥83.53821, 35.96073) in Sevier
County, TN.
(ii) Map of Units FK19 and FK20 is
provided at paragraph (24)(ii) of this
entry.
(26) Unit FK21: Hiwassee River, Polk
County, Tennessee.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60863
(i) The unit includes approximately
24 rkm (15 rmi) of the Hiwassee River
from the Highway 315 Bridge crossing
(¥84.50234, 35.18875) upstream to the
Highway 68 Bridge crossing
(¥84.31728, 35.16811) in Polk County,
TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK21 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.017
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(27) Unit FK22: Elk River, Limestone
County, Alabama, and Giles, Lincoln,
Franklin, and Moore Counties,
Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
164 rkm (102 rmi) of the Elk River from
its inundation at Wheeler Lake
(¥87.06503, 34.89788) in Limestone
County, AL, upstream to its confluence
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with Farris Creek (¥86.31996,
35.16288) at the dividing line between
Franklin and Moore Counties, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK22 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.018
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60864
(28) Unit FK23: Duck River,
Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties,
Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
348 rkm (216 rmi) of the Duck River
from its inundation at Kentucky Lake
(¥87.88011, 36.00244) in Humphreys
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60865
County, TN, upstream to its confluence
with Flat Creek (¥86.48778, 35.47209)
near Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK23 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.019
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(29) Unit FK24: Buffalo River,
Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes 50 rkm (31 rmi)
of the Buffalo River from its confluence
with the Duck River (¥87.84261,
35.99477) in Humphreys County, TN,
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
upstream to its confluence with Cane
Creek (¥87.78718, 35.72298) in Perry
County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK24 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.020
60866
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Slabside Pearlymussel (Pleuronaia
dolabelloides)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
on the maps below for Colbert, Jackson,
Limestone, Madison, and Marshall
Counties, Alabama; Tishomingo County,
Mississippi; Bedford, Bledsoe,
Claiborne, Cocke, Franklin, Giles,
Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman,
Humphreys, Lincoln, Marion, Marshall,
Maury, Moore, Perry, Polk, and
Sequatchie Counties, Tennessee; and
Bland, Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth,
Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe
Counties, Virginia.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of slabside pearlymussel
consist of five components:
(i) Riffle habitats within large,
geomorphically stable stream channels
(channels that maintain lateral
dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an
aggrading or degrading bed elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand, gravel,
and cobble with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60867
containing flow refugia with low shear
stress.
(iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime
(magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time)
necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species are found, and
connectivity of rivers with the
floodplain, allowing the exchange of
nutrients and sediment for habitat
maintenance, food availability for all
life stages, and spawning habitat for
native fishes.
(iv) Water quality with low levels of
pollutants and including a natural
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.021
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
60868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to
8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
milligrams/liter), hardness, and
turbidity necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages.
(v) The presence of abundant fish
hosts necessary for recruitment of the
slabside pearlymussel.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, dams, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
with USGS National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD+) GIS data. The 1:100,000
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
river reach (route) files were used to
calculate river kilometers and miles.
ESRIs ArcGIS 10.0 software was used to
determine longitude and latitude
coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units
was USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area
Conic USGS version, NAD 83, meters.
The following data sources were
referenced to identify features (like
roads and streams) used to delineate the
upstream and downstream extents of
critical habitat units: NHD+ flowline and
waterbody data, 2011 Navteq roads data,
USA Topo ESRI online basemap service,
DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps.
The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the
field office Internet site (https://
www.fws.gov/cookeville), https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0004, and at the
Service’s Tennessee Fish and Wildlife
Office. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) An overview of critical habitat
locations for the slabside pearlymussel
in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
and Virginia follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
(6) Unit SP1: North Fork Holston
River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
67 river kilometers (rkm) (42 river miles
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(rmi)) of the North Fork Holston River
from its confluence with Beaver Creek
(¥81.70277, 36.90825), upstream of
Saltville, in Smyth County, VA,
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60869
upstream to Ceres (¥81.33775,
37.01035), Bland County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.022
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(7) Unit SP2: Middle Fork Holston
River, Washington, Smyth, and Wythe
Counties, Virginia.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
89 rkm (55 rmi) of the Middle Fork
Holston River from its inundation at
South Holston Lake (¥81.90427,
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
36.66338) in Washington County, VA,
upstream to its headwaters (¥81.31345,
36.88666) in Wythe County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.023
60870
(8) Unit SP3: Big Moccasin Creek,
Scott and Russell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
33 rkm (21 rmi) of Big Moccasin Creek
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the Highway 71 Bridge crossing
(¥82.48361, 36.69109) in Scott County,
VA, upstream to the Route 612 Bridge
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60871
crossing (¥82.32348, 36.73740) near
Collinwood in Russell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.024
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(9) Unit SP4: Clinch River, Hancock
County, Tennessee, and Scott, Russell,
and Tazewell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 263 rkm (163
rmi) of the Clinch River from rkm 255
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(rmi 159) immediately below Grissom
Island (¥83.40106, 36.43081) in
Hancock County, TN, upstream to its
confluence with Indian Creek near
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cedar Bluff (¥81.74999, 37.07995),
Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP4 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.025
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60872
(10) Unit SP5: Powell River, Claiborne
and Hancock Counties, Tennessee, and
Lee County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately
153 rkm (95 rmi) of the Powell River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the U.S. 25E Bridge (¥83.63102,
36.54143) in Claiborne County, TN,
upstream to rkm 256 (rmi 159)
(¥82.98111, 36.75730, upstream of
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60873
Rock Island in the vicinity of Pughs) in
Lee County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.026
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(11) Unit SP6: Nolichucky River,
Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
52 rkm (32 rmi) of the Nolichucky River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from rkm 14 (rmi 9), approximately 0.6
rkm (0.4 rmi) upstream of Enka Dam
(¥83.19630, 36.12970), where it divides
Hamblen and Cocke Counties, TN,
upstream to its confluence with Pigeon
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Creek, just upstream of the Highway 321
Bridge crossing (¥82.92926, 36.07545),
in Greene County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP6 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.027
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60874
(12) Unit SP7: Hiwassee River, Polk
County, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
24 rkm (15 rmi) of the Hiwassee River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the Highway 315 Bridge crossing
(¥84.50234, 35.18875) upstream to the
Highway 68 Bridge crossing
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60875
(¥84.31728, 35.16811) in Polk County,
TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.028
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(13) Unit SP8: Sequatchie River,
Marion, Sequatchie, and Bledsoe
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately
151 rkm (94 rmi) of the Sequatchie River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
from the Highway 41, 64, 72, 2 Bridge
crossing (¥85.60583, 35.06576) in
Marion County, TN, upstream to the
Ninemile Cross Road Bridge crossing
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(¥85.08304, 35.69162) in Bledsoe
County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.029
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60876
(14) Unit SP9: Paint Rock River,
Madison, Marshall, and Jackson
Counties, Alabama.
(i) The unit includes approximately
86 rkm (53 rmi) of the Paint Rock River
from the Highway 431 Bridge crossing
(¥86.39109, 34.49926) along the
Madison and Marshall County line, AL,
upstream to Estill Fork (¥86.17048,
34.89811); approximately 11 rkm (7 rmi)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
of Larkin Fork from its confluence with
the Paint Rock River (¥86.20833,
34.86218) upstream to its confluence
with Bear Creek (¥86.22512, 34.94205)
in Jackson County, AL. This unit also
includes approximately 13 rkm (8 rmi)
of Estill Fork from its confluence with
the Paint Rock River (¥86.17048,
34.89813) upstream to its confluence
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60877
with Bull Run (¥86.15283, 34.99118) in
Jackson County, AL. This unit also
includes approximately 16 rkm (10 rmi)
of Hurricane Creek from its confluence
with the Paint Rock River (¥86.17048,
34.89813) upstream to its confluence
with Turkey Creek (¥86.09441,
34.98370) in Jackson County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit SP9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.030
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(15) Unit SP10: Elk River, Limestone
County, Alabama, and Giles, Lincoln,
Franklin, and Moore Counties,
Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
164 rkm (102 rmi) of the Elk River from
its inundation at Wheeler Lake
(¥87.06503, 34.89788) in Limestone
County, AL, upstream to its confluence
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with Farris Creek (¥86.31996,
35.16288) at the dividing line between
Franklin and Moore Counties, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP10 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.031
60878
(16) Unit SP11: Bear Creek, Colbert
County, Alabama, and Tishomingo
County, Mississippi.
(i) The unit includes approximately
42 rkm (26 rmi) of Bear Creek from its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
inundation at Pickwick Lake at rkm 37
(rmi 23) (¥88.08373, 34.68909) in
Colbert County, AL, upstream through
Tishomingo County, MS, and ending at
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60879
the Mississippi-Alabama State line
(¥88.15388, 34. 49139).
(ii) Map of Unit SP11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.032
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(17) Unit SP12: Duck River,
Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties,
Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes approximately
348 rkm (216 rmi) of the Duck River
from its inundation at Kentucky Lake
(¥87.88011, 36.00244) in Humphreys
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
County, TN, upstream to its confluence
with Flat Creek (¥86.48778, 35.47209)
near Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP12 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.033
60880
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes 50 rkm (31 rmi)
of the Buffalo River from its confluence
with the Duck River (¥87.84261,
35.99477) in Humphreys County, TN,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
upstream to its confluence with Cane
Creek (¥87.78718, 35.72298) in Perry
County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP13 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.034
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(18) Unit SP13: Buffalo River,
Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee.
60881
60882
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
Dated: September 17, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2012–24019 Filed 10–3–12; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Oct 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\04OCP3.SGM
04OCP3
EP04OC12.035
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60803-60882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24019]
[[Page 60803]]
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 193
October 4, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60804]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY06
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum) and slabside
pearlymussel (Pleuronaia dolabelloides) as endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and we propose to
designate critical habitat for both species. These two species are
endemic to portions of the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems of
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia. In total,
approximately 2,218 river kilometers (1,380 river miles) are being
proposed for designation as critical habitat. The proposed critical
habitat for fluted kidneyshell is located in Limestone County, Alabama;
Jackson, Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle, and Wayne Counties,
Kentucky; Bedford, Claiborne, Cocke, Fentress, Franklin, Giles,
Grainger, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman, Humphreys, Jefferson,
Knox, Lincoln, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Morgan, Overton, Perry, Pickett,
Polk, Scott, and Sevier Counties, Tennessee; and Bland, Lee, Russell,
Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe Counties, Virginia. The
proposed critical habitat for slabside pearlymussel is located in
Colbert, Jackson, Limestone, Madison, and Marshall Counties, Alabama;
Tishomingo County, Mississippi; Bedford, Bledsoe, Claiborne, Cocke,
Franklin, Giles, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman, Humphreys, Lincoln,
Marion, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Perry, Polk, and Sequatchie Counties,
Tennessee; and Bland, Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington,
and Wythe Counties, Virginia.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 3, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by November 19, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: This proposed rule is available on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/cookeville/. Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2012-0004, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/cookeville,
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004], and at
the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office) (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the above locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office,
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931-528-6481;
facsimile 931-528-7075. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list the fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum) and
slabside pearlymussel (Pleuronaia dolabelloides) as endangered species;
and (2) proposed critical habitat designations for these two species.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species or
subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Both species have been eliminated from more than
50 percent of the streams from which they were historically known, and
are now limited to a handful of viable populations, all of which are
facing a variety of threats, including impoundments, mining, poor water
quality, excessive sedimentation, and environmental contaminants.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of five factors:
(A) Destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequate existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors. These
two mussel species are facing threats due to three of these five
factors (A, D, and E). The Act also requires that the Service designate
critical habitat at the time of listing provided that it is prudent and
determinable. We have determined that designating critical habitat is
both prudent and determinable (see Critical Habitat for the Fluted
Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel section below), and propose a
total of approximately 2,218 river kilometers (rkm) (1,380 river miles
(rmi)) of critical habitat in five States. Twenty-four units covering
approximately 1,899 river kilometers (rkm) (1,181 river miles (rmi)) of
critical habitat are being proposed for the fluted kidneyshell in
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Thirteen units covering
approximately 1,562 rkm (970 rmi) of critical habitat are being
proposed for the slabside pearlymussel in Alabama, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia.
We will seek peer review. In addition to seeking public comments,
we will solicit peer review of this proposal from at least three
experts knowledgeable in mussel biology and basic conservation biology
principles and concepts. Because we will consider all comments and
information received during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this proposal
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or
[[Page 60805]]
information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of either of these
species, including the locations of any additional populations.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and
their habitat.
(4) Any information regarding water quality data that may be
helpful in determining the water quality parameters necessary for the
fluted kidneyshell and the slabside pearlymussel.
(5) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
(6) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(7) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act including whether there
are threats to these species from human activity, the degree of which
can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that
increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(8) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of the proposed
listing and that contain features essential to the conservation of
these species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of the proposed listing are
essential for the conservation of these species and why.
(9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(10) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat.
(11) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(12) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(13) Any impact that critical habitat designation would have,
positive or negative, on conservation efforts associated with
designated nonessential experimental populations for other listed
species in the lower Holston and French Broad river systems in
Tennessee, or the North Fork Holston River in Virginia.
(14) Information on habitat suitability for these two mussels in
the proposed units that are not occupied at the time of the proposed
listing, including the Rockcastle River, Kentucky, and the Sequatchie
River, Tennessee.
(15) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
The fluted kidneyshell was first identified as a candidate for
protection under the Act in the October 25, 1999, Federal Register (64
FR 57534). Candidate species are those taxa for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to list
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act but for which the
development of a listing regulation has been precluded to date by other
higher priority listing activities. Candidates are assigned listing
priority numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy and the magnitude of threat,
as well as their taxonomic status. A lower LPN corresponds to a higher
conservation priority, and we consider the LPN when prioritizing and
funding conservation actions. In our 1999 (64 FR 57534), 2001 (66 FR
54808), 2002 (67 FR 40657), 2004 (69 FR 24876), 2005 (70 FR 24870), and
2006 (71 FR 53756) Federal Register Candidate Notices of Review, we
identified the species as having an LPN of five, in accordance with our
priority guidance published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An LPN
of five reflects threats that are nonimminent and high in magnitude, as
well as the taxonomic classification of the fluted kidneyshell as a
full species. We also determined that publication of a proposed rule to
list the fluted kidneyshell was precluded by our work on higher
priority listing actions. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition to
list the fluted kidneyshell as an
[[Page 60806]]
endangered species. We published our petition finding in the 2005
Candidate Notice of Review (70 FR 24869), and have done so annually in
subsequent years.
On December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we changed the LPN for the
fluted kidneyshell from five to two. A listing priority of two reflects
threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the
taxonomic classification of the fluted kidneyshell as a full species.
In our 2008 (73 FR 75176), 2009 (74 FR 57804), 2010 (75 FR 69222), and
2011 (76 FR 66370) Candidate Notices of Review, we retained a listing
priority number of two for this species.
The slabside pearlymussel was first identified as a candidate for
protection under the Act in the May 22, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR
21664). As a candidate, it was assigned a ``Category 2'' designation,
which was given to those species with some evidence of vulnerability,
but for which additional biological information was needed to support a
proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened. In our 1989 (54 FR
554), 1991 (56 FR 58804), and 1994 (59 FR 58982) Federal Register
Candidate Notices of Review, we retained a Category 2 designation for
this species. Assigning categories to candidate species was
discontinued in our Candidate Notice of Review dated February 28, 1996,
and only species for which the Service had sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed
rule were retained as candidate species (61 FR 7596).
On October 25, 1999, we identified the slabside pearlymussel in the
Federal Register as a candidate species with a listing priority number
of five (64 FR 57534). In our 2001 (66 FR 54808), 2002 (67 FR 40657),
2004 (69 FR 24876), 2005 (70 FR 24870), 2006 (71 FR 53756), and 2007
(72 FR 69034) Candidate Notices of Review, we determined that
publication of a proposed rule to list the species was precluded by our
work on higher priority listing actions and retained a listing priority
number of five for this species, in accordance with our priority
guidance published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). We published a
petition finding for slabside pearlymussel in the 2005 Candidate Notice
of Review (70 FR 24870) in response to a petition received on May 11,
2004, and have published annual petition findings in subsequent
Candidate Notices of Review.
On December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), we changed the listing priority
number for the slabside pearlymussel from five to two. In our 2009 (74
FR 57804), 2010 (75 FR 69222), and 2011 (76 FR 66370) Candidate Notices
of Review, we retained a listing priority number of two for this
species.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the listing and critical habitat designations for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel in this proposed rule. A summary
of topics relevant to this proposed rule is provided below. Additional
information on both species may be found in the most recent Candidate
Notice of Review, which was published October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370).
Introduction
North American mussel fauna are more biologically diverse than
anywhere else in the world, and historically numbered around 300
species (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6). Mussels are in decline, however,
and in the past century have become more imperiled than any other group
of organisms (Williams et al. 2008, p. 55). Approximately 72 percent of
North America's mussel species are considered vulnerable to extinction
or possibly extinct (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6). Within North America,
the southeastern United States is the hot spot for mussel diversity.
Seventy-five percent of southeastern mussel species are in varying
degrees of rarity or possibly extinct (Neves et al. 1997, pp. 47-51).
The central reason for the decline of mussels is the modification and
destruction of their habitat, especially from dams, degraded water
quality, and sedimentation (Neves et al. 1997, p. 60; Bogan 1998, p.
376). These two mussels, like many other southeastern mussel species,
have undergone considerable reductions in total range and population
density.
Most studies of the distribution and population status of the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel presented below were
conducted after the early 1960s. Gordon and Layzer (1989, entire),
Winston and Neves (1997, entire), and Parmalee and Bogan (1998, pp.
204-205) give most of the references for regional stream surveys. In
addition to these publications, we have obtained more current,
unpublished distribution and status information from State heritage
programs, agency biologists, and other knowledgeable individuals.
These two species are bivalve mussels and are endemic to the
Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages. The Cumberland River drainage
originates in southeastern Kentucky and flows southwest across
Tennessee before turning north and reentering Kentucky to empty into
the lower Ohio River. The Cumberland River drainage spans the
Appalachian Plateaus and Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic Provinces.
The Tennessee River originates in southwest Virginia and western North
Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia and flows
southwesterly into western Tennessee and Alabama, then turns north and
flows into Kentucky, before emptying into the Ohio River. The larger
Tennessee River drainage spans five physiographic provinces, including
the Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, Appalachian Plateaus, Interior Low
Plateaus, and Coastal Plain.
Fluted Kidneyshell
Taxonomy and Species Description
The fluted kidneyshell, Ptychobranchus subtentum (Say, 1825), is in
the family Unionidae (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 36). The following
description, biology, and life history of the fluted kidneyshell is
taken from Parmalee and Bogan (1998, pp. 204-205) and Williams et al.
(2008, pp. 627-629). The fluted kidneyshell is a relatively large
mussel that reaches about 13 centimeters (cm) (5 inches (in)) in
length. The shape of the shell is roughly oval elongate, and the solid,
relatively heavy valves (shells) are moderately inflated. A series of
flutings (parallel ridges or grooves) characterizes the posterior slope
of each valve. Shell texture is smooth and somewhat shiny in young
specimens, becoming duller with age. Shell color is greenish yellow,
becoming brownish with age, with several broken, wide green rays.
Internally, there are two types of teeth, which are raised,
interlocking structures used to stabilize opposing shell halves. The
pseudocardinal teeth are stumpy and triangular in shape. The lateral
teeth are relatively heavy and nearly straight, with two in the left
valve and one in the right valve. The color of the nacre (mother-of-
pearl) is bluish-white to dull white with a wash of salmon in the older
part of the shell (beak cavity).
Habitat and Life History
Mussels generally live embedded in the bottom of rivers and other
bodies of water. They siphon water into their shells and across four
gills that are specialized for respiration, food collection, and
brooding larvae in females. Food items include detritus (disintegrated
organic debris), algae, diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et al. 2004, pp.
430-431). Adult mussels can obtain their food by deposit feeding,
pulling in food from the sediment and its interstitial (pore) water,
and pedal-
[[Page 60807]]
feeding directly from the sediment (Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217-221;
Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001, 1432-1438). Adults are filter feeders and
generally orient themselves on or near the substrate surface to take in
food and oxygen from the water column. Juveniles typically burrow
completely beneath the substrate surface and are deposit or pedal
(foot) feeders, meaning that they bring food particles that adhere to
the foot while it is extended outside the shell inside the shell for
ingestion, until the structures for filter feeding are more fully
developed (Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 200-221; Gatenby et al. 1996, p.
604). However, adults are also capable of deposit feeding and may do so
depending on the availability of food resources (Nichols et al. 2005,
pp. 90-93).
Mussels tend to grow relatively rapidly for the first few years;
then growth slows appreciably after sexual maturity, when energy is
being diverted from growth to reproductive activities. Mussel longevity
varies tremendously among species (from 4 to 5 years to well over 100
years), but most species live 10 to 50 years (Haag and Rypel 2011, pp.
230-236). Relatively large, heavy-shelled riverine species tend to be
slower growing and have longer life spans. By thin-sectioning the
valves, various authors have aged fluted kidneyshell from the Clinch
River at 26 and 55 years (Henley et al. 2002, p. 19; Davis and Layzer
2012, p. 92). Females can become sexually mature at age 5 (Davis and
Layzer 2012, p. 79).
The gametogenic cycle (annual cycle in the development of
reproductive cells or gametes) of fluted kidneyshell, like most
mussels, is probably regulated by annual temperature regimes (Davis and
Layzer, p. 90). Most mussels, including the fluted kidneyshell, have
separate sexes. Males expel sperm into the water column, which are
drawn in by females through their incurrent apertures or siphons. It
has been hypothesized that pheromones might trigger synchronous sperm
release among males, because all fertilization observed by females from
the Clinch River occurred in fewer than 5 days (Davis and Layzer 2012,
p. 90). Fertilization takes place internally, and the resulting zygotes
develop into specialized larvae, termed glochidia, inside the water
tubes of the females' gills. The fluted kidneyshell, along with other
members of its genus, is unique in that the marsupial portion of the
outer gills (portion of a brooding female's gill which holds embryos
and glochidia) are folded in a curtain-like fashion. The fluted
kidneyshell is thought to have a late summer or early fall
fertilization period with the glochidia overwintering. Davis and Layzer
(2012, p. 90) observed embryo development within the marsupium (brood
pouch) at 4 weeks after fertilization. The following spring or early
summer, glochidia are released as conglutinates, which are similar to
cold capsules or gelatinous containers with scores of glochidia within.
Davis and Layzer (2012, p. 86) report an average of 208 conglutinates
and an average fecundity (total reproductive output) of 247,000
glochidia per female. Davis and Layzer (2012, p. 92) report a skewed
adult sex ratio of 1.9 females per 1 male in the Clinch River, in
Tennessee, although the cause of the skewed ratio is unknown. Using the
observed sex ratio and percent of females that were gravid, Davis and
Layzer (2012, p. 92) hypothesized that some females go through
reproductive ``pausing'' periods to acquire the energy reserves needed
to produce gametes in subsequent years.
Glochidia must come into contact with a specific host fish(es)
quickly in order for their survival to be ensured. Without the proper
species of host fish, the glochidia will perish. Conglutinate masses
often mimic food items of glochidial fish hosts in order to attract and
infest potential host fishes. Fluted kidneyshell conglutinates are
shaped like black fly (Simuliidae) pupae and have an adhesive end that
sticks to silt-free stones on the stream bottom, with an orientation
that is also similar to that of blackfly pupae (Barnhart and Roberts
1997, p. 17; Barnhart et al. 2008, p. 377; Williams et al. 2008, p.
628). Insects are common food items of many stream fishes, including
the fluted kidneyshell's host fishes, which include the barcheek darter
(Etheostoma obeyense), fantail darter (E. flabellare), rainbow darter
(E. caeruleum), redline darter (E. rufilineatum), bluebreast darter (E.
camurum), dusky darter (Percina sciera), and banded sculpin (Cottus
carolinae). These fishes are tricked into thinking that they have an
easy insect meal when in fact they have infected themselves with
parasitic mussel glochidia (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 205; Davis and
Layzer 2012, p. 88).
After a few weeks parasitizing the host fish's gill, newly
metamorphosed juveniles drop off to begin a free-living existence on
the stream bottom. Unless they drop off in suitable habitat, they will
perish. Thus, the complex life history of the fluted kidneyshell and
other mussels has many critical steps that may prevent successful
reproduction or recruitment of juveniles into existing populations or
both.
The fluted kidneyshell occurs in medium-sized creeks to large
rivers, inhabiting sand and gravel substrates in relatively shallow
riffles and shoals with moderate to swift current (Williams et al.
2008, p. 628). In comparison to some co-occurring species, the fluted
kidneyshell demonstrates strong habitat specificity by being associated
with faster flows, greater shear stress (force of water pressure and
velocity on the substrate), and low substrate embeddedness (Ostby 2005,
pp. 51, 142-3).
Historical Range and Distribution
The fluted kidneyshell is a Cumberlandian Region mussel, meaning it
is restricted to the Cumberland (in Kentucky and Tennessee) and
Tennessee (in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia) River
systems. Historically, this species occurred in the Cumberland River
mainstem from below Cumberland Falls in southeastern Kentucky
downstream through the Tennessee portion of the river to the vicinity
of the Kentucky-Tennessee State line. In the Tennessee River mainstem
it occurred from eastern to western Tennessee. Records are known from
the following Cumberland River tributaries: Horse Lick Creek [KY],
Middle Fork Rockcastle River [KY], Rockcastle River [KY], Buck Creek
[KY], Rock Creek [KY], Kennedy Creek [KY], Little South Fork [KY], Big
South Fork [KY, TN], Pitman Creek [KY], Otter Creek [KY], Wolf River
[TN], Town Branch [TN], West Fork Obey River [TN], Obey River [TN],
Caney Fork [TN], South Harpeth River [TN], and West Fork Red River
[KY]. In addition, it is known from the following Tennessee River
tributaries: South Fork Powell River [VA], Powell River [TN, VA],
Indian Creek [VA], Little River [VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], Copper
Creek [VA], North Fork Holston River [TN, VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA],
Middle Fork Holston River [VA], South Fork Holston River [TN, VA],
Holston River [TN], Nolichucky River [TN], West Prong Little Pigeon
River [TN], Tellico River [TN], French Broad River [TN], Little
Tennessee River [TN], Hiwassee River [TN], Flint River [AL], Limestone
Creek [AL], Elk River [AL, TN], Shoal Creek [AL], Buffalo River [TN],
and Duck River [TN] (Gordon and Layzer 1989, entire; Winston and Neves
1997, entire; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp. 204-205; Layzer and Scott
2006, p. 481). The fluted kidneyshell's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 1 below.
[[Page 60808]]
Table 1--Known Historical and Current Occurrences for the Fluted Kidneyshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberland River............. Cumberland.......... McCreary, KY Historical.
Pulaski,
Russell.
Cumberland River............. Cumberland.......... Stewart........ TN Historical.
Middle Fork Rockcastle River. Cumberland.......... Jackson........ KY Historical and Current.
Horse Lick Creek............. Cumberland.......... Jackson, KY Historical and Current.
Rockcastle.
Rockcastle River............. Cumberland.......... Laurel, KY Historical.
Pulaski,
Rockcastle.
Buck Creek................... Cumberland.......... Pulaski........ KY Historical and Current.
Big South Fork Cumberland Cumberland.......... McCreary, KY Historical and Current.
River. Pulaski.
Big South Fork Cumberland Cumberland.......... Fentress, TN Historical and Current.
River. Morgan, Scott.
Rock Creek................... Cumberland.......... McCreary....... KY Historical and Current.
Little South Fork Cumberland Cumberland.......... McCreary, Wayne KY Historical and Current.
River.
Kennedy Creek................ Cumberland.......... Wayne.......... KY Historical.
Pitman Creek................. Cumberland.......... Pulaski........ KY Historical.
Otter Creek.................. Cumberland.......... Wayne.......... KY Historical.
Wolf River................... Cumberland.......... Fentress, TN Historical and Current.
Pickett.
Town Branch.................. Cumberland.......... Pickett........ TN Historical and Current.
Obey River................... Cumberland.......... ?.............. TN Historical.
West Fork Obey River......... Cumberland.......... Overton........ TN Historical and Current.
Caney Fork River............. Cumberland.......... ?.............. TN Historical.
South Harpeth River.......... Cumberland.......... Davidson....... TN Historical.
West Fork Red River.......... Cumberland.......... Todd........... KY Historical.
South Fork Powell River...... Tennessee........... Wise........... VA Historical.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Claiborne, TN Historical and Current.
Hancock.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Campbell, Union TN Historical.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Lee............ VA Historical and Current.
Indian Creek................. Tennessee........... Tazewell....... VA Historical and Current.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Hancock........ TN Historical and Current.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Anderson, TN Historical.
Claiborne,
Grainger,
Roane, Union.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Russell, Scott, VA Historical and Current.
Tazewell, Wise.
Little River................. Tennessee........... Russell, VA Historical and Current.
Tazewell.
Copper Creek................. Tennessee........... Scott.......... VA Historical and Current.
North Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Hawkins, TN Historical.
Sullivan.
North Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Bland, Scott, VA Historical and Current.
Smyth,
Washington.
Big Moccasin Creek........... Tennessee........... Scott.......... VA Historical and Current.
Middle Fork Holston River.... Tennessee........... Smyth.......... VA Historical and Current.
South Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Sullivan....... TN Historical.
South Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Washington..... VA Historical.
Holston River................ Tennessee........... Grainger, TN Historical.
Hamblen,
Jefferson,
Knox.
French Broad River........... Tennessee........... ?.............. TN Historical.
Tennessee River.............. Tennessee........... Colbert, AL Historical.
Jackson,
Lauderdale.
Tennessee River.............. Tennessee........... Decatur, Knox, TN Historical.
Meigs, Rhea.
Nolichucky River............. Tennessee........... Greene......... TN Historical and Current.
West Prong Little Pigeon Tennessee........... Sevier......... TN Historical.
River.
Tellico River................ Tennessee........... Monroe......... TN Historical.
Little Tennessee River....... Tennessee........... Monroe......... TN Historical.
Hiwassee River............... Tennessee........... Polk........... TN Historical.
Flint River.................. Tennessee........... Madison........ AL Historical.
Limestone Creek.............. Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical.
Elk River.................... Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical.
Elk River.................... Tennessee........... Coffee, TN Historical.
Franklin.
Shoal Creek.................. Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical.
Duck River................... Tennessee........... Bedford, TN Historical and Current.
Marshall,
Maury.
Buffalo River................ Tennessee........... Lewis.......... TN Historical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: A ? represents a lack of specific locational information in the museum and literature record.
Prior to 1980, the fluted kidneyshell was fairly widespread and
common in many Cumberlandian Region streams based on collections in
museums and from the literature record. The extirpation of this species
from numerous streams within its historical range indicates that
substantial population losses and range reductions have occurred.
Current Range and Distribution
In this document, populations of the fluted kidneyshell are
generally considered extant (current) if live individuals or fresh dead
specimens have been collected since circa 1980. This criterion (circa
1980) was chosen because a large number of collections were conducted
in the 1980s in the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems and due to
the longevity of these species (40-55 years), they are still thought to
occur in these areas.
Some of the historical occurences have not been surveyed since the
1980s. Based on this criterion, the species appears to be limited to
Horse Lick Creek [KY], Middle Fork Rockcastle River [KY], Buck Creek
[KY], Rock Creek [KY], Little South Fork Cumberland River [KY], Big
South Fork Cumberland River [KY, TN], Wolf River [TN], Town Branch
[TN], and West Fork Obey River [TN] in the Cumberland River system; and
the Powell River [TN, VA], Indian Creek [VA], Little River
[[Page 60809]]
[VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], Copper Creek [VA], North Fork Holston
River [VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA], Middle Fork Holston River [VA],
Nolichucky River [TN], and Duck River [TN] in the Tennessee River
system (see Table 1). Where two or more stream populations occur
contiguously with no barriers, such as impoundments or long reaches of
unoccupied habitat, they are considered single population segments or
clusters. Multi-stream population segments include the Wolf River and
its tributary Town Branch in the Cumberland River system, and Clinch
River and Copper Creek (but not the other two upper Clinch tributaries,
Indian Creek and Little River) in the Tennessee River system. Thus, we
consider 17 of 40 populations of fluted kidneyshell to be extant. The
fluted kidneyshell has been eliminated from more than 50 percent of
streams from which it was historically known.
Other populations considered extant at the time this species was
elevated to candidate status in 1999 (e.g., Rockcastle River, Kennedy
Creek) are now considered to be extirpated. In addition, the population
in the upper North Fork Holston River, although still large, has
declined substantially since circa 2000. The North Fork Holston River
population is predominately composed of large individuals, unlike the
Clinch River population, which is skewed towards smaller size classes
(Ostby et al. 2010, pp. 7, 22-24). These differences in population
characteristics are a clear indication that recruitment in the Clinch
River population is more observable than the population in the North
Fork Holston River.
Resource managers have been making attempts to reintroduce the
fluted kidneyshell into historical habitat over the past decade. In
Tennessee, thousands of individuals of the species have been
reintroduced into three sites in the upper Duck River, and into two
sites in the Nolichucky River, by Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency
(TWRA) biologists translocating adult individuals from the Clinch River
(Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). In 2010, six individuals were collected
during a quantitative survey at Lillard's Mill in the Duck River,
confirming some level of survival and persistence of the reintroduced
population (Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). The individuals collected
appeared in good condition and had grown noticeably since their release
(as evidenced by external shell marks), but recruitment has yet to be
documented (Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). In 2008, the Kentucky Department
of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) translocated 144 individuals
from the Clinch River into the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River,
Kentucky (Hubbs 2011, unpubl. data). It is not known if the Nolichucky
or Big South Fork reintroductions have been successful. Approximately
691 adult individuals of the species have been translocated from the
Clinch River, Tennessee, into the Little Tennessee River bypass reach
below Calderwood Dam, Tennessee (Moles 2012, pers. comm.). The Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) reintroduced 58 adults
into Indian Creek, a tributary to the Clinch River, using Clinch River
stock. They have also propagated and released 562 juveniles into the
North Fork Holston River (Duncan 2012, pers. comm.).
The extant fluted kidneyshell populations (including the
potentially reintroduced populations) in the Cumberlandian Region
generally represent small, isolated occurrences. Only in the Clinch
River is a population of the fluted kidneyshell known to be large,
stable, and viable, but in a relatively short reach of river primarily
in the vicinity of the Tennessee-Virginia State line. Jones (2012,
unpub. data) estimates 500,000 to 1,000,000 individuals occur in the
Clinch River from just a 32-river-kilometer (rkm) (20-river-mile (rmi))
reach (rkm 309 to 277 (rmi 172 to 192)). Live adults and juveniles have
been observed over the past 10 years in shoal habitats in the upper
Clinch River, Virginia, particularly at and above Cleveland Islands,
and many more fresh dead shells have been collected in muskrat middens
in this reach. Eckert and Pinder (2010, pp. 23-30) collected 18
individuals in quantitative samples and 11 individuals in semi-
quantitative samples in the Clinch River at Cleveland Island in 2008,
and 15 individuals in quantitative samples and 62 individuals in semi-
quantitative samples in the Clinch River at Cleveland Island in 2002.
Ostby and Angermeier (2011, entire) found two live individuals in the
Little River (tributary to Clinch River). Henley et al. (1999, pp. 20,
22) collected live individuals at 6 of 25 sites surveyed in the Middle
Fork Holston River in 1997 and 1998. The fluted kidneyshell was found
in Copper Creek between creek rkm 2 and 31 (rmi 1 and 19) (Hanlon et
al. 2009, pp. 15-17). Petty et al. (2006, pp. 4, 36) found the species
between Copper Creek rkm 24 and 31 (rmi 15 and 19) and reported
evidence of reproduction and recruitment of the species at these
locations. In 2008-09, 35 live individuals were found at 5 of 21 sites
sampled in the Powell River, in both Tennessee and Virginia, and there
was some indication of relatively recent recruitment (Johnson et al. in
press, Table 4). Ostby et al. (2010, pp. 16-20) observed 772
individuals during qualitative surveys and 10 individuals in
quantitative surveys in the North Fork Holston River, Virginia.
Live fluted kidneyshell have not been collected in the Middle Fork
Rockcastle River since the mid-1980s (Layzer and Anderson 1992, p. 64).
Haag and Warren (2004, p. 16) collected only fresh dead shell material
in Horse Lick Creek, and reported that a small, extremely vulnerable
population of the fluted kidneyshell may exist there, but at very low
levels that they were not able to detect. Warren and Haag (2005, pp.
1384, 1388-1396) reported a vast reduction of the once sizable Little
South Fork population since the late 1980s. Live fluted kidneyshell
have not been collected in the Big South Fork since the mid-1980s
(Ahlstedt et al. 2003-2004, p. 65). In 2010, two individuals were found
in Buck Creek and collected for future propagation efforts (McGregor
2010, unpub. data). Live fluted kidneyshell have not been collected in
Rock Creek since 1988 (Layzer and Anderson 1992, p. 68). Layzer and
Anderson (1992, p. 22) collected fluted kidneyshell at two sites in the
West Fork Obey River. A small but recruiting population occurs in the
Wolf River, Tennessee, based on 2005-06 sampling (Moles et al. 2007, p.
79). This may be the best population remaining in the entire Cumberland
River system, where most populations are very restricted in range and
are highly imperiled. Given its longevity, small populations of this
long-lived species may persist for decades despite total recruitment
failure. Therefore, at least 5 of the extant populations may be
functionally extirpated (e.g., Horse Lick Creek, Middle Fork Rockcastle
River, Little South Fork Cumberland River, Rock Creek, West Fork Obey
River).
Population Estimates and Status
Extirpated from both the Cumberland and Tennessee River mainstems,
the fluted kidneyshell has been eliminated from approximately 50
percent of the total number of streams from which it was historically
known. Population size data gathered during the past decade or two
indicate that the fluted kidneyshell is rare in nearly all extant
populations, the Clinch River being a notable exception. The fluted
kidneyshell is particularly imperiled in Kentucky. Haag and Warren
(2004, p. 16) reported that a small, extremely vulnerable population of
the fluted kidneyshell may exist in Horse Lick Creek, but at
[[Page 60810]]
extremely low levels that they were not able to detect. They only
collected fresh dead shell material in Horse Lick Creek. The vast
reduction of the once sizable Little South Fork population since the
late 1980s (Warren and Haag 2005, pp. 1384, 1388-1396) and the tenuous
status of the other Cumberland River system populations put the species
at risk of total extirpation from that Cumberland River system. In
addition, the populations in the Powell River (post-1980) and the
Middle Fork (post-1995) and upper North Fork (post-2000) Holston Rivers
in Virginia have declined in recent years based on recent survey
efforts (Henley et al. 1999, p. 23; Ahlstedt et al. 2005, p. 9; Jones
and Neves 2007, p. 477; Johnson et al. in press). Populations of the
fluted kidneyshell remain locally abundant in certain reaches of the
North Fork Holston River but are reduced in overall range within the
river (Ostby and Neves 2005, 2006a, and 2006b, entire; Dinkins 2010a,
p. 3-1). Declines in mussel community abundance in the North Fork
Holston River have been in the form of several die-offs. The cause for
the observed die-offs is unknown (Jones and Neves 2007, p. 479), but
may be related to agricultural runoff (Hanlon et al. 2009, p. 11).
In summary, the fluted kidneyshell has been eliminated from
approximately 50 percent of the total number of streams from which it
was historically known. Populations in Buck Creek, Little South Fork,
Horse Lick Creek, Powell River, and North Fork Holston River have
clearly declined over the past two decades. Based on recent
information, the overall population status of the fluted kidneyshell
rangewide is declining. A few populations are considered to be viable
(e.g., Wolf, Clinch, Little, North Fork Holston Rivers). However, all
other populations are of questionable viability, with some on the verge
of extirpation (e.g., Horse Lick and Rock Creeks). Newly reintroduced
populations will hopefully begin to reverse the overall downward trend
of this species.
The fluted kidneyshell was considered a species of special concern
by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14), but two decades later is considered
endangered in a reassessment of the North American mussel fauna by the
Endangered Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society (Butler
2012, pers. comm.). The fluted kidneyshell is listed as a species of
Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) in the Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Virginia State Wildlife Action Plans (KDFWR 2005; TWRA 2005; VDGIF
2005).
Slabside Pearlymussel
Taxonomy and Species Description
The taxonomic status of the slabside pearlymussel (family
Unionidae) as a distinct species is undisputed within the scientific
community. The species is recognized as Lexingtonia dolabelloides (I.
Lea, 1840) in the ``Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic
Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, Second
Edition'' (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 35). However, there are currently
differing opinions on the appropriate genus to use for the species.
Genetic analyses by Bogan et al. (unpublished data), as cited by
Williams et al. (2008, p. 584), suggests that the type genus of
Lexingtonia, Unio subplana Conrad, 1837, is synonymous with Fusconaia
masoni (Conrad, 1834). Lexingtonia is therefore a junior synonym of
Fusconaia, making Lexingtonia no longer available as a valid genus of
mussel under the rules of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (Williams 2011, pers. comm.). Analyses by Campbell et al.
(2005, pp. 141, 143, 147) and Campbell and Lydeard (2012a, pp. 3-6, 9;
2012b, pp. 25-27, 30, 34) suggest that ``Lexingtonia'' dolabelloides,
``Fusconaia'' barnesiana, and ``Pleurobema'' gibberum do not correspond
to their currently assigned genera but form a closely related group.
Williams et al. (2008, pp. 584-593) and Campbell and Lydeard (2012b,
pp. 30, 34) picked the next available genus name for dolabelloides,
which appears to be Pleuronaia (Frierson 1927). Based on this latest
information, we currently consider Pleuronaia to be the most
appropriate generic name for the slabside pearlymussel.
The following description, biology, and life history of the
slabside pearlymussel is taken from data summarized in Parmalee and
Bogan (1998, pp. 150-152). The slabside pearlymussel is a moderately
sized mussel that reaches about 9 cm (3.5 in) in length. The shape of
the shell is subtriangular, and the very solid, heavy valves are
moderately inflated. Shell texture is smooth and somewhat shiny in
young specimens, becoming duller with age. Shell color is greenish
yellow, becoming brownish with age, with a few broken green rays or
blotches, particularly in young individuals. Internally, the
pseudocardinal teeth are triangular or blade-like in shape. The lateral
teeth are slightly curved, with two in the left valve and one in the
right valve. The color of the nacre is white, or rarely, straw-colored.
Habitat and Life History
General life history information for the slabside pearlymussel is
similar to that given for the fluted kidneyshell above. Samples from
approximately 150 shells of the slabside pearlymussel from the North
Fork Holston River were thin-sectioned for age determination. The
maximum age exceeded 40 years (Grobler et al. 2005, p. 65).
The slabside pearlymussel utilizes all four gills as a marsupium
for its glochidia. It is thought to have a spring or early summer
fertilization period with the glochidia being released during the late
summer in the form of conglutinates. Slabside pearlymussel
conglutinates have not been described. The slabside pearlymussel's host
fishes include 11 species of minnows (popeye shiner, Notropis ariommus;
rosyface shiner, N. rubellus; saffron shiner, N. rubricroceus; silver
shiner, N. photogenis; telescope shiner, N. telescopus; Tennessee
shiner, N. leuciodus; whitetail shiner, Cyprinella galactura; striped
shiner, Luxilus chrysocephalus; warpaint shiner, L. coccogenis; white
shiner, L. albeolus; and eastern blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atratulus)
(Kitchel 1985 and Neves 1991 in Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp. 150-152;
Jones and Neves 2002, pp. 18-20).
The slabside pearlymussel is primarily a large creek to large river
species, inhabiting sand, fine gravel, and cobble substrates in
relatively shallow riffles and shoals with moderate current (Parmalee
and Bogan 1998, p. 152; Williams et al. 2008, p. 590). This species
requires flowing, well-oxygenated waters to thrive.
Historical Range and Distribution
Historically, the slabside pearlymussel occurred in the lower
Cumberland River mainstem from the vicinity of the Kentucky State line
downstream to the the Caney Fork River, Tennessee, and in the Tennessee
River mainstem from eastern Tennessee to western Tennessee. Records are
known from two Cumberland River tributaries, the Caney Fork [TN] and
Red Rivers [KY, TN]. In addition, it is known from 30 Tennessee River
system tributaries, including the South Fork Powell River [VA], Powell
River [TN, VA], Puckell Creek [VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], North Fork
Holston River [TN, VA], Big Moccasin Creek [VA], Middle Fork Holston
River [VA], South Fork Holston River [TN], Holston River [TN],
Nolichucky River [TN], West Prong Little Pigeon River [TN], French
Broad River [TN], Tellico River [TN], Little Tennessee River [TN],
Hiwassee River [TN], Sequatchie River [TN],
[[Page 60811]]
Larkin Fork [AL], Estill Fork [AL], Hurricane Creek [AL], Paint Rock
River [AL], Flint River [AL], Flint Creek [AL], Limestone Creek [AL],
Elk River [AL, TN], Sugar Creek [AL], Bear Creek [AL, MS], North Fork
Creek [TN], Big Rock Creek [TN], Buffalo River [TN], and Duck River
[TN] (Gordon and Layzer 1989, entire; Winston and Neves 1997, entire;
Parmalee and Bogan 1998, pp. 150-152). The slabside pearlymussel's
known historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are
shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2--Known Historical and Current Occurrences for the Slabside Pearlymussel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberland River............. Cumberland.......... Davidson, Smith TN Historical.
Caney Fork River............. Cumberland.......... ?.............. TN Historical.
Red River.................... Cumberland.......... Logan.......... KY Historical.
Red River.................... Cumberland.......... ?.............. TN Historical.
South Fork Powell River...... Tennessee........... Wise........... VA Historical.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Claiborne...... TN Historical.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Hancock........ TN Historical and Current.
Powell River................. Tennessee........... Lee............ VA Historical and Current.
Puckell Creek................ Tennessee........... Lee............ VA Historical.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Hancock........ TN Historical and Current.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Anderson, TN Historical.
Campbell,
Claiborne,
Knox.
Clinch River................. Tennessee........... Russell, Scott, VA Historical and Current.
Tazewell, Wise.
North Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Hawkins, TN Historical.
Sullivan.
North Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Bland, Scott, VA Historical and Current.
Smyth,
Washington.
Big Moccasin Creek........... Tennessee........... Russell, Scott. VA Historical and Current.
Middle Fork Holston River.... Tennessee........... Smyth, VA Historical and Current.
Washington,
Wythe.
South Fork Holston River..... Tennessee........... Sullivan....... TN Historical.
Holston River................ Tennessee........... ?.............. TN Historical.
French Broad River........... Tennessee........... Sevier......... TN Historical.
Tennessee River.............. Tennessee........... Colbert, AL Historical.
Jackson,
Lauderdale.
Tennessee River.............. Tennessee........... Hamilton, TN Historical.
Hardin, Knox,
Meigs, Rhea.
Nolichucky River............. Tennessee........... Cocke, Greene, TN Historical and Current.
Hamblen.
West Prong Little Pigeon Tennessee........... Sevier......... TN Historical.
River.
Tellico River................ Tennessee........... Monroe......... TN Historical.
Little Tennessee River....... Tennessee........... Monroe......... TN Historical.
Hiwassee River............... Tennessee........... Polk........... TN Historical and Current.
Sequatchie River............. Tennessee........... Sequatchie..... TN Historical and Current.
Larkin Fork.................. Tennessee........... Jackson........ AL Historical and Current.
Estill Fork.................. Tennessee........... Jackson........ AL Historical and Current.
Hurricane Creek.............. Tennessee........... Jackson........ AL Historical and Current.
Paint Rock River............. Tennessee........... Jackson, AL Historical and Current.
Madison,
Marshall.
Flint River.................. Tennessee........... Madison........ AL Historical.
Flint Creek.................. Tennessee........... Morgan......... AL Historical.
Limestone Creek.............. Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical.
Elk River.................... Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical and Current.
Elk River.................... Tennessee........... Lincoln........ TN Historical and Current.
Elk River.................... Tennessee........... Coffee, TN Historical.
Franklin,
Moore.
Sugar Creek.................. Tennessee........... Limestone...... AL Historical.
Bear Creek................... Tennessee........... Franklin....... AL Historical and Current.
Bear Creek................... Tennessee........... Tishomingo..... MS Historical and Current.
Duck River................... Tennessee........... Bedford, TN Historical and Current.
Hickman,
Marshall,
Maury.
Duck River................... Tennessee........... Coffee......... TN Historical.
North Fork Creek............. Tennessee........... Bedford........ TN Historical.
Big Rock Creek............... Tennessee........... Marshall....... TN Historical.
Buffalo River................ Tennessee........... Humphreys, TN Historical and Current.
Perry.
Buffalo River................ Tennessee........... Lewis.......... TN Historical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on collections made in the early 1900s, the slabside
pearlymussel was historically fairly widespread and common in many
Cumberlandian Region streams. However, its decline in certain streams
may have begun before European colonization. The slabside pearlymussel
was considered rare by mussel experts as early as 1970 (Stansbery 1971,
p.13), which represents the first attempt to compile such a list. The
extirpation of this species from numerous streams within its historical
range indicates that substantial population losses and range reductions
have occurred.
Current Range and Distribution
In this document, populations of the slabside pearlymussel are
generally considered extant (current) if live individuals or fresh dead
specimens have been collected since circa 1980. This criterion (circa
1980) was chosen because a large number of collections were conducted
in the 1980s in the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems and due to
the longevity of these species (40-55 years), they are still thought to
occur in these areas.
Some of the historical occurences have not been surveyed since the
1980s. Based on this criterion, extant populations remain in the Powell
River [TN, VA], Clinch River [TN, VA], North Fork Holston River [VA],
Nolichucky River [TN], Big Moccasin Creek [VA], Middle Fork Holston
River [VA], Hiwassee River [TN], Sequatchie River [TN], Paint Rock
River [AL], Larkin Fork [AL], Estill Fork [AL], Hurricane Creek [AL],
Elk River [AL, TN], Buffalo River [TN], Duck River [TN], and Bear Creek
[[Page 60812]]
[AL, MS] (see Table 2). Where two or more stream populations occur
contiguously with no absolute barriers (e.g., large impoundments) or
long reaches of unoccupied habitat, they are considered to represent a
single population segment. The Paint Rock River system (including
Larkin Fork, Estill Fork, and Hurricane Creek) is considered a single
population segment or cluster but it occurs only in the lower mile or
so of the three tributary streams. Thus, we consider 13 of 30
populations of the slabside pearlymussel to be extant. The slabside
pearlymussel has been eliminated from more than 50 percent of streams
from which it was historically known.
The extant occurrences in the Tennessee River system represent 11
isolated populations. Population size data gathered during the past two
decades indicate that the slabside pearlymussel is rare (experienced
surveyors may find four or fewer specimens per site of occurrence) in
about half of its extant populations. Only a few individuals have been
found in the Powell River since 1988; therefore, this population is
considered extremely rare (Ahlstedt et al. 2005, p. 9). In 2009, 4
individuals were collected in the Powell River (Johnson 2010, p. 39). A
single live individual was found in 2006 in Big Moccasin Creek,
Virginia (Ostby et al. 2006, p. 3). The slabside pearlymussel is
uncommon to rare in the Clinch River, with only a few individuals found
per effort (Ahlstedt et al. 2005, p. 8). Eckert and Pinder (2010, pp.
23-30) collected 1 individual in quantitative samples and 5 individuals
in semi-quantitative samples in the Clinch River at Cleveland Island in
2008, and 2 individuals in quantitative samples and 13 individuals in
semi-quantitative samples in the Clinch River at Cleveland Island in
2002. In 2005, approximately 20 individuals were found near Harms Mill
(one of five sites surveyed) in the Elk River, Tennessee, and 13
individuals (at two of five survey sites, spanning approximately 48 rkm
(30 rmi)) were found in 2008 (Howard 2009, pers. comm.; Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) 2009, p. 59). In 2002, one live individual was
found in the Hiwassee River (Ahlstedt 2003, p. 3). The slabside
pearlymussel was last found in the Sequatchie River 2 miles north of
Dunlap, Tennessee, in 1980 (Hatcher and Ahlstedt 1982, p. 9). A small
population is limited to Bear Creek in Mississippi, its only occurrence
in that State (Jones 2012, pers. comm.). In 2009, TVA collected 9
individuals at one site in Bear Creek (TVA 2010, p. 69). This
population is recruiting as evidenced by collection of fresh dead
juvenile shells in 2011 (Johnson 2011, pers. comm.). Given its
longevity, small populations of this long-lived species may persist for
decades despite total recruitment failure. The species has undergone
decline in the North and Middle Forks of the Holston River (Jones and
Neves 2005, pp. 8-9). This is especially true for the North Fork, where
the species has been nearly eliminated (Hanlon 2006, unpub. data). The
cause for the observed die-offs is unknown (Jones and Neves 2007, p.
479). Ostby et al. (2010, pp. 16-20) observed 8 individuals in
qualitative surveys at one site, but did not observe the species in
quantitative surveys in the Upper North Fork Holston River. Slabside
pearlymussels have declined at 3 of 4 survey sites on the Middle Fork
Holston River (Henley 2011, pers. comm.). A single valve of a fresh
dead specimen was found in the Nolichucky River in 2011 (Dinkins 2010b,
p. 2-1). In 2011, TVA collected one live individual in the Buffalo
River (Wales 2012, pers. comm.).
The Duck and Paint Rock Rivers appear to have the best populations
remaining rangewide based on population size and the evidence of recent
recruitment. The slabside pearlymussel is found at numerous sites in
the Duck River within a 64-rkm (40-rmi) reach, and is found at numerous
sites within a 72-rkm (45-rmi) reach of the Paint Rock River (Ahlstedt
et al. 2004, p. 84; Fobian et al. 2008, pp. 15-16). A 2010 quantitative
survey of the Duck River found the slabside pearlymussel present but
rare at 4 of 6 sites sampled (Hubbs et al. 2011, pp. 19-25).
Population Estimates and Status
A recent study of major population centers concluded that all
populations of the species were fairly similar in genetic structure
(Grobler et al. 2005, p. 1). However, the population in the Duck River
was deemed relatively distinct enough from those in the middle (i.e.,
Paint Rock River) and upper (i.e., Clinch, North and Middle Forks
Holston Rivers) Tennessee River system to warrant recognition as a
distinct management unit.
Current status information for most of the 13 extant populations is
available from recent periodic sampling efforts (sometimes annually)
and other field studies. Comprehensive surveys have taken place in the
Middle and North Forks Holston River, Paint Rock River, and Duck River
in the past several years. Based on this information, the overall
population of the slabside pearlymussel appears to be declining
rangewide, and the species remains in relatively good numbers and
appears viable in just two streams (Duck and Paint Rock Rivers). Two of
the four largest populations in the mid-1990s have undergone drastic
recent declines (i.e., North and Middle Forks Holston Rivers),
especially in the North Fork. Most of the other populations are of
questionable viability and may be on the verge of extirpation (e.g.,
Powell and Hiwassee Rivers; Big Moccasin Creek).
The slabside pearlymussel was considered threatened by Williams et
al. (1993, p. 13), but two decades later is considered endangered in a
reassessment of the North American mussel fauna by the Endangered
Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society (Butler 2012, pers.
comm.). The slabside pearlymussel is listed as a species of Greatest
Conservation Need (GCN) in the Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Virginia State Wildlife Action Plans (Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries, 2005; KDFWR 2005; Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks, 2005; TWRA 2005; VDGIF 2005).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is
discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The decline of the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel in
the Cumberlandian Region and other mussel species in the eastern United
States is primarily the result of habitat loss and degradation. Chief
among the causes of decline are impoundments, gravel and coal mining,
sedimentation, water pollution, and stream channel alterations (Neves
1993, pp. 4-5;
[[Page 60813]]
Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 60-78).
Impoundments
Impoundments result in the dramatic modification of riffle and
shoal habitats and the resulting loss of mussel resources, especially
in larger rivers. Impoundment impacts are most profound in riffle and
shoal areas, which harbor the largest assemblages of mussel species,
including the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. Mussels are
relatively immobile and, therefore, require a stable substrate to
survive and reproduce, and are particularly susceptible to channel
instability (Neves et al. 1997, p. 23) and alteration in the dynamic
processes involved in maintaining stream stability. Dams interrupt most
of a river's ecological processes by modifying flood pulses;
controlling impounded water elevations; altering water flow, sediments,
nutrients, energy inputs, and outputs; increasing depth; decreasing
habitat heterogeneity; and decreasing bottom stability due to
subsequent sedimentation. In addition, dams can also seriously alter
downstream water quality and riverine habitat and negatively impact
tailwater mussel populations. These changes include thermal alterations
immediately below dams; changes in channel characteristics, habitat
availability, and flow regime; daily discharge fluctuations; increased
silt loads; and altered host fish communities. For these above-
mentioned reasons, the reproductive process of riverine mussels is
generally disrupted by impoundments, making them unable to successfully
reproduce and recruit under reservoir conditions. Coldwater releases
from large non-navigational dams and scouring of the river bed from
highly fluctuating, turbulent tailwater flows have also been implicated
in the demise of mussel faunas (see critical habitat descriptions for
Units FK19 and FK20, below).
The damming of rivers has been a major factor contributing to the
demise of mussels (Bogan 1993, p. 604). Dams eliminate or reduce river
flow within impounded areas, trap silts and cause sediment deposition,
alter water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, change downstream
water flow and quality, affect normal flood patterns, and block
upstream and downstream movement of mussels and their host fishes
(Bogan 1993, p. 604; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp. 915-917; Watters 1999,
pp. 261-264; McAllister et al. 2000, p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp.
20-21). Below dams, mollusk declines are associated with changes and
fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels, reduced food availability, water temperature alteration,
and changes in resident fish assemblages (Williams et al. 1993, p. 7;
Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63-64; Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; Marcinek et
al. 2005, pp. 20-21; Moles and Layzer 2008, p. 220). Because rivers are
linear systems, these alterations can cause mussel declines for many
miles below the dam (Moles and Layzer 2008, p. 220; Vaughn and Taylor
1999, p. 916).
Population losses due to impoundments have probably contributed
more to the decline of the fluted kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel,
and other Cumberlandian Region mussels than has any other single
factor. The majority of the Cumberland and Tennessee River mainstems
and many of their largest tributaries are now impounded, and therefore,
are unsuitable for Cumberlandian Region mussels. For example,
approximately 90 percent of the 904-rkm (562-rmi) length of the
Cumberland River downstream of Cumberland Falls is either impounded
(three locks and dams and Wolf Creek Dam) or otherwise adversely
impacted by coldwater discharges from Wolf Creek Dam. Other major U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) impoundments on Cumberland River
tributaries (e.g., Obey River, Caney Fork) have inundated over 161 rkm
(100 rmi) of riverine habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and the
slabside pearlymussel. Layzer et al. (1993, p. 68) reported that 37 of
the 60 mussel species present in the Caney Fork River pre-impoundment
have been extirpated. By 1971, approximately 3,700 rkm (2,300 rmi)
(about 20 percent) of the Tennessee River and its tributaries with
drainage areas of 65 square rkm (25 square rmi) or greater were
impounded by the TVA (TVA 1971, p. 5). The subsequent completion of
additional major impoundments on tributary streams (e.g., Duck River in
1976, Little Tennessee River in 1979) significantly increased the total
river kilometers (miles) impounded behind the 36 major dams in the
Tennessee River system.
Given projected population increases and the need for municipal
water supply, other proposals for small impoundment construction are
likely in the future within the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems.
Mining and Commercial Navigation
Instream gravel mining has been implicated in the destruction of
mussel populations. Negative impacts associated with gravel mining
include stream channel modifications (e.g., altered habitat, disrupted
flow patterns, sediment transport), water quality modifications (e.g.,
increased turbidity, reduced light penetration, increased temperature),
macroinvertebrate population changes (e.g., elimination, habitat
disruption, increased sedimentation), and changes in fish populations
(e.g., impacts to spawning and nursery habitat, food web disruptions)
(Kanehl and Lyons 1992, pp. 26-27).
Gravel mining activities negatively impact the habitat of the
fluted kidneyshell in Buck Creek, one of the few remaining populations
of this species in the entire Cumberland River system. Gravel mining
activities also negatively impact the habitat of the slabside
pearlymussel in the Powell and Elk Rivers in the Tennessee River
system.
Channel modification for commercial navigation has been shown to
increase flood heights (Belt 1975, p. 684), partly as a result of an
increase in stream bed slope (Hubbard et al. 1993, p. 137). Flood
events are exacerbated, conveying large quantities of sediment,
potentially with adsorbed contaminants, into streams. Channel
maintenance often results in increased turbidity and sedimentation that
often smothers mussels (Stansbery 1970, p. 10).
Heavy metal-rich drainage from coal mining and associated
sedimentation has adversely impacted upper Cumberland and Tennessee
River system streams with historically diverse mussel faunas. Strip
mining continues to threaten mussel habitats in coal field drainages of
the Cumberland Plateau, including streams harboring small fluted
kidneyshell populations (e.g., Horse Lick Creek, Little South Fork,
Powell River, Indian Creek). Portions of the upper Tennessee River
system are also influenced by coal mining activities. Powell River
mussel populations were inversely correlated with coal fines in the
substrate; when coal fines were present, decreased filtration times and
increased movements were noted in laboratory-held mussels (Kitchel et
al. 1981, p. 25). In a quantitative study in the Powell River, a
decline of federally listed mussels and the long-term decrease in
overall species composition since about 1980 was attributed to general
stream degradation due primarily to coal mining activities in the
headwaters (Ahlstedt and Tuberville 1997, pp. 74-76). Numerous gray-
water and black-water spill events have been documented in the Powell
and Clinch River drainages over the past several years. The habitats of
Fluted
[[Page 60814]]
kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and other mussels in the Clinch and
Powell rivers are increasingly being threatened by coal mining
activities.
Oil and Natural Gas Development
Oil and natural gas resources are present in some of the watersheds
that are known or historically were known to support the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel, including the Clinch, Powell,
and Big South Fork Rivers. Exploration and extraction of these energy
resources has the potential to result in increased siltation, a changed
hydrograph (flow regime), and altered water quantity and quality even
at a distance from the mine or well field. Although oil and natural gas
extraction generally occurs away from the river, extensive road and
pipeline networks are required to construct and maintain wells and
transport the extracted resources. These road and pipeline networks
frequently cross or occur near tributaries, contributing sediment to
the receiving waterway. In addition, the construction and operation of
wells may result in the illegal discharge of chemical contaminants and
subsurface minerals.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation is one of the most significant pollution problems for
aquatic organisms (Waters 1995, pp. 2-3), and has been determined to be
a major factor in mussel declines (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-40). Sources of
silt and sediment include poorly designed and executed timber
harvesting operations and associated activities; complete clearing of
riparian vegetation for agricultural, silvicultural, or other purposes;
and those construction, mining, and other practices that allow exposed
earth to enter streams. Agricultural activities, specifically an
increase in cattle grazing and the resultant nutrient enrichment and
loss of riparian vegetation along the stream, are responsible for much
of the sediment (Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000, p. 193; Hanlon et al. 2009,
pp. 11-12).
Heavy sediment loads can destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a
corresponding shift in mussel fauna (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100).
Excessive sedimentation can lead to rapid changes in stream channel
position, channel shape, and bed elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p.
102). Sedimentation has also been shown to impair the filter feeding
ability of mussels, and high amounts of suspended sediments can dilute
their food source (Dennis 1984, p. 212). We will describe the
detrimental actions of sedimentation in Factor E, below.
Chemical Contaminants
Chemical contaminants are ubiquitous throughout the environment and
are considered a major threat in the decline of mussel species (Richter
et al. 1997, p. 1081; Strayer et al. 2004, p. 436; Wang et al. 2007a,
p. 2029; Cope et al. 2008, p. 451). Chemicals enter the environment
through both point and nonpoint discharges including spills, industrial
sources, municipal effluents, and agricultural runoff. These sources
contribute organic compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, and a wide
variety of newly emerging contaminants to the aquatic environment. As a
result, water and sediment quality can be degraded to the extent that
mussel habitats and populations are adversely impacted. We will
describe the detrimental actions of chemicals in Factor E, below.
Other Stream Channel Alterations
Other stream channel alterations that can impact mussel habitats
include bridges, other road crossing structures, and activities that
lower water tables (withdrawals). Culverts can act as barriers to fish
passage (Wheeler et al. 2005, p. 149), particularly by increasing flow
velocity (Warren and Pardew 1998, p. 637). Stream channels become
destabilized when improperly designed culverts or bridges change the
morphology and interrupt the transport of woody debris, substrate, and
water (Wheeler et al. 2005, p. 152). Water withdrawals for irrigation,
municipal, and industrial water supplies are an increasing concern.
U.S. water consumption doubled from 1960 to 2000, and is likely to
increase further (Naiman and Turner 2000, p. 960). Therefore, we
anticipate road crossings, water withdrawals, and potential stream
dewatering to be threats to the habitat of the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel.
Summary of Factor A
Habitat loss and degradation negatively impact the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. Severe degradation from
impoundments, gravel and coal mining, oil and natural gas development,
sedimentation, chemical contaminants, and stream channel alterations
threaten the stream habitat and water quality on which these species
depend. Contaminants associated with coal mining (metals, other
dissolved solids), municipal effluents (bacteria, nutrients,
pharmaceuticals), and agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
and animal waste) cause degradation of water quality and habitats
through increased acidity and conductivity, instream oxygen
deficiencies, excess nutrification, and excessive algal growths.
Furthermore, these threats faced by the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are imminent; the result of ongoing projects that are
expected to continue indefinitely, therefore perpetuating these
impacts. As a result of the imminence of these threats, combined with
the vulnerability of the remaining small, isolated populations to
extirpation from natural and manmade threats, we have determined that
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the habitat and range of these species represents a threat to both the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are not
commercially valuable species, but may be increasingly sought by
collectors, due to their increasing rarity. Although scientific
collecting is not thought to represent a significant threat, localized
populations could become impacted, and possibly extirpated, by
overcollecting, particularly if regulations governing collection
activity (currently scientific collection is controlled by the States
through the issuance of collection permits; see Factor D below) are not
enforced.
In summary, the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are
not commercially utilized but might be increasingly sought for
scientific or educational purposes as their rarity becomes known. We do
not consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes to be a threat to either species now or likely
to become a threat in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Little is known about diseases in mussels (Grizzle and Brunner
2007, p. 6). Several mussel dieoffs have been documented during the
past 20 years (Neves 1987, pp. 8-11). Although the ultimate cause is
unknown, some researchers believe that disease may be a factor. Warren
and Haag (2005, p. 1394) hypothesized that declines in the Little South
Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky, mussel fauna, including the once
abundant fluted kidneyshell population, may have been at least
partially attributed to disease, but no definitive cause has been
determined. We have no specific documentation indicating that disease
poses a threat to slabside pearlymussel populations.
[[Page 60815]]
Juvenile and adult mussels are prey items for some invertebrate
predators and parasites (for example, nematodes and mites), and are
prey for a few vertebrate species (for example, raccoons, muskrats,
otters, and turtles) (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 225-240). Mussel
parasites include water mites, trematodes, oligochaetes, leeches,
copepods, bacteria, and protozoa (Grizzle and Brunner 2007, p. 6).
Generally, parasites are not suspected of being a major limiting factor
(Oesch 1984, p. 16); however, Gangloff et al. (2008, pp. 28-30) found
that reproductive output and physiological condition were negatively
correlated with mite and trematodes abundance, respectively. Stressors
that reduce fitness may make mussels more susceptible to parasites
(Butler 2007, p. 90).
Muskrat predation on the fluted kidneyshell represents a localized
threat, as determined by Neves and Odum (1989, entire) in the upper
North Fork Holston River in Virginia. They concluded that muskrat
predation could limit the recovery potential of endangered mussel
species or contribute to the local extirpation of already depleted
mussel populations. Although other mammals (e.g., raccoon, mink)
occasionally feed on mussels, the threat from these predators is not
considered to be significant. Predation does occur, but it is
considered to be a normal aspect of the species' population dynamics.
In summary, there is little information on disease in mussels, and
disease is not currently considered to be a threat to the fluted
kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel and it is not likely to become so
in the future. Although predation does occur and impacts local
populations, we conclude that predation is not a threat to these
species as a whole or likely to become so in the future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), is
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint
pollution sources. The CWA has a stated goal that ``* * * wherever
attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1,
1983.'' States are responsible for setting and implementing water
quality standards that align with the requirements of the CWA. Overall,
implementation of the CWA could benefit both mussel species through the
point and nonpoint programs.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources,
unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants. NPS
pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves, it transports natural and human-made
pollutants to lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and ground
waters. States report that nonpoint source pollution is the leading
remaining cause of water quality problems. The effects of nonpoint
source pollutants on specific waters vary and may not always be fully
assessed. However, these pollutants have harmful effects on fisheries
and wildlife (https://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/whatis.html).
Sources of NPS pollution within the watersheds occupied by both
mussels include agriculture, clearing of riparian vegetation,
urbanization, road construction, and other practices that allow bare
earth to enter streams. The Service has no information concerning the
implementation of the CWA regarding NPS pollution specific to
protection of both mussels. However, insufficient implementation could
become a threat to both mussel species if they continue to decline in
numbers.
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel continue to
decline due to the effects of habitat destruction, poor water quality,
contaminants, and other factors. However, there is no specific
information known about the sensitivity of these mussels to common
point source pollutants like industrial and municipal pollutants and
very little information on other freshwater mussels. Because there is
very little information known about water quality parameters necessary
to fully protect freshwater mussels, such as the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel, it is difficult to determine whether the CWA is
adequately addressing the habitat and water quality threats to these
species. However, given that a goal of the CWA is to establish water
quality standards that protect shellfish and given that documented
declines of these mussel species still continue due to poor water
quality and other factors, we take a conservative approach in favor of
the species and conclude that the CWA has been insufficient to
significantly reduce or remove the threats to the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel. We invite public comment on this matter, and
solicit information especially regarding water quality data that may be
helpful in determining the water quality parameters necessary for these
species' survival (see Information Requested, item 4).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the CWA has a stated goal to establish water quality
standards that protect aquatic species, including the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. However, the CWA has generally
been insufficient at protecting mussels, and adequate water quality
criteria that are protective of all life stages, particularly glochidia
and juveniles, may not be established. Little information is known
about specific sensitivities of mussels to various pollutants, but both
species continue to decline due to the effects of habitat destruction,
poor water quality, contaminants, and other factors. Based on our
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we
conclude that the current implementation of the provisions under the
CWA to protect water quality for aquatic species is inadequate to
reduce or remove threats to the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel throughout all of their range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Altered Temperature Regimes
Natural temperature regimes can be altered by impoundments, water
releases from dams, industrial and municipal effluents, and changes in
riparian habitat. Critical thermal limits for survival and normal
functioning of many mussel species are unknown. High temperatures can
reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water, which slows
growth, reduces glycogen stores, impairs respiration, and may inhibit
reproduction (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 240-241). Low temperatures can
significantly delay or prevent metamorphosis (Watters and O'Dee 1999,
pp. 454-455). Water temperature increases have been documented to
shorten the period of glochidial encystment, reduce the speed in which
they turn upright, increase oxygen consumption, and slow burrowing and
movement responses (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 240-241; Bartsch et al.
2000, p. 237; Watters et al. 2001, p. 546; Schwalb and Pusch 2007, pp.
264-265). Several studies have documented the influence of temperature
on the timing of aspects of mussel reproduction (for example, Gray et
al. 2002, p. 156; Allen et al. 2007, p. 85; Steingraeber et al. 2007,
pp. 303-309). Peak glochidial
[[Page 60816]]
releases are associated with water temperature thresholds that can be
thermal minimums or thermal maximums, depending on the species (Watters
and O'Dee 2000, p. 136). Abnormal temperature changes may cause
particular problems to mussels whose reproductive cycles may be linked
to fish reproductive cycles Young and Williams 1984, entire).
Chemical Contaminants
Chemical spills can be especially devastating to mussels because
they may result in exposure of a relatively immobile species to
extremely elevated contaminant concentrations that far exceed toxic
levels and any water quality standards that might be in effect. Some
notable spills that released large quantities of highly concentrated
chemicals resulting in mortality to mussels and host fish include a
kill on the Clinch River at Carbo, Virginia, from a power plant
alkaline fly ash pond spill in 1967, and a sulfuric acid spill in 1970
(Crossman et al. 1973, p. 6). Approximately 18,000 mussels of several
species, including the fluted kidneyshell and 750 individuals from
three endangered mussel species (tan riffleshell, Epioblasma florentina
walkeri; purple bean, Villosa perpurpurea; and rough rabbitsfoot,
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), were eliminated from the upper Clinch
River near Cedar Bluff, Virginia, in 1998, when an overturned tanker
truck released approximately 6,100 liters (1,600 gallons) of a chemical
used in rubber manufacturing (Jones et al. 2001, p. 20; Schmerfeld
2006, p. 12). These are not the only instances where chemical spills
have resulted in the loss of high numbers of mussels (Neves 1991, p.
252; Jones et al. 2001, p. 20; Brown et al. 2005, p. 1457; Schmerfeld
2006, pp. 12-13), but are provided as examples of the serious threat
chemical spills pose to mussel species, such as the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel.
Cope et al. (2008, p. 451) evaluated the pathways of exposure to
environmental pollutants for all four mollusk life stages (free
glochidia, encysted glochidia, juveniles, and adults) and found that
each life stage has both common and unique characteristics that
contribute to observed differences in contaminant exposure and
sensitivity. Very little is known of the potential mechanisms and
consequences of waterborne toxicants on sperm viability. However,
Watters (2011) demonstrated that the spermatozeugmata (sperm ball)
produced and released by male mussels are sensitive to varying levels
of salinity. When exposed to high enough salinity levels, the
spermatozeugmata disassociate and can be rendered nonviable if they
disassociate prior to entering a female mussel. This may pose yet
another significant challenge for mussels to successfully fertilize
eggs and promote recruitment if exposed to elevated salinity or
conductivity levels in the ambient water column.
In the female mollusk, the marsupial region of the gill currently
is thought to be physiologically isolated from respiratory functions,
and this isolation may provide some level of protection from
contaminant interference with a female's ability to achieve
fertilization or brood glochidia (Cope et al. 2008, p. 454). A major
exception to this assertion is with chemicals that act directly on the
neuroendocrine pathways controlling reproduction (see discussion
below). Nutritional and ionic exchange is possible between a brooding
female and her glochidia, providing a route for chemicals (accumulated
or waterborne) to disrupt biochemical and physiological pathways (such
as maternal calcium transport for construction of the glochidial
shell).
Juvenile mussels typically remain burrowed beneath the sediment
surface for 2 to 4 years. Residence beneath the sediment surface
necessitates deposit (pedal) feeding and a reliance on interstitial
(pore) water for dissolved oxygen (Watters 2007, p. 56). The relative
importance of juvenile fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
exposure to contaminants in overlying surface water, interstitial
(pore) water, whole sediment, or food has not been adequately assessed.
Exposure to contaminants from each of these routes varies with certain
periods and environmental conditions (Cope et al. 2008, pp. 453, 457).
The primary routes of exposure to contaminants for adult fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are surface water, sediment,
interstitial (pore) water, and diet; adults can be exposed when either
partially or completely burrowed in the substrate (Cope et al. 2008, p.
453). Adult mussels have some ability to detect certain toxicants in
the water and close their valves to avoid exposure (Van Hassel and
Farris 2007, p. 6). Adult mussel toxicity and relative sensitivity
(exposure and uptake of toxicants) may be reduced at high rather than
at low toxicant concentrations because uptake is affected by the
prolonged or periodic toxicant avoidance responses (when the avoidance
behavior can no longer be sustained for physiological reasons) (Cope et
al. 2008, p. 454). Toxicity results based on low-level exposure of
adults are similar to estimates for glochidia and juveniles for some
toxicants (for example, copper). The duration of any toxicant avoidance
response by an adult mussel is likely to be affected by several
variables, such as species, age, shell thickness and gape, properties
of the toxicant, and water temperature. There is a lack of information
on toxicant response(s) specific to adult mussels (including the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel), but results of tests using
glochidia and juveniles may be valuable for protecting adults (Cope et
al. 2008, p. 454).
Exposure to lower concentrations of contaminants, more likely to be
found in aquatic environments, can also adversely affect mussels and
result in the decline of mussel species. Such concentrations may not be
immediately lethal, but over time, can result in mortality, reduced
filtration efficiency, reduced growth, decreased reproduction, changes
in enzyme activity, and behavioral changes to all mussel life stages.
Frequently, procedures that evaluate the `safe' concentration of an
environmental contaminant (e.g., national water quality criteria) do
not have data for mussel species or exclude data that is available for
mussels (March et al. 2007, pp. 2066-2067, 2073).
Current research is now focusing on the contaminant sensitivity of
mussel glochidia and newly-released juvenile mussels (Goudreau et al.
1993, pp. 219-222; Jacobson et al. 1997, p. 2390; Valenti et al. 2005,
pp. 1244-1245; Valenti et al. 2006, pp. 2514-2517; March et al. 2007,
pp. 2068-2073; Wang et al. 2007b, pp. 2041-2046) and juveniles
(Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569; Bartsch et al. 2003, p. 2561; Mummert
et al. 2003, p. 2549; Valenti et al. 2005, pp. 1244-1245; Valenti et
al. 2006, pp. 2514-2517; March et al. 2007, pp. 2068-2073; Wang et al.
2007b, pp. 2041-2046; Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2053-2055) to such
contaminants as ammonia, metals, chlorine, and pesticides.
One chemical that is particularly toxic to early life stages of
mussels is ammonia. Sources of ammonia include agriculture (animal
feedlots and nitrogenous fertilizers), municipal wastewater treatment
plants, and industrial waste (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2026) as well
as precipitation and natural processes (i.e., decomposition of organic
nitrogen) (Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 212; Hickey and Martin 1999, p. 44;
Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569; Newton 2003, p. 1243). Therefore,
ammonia is considered a limiting factor for survival and recovery of
some mussel species
[[Page 60817]]
due to its ubiquity in aquatic environments and high level of toxicity,
and because the highest concentrations typically occur within
microhabitats inhabited by mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2574).
In addition, studies have shown that ammonia concentrations increase
with increasing temperature and low flow conditions (Cherry et al.
2005, p. 378; Cooper et al. 2005, p. 381), which may be exacerbated by
the effects of climate change, and may cause ammonia to become more
problematic for juvenile mussels.
Mussels are also affected by heavy metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p.
543) such as cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc, which can
negatively affect biological processes such as growth, filtration
efficiency, enzyme activity, valve closure, and behavior (Keller and
Zam 1991, p. 543; Naimo 1995, pp. 351-355; Jacobson et al. 1997, p.
2390; Valenti et al. 2005, p. 1244). Heavy metals occur in industrial
and wastewater effluents and are often a result of atmospheric
deposition from industrial processes and incinerators. Glochidia and
juvenile mussels have recently been studied to determine the acute and
chronic toxicity of copper to these life stages (Wang et al. 2007b, pp.
2036-2047; Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2048-2056). The chronic values
determined for copper for survival and growth of juveniles are below
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1996 chronic water quality
criterion for copper (Wang et al. 2007c, pp. 2052-2055). March (2007,
pp. 2066 and 2073) identified that copper water quality criteria and
modified State water quality standards may not be protective of
mussels.
Mercury is another heavy metal that has the potential to negatively
affect mussel populations, and it is receiving attention due to its
widespread distribution and potential to adversely impact the
environment. Mercury has been detected throughout aquatic environments
as a product of municipal and industrial waste and atmospheric
deposition from coal burning plants. Valenti et al. (2005, p. 1242)
determined that for rainbow mussel, Villosa iris, glochidia were more
sensitive to mercury than juvenile mussels, and that reduced growth in
juveniles is seen when observed concentrations are higher than EPA's
criteria for mercury. Based on these data, we believe that EPA's water
quality standards for mercury should be protective of juvenile mussels
and glochidia, except in cases of illegal dumping, permit violations,
or spills. However, impacts to mussels from mercury toxicity may be
occurring in some streams. According to the National Summary Data
reported by States to the EPA, 4,716 monitored waters do not meet EPA
standards for mercury in the United States (https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T, accessed 6/28/
2012). Acute mercury toxicity was determined to be the cause of
extirpation of a diverse mussel fauna for a 112-rkm (70-rmi) portion of
the North Fork Holston River (Brown et al. 2005, pp. 1455-1457).
In addition to ammonia, agricultural sources of chemical
contaminants include two broad categories that have the potential to
adversely impact mussel species: nutrients and pesticides. Nutrients
(such as nitrogen and phosphorus) can impact streams when their
concentrations reach levels that cannot be assimilated, a condition
known as over-enrichment. Nutrient over-enrichment is primarily a
result of runoff from livestock farms, feedlots, and heavily fertilized
row crops (Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1471). Over-enriched
conditions are exacerbated by low-flow conditions, such as those
experienced during typical summer-season flows and that might occur
with greater frequency and magnitude as a result of climate change.
Bauer (1988, p. 244) found that excessive nitrogen concentrations can
be detrimental to the adult pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera),
as was evident by the positive linear relationship between mortality
and nitrate concentration. Also, a study of mussel life span and size
(Bauer 1992, p. 425) showed a negative correlation between growth rate
and eutrophication, and longevity was reduced as the concentration of
nitrates increased. Nutrient over-enrichment can result in an increase
in primary productivity, and the subsequent respiration depletes
dissolved oxygen levels. This may be particularly detrimental to
juvenile mussels, which inhabit the interstitial spaces in the
substrate, where lower dissolved oxygen concentrations are more likely
than on the sediment surface where adults tend to live (Sparks and
Strayer 1998, pp. 132-133).
Elevated concentrations of pesticide frequently occur in streams
due to runoff, overspray application to row crops, and lack of adequate
riparian buffers. Agricultural pesticide applications and the
reproductive and early life stages of mussels often coincide in the
spring and summer, and thus impacts to mussels due to pesticides may be
increased (Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2094). Little is known regarding
the impact of currently used pesticides to mussels even though some
pesticides, such as glyphosate (e.g., Roundup\TM\), are used globally.
Recent studies tested the toxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and
a surfactant (MON 0818) used in several glyphosate formulations, to
early life stages of the fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea) (Bringolf et
al. 2007c, p. 2094). Studies conducted with juvenile mussels and
glochidia determined that the surfactant (MON 0818) was the most toxic
of the compounds tested and that fatmucket glochidia were the most
sensitive of organisms tested to date (Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2094).
Roundup\TM\), technical grade glyphosate isopropylamine salt, and
isopropylamine were also acutely toxic to juveniles and glochidia
(Bringolf et al. 2007c, p. 2097). The impacts of other pesticides
including atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin on glochidia and
juvenile life stages have also recently been studied (Bringolf et al.
2007a, p. 2101). This study determined that chlorpyrifos was toxic to
both fatmucket glochidia and juveniles (Bringolf et al. 2007a, p.
2104). The above results indicate the potential toxicity of commonly
applied pesticides and the threat to mussel species as a result of the
widespread use of these pesticides. All of these pesticides are
commonly used throughout the range of the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel.
Pharmaceutical chemicals used in commonly consumed drugs are
increasingly found in surface waters downstream from municipal
effluents. A recent nationwide study sampling 139 stream sites in 30
States detected the presence of numerous pharmaceuticals, hormones, and
other organic wastewater contaminants downstream from urban development
and livestock production areas (Kolpin et al. 2002, pp. 1208-1210).
Exposure to waterborne and, potentially to sediment, toxicant chemicals
that act directly on the neuroendocrine pathways controlling
reproduction can cause premature release of viable or nonviable
glochidia. For example, the active ingredient in many human
prescription anti-depressant drugs belonging to the class of selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors may exert negative reproductive effects
on mussels because of their action on serotonin and other
neuroendocrine pathways (Cope et al. 2008, pp. 455). These waterborne
chemicals alter mussel behavior and influence successful attachment of
glochidia on fish hosts and, therefore, may have population level
implications for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
This information indicates it is likely that chemical contaminants
have contributed to declining fluted
[[Page 60818]]
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel populations, and will likely
continue to be a threat to these species in the future. These threats
result from spills that are immediately lethal to species, as well as
chronic contaminant exposure, which results in death, reduced growth,
or reduced reproduction of fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Sedimentation
Impacts resulting from sediments have been noted for many
components of aquatic communities. For example, sediments have been
shown to abrade or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to
underwater surfaces); affect respiration, growth, reproductive success,
and behavior of aquatic insects and mussels; and affect fish growth,
survival, and reproduction (Waters 1995, pp. 173-175). When in high
silt environments, mussels may keep their valves closed more often,
resulting in reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p. 30).
Increased turbidity from suspended sediment can reduce or eliminate
juvenile mussel recruitment (Negus 1966, p. 525; Box and Mossa 1999,
pp. 101-102). Many mussel species use visual cues to attract host
fishes; such a reproductive strategy depends on clear water for
success. For example, increased turbidity may impact the southern
sandshell, Hamiota australis, life cycle by reducing the chance that a
sight-feeding host fish will encounter the visual display of its
superconglutinate lure (Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; Blalock-Herod et al.
2002, p. 1885). If the superconglutinate is not encountered by a host
within a short time period, the glochidia will become nonviable
(O'Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 133). Also, evidence suggests that
conglutinates of the southern kidneyshell (another species of
Ptychobranchus, P. jonesi), once released from the female mussel in an
attempt to lure potential host fish, must adhere to hard surfaces in
order to be seen by its fish host. If the surface becomes covered in
fine sediments, the conglutinate cannot attach and is swept away
(Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 373).
Population Fragmentation and Isolation
Population isolation prohibits the natural interchange of genetic
material between populations, and small population size reduces the
reservoir of genetic diversity within populations, which can lead to
inbreeding depression (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146). Small,
isolated populations, therefore, are more susceptible to environmental
pressures, including habitat degradation and stochastic events, and
thus are the most susceptible to extinction (Primack 2008, pp. 151-
153). It is likely that some populations of the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel are below the effective population size
(Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 162-264; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 147-
170) required to maintain long-term genetic and population viability.
The present distribution and status of the fluted kidneyshell in
the upper Cumberland River system in Kentucky may provide an excellent
example of the detrimental bottleneck effect resulting when a minimum
viable population size is not maintained. A once large population of
this species occurred throughout the upper Cumberland River mainstem
below Cumberland Falls and in several larger tributary systems. In this
region, there were no absolute barriers to genetic interchange among
its subpopulations (and those of its host fishes) that occurred in
various streams. With the completion of Wolf Creek Dam in the late
1960s, the mainstem population was soon extirpated, and the remaining
populations isolated by the filling of Cumberland Reservoir. Whereas
small, isolated, tributary populations of imperiled short-lived species
(e.g., most fishes) would have died out within a decade or so after
impoundment, the long-lived fluted kidneyshell would potentially take
decades to expire post-impoundment. Without the level of genetic
interchange the species experienced historically (i.e., without the
reservoir barrier), isolated populations may be slowly dying out. The
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel were similarly isolated by
the completion of multiple reservoirs in the Tennessee River system.
Even given the improbable absence of anthropogenic impacts, we may lose
smaller isolated populations of the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel to the devastating consequences of below-threshold
effective population size (the minimum population size that is needed
for the population to reproduce and continue to be viable). In reality,
degradation of these isolated stream reaches and the resulting decline
in suitable habitat is contributing to the decline of both species.
Random Catastrophic Events
The remaining populations of the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel are generally small and geographically isolated. The
patchy distribution pattern of populations in short river reaches makes
them much more susceptible to extirpation from single catastrophic
events, such as toxic chemical spills. Such a spill occurred in the
upper Clinch River in 1998, killing many fluted kidneyshell and
thousands of specimens of other mussel species, including three
federally listed species (Henley et al. 2002, entire). High levels of
isolation makes natural recolonization of any extirpated population
impossible.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean (average) and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007,
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
There is a growing concern that climate change may lead to
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p.
504). Specific effects of climate change to mussels, their habitat, and
their fish hosts could include changes in stream temperature regimes,
the timing and levels of precipitation causing more frequent and severe
floods and droughts, and nonindigenous species introductions. Increases
in temperature and reductions in flow may also lower dissolved oxygen
levels in interstitial habitats which can be lethal to juveniles
(Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 131-133). Effects to mussel populations
from these environmental changes could include reduced abundance and
biomass, altered species composition, and reduced host fish
availability (Galbraith et al. 2010, pp. 1180-1182). The present
conservation status, complex life
[[Page 60819]]
histories, and specific habitat requirements of mussels suggest that
they may be quite sensitive to the effects of climate change (Hastie et
al. 2003, p. 45).
During high flows, flood scour can dislodge mussels where they may
be injured, buried, swept into unsuitable habitats, or stranded and
perish when flood waters recede (Vannote and Minshall 1982, p. 4105;
Tucker 1996, p. 435; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 107-115; Peterson et al.
2011, unpaginated). During drought, stream channels may become
disconnected pools where mussels are exposed to higher water
temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen levels, and easier collection by
predators, or channels may become dewatered entirely. Increased human
demand and competition for surface and ground water resources for
irrigation and consumption during drought can cause drastic reductions
in stream flows and alterations to hydrology (Golladay et al. 2004, p.
504; Golladay et al. 2007, unpaginated). Extended droughts occurred in
the Southeast during 1998 to 2002, and again in 2006 to 2008. The
effects of these recent droughts on these mussels are unknown; however,
substantial declines in mussel diversity and abundance as a direct
result of drought have been documented in southeastern streams
(Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 494-503; Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1165).
Nonindigenous Species
The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been introduced to the
Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages and may be adversely affecting
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel through direct
competition for space and resources. The Asian clam may pose a direct
threat to native mussels, particularly as juveniles, as a competitor
for resources such as food, nutrients, and space (Neves and Widlak
1987, p. 6). Dense populations of Asian clams may ingest large numbers
of unionid sperm, glochidia, and newly metamorphosed juveniles, and may
actively disturb sediments, reducing habitable space for juvenile
native mussels or displacing them downstream (Strayer 1999, p. 82;
Yeager et al. 2000, pp. 255-256).
Asian clam densities vary widely in the absence of native mussels
or in patches with sparse mussel concentrations, but Asian clam density
is rarely observed to be high in dense mussel beds, indicating that the
clam is unable to successfully invade small-scale habitat patches with
high unionid biomass (Vaughn and Spooner 2006, pp. 334-335). The
invading clam, therefore, appears to preferentially invade sites where
mussels are already in decline (Strayer 1999, pp. 82-83; Vaughn and
Spooner 2006, pp. 332-336) and does not appear to be a causative factor
in the decline of mussels in dense beds. However, an Asian clam
population that thrives in previously stressed, sparse mussel
populations might exacerbate unionid imperilment through competition
and impeding mussel population expansion (Vaughn and Spooner 2006, pp.
335-336).
Summary for Factor E
We have determined that other natural and manmade factors, such as
alteration of natural temperature regimes; chemical contaminants;
sedimentation; small, isolated populations; and low genetic diversity,
combined with localized extinctions from point source pollution or
accidental toxic chemical spills, habitat modification and progressive
degradation by nonpoint source pollutants, natural catastrophic changes
to habitat through flood scour or drought, and nonindigenous species
are threats to remaining populations of the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel across their respective ranges.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. Section 3(6) of
the Act defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and section 3(20) of the Act defines a threatened species as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' As described in detail above, these two species occupy only
portions of their historical ranges, are limited to a handful of viable
populations, and are currently at risk throughout all of their
respective ranges due to ongoing threats of habitat destruction and
modification (Factor A), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D), and other natural or manmade factors affecting their
continued existence (Factor E). Specifically, these threats include
impoundments, mining, oil and gas exploration, sedimentation, chemical
contaminants, temperature regime alterations, recurring drought and
flooding, population fragmentation and isolation, loss of fish hosts,
and the introduced Asian clam. We believe these threats are currently
impacting these species and are projected to continue and potentially
worsen in the future.
Species with small ranges, few populations, and small or declining
population sizes are the most vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008,
p. 137). The effects of certain factors, particularly habitat
degradation and loss, catastrophic events, and introduced species,
increase in magnitude when population size is small (Soul[eacute] 1987,
pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133-135, 152). We believe that, when
combining the effects of historical, current, and future habitat loss
and degradation; historical and ongoing drought; and the exacerbating
effects of small and declining population sizes and curtailed ranges,
the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are in danger of
extinction throughout all of their ranges. In addition, any factor
(i.e., habitat loss or natural and manmade factors) that results in a
further decline in habitat or individuals may be problematic for the
long-term recovery of these species.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we propose to list the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel as endangered species throughout all of their ranges. We
believe that, when combining the effects of historical, current, and
future habitat loss and degradation; historical and ongoing drought;
and the exacerbating effects of small and declining population sizes
and curtailed ranges, the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges.
Furthermore, we examined both species to analyze if any significant
portions of their ranges may warrant a different status. However,
because of their limited and curtailed ranges, and uniformity of the
threats throughout their entire respective ranges, we find there are no
significant portions of any of the species' ranges that may warrant a
different determination of status.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
[[Page 60820]]
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed wildlife are
discussed in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation and are further
discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernment organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
under section 6 of the Act, States would be eligible for Federal funds
to implement management actions that promote the protection and
recovery of these two species. Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this
species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on
this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management of and any other landscape altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service;
issuance of section 404 CWA permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; licensing of hydroelectric dams, and construction and
management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way approved by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; issuance of 26a permits by the
Tennessee Valley Authority; construction and maintenance of roads or
highways funded by the Federal Highway Administration; and land
management practices administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. It has been the experience of the Service from
consultations on other species, however, that nearly all section 7
consultations have been resolved so that the species have been
protected and the project objectives have been met.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these),
import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C.
3371-3378), it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of
[[Page 60821]]
section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon these mussel species, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) and Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea).
(3) Unauthorized modification of the channel, substrate,
temperature, or water flow of any stream or water body in which these
species are known to occur.
(4) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any
waters in which the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are
known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 1875
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345; telephone: 404-679-
7140; facsimile: 404-679-7081.
Critical Habitat for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel
Background
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel in this section of the proposed
rule.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed must contain physical or biological features (PBFs) which
are (1) essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may
require special management considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known
using the best scientific and commercial data available, those PBFs
that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space,
food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and
biological features within an area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent
elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water
quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements are the specific elements of PBFs
that provide for a species' life-history processes.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326).
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas
[[Page 60822]]
that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may
not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to
the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools would continue to
contribute to recovery of these species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation would not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or
other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
As discussed above under Factor B, there is currently no imminent
threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism for these species,
and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new
areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to
the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the two
species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude that critical habitat is
determinable for these two species.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within
the geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the PBFs essential to the conservation of
the species which may require special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs required for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel based on their biological needs. Little is known
of the specific habitat requirements of these two mussel species other
than they require flowing water, stable stream channels, adequate water
quality, and fish hosts for development of larva to metamorphose into
juvenile mussels. To identify the physical and biological needs of the
species, we have relied on current conditions at locations where the
species survive, the limited information available on these two mussels
and their close relatives, and factors associated with the decline and
extirpation of these and other mussels from portions of the Cumberland
and Tennessee River systems. Additional information can be found in the
Background section of this proposed rule. We have determined that the
following PBFs are essential for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are historically
associated with the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia. Mussels
generally live embedded in the bottom of stable streams and other
bodies of water, and within riffle areas of sufficient current
velocities to remove finer sediments and provide well-oxygenated
waters. The fluted kidneyshell is primarily a medium-sized creek to
large river species, inhabiting sand and gravel substrates in
relatively shallow riffles and shoals with moderate to swift current
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 205). In comparison to co-occurring
species, the fluted kidneyshell demonstrates strong habitat
specificity. It is associated with faster flows, greater baseflow shear
stress, and low substrate embeddedness (Ostby 2005, pp. 51, 142-143).
The slabside pearlymussel is primarily a large creek to large river
species, inhabiting sand, fine gravel, and cobble substrates in
relatively
[[Page 60823]]
shallow riffles and shoals with moderate current (Parmalee and Bogan
1998, p. 152).
Fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel, similar to other
mussels, are dependent on areas with flow refuges where shear stress is
relatively low, although the fluted kidneyshell is more tolerant of
shear stress than other species, and sediments remain stable during
flood events (Layzer and Madison 1995, p. 341; Strayer 1999, pp. 468
and 472; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 111-114). Flow refuges conceivably
allow relatively immobile mussels such as the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel to remain in the same general location throughout
their entire lives.
Natural river or creek channel stability are achieved by allowing
the river or creek to develop a stable dimension, pattern, and profile
such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the river or
creek system neither aggrades nor degrades. Channel instability occurs
when the scouring process leads to degradation, or excessive sediment
deposition results in aggradation. Stable rivers and creeks
consistently transport their sediment load, both in size and type,
associated with local deposition and scour (Rosgen 1996, p. 1-3).
Sedimentation has been determined to be a major factor in habitat
destruction, resulting in corresponding shift in mussel fauna (Brim Box
and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Stable stream bottom substrates not only
provide space for populations of these mussel species, but also provide
cover and shelter and sites for breeding, reproduction, and growth of
offspring.
Habitat conditions described in the previous paragraphs provide
space, cover, shelter, and sites for breeding, reproduction, and growth
of offspring for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
These habitats are dynamic and are formed and maintained by water
quantity, channel features (dimension, pattern, and profile), and
sediment input to the system through periodic flooding, which maintains
connectivity and interaction with the flood plain. Changes in one or
more of these parameters can result in channel degradation or
aggradation, with serious effects to mussels.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify riffles of
large creeks and rivers with sand, gravel, and cobble substrates; areas
of moderate to high amount of flow, but with refugia of low shear
stress; stream channel stability; and floodplain connectivity to be
PBFs for both of these species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Mussels, such as these two species, siphon water into their shells
and across four gills that are specialized for respiration, food
collection, and brooding larvae in females. Food items include detritus
(disintegrated organic debris), algae, diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer
et al. 2004, pp. 430-431). Encysted glochidia are nourished by their
fish hosts and feed for a period of one week to several months.
Nutrient uptake by glochidia is not well understood, but probably
occurs through the microvillae of the mantle (Watters 2007, p. 55). For
the first several months, juvenile mussels partially employ pedal
(foot) feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus from the
sediment, although they also may filter interstitial (pore) water
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217-221). However, their gills are rudimentary
and generally incapable of filtering particles (Watters 2007, p. 56).
Adult mussels also can obtain their food by deposit feeding, pulling in
food from the sediment and its interstitial (pore) water and pedal
feeding directly from the sediment (Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217-221;
Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001, pp. 1432-1438). Food availability and
quality for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel in their
habitats are affected by habitat stability, floodplain connectivity,
flow, and water and sediment quality. Excessive sedimentation has been
shown to impair the filter feeding ability of mussels. When in high
silt environments, mussels may keep their valves closed more often,
resulting in reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p. 30), and high
amounts of suspended sediments can dilute their food source (Dennis
1984, p. 212). Adequate food availability and quality is essential for
normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life stages of these
two species. Excessive sedimentation often results in fine silt
particles culminating within interstitial spaces, embedding and even
concretizing the substrate and virtually altering habitat to such a
degree that it becomes uninhabitable for mussels, particularly
juveniles.
The fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are riverine
species that depend upon adequate water flow. Continuously flowing
water is a habitat feature associated with both of these species.
Flowing water maintains the stream bottom habitats where these species
are found, transports food items to the sedentary juvenile and adult
life stages, removes wastes, and provides oxygen for respiration. A
natural flow regime that includes periodic flooding and maintains
connectivity and interaction with the floodplain is critical for the
exchange of nutrients, movement of and spawning activities for
potential fish hosts, and maintenance of flow refuges in riffle and run
habitats. Further, riffle areas are often defined by an abundance and
diversity of organisms that likely have dependent and competitive
interactions yet unknown, but that are important for riffle-dwelling
mussel species such as the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
The ranges of standard physical and chemical water quality
parameters (such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
conductivity) that define suitable habitat conditions for the two
species have not been investigated or are poorly understood. However,
as relatively sedentary animals, mussels must tolerate the full range
of such parameters that occur naturally within the streams where they
persist. The pathways of exposure to a variety of environmental
pollutants for all four mussel life stages (free and encysted
glochidia, juveniles, and adults) and differences in exposure and
sensitivity were previously discussed (see Factor A). Environmental
contamination is a causal (contributing) factor in the decline of
mussel populations.
We currently believe that most numeric standards for pollutants and
water quality parameters (for example, dissolved oxygen, pH, and heavy
metals) that have been adopted by the States under the CWA represent
levels that are essential to the conservation of both mussels. The
Service is currently in consultation with the EPA to evaluate the
protectiveness of criteria approved in EPA's water quality standards
for endangered and threatened species and their critical habitats as
described in the Memorandum of Agreement that our agencies signed in
2001 (66 FR 11201, February 22, 2001). Other factors that can
potentially alter water quality are droughts and periods of low flow,
nonpoint source runoff from adjacent land surfaces (for example,
excessive amounts of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides), point
source discharges from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities (for example, excessive amounts of ammonia, chlorine, and
metals), thermal and flow modifications resulting from hydropower
generation, and random spills or unregulated discharge events. This
could be particularly harmful during drought conditions, when flows are
depressed and pollutants are more concentrated.
[[Page 60824]]
Both the amount (flow) and the physical and chemical conditions
(water quality) where both species currently exist vary widely
according to season, precipitation events, and seasonal human
activities within the watershed. Conditions across their historical
ranges vary even more due to watershed size, geology, geography, and
differences in human population densities and land uses. In general,
both of the species survive in areas where the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of water flow are adequate to maintain stable
habitats (for example, sufficient flow to remove fine particles and
sediments without causing degradation), and where water quality is
adequate for year-round survival (for example, moderate to high levels
of dissolved oxygen, low to moderate input of nutrients, and relatively
unpolluted water and sediments). Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify adequate food items for all life stages, sufficient
water flow, and adequate water quality to be PBFs for both of these
species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing
Mussels require a host fish for transformation of larval mussels
(glochidia) to juvenile mussels (Williams et al. 2008, p. 68). Thus,
the presence of the appropriate host fishes to complete the
reproductive life cycle is essential to the conservation of these two
mussels. The known host fishes of the fluted kidneyshell include:
barcheek darter (Etheostoma obeyense), fantail darter (E. flabellare),
rainbow darter (E. caeruleum), redline darter (E. rufilineatum),
bluebreast darter (E. camurum), dusky darter (Percina sciera), and
banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae). The known host fishes of the
slabside pearlymussel include: popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus),
rosyface shiner (N. rubellus), saffron shiner (N. rubricroceus), silver
shiner (N. photogenis), telescope shiner (N. telescopus), Tennessee
shiner (N. leuciodus), whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura), striped
shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), warpaint shiner (L. coccogenis), white
shiner (L. albeolus), and eastern blacknose dace (Rhinichthys
atratulus). There are likely other suitable host fishes that have not
yet been studied or confirmed.
Juvenile mussels require stable bottom habitats for growth and
survival. Fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel juveniles
require stable habitats with adequate water quantity and quality as
previously described for growth and survival. Excessive sediments or
dense growth of filamentous algae can expose juvenile mussels to
entrainment or predation and be detrimental to the survival of juvenile
mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, pp. 372-374). Geomorphic
instability can result in the loss of interstitial habitats and
juvenile mussels due to scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993, pp.
372-373). Water quality, sediment quality, stable habitat, health of
fish hosts, and diet (of all life stages) all influence survival of
each life stage and subsequent reproduction and recruitment (Cope et
al. 2008, p. 452).
Periodic floodplain connectivity that occurs during wet years
provides habitats for spawning and foraging activities for fish hosts
that require floodplain habitats for successful reproduction and
recruitment to adulthood. Barko et al. (2006, pp. 252-256) found that
several fish host or potential host species (none of which are
documented hosts for the fluted kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel)
benefited from resource exploitation of floodplain habitats that were
not typically available for use during years of normal flows.
Furthermore, Kwak (1988, pp. 243-247) and Slipke and Maceina (2005, p.
289) indicated that periodic inundation of floodplain habitats
increased successful fish reproduction, which leads to increased
availability of native host fishes for mussel reproduction. However,
Rypel et al. (2009, p. 502) indicated that mussels tended to exhibit
minimal growth during high flow years. Therefore, optimal flooding of
these habitats would not be too frequent and may need to occur at
similar frequencies to that of the natural hydrologic regime of the
rivers and creeks inhabited by the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel.
Natural temperature regimes can be altered by impoundments, water
releases from dams, industrial and municipal effluents, and changes in
riparian habitat. Critical thermal limits for survival and normal
functioning of many mussel species are unknown. High temperatures can
reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water, which slows
growth, reduces glycogen stores, impairs respiration, and may inhibit
reproduction (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 240-241). Low temperatures can
significantly delay or prevent metamorphosis (Watters and O'Dee 1999,
pp. 454-455). Water temperature increases have been documented to
shorten the period of glochidial encystment, reduce the speed in which
they turn upright, increase oxygen consumption, and slow burrowing and
movement responses (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp. 240-241; Bartsch et al.
2000, p. 237; Watters et al. 2001, p. 546; Schwalb and Pusch 2007, pp.
264-265). Several studies have documented the influence of temperature
on the timing of aspects of mussel reproduction (for example, Gray et
al. 2002, p. 156; Allen et al. 2007, p. 85; Steingraeber et al. 2007,
pp. 303-309). Peak glochidial releases are associated with water
temperature thresholds that can be thermal minimums or maximums,
depending on the species (Watters and O'Dee 2000, p. 136). Abnormal
temperature changes may cause particular problems to mussels whose
reproductive cycles may be linked to fish reproductive cycles (for
example, Young and Williams 1984, entire). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify health of fish hosts, water quality,
sediment quality, stable habitat, food for all life stages, periodic
flooding of floodplain habitat, and a natural temperature regime to be
PBFs for both of these species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside
Pearlymussel
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the PBFs essential to the conservation of these mussel species
in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features'
primary constituent elements (PCEs). We consider PCEs to be the
elements of PBFs that provide for a species' life-history processes and
are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the
species, we have determined that the PCEs for the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel are:
(1) Riffle habitats within large, geomorphically stable stream
channels (channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal
profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or
degrading bed elevation).
(2) Stable substrates of sand, gravel, and cobble with low to
moderate amounts of fine sediment and containing flow refugia with low
shear stress.
(3) A natural hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain
benthic habitats where the species are found, and connectivity of
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability for all life
stages, and spawning habitat for native fishes.
[[Page 60825]]
(4) Water quality with low levels of pollutants and including a
natural temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content
(not less than 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L)), hardness, and
turbidity necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all
life stages.
(5) The presence of abundant fish hosts necessary for recruitment
of the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The 29 occupied units we are proposing for designation as
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell (16) and slabside
pearlymussel (13) will require some level of management to address the
current and future threats to the PBFs of the species. Of the 29 total
occupied units, a portion of 5 units are located on the Daniel Boone
National Forest (DBNF), 14 are almost entirely on private land, 1 is
located on the Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area
(BSFNRRA), 1 is located on the Cherokee National Forest (CNF), and 8
units have mixed ownership with private, State park, and national
wildlife refuge lands.
Due to their location on the DBNF, at least a portion of 5 of the
29 occupied proposed critical habitat units are being managed and
protected under DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and
the Hiwassee River unit is protected under CNF's LRMP (United States
Forest Service (USFS) 2004a, pp. 1-14; 2004b, entire). The LRMPs are
implemented through a series of project-level decisions based on
appropriate site-specific analysis and disclosure. The LRMPs do not
contain a commitment to select any specific project; rather, they set
up a framework of desired future conditions with goals, objectives, and
standards to guide project proposals. Projects are proposed to solve
resource management problems, move the forest environment toward
desired future conditions, and supply goods and services to the public
(USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14). The LRMPs contain a number of protective
standards that in general are designed to avoid and minimize potential
adverse effects to the fluted kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, and
federally listed species; however, the DBNF and CNF would continue to
conduct project-specific section 7 consultations under the Act when
their activities may adversely affect the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and other federally listed species or adversely modify
their designated critical habitats.
Fourteen of the 29 occupied proposed critical habitat units are
located almost entirely on private property and are not presently under
the special management or protection provided by a legally operative
plan or agreement for the conservation of the species.
One of the 29 occupied proposed critical habitat units (Big South
Fork Cumberland River) is located almost entirely on Federal lands
within the BSFNRRA. Land and resource management decisions and
activities within the BSFNRRA are guided by the National Park Service
General Management Plan, Field Management Plan, and Draft Non-Federal
Oil and Gas Management Plan (NPS 2005, entire; NPS 2006, pp. 1-12; NPS
2011, entire).
Eight of the 29 occupied proposed critical habitat units (Clinch
and Duck Rivers) have mixed ownership with private, State park, and
national wildlife refuge lands. These lands are operated under various
plans that may or may not provide the special management or protection
provided by a legally operative plan or agreement for the conservation
of these species.
Various activities in or adjacent to each of the occupied critical
habitat units described in this proposed rule may affect one or more of
the PCEs. Some of these activities include, but are not limited to,
those discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, above
(e.g., impoundments, gravel and coal mining, water pollution, invasive
species; see Factors A, D, and E, above). Other activities that may
affect PBFs in the proposed critical habitat units include those listed
in Available Conservation Measures above.
Management activities that could ameliorate threats on both Federal
and non-Federal lands include, but are not limited to: Use of BMPs
designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and stream bank alteration;
moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to maintain natural
flow regimes; increase of stormwater management and reduction of
stormwater flows into the systems; preservation of headwater streams;
regulation of off-road vehicle use; and reduction of other watershed
and floodplain disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or
nutrients into the water.
In summary, we find that the areas we are proposing as occupied
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
contain the PBFs necessary for the species, and that these features may
require special management considerations or protection. Special
management consideration or protection may be required to eliminate, or
to reduce to negligible levels, the threats affecting the PBFs of each
unit. Additional discussion of threats facing individual units is
provided in the individual unit descriptions below.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we use the best scientific
and commercial data to designate critical habitat. We review available
information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. In
accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--outside
those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of
listing (if listing occurs before designation of a species' critical
habitat)--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We
are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographic area currently occupied by the species. We also are
proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographic area
currently occupied by the species, which were historically occupied but
are presently unoccupied, because such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
We began our analysis by considering historical and current ranges
of both species. We used various sources including published literature
and museum collection databases, as well as surveys, reports, and field
notes prepared by biologists (see Background section). We then
identified the specific areas that are occupied by both mussels and
that contain one or more of the PBFs. We defined occupied habitat as
those stream reaches known to be currently occupied by either of the
two species. To identify the currently occupied stream reaches, we used
post-1980 survey data. To identify the unoccupied stream reaches, we
used survey data between the late 1800s and 1979. Therefore, if a
species was known to occur in an area prior to 1980, but was not
collected since then, the stream reach is considered unoccupied. This
criterion was chosen because a large number of collections were
conducted in the 1980s in the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems.
Some of the historical occurrences have not been surveyed since the
1980s. However, because of the longevity of these species
[[Page 60826]]
(40-55 years), they are still thought to occur in these areas.
We then evaluated occupied stream reaches to delineate the probable
upstream and downstream extent of each species' distribution. Known
occurrences for some mussel species are extremely localized, and rare
mussels can be difficult to locate. In addition, stream habitats are
highly dependent upon upstream and downstream channel habitat
conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, where more than one
occurrence record of a particular species was found within a stream
reach, we considered the entire reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied habitat.
We then considered whether this essential area was adequate for the
conservation of both species. Small, isolated, aquatic populations are
subject to chance catastrophic events and to changes in human
activities and land use practices that may result in their elimination.
Larger, more contiguous populations can reduce the threat of extinction
due to habitat fragmentation and isolation. For these reasons, we
believe that conservation of the fluted kidneyshell, but not the
slabside pearlymussel, requires expanding its range into currently
unoccupied portions of its historical habitat. Given that threats to
the fluted kidneyshell are compounded by its limited distribution and
isolation, it is unlikely that currently occupied habitat is adequate
for its conservation. The range of the fluted kidneyshell has been
severely curtailed, occupied habitats are limited and isolated, and
population sizes are generally small (see Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species). For example, the fluted kidneyshell is no longer believed
to occur in the Rockcastle, Hiwassee, Elk, Holston, or French Broad
rivers. The inclusion of essential unoccupied areas will provide
habitat for population reintroduction and will decrease the risk of
extinction. Based on the best scientific data available, we believe
these areas not currently occupied by the fluted kidneyshell are
essential for their conservation.
However, we eliminated from consideration as unoccupied critical
habitat the Red and Harpeth River drainages; the Caney Fork, mainstem
Cumberland, mainstem Tennessee, Tellico, Obey, South Fork Powell, South
Fork Holston, West Prong Little Pigeon, Little Tennessee Rivers; and
Kennedy, Pittman, Otter, Flint, Sugar, Limestone, Shoal, Puckell, North
Fork, and Big Rock Creeks for both of these mussels. These areas are
not essential for the conservation of the mussels and were eliminated
from consideration because of stream channel alterations, a limited
amount of available habitat coupled with being isolated from other
populations, a lack of a native mussel fauna, poor habitat or water
quality, or a lack of available fish hosts.
All of the stream habitat areas proposed as unoccupied critical
habitat have sufficient water quality and fish hosts necessary for the
fluted kidneyshell. The stream reaches also lack major anthropogenic
disturbances, and have potential for reoccupation by the species
through future reintroduction efforts. Based on the above factors, all
unoccupied stream reaches included in the proposed designations for the
fluted kidneyshell are essential for its conservation.
Following the identification of occupied and unoccupied stream
reaches, the next step was to delineate the probable upstream and
downstream extent of each species' distribution. We used USGS 1:100,000
digital stream maps to delineate these boundaries of proposed critical
habitat units according to the criteria explained below. The upstream
boundary of a unit in a stream is the first perennial, named tributary
confluence, a road-crossing bridge, or a permanent barrier to fish
passage (such as a dam) above the upstream-most current occurrence
record. The confluence of a tributary typically marks a significant
change in the size of the stream and is a logical and recognizable
upstream terminus. When a named tributary was not available, a road-
crossing bridge was used to mark the boundary. Likewise, a dam or other
barrier to fish passage marks the upstream extent to which mussels may
disperse via their fish hosts. The downstream boundary of a unit in a
stream is the confluence of a named tributary, or the upstream extent
of an impoundment, below the downstream-most occurrence record. In the
unit descriptions, distances between landmarks marking the upstream or
downstream extent of a stream segment are given in river kilometers and
equivalent miles, as measured tracing the course of the stream, not
straight-line distance.
Because mussels are naturally restricted by certain physical
conditions within a stream reach (i.e., flow, substrate), they may be
unevenly distributed within these habitat units. Uncertainty on
upstream and downstream distributional limits of some populations may
have resulted in small areas of occupied habitat excluded from, or
areas of unoccupied habitat included in, the designation. We recognize
that both historical and recent collection records upon which we relied
are incomplete, and that there may be river segments or small
tributaries not included in this proposed designation that harbor
small, limited populations of one or both species considered in this
designation, or that others may become suitable in the future. The
exclusion of such areas does not diminish their potential individual or
cumulative importance to the conservation of these species. However, we
believe that, with proper management, each of the 37 critical habitat
units (24 fluted kidneyshell units, and 13 slabside pearlymussel units;
10 overlap between the two species) are capable of supporting one or
both of these mussel species, and that populations within occupied
units will serve as source populations for artificial reintroduction
into unoccupied units, as well as assisted or natural migration into
adjacent undesignated or designated streams within each river drainage.
The habitat areas contained within the units described below constitute
our best evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of these
species at this time. Critical habitat may be revised for any or all of
these species should new information become available.
The areas proposed for critical habitat below include only stream
channels within the ordinary high-water line, and do not contain
developed areas or structures. The scale of the maps we prepared under
the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the PBFs in the
adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004, on our Internet
site at https://www.fws.gov/cookeville, and at
[[Page 60827]]
the Fish and Wildlife office responsible for the designation (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
In total, we are proposing a total of 37 critical habitat units
encompassing approximately 2,218 rkm (1,380 rmi) in Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia--10 of the units overlap and are
proposed as critical habitat for both species. For the fluted
kidneyshell, we are proposing 24 critical habitat units encompassing
approximately 1,899 rkm (1,181 rmi) of stream channel in Alabama,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The critical habitat areas we
describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. The
24 areas we propose as critical habitat are as follows: (1) Horse Lick
Creek, KY; (2) Middle Fork Rockcastle River, KY; (3) Rockcastle River,
KY; (4) Buck Creek, KY; (5) Rock Creek, KY; (6) Little South Fork
Cumberland River, KY; (7) Big South Fork Cumberland River, KY, TN; (8)
Wolf River and Town Branch, TN; (9) West Fork Obey River, TN; (10)
Indian Creek, VA; (11) Little River [tributary to the Clinch River],
VA; (12) North Fork Holston River, VA; (13) Middle Fork Holston River,
VA; (14) Big Moccasin Creek, VA; (15) Copper Creek, VA; (16) Clinch
River, TN, VA; (17) Powell River, TN, VA; (18) Nolichucky River, TN;
(19) Holston River, TN; (20) French Broad River, TN; (21) Hiwassee
River, TN; (22) Elk River, AL, TN; (23) Duck River, TN; and (24)
Buffalo River, TN.
We are proposing 13 critical habitat units encompassing
approximately 1,562 rkm (970 rmi) of stream channel in Alabama,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia for the slabside pearlymussel. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the slabside pearlymussel. The 13 areas we propose as critical habitat
are as follows: (1) North Fork Holston River, VA; (2) Middle Fork
Holston River, VA; (3) Big Moccasin Creek, VA; (4) Clinch River, TN,
VA; (5) Powell River, TN, VA; (6) Nolichucky River, TN; (7) Hiwassee
River, TN; (8) Sequatchie River, TN; (9) Paint Rock River, AL; (10) Elk
River, AL, TN; (11) Bear Creek, AL, MS; (12) Duck River, TN; and (13)
Buffalo River, TN.
Unit name, location, and the approximate stream length of each
proposed critical habitat unit are shown in Table 3 for the fluted
kidneyshell and Table 4 for the slabside pearlymussel. The proposed
critical habitat units include the stream channels within the ordinary
high-water line only. For this purpose, we have applied the definition
found at 33 CFR 329.11, and consider the ordinary high-water mark on
nontidal rivers to be the line on the shore established by the
fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such
as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in
the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the
presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider
the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
States were granted ownership of lands beneath navigable waters up
to the ordinary high-water line upon achieving Statehood (Pollard v.
Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior sovereigns or the States may
have made grants to private parties that included lands below the
ordinary high-water mark of some navigable waters that are included in
this proposal. We believe that most, if not all, lands beneath the
navigable waters included in this proposed rule are owned by the
States. The lands beneath most nonnavigable waters included in this
proposed rule are in private ownership. In Alabama, the riparian
landowner owns the stream to the middle of the channel for non-
navigable streams. Riparian lands along the waters are either in
private ownership, or are owned by county, State, or Federal entities.
Lands under county, State, and Federal ownership consist of managed
conservation areas, and are considered to have some level of
protection.
Table 3--Fluted Kidneyshell Occupancy Status and Riparian Lands Ownership Adjacent to the Proposed Critical
Habitat Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, state,
Private county, city Total length rkm
Unit Location Occupied by species ownership rkm ownership rkm (rmi)
(rmi) (rmi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK1.............. Horse Lick Creek, Yes................ 3.6 (2.3) 15.8 (10.1) 19.4 (12.4)
KY.
FK2.............. Middle Fork Yes................ 6.0 (3.7) 6.5 (4.0) 12.5 (7.7)
Rockcastle River,
KY.
FK3.............. Rockcastle River, No................. 11.7 (7.3) 58.2 (36.2) 69.9 (43.5)
KY.
FK4.............. Buck Creek, KY.... Yes................ 59.7 (37.1) 1.3 (0.8) 61.0 (37.9)
FK5.............. Rock Creek, KY.... Yes................ 1.5 (0.9) 17.7 (11.0) 19.2 (11.9)
FK6.............. Little South Fork Yes................ 61.1 (38.0) 4.4 (2.7) 65.5 (40.7)
Cumberland River,
KY.
FK7.............. Big South Fork Yes................ 1.5 (1.0) 90.0 (55.9) 91.5 (56.9)
Cumberland River,
KY, TN.
FK8.............. Wolf River and Yes................ 38.7 (24.0) 5.7 (3.5) 44.4 (27.5)
Town Branch, TN.
FK9.............. West Fork Obey Yes................ 19.3 (12.0) 0 19.3 (12.0)
River, TN.
FK10............. Indian Creek, VA.. Yes................ 6.7 (4.2) 0 6.7 (4.2)
FK11............. Little River, VA.. Yes................ 50.4 (31.3) 0 50.4 (31.3)
FK12............. North Fork Holston Yes................ 66.4 (41.3) 0.9 (0.5) 67.3 (41.8)
River, VA.
FK13............. Middle Fork Yes................ 89.0 (55.3) 0 89.0 (55.3)
Holston River, VA.
FK14............. Big Moccasin No................. 33.1 (20.6) 0 33.1 (20.6)
Creek, VA.
FK15............. Copper Creek, VA.. Yes................ 55.5 (34.5) 0 55.5 (34.5)
FK16............. Clinch River, TN, Yes................ 256.3 (159.2) 6.4 (4.0) 262.7 (163.2)
VA.
FK17............. Powell River, TN, Yes................ 152.4 (94.7) 0.3 (0.2) 152.7 (94.9)
VA.
FK18............. Nolichucky River, No................. 50.9 (31.6) 0.9 (0.6) 51.9 (32.2)
TN.
FK19............. Holston River, TN. No................. 85.1 (52.9) 0 85.1 (52.9)
FK20............. French Broad No................. 54.4 (33.8) 1.7 (1.1) 56.1 (34.9)
River, TN.
FK21............. Hiwassee River, TN No................. 0 24.4 (15.2) 24.4 (15.2)
FK22............. Elk River, AL, TN. No................. 162.8 (101.2) 1.5 (0.9) 164.3 (102.1)
FK23............. Duck River, TN.... Yes................ 284.0 (176.5) 63.5 (39.4) 347.5 (215.9)
FK24............. Buffalo River, TN. No................. 50.0 (31.0) 0 50.0 (31.0)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........ .................. ................... ................ ................ 1,899.4
(1,180.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60828]]
Table 4--Occupancy and Ownership of Riparian Lands Adjacent to the Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the
Slabside Pearlymussel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, state,
Private county, city Total length rkm
Unit Location Occupied ownership rkm ownership rkm (rmi)
(rmi) (rmi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP1.............. North Fork Holston Yes................ 66.4 (41.3) 0.9 (0.5) 67.3 (41.8)
River, VA.
SP2.............. Middle Fork Yes................ 89.0 (55.3) 0 89.0 (55.3)
Holston River, VA.
SP3.............. Big Moccasin Yes................ 33.1 (20.6) 0 33.1 (20.6)
Creek, VA.
SP4.............. Clinch River, TN, Yes................ 256.3 (159.2) 6.4 (4.0) 262.7 (163.2)
VA.
SP5.............. Powell River, TN, Yes................ 152.4 (94.7) 0.3 (0.2) 152.7 (94.9)
VA.
SP6.............. Nolichucky River, Yes................ 50.9 (31.6) 0.9 (0.6) 51.9 (32.2)
TN.
SP7.............. Hiwassee River, TN Yes................ 0 24.4 (15.2) 24.4 (15.2)
SP8.............. Sequatchie River, Yes................ 151.5 (94.1) 0 151.5 (94.1)
TN.
SP9.............. Paint Rock River, Yes................ 119.2 (74.1) 5.8 (3.6) 125.0 (77.7)
AL.
SP10............. Elk River, AL, TN. Yes................ 162.8 (101.2) 1.5 (0.9) 164.3 (102.1)
SP11............. Bear Creek, AL, MS Yes................ 36.3 (22.5) 6.1 (3.8) 42.4 (26.3)
SP12............. Duck River, TN.... Yes................ 284.0 (176.5) 63.5 (39.4) 347.5 (215.9)
SP13............. Buffalo River, TN. Yes................ 50.0 (31.0) 0 50.0 (31.0)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........ .................. ................... ................ ................ 1,561.8 (970.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven critical habitat units proposed for both the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are currently designated as
critical habitat under the Act for other species, including the purple
bean (Villosa perpurpurea), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis),
Cumberlandian combshell (E. brevidens), Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta
atropurpurea), rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata),
slender chub (Erimystax cahni), and yellowfin madtom (Noturus
flavipinnis) (42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840, 69 FR 53136), or are proposed
as critical habitat under the Act for the rabbitsfoot (Q. c.
cylindrica) (see Table 5). The proposed units for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel completely or partially overlap
existing units in the Powell, Clinch, Nolichucky, Big South Fork
Cumberland, Duck, and Paint Rock Rivers and in the Buck, Rock, Indian,
Copper, and Bear Creeks; however, the exact unit descriptions (lengths)
differ due to mapping refinement since the earlier designations. No
other critical habitat units proposed for these species have been
designated or proposed as critical habitat for other species under the
Act.
Three critical habitat units proposed for the fluted kidneyshell
and slabside pearlymussel are currently designated under section 10(j)
of the Act as nonessential experimental populations for other species,
including the yellowfin madtom in the North Fork Holston River, VA; and
15 mussels, 1 snail, and 5 fishes in the lower Holston and French Broad
Rivers, TN (53 FR 29335, 72 FR 52434, see Table 5).
All of the critical habitat units proposed for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel contain historical or extant
records of federally listed or proposed species, except for the Wolf
River and Town Branch and West Fork Obey River, TN (see Table 6).
Table 5--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel Which Are
Currently Designated or Proposed as Critical Habitat for Other Federally Listed Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonessential Length of
Unit (Unit No.) Species Critical habitat experimental overlap rkm
population (rmi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck Creek (FK4)............... Oyster mussel, 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 61 (38)
Cumberlandian
combshell.
Rock Creek (FK5)............... Cumberland elktoe. 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 19 (12)
Big South Fork Cumberland River Oyster mussel, 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 92 (57)
(FK7). Cumberlandian
combshell,
Cumberland elktoe.
Indian Creek (FK10)............ Purple bean,...... 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 7 (4)
Oyster mussel,
Cumberlandian
combshell, Rough
rabbitsfoot.
North Fork Holston River (FK12, Yellowfin madtom.. .................. 53 FR 29335........... 58 (36)
SP1).
Copper Creek (FK15)............ Purple bean, 69 FR 53136,...... ...................... 21 (13)
Oyster mussel, 42 FR 45526,...... 56 (35)
Cumberlandian 42 FR 47840....... 56 (35)
combshell, Rough ..................
rabbitsfoot,
Yellowfin madtom.
Clinch River (FK16, SP4)....... Purple bean, 69 FR 53136,...... ...................... 263 (163)
Oyster mussel, 42 FR 45526,...... 263 (163)
Cumberlandian 42 FR 47840....... 263 (163)
combshell, Rough
rabbitsfoot,
Slender chub,
Yellowfin madtom.
Powell River (FK17, SP5)....... Purple bean, 69 FR 53136,...... ...................... 153 (95)
Cumberlandian 42 FR 45526,...... 153 (95)
combshell, Oyster 42 FR 47840....... 153 (95)
mussel, Rough
rabbitsfoot,
Slender chub,
Yellowfin madtom.
[[Page 60829]]
Nolichucky River (FK18, SP6)... Oyster mussel, 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 8 (5)
Cumberlandian
combshell.
Holston River (FK19)........... 15 Mussels, 1 .................. 72 FR 52434........... 85 (53)
Snail, and 5
Fishes.
French Broad River (FK20)...... 15 Mussels, 1 .................. 72 FR 52434........... 56 (35)
Snail, and 5
Fishes.
Paint Rock River (SP9)......... Rabbitsfoot....... TBD............... ...................... 80 (50)
Bear Creek (SP11).............. Oyster mussel, 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 42 (26)
Cumberlandian 234 (136)
combshell,
Rabbitsfoot.
Duck River (FK23, SP12)........ Oyster mussel, 69 FR 53136....... ...................... 74 (46)
Cumberlandian 234 (146)
combshell,
Rabbitsfoot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... .................. .................. ...................... 1221 (760)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Federally Listed or Proposed Species With Historical or Extant
Records From the Proposed Critical Habitat Unit Streams for the Fluted
Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federally listed or proposed
species present
Unit Location -----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK1............... Horse Lick Cumberland bean. Villosa
Creek, KY. trabalis.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
FK2............... Middle Fork Cumberland bean. Villosa
Rockcastle trabalis.
River, KY.
FK3............... Rockcastle Cumberland bean. Villosa
River, KY. trabalis.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
FK4............... Buck Creek, KY.. Cumberland bean. Villosa
trabalis.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
FK5............... Rock Creek, KY.. Cumberland Alasmidonta
elktoe. atropurpurea.
FK6............... Little South Cumberland bean. Villosa
Fork Cumberland trabalis.
River, KY.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
palezone shiner. Notropis
albizonatus.
FK7............... Big South Fork Cumberland bean. Villosa
Cumberland trabalis.
River, KY.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Alasmidonta
elktoe. atropurpurea.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
duskytail darter Etheostoma
percnurum.
FK8............... Wolf River and None............
Town Branch, TN.
FK9............... West Fork Obey None............
River, TN.
FK10.............. Indian Creek, VA purple bean..... Villosa
perpurpurea.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
FK11.............. Little River, VA finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
FK12, SP1......... North Fork littlewing Pegias fabula.
Holston River, pearlymussel.
VA.
purple bean..... Villosa
perpurpurea.
rough Quadrula
rabbitsfoot. cylindrica
strigillata.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spotfin chub.... Erimonax
monachus.
FK13, SP2......... Middle Fork littlewing Pegias fabula.
Holston River, pearlymussel.
VA.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
spotfin chub.... Erimonax
monachus.
[[Page 60830]]
FK14, SP3......... Big Moccasin finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
Creek, VA. cuneolus.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
rough Quadrula
rabbitsfoot. cylindrica
strigillata.
FK15.............. Copper Creek, VA finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
purple bean..... Villosa
perpurpurea.
rough Quadrula
rabbitsfoot. cylindrica
strigillata.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
duskytail darter Etheostoma
percnurum
................ yellowfin madtom Noturus
flavipinnis.
FK16, SP4......... Clinch River, Appalachian Quadrula sparsa.
TN, VA. monkeyface.
birdwing Lemiox rimosus.
pearlymussel.
cracking Hemistena lata.
pearlymussel.
Cumberland bean. Villosa
trabalis.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Quadrula
monkeyface. intermedia.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
fanshell........ Cyprogenia
stegaria.
finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
green blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. torulosa
gubernaculum.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
purple bean..... Villosa
perpurpurea.
rayed bean...... Villosa fabalis.
rough pigtoe.... Pleurobema
plenum.
rough Quadrula
rabbitsfoot. cylindrica
strigillata.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
pygmy madtom.... Noturus
stanauli.
slender chub.... Erimystax cahni.
FK17, SP5......... Powell River, Appalachian Quadrula sparsa.
TN, VA. monkeyface.
birdwing Lemiox rimosus.
pearlymussel.
cracking Hemistena lata.
pearlymussel.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Quadrula
monkeyface. intermedia.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
green blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. torulosa
gubernaculum.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
purple bean..... Villosa
perpurpurea.
rayed bean...... Villosa fabalis.
rough Quadrula
rabbitsfoot. cylindrica
strigillata.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
white wartyback. Plethobasus
cicatricosus.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
slender chub.... Erimystax cahni.
yellowfin madtom Noturus
flavipinnis.
FK18, SP6......... Nolichucky Cumberlandian Epioblasma
River, TN. combshell. brevidens.
green blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. torulosa
gubernaculum.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
rayed bean...... Villosa fabalis.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
FK19.............. Holston River, Appalachian Quadrula sparsa.
TN. Monkeyface.
birdwing Lemiox rimosus.
pearlymussel.
cracking Hemistena lata.
pearlymussel.
[[Page 60831]]
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Quadrula
monkeyface. intermedia.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
green blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. torulosa
gubernaculum.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
ring pink....... Obovaria retusa.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
turgid blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. turgidula.
white wartyback. Plethobasus
cicatricosus.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
slender chub.... Erimystax cahni.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
FK20.............. French Broad cracking Hemistena lata.
River, TN. pearlymussel.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
fanshell........ Cyprogenia
stegaria.
orangefoot Plethobasus
pimpleback. cooperianus.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
ring pink....... Obovaria retusa.
rough pigtoe.... Pleurobema
plenum.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
tubercled Epioblasma
blossom torulosa
pearlymussel. torulosa.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
FK21, SP7......... Hiwassee River, Appalachian Quadrula sparsa.
TN. monkeyface.
Cumberland bean. Villosa
trabalis.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
orangefoot Plethobasus
pimpleback. cooperianus.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
rough pigtoe.... Pleurobema
plenum.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
tubercled Epioblasma
blossom torulosa
pearlymussel. torulosa.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
SP8............... Sequatchie Anthony's Athearnia
River, TN. riversnail. anthonyi.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
SP9............... Paint Rock Alabama Lampsilis
River, AL. lampmussel. virescens.
Cumberland bean. Villosa
trabalis.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
pale lilliput... Toxolasma
cylindrellus.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
palezone shiner. Notropis
albizonatus.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
rabbitsfoot..... Quadrula
cylindrica
cylindrica.
FK22, SP10........ Elk River, AL, Alabama Lampsilis
TN. lampmussel. virescens.
birdwing Lemiox rimosus.
pearlymussel.
cracking Hemistena lata.
pearlymussel.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Quadrula
monkeyface. intermedia.
dromedary Dromus dromas.
pearlymussel.
fanshell........ Cyprogenia
stegaria.
finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
pale lilliput... Toxolasma
cylindrellus.
rabbitsfoot..... Quadrula c.
cylindrica.
rayed bean...... Villosa fabalis.
shiny pigtoe.... Fusconaia cor.
[[Page 60832]]
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
tubercled Epioblasma
blossom torulosa
pearlymussel. torulosa.
turgid blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. turgidula.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
boulder darter.. Etheostoma
wapiti.
snail darter.... Percina tanasi.
SP11.............. Bear Creek, AL, Cumberlandian Epioblasma
MS. combshell. brevidens.
finerayed pigtoe Fusconaia
cuneolus.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
turgid blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. turgidula.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
rabbitsfoot..... Quadrula c.
cylindrica.
FK23, SP12........ Duck River, TN.. birdwing Lemiox rimosus.
pearlymussel.
clubshell....... Pleurobema
clava.
cracking Hemistena lata.
pearlymussel.
Cumberlandian Epioblasma
combshell. brevidens.
Cumberland Quadrula
monkeyface. intermedia.
littlewing Pegias fabula.
pearlymussel.
orangefoot Plethobasus
pimpleback. cooperianus.
oyster mussel... Epioblasma
capsaeformis.
pale lilliput... Toxolasma
cylindrellus.
pink mucket..... Lampsilis
abrupta.
rayed bean...... Villosa fabalis.
sheepnose....... Plethobasus
cyphyus.
snuffbox........ Epioblasma
triquetra.
spectaclecase... Cumberlandia
monodonta.
tan riffleshell. Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri (=E.
walkeri).
tubercled Epioblasma
blossom torulosa
pearlymussel. torulosa.
turgid blossom Epioblasma
pearlymussel. turgidula.
winged mapleleaf Quadrula
fragosa.
yellow blossom.. Epioblasma
florentina
florentina.
pygmy madtom.... Noturus
stanauli.
rabbitsfoot..... Quadrula c.
cylindrica.
FK24, SP13........ Buffalo River, pale lilliput... Toxolasma
TN. cylindrellus.
spotfin chub.... Erimonax
monachus.
rabbitsfoot..... Quadrula c.
cylindrica.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each stream reach proposed as a critical habitat unit, the
upstream and downstream boundaries are described generally below. More
precise definitions are provided in the Proposed Regulation
Promulgation at the end of this proposed rule. Fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel status and distribution for each critical habitat
unit was previously described in the Background section.
Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel Proposed Critical Habitat
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed must contain PBFs which are (1) essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For those units occupied by
either the fluted kidneyshell, slabside pearlymussel, or both species,
we describe the principal PCEs essential to the conservation of the
species and the special management considerations or protections that
may be needed for each unit below.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For those units unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell, or
slabside pearlymussel, we are proposing to designate these units
because we have determined that they are essential for the conservation
of the species due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events.
For five of the units (Big Moccasin Creek, Nolichucky, Hiwassee,
Elk, and Buffalo Rivers), we are designating critical habitat for the
slabside pearlymussel under prong one of the Act (occupied), while at
the same time designating the unit under prong two of the Act for the
fluted kidneyshell species (unoccupied). Therefore, the principal PCEs
and special management considerations or protections given for these
units only apply to the species for which the unit is occupied critical
habitat (slabside pearlymussel).
[[Page 60833]]
Unit FK1: Horse Lick Creek, Rockcastle and Jackson Counties, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK1 encompasses approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of
Horse Lick Creek, in Rockcastle and Jackson Counties, KY. It includes
the mainstem of Horse Lick Creek from its confluence with the
Rockcastle River upstream to Clover Bottom Creek. The unit is within
the Cumberland River system and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical area
occupied by the fluted kidneyshell at the time of listing. This unit is
located almost entirely on private lands; however, approximately 16 rkm
(10 rmi) are federal lands within the DBNF. Land and resource
management decisions and activities within the DBNF are guided by
DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14).
The channel within proposed Unit FK1 is relatively stable, with an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell,
are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within proposed Unit FK1, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with legacy coal mines and coal
mining activities, silviculture-related activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater reaches, illegal off-road vehicle
use and other recreational activities, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK2: Middle Fork Rockcastle River, Jackson County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK2 includes 12.5 rkm (7.7 rmi) of the Middle Fork
Rockcastle River from its confluence with the Rockcastle River upstream
to its confluence with Indian Creek and Laurel Fork in Jackson County,
KY. The unit is within the Cumberland River system and is proposed as
occupied critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. About half of
this unit (approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi)) is in public ownership (DBNF),
and half is in private ownership. Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the DBNF are guided by DBNF's LRMP
(USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14).
The channel within proposed Unit FK2 is relatively stable and has
an abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand
and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3).
Within this unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat may
require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by resource extraction (coal mining,
silviculture, natural gas and oil exploration activities), agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county roads, illegal off-road vehicle
use, nonpoint source pollution arising from a wide variety of human
activities, and potentially canopy loss caused by infestations of the
hemlock wooly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, an invasive pest threatening
eastern hemlock trees (Tsuga canadensis) in the eastern United States.
Hemlocks are an important component of riparian vegetation throughout
the range of the two mussels.
Unit FK3: Rockcastle River, Pulaski, Laurel, and Rockcastle Counties,
Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK3 includes approximately 70 rkm (43 rmi) of the
Rockcastle River from the backwaters of Lake Cumberland near its
confluence with Cane Creek along the Laurel and Pulaski County line,
KY, upstream to its confluence with Horse Lick Creek along the Laurel
and Rockcastle County line, KY. The unit is within the Cumberland River
system and is considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell at the
time of listing, but within the species' historical range. Live fluted
kidneyshell have not been collected within proposed Unit 3 since 1911;
however, it persists in adjacent tributaries such as Horse Lick Creek
and shell material has been found as recently as 1985 (Wilson and Clark
1914 and Thompson 1985 in Cicerello 1993, p. 12). In 2010, surveys of
the Rockcastle River showed that the river had a diverse mussel fauna,
including the federally endangered Cumberland bean (McGregor 2010,
unpubl. data).
We consider this unit essential for the conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events. Therefore, this unit is proposed as unoccupied
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. A portion of this unit
(approximately 12 rkm (7 rmi)) is in private ownership, but the
majority is in public ownership (DBNF). Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the DBNF are guided by DBNF's LRMP
(USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14).
Unit FK4: Buck Creek, Pulaski County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK4 includes approximately 61 rkm (38 rmi) of Buck
Creek from State Route 192 upstream to Route 328, Pulaski County, KY.
The unit is within the Cumberland River basin and is proposed critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. A
portion of this unit (1.3 rkm (0.8 rmi)) is in public ownership (DBNF),
but the majority is in private ownership. Land and resource management
decisions and activities within the DBNF are guided by DBNF's LRMP
(USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14). The unit completely overlaps existing critical
habitat for the oyster mussel and Cumberlandian combshell (69 FR
53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK4 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with instream gravel mining,
silviculture-related activities, illegal off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, and nonpoint source pollution from
agricultural and developmental activities.
Unit FK5: Rock Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK5 includes approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of Rock
Creek from its confluence with White Oak Creek upstream to the low
water crossing at rkm 25.6 (rmi 15.9) in McCreary County, KY. The unit
is within the Cumberland River system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. A portion of this
unit (1.5 rkm (0.9 rmi)) is in private ownership, but the majority is
in public ownership (DBNF). Land and resource management decisions and
activities within the DBNF are guided by DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp.
1-14). The unit completely overlaps existing critical habitat for the
Cumberland elktoe (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK5 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1),
[[Page 60834]]
with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and
adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna, including fish
host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat may
require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by resource extraction (coal mining,
silviculture, natural gas and oil exploration activities), agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county roads, illegal off-road vehicle
use, nonpoint source pollution arising from a wide variety of human
activities, and potentially canopy loss caused by infestations of the
hemlock wooly adelgid.
Unit FK6: Little South Fork Cumberland River, McCreary and Wayne
Counties, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK6 includes 65.5 rkm (40.7 rmi) of the Little South
Fork Cumberland River from its confluence with the Big South Fork
Cumberland River, where it is the dividing line between Wayne and
McCreary Counties, upstream to its confluence with Dobbs Creek in Wayne
County, KY. The unit is within the Cumberland River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is
included in the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing. A portion of this unit (4.4 rkm (2.7 rmi)) is in public
ownership (DBNF), but the majority is in private ownership. Land and
resource management decisions and activities within the DBNF are guided
by DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004a, pp. 1-14).
The channel within proposed Unit FK6 is relatively stable, with an
abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1), relatively silt-free sand and
gravel substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A
diverse fish fauna, including fish host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell,
are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat may
require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by resource extraction (coal mining,
silviculture, natural gas and oil exploration activities), agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county roads, illegal off-road vehicle
use, nonpoint source pollution arising from a wide variety of human
activities, and potentially canopy loss caused by infestations of the
hemlock wooly adelgid.
Unit FK7: Big South Fork Cumberland River, Fentress, Morgan, and Scott
Counties, Tennessee, and McCreary County, Kentucky
Proposed Unit FK7 includes a combined total of 92.0 rkm (57.1 rmi)
of the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Clear Fork of the New
River, and the New River in Tennessee and Kentucky. Proposed Unit FK7
includes approximately 45 rkm (28 rmi) of the Big South Fork Cumberland
River from its confluence with Laurel Crossing Branch downstream of Big
Shoals, McCreary County, KY, upstream to its confluence with Clear Fork
and of the New River, Scott County, TN. This unit also includes 32.3
rkm (20.0 rmi) of Clear Fork from its confluence with the Big South
Fork and New River in Scott County, TN, upstream to its confluence with
Crooked Creek along the Fentress and Morgan County line, TN. This unit
also includes 14.7 rkm (9.1 rmi) of the New River from its confluence
with the Big South Fork upstream to the Highway 27 Bridge crossing in
Scott County, TN. The unit is within the Cumberland River system and is
proposed as occupied critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. This
unit is included in the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing. A portion of this unit (92 rkm (57 rmi)) has been
designated as critical habitat for the Cumberlandian combshell, oyster
mussel, and Cumberland elktoe (69 FR 53136).
This unit is located almost entirely on federal lands within the
BSFNRRA. Land and resource management decisions and activities within
the BSFNRRA are guided by the National Park Service General Management
Plan, Field Management Plan, and Draft Non-Federal Oil and Gas
Management Plan (NPS 2005, entire; NPS 2006, pp. 1-12; NPS 2011,
entire).
The channel within proposed Unit FK7 is relatively stable, with
relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2) and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna, including fish host(s)
for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat may
require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by resource extraction (coal mining,
silviculture, natural gas and oil exploration activities), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction and maintenance of roads,
recreational horse riding, illegal off-road vehicle use, nonpoint
source pollution arising from a wide variety of human activities, and
potential canopy loss caused by infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK8: Wolf River and Town Branch, Pickett and Fentress Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK8 includes 41.0 rkm (25.5 rmi) of the Wolf River
from its inundation at Dale Hollow Lake in Pickett County, TN, upstream
to its confluence with Delk Creek in Fentress County, TN, and 3.4 rkm
(2.0 rmi) of Town Branch from its confluence with Wolf River upstream
to its headwaters in Pickett County, TN. The unit is within the
Cumberland River system and is proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing. A portion of this unit (6 rkm (4
rmi)) is in public ownership (Corps lands adjacent to Dale Hollow
Reservoir and Sgt. Alvin C. York State Historic Park), but the majority
is in private ownership.
The channel within proposed Unit FK8 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2) and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with coal mining, silviculture-
related activities, natural gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, agricultural activities (livestock), lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction and maintenance of State and
county roads, off-road vehicle use and other recreational activities,
nonpoint source pollution originating in headwater reaches, and
potential canopy loss caused by infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK9: West Fork Obey River, Overton County, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK9 includes approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of the
West Fork Obey River from the Highway 52 Bridge crossing upstream to
its confluence with Dry Hollow Creek in Overton County, TN. The unit is
within the Cumberland River system and is proposed critical habitat for
the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing. This unit is located
almost entirely on private
[[Page 60835]]
land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit FK9 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish host(s) for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with coal mining, silviculture-
related activities, natural gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, off-road vehicle use and other recreational
activities, agricultural activities (livestock), lack of adequate
riparian buffers, construction and maintenance of State and county
roads, nonpoint source pollution originating in headwater reaches, and
potential canopy loss caused by infestations of the hemlock wooly
adelgid.
Unit FK10: Indian Creek, Tazewell County, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK10 includes 6.7 rkm (4.2 rmi) of Indian Creek from
its confluence with the Clinch River upstream to the fourth Norfolk
Southern Railroad crossing at Van Dyke in Tazewell County, VA. The unit
is within the Tennessee River system and is proposed critical habitat
for the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. This unit is
located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount
that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings and road
easements. The unit completely overlaps critical habitat for the
Cumberlandian combshell, rough rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster
mussel (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK10 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with residential development, coal
mining, silviculture-related activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater reaches, illegal off-road vehicle
use and other recreational activities, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK11: Little River, Russell and Tazewell Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK11 includes approximately 50 rkm (31 rmi) of Little
River from its confluence with the Clinch River in Russell County, VA,
upstream to its confluence with Liberty and Maiden Spring Creeks in
Tazewell County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee River system and
is proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell. This unit is
included in the geographical area occupied by fluted kidneyshell at the
time of listing. This unit is located almost entirely on private land,
except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings and road easements. The Nature Conservancy also owns a
small portion of adjacent property.
The channel within proposed Unit FK11 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitats
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with silviculture-related
activities, natural gas and oil exploration activities in headwater
reaches, and nonpoint source pollution originating in headwater
reaches.
Unit FK12 and SP1: North Fork Holston River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia
Proposed Unit FK12 and SP1 includes approximately 67 rkm (42 rmi)
of the North Fork Holston River from its confluence with Beaver Creek,
upstream of Saltville, in Smyth County, VA, upstream to Ceres, Bland
County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied
by both species at the time of listing. This unit is located almost
entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and a small
portion that is adjacent to the George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests. The Nature Conservancy and the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation also own a small portion of adjacent property. A portion of
this unit (58 rkm (36 rmi)) has been designated as a nonessential
experimental population (NEP) for the yellowfin madtom (53 FR 29335).
The channel within proposed Unit FK12 and SP1 is relatively stable,
with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and their habitats may require special management
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects
associated with agricultural activities (livestock), silviculture-
related activities, natural gas and oil exploration activities in
headwater reaches, lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK13 and SP2: Middle Fork Holston River, Washington, Smyth, and
Wythe Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK13 and SP2 includes approximately 89 rkm (55 rmi)
of the Middle Fork Holston River from its inundation at South Holston
Lake in Washington County, VA, upstream to its headwaters in Wythe
County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied
by both the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. This unit is located almost entirely on private land, except
for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge
crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit FK13 and SP2 is relatively stable,
with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and their habitats may require special management
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects
associated with agricultural
[[Page 60836]]
activities, lack of adequate riparian buffers, silviculture-related
activities, and nonpoint source pollution.
Unit FK14 and SP3: Big Moccasin Creek, Scott and Russell Counties,
Virginia
Proposed Unit FK14 and SP3 includes approximately 33 rkm (21 rmi)
of Big Moccasin Creek from the Highway 71 Bridge crossing in Scott
County, VA, upstream to the Route 612 Bridge crossing near Collinwood
in Russell County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee River system
and is proposed as critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area
occupied by slabside pearlymussel at the time of listing. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell, but within the
species' historical range. Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in Big Moccasin Creek since the early 1900s (Ortmann 1918, p.
608). However, this unit is proposed for critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell because it is considered essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit is located almost entirely on
private land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the
form of bridge crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit FK14 and SP3 is relatively stable,
with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known
from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitats may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers,
silviculture-related activities, natural gas and oil exploration
activities in headwater reaches, illegal off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, and nonpoint source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK15: Copper Creek, Scott County, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK15 includes 55.5 rkm (34.5 rmi) of Copper Creek
from its confluence with the Clinch River upstream to the Highway 71
Bridge crossing in Scott County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee
River system and is proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing. This unit is located almost
entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings and road easements. A portion of
this unit (21 rkm (13 rmi)) has been designated as critical habitat for
the Cumberlandian combshell, rough rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster
mussel, and a portion of this unit (55.5 rkm (34.5 rmi)) has been
designated as critical habitat for the yellowfin madtom (42 FR 45526,
42 FR 47840, 69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK15 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell and its habitat
may require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects associated with agricultural activities
(livestock), silviculture-related activities, lack of adequate riparian
buffers, construction and maintenance of State and county roads, and
nonpoint source pollution originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK16 and SP4: Clinch River, Hancock County, Tennessee, and Scott,
Russell, and Tazewell Counties, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK16 and SP4 includes approximately 263 rkm (163 rmi)
of the Clinch River from rkm 255 (rmi 159) immediately below Grissom
Island in Hancock County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Indian
Creek near Cedar Bluff, Tazewell County, VA. The unit is within the
Tennessee River system and is proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by both species at the time of listing.
Approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi) of this unit is in public ownership,
including portions of the Kyles Ford State Managed Area, George
Washington National Forest, Jefferson National Forest, Cleveland
Barrens State Natural Area Preserve (SNAP), and the Pinnacle SNAP. The
Nature Conservancy also owns a small portion of adjacent property. The
unit completely overlaps critical habitat for the Cumberlandian
combshell, rough rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster mussel, and the
entire length of this unit has been designated as critical habitat for
the slender chub and yellowfin madtom (42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840, 69 FR
53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK16 and SP4 is relatively stable,
with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and their habitats may require special management
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects
associated with coal mining, silviculture-related activities, natural
gas and oil exploration activities in headwater reaches, agricultural
activities (livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction
and maintenance of State and county roads, and nonpoint source
pollution originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK17 and SP5: Powell River, Claiborne and Hancock Counties,
Tennessee, and Lee County, Virginia
Proposed Unit FK17 and SP5 includes approximately 153 rkm (95 rmi)
of the Powell River from the U.S. 25E Bridge in Claiborne County, TN,
upstream to rkm 256 (rmi 159) (upstream of Rock Island in the vicinity
of Pughs) in Lee County, VA. The unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area
occupied by both species at the time of listing. This unit is located
almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and a
small portion that is adjacent to the Cedars SNAP. The Nature
Conservancy also owns a small portion of adjacent property. The unit
completely overlaps critical habitat for the Cumberlandian combshell,
rough rabbitsfoot, purple bean, and oyster mussel, and the entire
length of this unit has been designated as critical habitat for the
slender chub and yellowfin madtom (42 FR 45526, 42 FR 47840, 69 FR
53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK17 and SP5 is relatively stable,
with instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2),
and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna, including
fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel, are
known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and
[[Page 60837]]
their habitats may require special management considerations or
protection to address potential adverse effects associated with coal
mining, silviculture-related activities, natural gas and oil
exploration activities in headwater reaches, agricultural activities
(livestock), lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction and
maintenance of State and county roads, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK18 and SP6: Nolichucky River, Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene
Counties, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK18 and SP6 includes approximately 52 rkm (32 rmi)
of the Nolichucky River from rkm 14 (rmi 9), approximately 0.6 rkm (0.4
rmi) upstream of Enka Dam, where it divides Hamblen and Cocke Counties,
TN, upstream to its confluence with Pigeon Creek, just upstream of the
Highway 321 Bridge crossing, in Greene County, TN. The unit is within
the Tennessee River system and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. This unit is considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell
at the time of listing, but within the species' historical range. Live
fluted kidneyshell have not been collected in the Nolichucky River
since the mid-1960s (Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Program
Database, accessed 2012). However, the TWRA has reintroduced the
species into at least two sites in the Nolichucky River by
translocating adult individuals from the Clinch River (Hubbs 2011,
unpubl. data). It is not known if the reintroductions have been
successful. This unit is proposed for critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell because it is considered essential for the conservation of
the species. This unit is located almost entirely on private land,
except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings, road easements, and a small portion that is within
Mullins Island Wildlife Management Area. A portion of this unit (8 rkm
(5 rmi)) has been designated as a critical habitat for the oyster
mussel and Cumberlandian combshell (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit FK18 and SP6 is relatively stable,
with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known
from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitats may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with agricultural
activities, silviculture-related activities, rock mining, lack of
adequate riparian buffers, construction and maintenance of State and
county roads, and nonpoint source pollution originating in headwater
reaches.
Unit FK19: Holston River, Knox, Grainger, and Jefferson Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK19 includes approximately 85 rkm (53 rmi) of the
Holston River from its confluence with the French Broad River in Knox
County, TN, upstream to the base of Cherokee Dam at rkm 83.7 (rmi 52.3)
along the Grainger and Jefferson County, TN, line. The unit is within
the Tennessee River system. This unit is considered unoccupied by the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel, but within the species'
historical ranges. Live fluted kidneyshell have not been collected in
the Holston River since the early 1900s (Ortmann 1918, p. 614). As
discussed below, we consider Unit FK19 essential for the conservation
of the fluted kidneyshell, but not the slabside pearlymussel, and so it
is proposed as critical habitat only for the fluted kidneyshell. This
unit is located almost entirely on private land, except for any small
amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings and road
easements. The unit completely overlaps a designated nonessential
experimental population for 15 mussels, 1 snail, and 5 fishes (72 FR
52434).
We consider this unit essential for the conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events. Although live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Holston River since the early 1900s (Ortmann 1918, p.
614), TVA has improved conditions for aquatic species within this unit.
Between 1988 and 1995, TVA implemented reservoir release improvements
below Cherokee Dam on the Holston River. These improvements included
the establishment of minimum flows and increasing the amount of
dissolved oxygen in the tailwater below the reservoir (Scott et al.
1996, p. 21).
The unit does currently support populations of three federally
listed species (threatened snail darter and endangered pink mucket and
sheepnose). In addition, other mussel species co-occur with these
species along with a diverse fish fauna, including hosts for the fluted
kidneyshell. These host fishes are bottom-dwelling species that are
able to move into refugia of low flows during high discharges from the
hydropower dam upstream. Therefore, the fluted kidneyshell glochidia
may come into contact and infest the host fishes. The slabside
pearlymussel and its host fishes are known from the French Broad River
drainage; however, hydropower operations make this habitat unsuitable
for mid-water column fishes, such as the shiners that are hosts for the
slabside pearlymussel (Layzer and Scott 2006, pp. 481, 488-9).
Therefore, we are not designating Unit FK19 as critical habitat for the
slabside pearlymussel at this time.
Unit FK20: French Broad River, Knox and Sevier Counties, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK20 includes approximately 56 rkm (35 rmi) of the
French Broad River from its confluence with the Holston River in Knox
County, TN, upstream to the base of Douglas Dam at rkm 51.7 (rmi 32.3)
in Sevier County, TN. The unit is within the Tennessee River system.
This unit is considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel, but within the species' historical ranges.
Fluted kidneyshell are only known from archaeological records in the
French Broad River (Parmalee 1988 in Layzer and Scott 2006, pp. 481-
482). As discussed below, we consider Unit FK20 essential for the
conservation of the fluted kidneyshell, but not the slabside
pearlymussel, and so it is proposed as critical habitat only for the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings and road easements and a small portion that is within
Forks of the River Wildlife Management Area. The unit completely
overlaps a nonessential experimental population for 15 mussels, 1
snail, and 5 fishes (72 FR 52434).
We consider this unit essential for the conservation of the fluted
kidneyshell due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events. Fluted kidneyshell are only known from
archaeological records in the French Broad River (Parmalee 1988 in
Layzer and Scott 2006, p. 481-482). However, between 1987 and 1995, TVA
implemented reservoir release improvements below Douglas Dam on the
French Broad River. These
[[Page 60838]]
improvements included the establishment of minimum flows and increasing
the amount of dissolved oxygen in the tailwater below the reservoir
(Scott et al. 1996, p. 11-12), improving conditions for the fluted
kidneyshell and other aquatic species.
The unit does currently support populations of the federally
threatened snail darter and endangered pink mucket. In addition, other
mussel species co-occur with these species and a diverse fish fauna,
including hosts for the fluted kidneyshell. These host fishes are
bottom-dwelling species that are able to move into refugia of low flows
during high discharges from the hydropower dam upstream. Therefore, the
fluted kidneyshell glochidia may come into contact and infest the host
fishes. The slabside pearlymussel and its host fishes are known from
the French Broad River drainage; however, hydropower operations make
this habitat unsuitable for mid-water column fishes, such as the
shiners that are hosts for the slabside pearlymussel (Layzer and Scott
2006, pp. 481, 488-9). Therefore, we are not designating Unit FK20 as
critical habitat for the slabside pearlymussel at this time.
Unit FK21 and SP7: Hiwassee River, Polk County, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK21 and SP7 includes approximately 24 rkm (15 rmi)
of the Hiwassee River from the Highway 315 Bridge crossing upstream to
the Highway 68 Bridge crossing in Polk County, TN. The unit is within
the Tennessee River system and is proposed critical habitat for the
fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in
the geographical area occupied by slabside pearlymussel at the time of
listing. This unit is considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell
at the time of listing, but within the species' historical range.
Fluted kidneyshell are only known from archaeological records in the
Hiwassee River (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 205). This unit is
considered essential for the conservation of the fluted kidneyshell. A
portion of this unit is considered a ``cut-off'' reach, because most of
the water flow bypasses the reach through a tunnel from Apalachia Dam
to the Apalachia powerhouse for the production of electricity. This
unit is located entirely on federal lands within the Cherokee National
Forest. Land and resource management decisions and activities within
the CNF are guided by CNF's LRMP (USFS 2004b, pp. 28-37, entire).
The channel within proposed Unit FK21 and SP7 has an abundance of
riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2). Diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts for the
slabside pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitats may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with silviculture-related
activities, nonpoint source pollution, water diversion through
Apalachia tunnel, and potential canopy loss caused by infestations of
the hemlock wooly adelgid. Another threat to the species and their
habitat which may require special management of the PCEs includes the
potential for significant changes in the existing flow regime and water
quality due to upstream impoundment As discussed in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, under ``Impoundments,'' mollusk declines below
dams are associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime,
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and water
temperatures, and changes in resident fish assemblages. These
alterations can cause mussel declines for many miles below the dam.
Unit SP8: Sequatchie River, Marion, Sequatchie, and Bledsoe Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit SP8 includes approximately 151 rkm (94 rmi) of the
Sequatchie River from the Highway 41, 64, 72, 2 Bridge crossing in
Marion County, TN, upstream to the Ninemile Cross Road Bridge crossing
in Bledsoe County, TN. The unit is within the Tennessee River system.
This unit is included in the geographical area occupied by slabside
pearlymussel at the time of listing. This unit is located almost
entirely on private land, except for any small amount that is publicly
owned in the form of bridge crossings and road easements.
Proposed Unit SP8 has an abundance of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with
relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2), and adequate
instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts for
the slabside pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its habitat may
require special management considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by agricultural activities, coal
mining, silvicultural activities, lack of adequate riparian buffers,
construction and maintenance of State and county roads, and nonpoint
source pollution arising from a wide variety of human activities.
Unit SP9: Paint Rock River, Madison, Marshall, and Jackson Counties,
Alabama
Proposed Unit SP9 includes approximately 86 rkm (53 rmi) of the
Paint Rock River from the Highway 431 Bridge crossing along the Madison
and Marshall County line, AL, upstream to and including approximately
11 rkm (7 rmi) of the tributary headwaters of Larkin Fork upstream to
its confluence with Bear Creek; approximately 13 rkm (8 rmi) of Estill
Fork upstream to its confluence with Bull Run; and approximately 16 rkm
(10 rmi) of Hurricane Creek upstream to its confluence with Turkey
Creek in Jackson County, AL. The unit is within the Tennessee River
system and is proposed critical habitat for the slabside pearlymussel.
The unit is included in the geographical area occupied by the slabside
pearlymussel at the time of listing. Approximately 6 rkm (4 rmi) of
this unit is federally or State-owned and adjacent to the Fern Cave
National Wildlife Refuge and Walls of Jericho State Management Area;
the remainder is privately owned, including a small parcel owned by the
Alabama Land Trust. A portion of this unit (80 rkm (50 rmi)) has been
proposed as critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot.
The channel within proposed Unit SP9 is relatively stable, with
excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitat may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with agricultural
activities, silvicultural activities, off-road vehicle use and other
recreational activities, and nonpoint source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK22 and SP10: Elk River, Limestone County, Alabama, and Giles,
Lincoln, Franklin, and Moore Counties, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK22 and SP10 includes approximately 164 rkm (102
rmi) of the Elk River from its inundation at Wheeler Lake in Limestone
County, AL, upstream to its confluence with Farris Creek at the
dividing line between Franklin and Moore Counties, TN. The unit is
within the Tennessee River system and is proposed critical habitat for
the fluted kidneyshell and
[[Page 60839]]
slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area
occupied by slabside pearlymussel at the time of listing. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell, but within the
species' historical range. Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Elk River since the late-1960s (Isom et al. 1973, p.
440). The unit is considered essential for the conservation of the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings and road easements and a small portion that is within
TVA-owned lands near Wheeler Reservoir.
Proposed Unit FK22 and SP10 has an abundance of riffle habitats
(PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates (PCE 2),
and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna, including
fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE
5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitats may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with hydropower generation
from Tims Ford Dam, agriculture, nonpoint source pollution, and
instream gravel mining. Another threat to the species and their habitat
which may require special management of the PCEs includes the potential
for significant changes in the existing flow regime and water quality
due to upstream impoundment. As discussed in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, under ``Impoundments,'' mollusk declines below
dams are associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime,
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and water
temperatures, and changes in resident fish assemblages. These
alterations can cause mussel declines for many miles below the dam.
Unit SP11: Bear Creek, Colbert County, Alabama, and Tishomingo County,
Mississippi
Proposed Unit SP11 includes approximately 42 rkm (26 rmi) of Bear
Creek from its inundation at Pickwick Lake at rkm 37 (rmi 23) in
Colbert County, AL, upstream through Tishomingo County, MS, and ending
at the Mississippi/Alabama State line. The unit is within the Tennessee
River system and is proposed critical habitat for the slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied
by the slabside pearlymussel at the time of listing. This unit is
located almost entirely on private land, except for any small amount
that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings and road
easements, and that within Tishomingo State Park and the Natchez Trace
Parkway. The unit completely overlaps critical habitat for the oyster
mussel and Cumberlandian combshell (69 FR 53136; August 31, 2004) and a
portion (42 rkm (26 rmi)) of this unit has been proposed as critical
habitat for the rabbitsfoot (69 FR 53136).
The channel within proposed Unit SP11 has an abundance of riffle
habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel substrates
(PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish fauna,
including fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known from this
unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitat may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with releases from
upstream impoundments, agriculture, and nonpoint source pollution
originating in headwater reaches.
Unit FK23 and SP12: Duck River, Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties, Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK23 and SP12 includes approximately 348 rkm (216
rmi) of the Duck River from its inundation at Kentucky Lake in
Humphreys County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Flat Creek near
Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN. The unit is within the Tennessee
River system and is proposed critical habitat for the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel. This unit is included in the
geographical area occupied by both species at the time of listing. The
fluted kidneyshell population is a result of a successful
reintroduction program implemented by TWRA and other conservation
partners. Approximately 64 rkm (39 rmi) of this unit is federally or
State-owned and adjacent to the Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge,
Natchez Trace Parkway, Yanahli Wildlife Management Area, and Henry
Horton State Park; the remainder is privately owned. A portion of this
unit (74 rkm (46 rmi)) has been designated as a critical habitat for
the oyster mussel and Cumberlandian combshell (69 FR 53136) and a
portion of this unit (234 rkm (146 rmi)) has been proposed as critical
habitat for the rabbitsfoot.
The channel within proposed Unit FK23 and SP12 is relatively
stable, with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance
of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel, are known from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the fluted kidneyshell, slabside
pearlymussel, and their habitats may require special management
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects
associated with agricultural activities (livestock), water withdrawals,
lack of adequate riparian buffers, construction and maintenance of
State and county roads, and nonpoint source pollution originating in
headwater reaches.
Unit FK24 and SP13: Buffalo River, Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee
Proposed Unit FK24 and SP13 includes approximately 50 rkm (31 rmi)
of the Buffalo River from its confluence with the Duck River in
Humphreys County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Cane Creek in
Perry County, TN. The unit is within the Tennessee River system and is
proposed critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside
pearlymussel. This unit is included in the geographical area occupied
by slabside pearlymussel at the time of listing. This unit is
considered unoccupied by the fluted kidneyshell, but within the
species' historical range. Live fluted kidneyshell have not been
collected in the Buffalo River since the early 1920s (Ortmann 1924, p.
28). The unit is considered essential for the conservation of the
fluted kidneyshell. This unit is located almost entirely on private
land, except for any small amount that is publicly owned in the form of
bridge crossings and road easements.
The channel within proposed Unit FK24 and SP13 is relatively
stable, with excellent instream habitat (PCE 1). There is an abundance
of riffle habitats (PCE 1), with relatively silt-free sand and gravel
substrates (PCE 2), and adequate instream flows (PCE 3). A diverse fish
fauna, including fish hosts for the slabside pearlymussel, are known
from this unit (PCE 5).
Within this proposed unit, the slabside pearlymussel and its
habitats may require special management considerations or protection to
address potential adverse effects associated with agriculture and
nonpoint source pollution.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund,
[[Page 60840]]
authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat
of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed
to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir.
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the CWA or a permit
from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not
require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PBFs to an
extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical
habitat for fluted kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel. As discussed
above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs
and provide for the conservation of these species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the fluted kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel. These
activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the geomorphology of their stream and
river habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, sand and
gravel mining, clearing riparian vegetation, and discharge of fill
materials. These activities could cause aggradation or degradation of
the channel bed elevation or significant bank erosion and result in
entrainment or burial of these mussels, and could cause other direct or
cumulative adverse effects to these species and their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow regime
where these species occur. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to; impoundment, urban development, water diversion, water
withdrawal, water draw-down, and hydropower generation. These
activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for growth
and reproduction of these mussels and their fish hosts.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or water
quality (for example, temperature, pH, contaminants, and excess
nutrients). Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
hydropower discharges, or the release of chemicals, biological
pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (nonpoint
source). These activities could alter water conditions that are beyond
the tolerances of these mussels and their fish hosts or both, and
result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to the species
throughout their life cycles.
(4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, construction projects, gravel and sand mining, oil and gas
[[Page 60841]]
development, coal mining, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other
watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water. These activities could eliminate or reduce
habitats necessary for the growth and reproduction of these mussels or
their fish hosts or both, by causing excessive sedimentation and burial
of the species or their habitats, or nutrification leading to excessive
filamentous algal growth. Excessive filamentous algal growth can cause
reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen levels through respiration, and
prevent juvenile mussels from settling into stream sediments.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During the
development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts,
public comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded
from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel are not
owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security.
Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the fluted kidneyshell
or slabside pearlymussel, and the proposed designation does not include
any tribal lands or trust resources. Therefore, we anticipate no impact
on tribal lands or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation.
Nonessential Experimental Populations
Congress made significant changes to the Act, with the addition of
section 10(j) in 1982, which provides for the designation of specific
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' This section was designed to provide us with an
innovative means to introduce a listed species into unoccupied habitat
within its historical range when doing so would foster the conservation
and
[[Page 60842]]
recovery of the species. Experimental populations provide us with a
flexible, proactive means to meet recovery criteria while not
alienating stakeholders, such as other agencies, municipalities, and
landowners, whose cooperation is essential for eventual success of the
reintroduced population.
Section 10(j) increases our flexibility in managing an experimental
population by allowing us to treat a population as a threatened
species, regardless of the species' status elsewhere in its range.
Threatened species status gives us more discretion in developing and
implementing management programs and special regulations for a
population and allows us to develop any regulations we consider
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a threatened
species under Section 4(d) of the Act. This flexibility allows us to
manage the experimental population in a manner that will ensure that
current and future land, water, or air uses and activities will not be
unnecessarily restricted and the population can be managed for recovery
purposes.
When we designate a population as experimental, section 10(j) of
the Act requires that we determine whether that population is either
essential or nonessential to the continued existence of the species, on
the basis of the best available information. Nonessential experimental
populations (NEPs) located outside the National Wildlife Refuge System
or National Park System lands are treated, for the purposes of section
7 of the Act, as if they are proposed for listing as a threatened
species, while on National Wildlife Refuges or National Parks the
species is treated as a threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, would
not apply except on National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park
System lands. Experimental populations determined to be ``essential''
to the survival of the species would remain subject to the consultation
provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
As mentioned earlier in the unit descriptions and referenced in
Table 5, there are two nonessential experimental populations (NEPs) for
listed aquatic species that overlap with the proposed critical habitat
designation. These include the NEP for the yellowfin madtom in the
North Fork of the Holston River (53 FR 29335), which overlaps with Unit
FK12 and SP1, and the NEP for 21 listed aquatic species (including the
yellowfin madtom) in the lower French Broad and Holston Rivers (72 FR
52434), which overlaps with Units FK19 and FK20. These NEPs were not
established specifically for the conservation of the fluted kidneyshell
or slabside pearlymussel, which were candidate species when the NEPs
were published, but rather to promote the reintroduction of their
target listed species into historical habitat. They were developed with
the support of numerous partners, including the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority, Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, and others. We would need to amend the NEPs
through the rulemaking process in order for the fluted kidneyshell and
slabside pearlymussel to be included.
The North Fork of the Holston River is considered occupied by both
the slabside pearlymussel and the fluted kidneyshell, and presently
contains numerous PCEs (see ``Proposed Critical Habitat Designation'')
and is therefore being proposed as critical habitat. The lower Holston
River (below Cherokee Dam) and French Broad River (below Douglas Dam)
are being proposed as unoccupied habitat for the fluted kidneyshell
because we have determined these river reaches are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Accordingly, at this time the Secretary does not propose to exert
his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on
other relevant impacts. However, we recognize that exclusion of river
reaches covered by these NEPs from critical habitat may continue to
encourage conservation and reintroduction efforts for numerous
imperiled aquatic species in the upper Tennessee River Basin.
Therefore, we are requesting information on whether the benefits of the
exclusion of river reaches covered by these NEPs would outweigh the
benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on
information received during the comment period, the Secretary may
reconsider exclusion in the final rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our proposed listing determination and critical habitat
designation are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment during this
public comment period on this proposed rule.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment
[[Page 60843]]
a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the
rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will only directly regulate Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. As such,
certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical habitat
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, although not necessarily required by
the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal we will
consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties that may
be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies related to
this action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat designation to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Natural gas and oil exploration and development
activities occur or could potentially occur in all proposed critical
habitat units. However, compliance with State regulatory requirements
or voluntary best management practices would be expected to minimize
impacts of natural gas and oil exploration and development in the areas
of proposed critical habitat for both species. The measures for natural
gas and oil exploration and development are generally not considered a
substantial cost compared with overall project costs and are already
being implemented by oil and gas companies.
Coal mining occurs or could potentially occur in proposed critical
habitat units in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and was identified
as an activity that may have adverse effects on these species and their
habitat. Incidental take for listed species associated with surface
coal mining activities is currently covered under a programmatic, non-
jeopardy biological opinion between the Office of Surface Mining and
the Service, completed in 1996 (Service 1996, entire). The biological
opinion covers existing, proposed, and future endangered and threatened
species that may be affected by the implementation and administration
of surface coal mining programs under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Through its analysis,
the Service concluded that the proposed action (surface coal mining and
reclamation activities) was not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened, endangered, or proposed species or result
in adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat.
Based on this conclusion, we do not anticipate that the designation of
critical habitat would constitute a significant energy action, and have
therefore not completed a Statement of Energy Effects. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and
review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Hydropower generation occurs upstream of proposed critical habitat
units in the mainstem Holston, French Broad, Hiwassee, and Elk Rivers.
Incidental take for listed species (which does not include the fluted
kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel), associated
[[Page 60844]]
with hydropower generation, is currently covered under two
programmatic, non-jeopardy biological opinions between the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) and the Service, completed in 2004 and 2006
(Service, 2004, entire; Service 2006, entire). These biological
opinions cover TVA's routine operations and maintenance of water
control structures in the Tennessee River System and species that were
listed at that time. The Service concluded that the proposed action
(operation and maintenance activities at TVA dams--including hydropower
generation) was not likely to jeopardize continued existence of any
listed species. Based on our experience with the currently listed
species and their critical habitat, we do not anticipate this action
will qualify as a significant energy action, and therefore we have not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects at this time. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and
review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster
Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support
Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private
sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal entities or private parties. Under the Act,
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7 of the Act. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the fluted kidneyshell or slabside pearlymussel would
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because these mussel
species occur primarily in State-owned river channels, or in remote
privately owned stream channels. As such, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. We will, however, further evaluate this issue as
we conduct our economic analysis and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel
in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does
not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for these species does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the PBFs essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
PBFs within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding
the habitat needs of the fluted kidneyshell and slabside pearlymussel.
[[Page 60845]]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with listing a
species or designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042
(1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no Tribal lands currently
occupied by the species that contain the features essential for the
conservation of, and no Tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation of, these two species. Therefore, we have not proposed
designation of critical habitat for these species on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Kidneyshell,
fluted'' and ``Pearlymussel, slabside'' in alphabetical order under
``CLAMS'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------ population
where Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Clams
* * * * * * *
Kidneyshell, fluted................ Ptychobranchus U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, NA E ........... 17.95(f) NA
subtentum. VA).
* * * * * * *
Pearlymussel, slabside............. Pleuronaia U.S.A. (AL, KY, MS, NA E ........... 17.95(f) NA
dolabelloides. TN, VA).
[[Page 60846]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding entries for
``Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum)'' and ``Slabside
Pearlymussel (Pleuronaia dolabelloides)'' in that order immediately
following the entry for Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa), to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted on the maps below for
Limestone County, Alabama; Jackson, Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski,
Rockcastle, and Wayne Counties, Kentucky; Bedford, Claiborne, Cocke,
Fentress, Franklin, Giles, Grainger, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman,
Humphreys, Jefferson, Knox, Lincoln, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Morgan,
Overton, Perry, Pickett, Polk, Scott, and Sevier Counties, Tennessee;
and Bland, Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe
Counties, Virginia.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of fluted
kidneyshell consist of five components:
(i) Riffle habitats within large, geomorphically stable stream
channels (channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal
profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or
degrading bed elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand, gravel, and cobble with low to
moderate amounts of fine sediment and containing flow refugia with low
shear stress.
(iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain
benthic habitats where the species are found, and connectivity of
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability for all life
stages, and spawning habitat for native fishes.
(iv) Water quality with low levels of pollutants and including a
natural temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content
(not less than 5.0 milligrams/liter), hardness, and turbidity necessary
for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(v) The presence of abundant fish hosts necessary for recruitment
of the fluted kidneyshell.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, dams, roads, and other paved areas) and the land
on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created with USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD\+\) GIS data. The
1:100,000 river reach (route) files were used to calculate river
kilometers and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 10.0 software was used to determine
longitude and latitude coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units was USA Contiguous Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS version, NAD 83, meters. The following data sources
were referenced to identify features (like roads and streams) used to
delineate the upstream and downstream extents of critical habitat
units: NHD\+\ flowline and waterbody data, 2011 Navteq roads data, USA
Topo ESRI online basemap service, DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The maps in this entry, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the field office
Internet site (https://www.fws.gov/cookeville), https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004, and at the
Service's Tennessee Fish and Wildlife Office. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) An overview of critical habitat locations for the fluted
kidneyshell in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia follows:
[[Page 60847]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.001
(6) Unit FK1: Horse Lick Creek, Rockcastle and Jackson Counties,
Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately 19 river kilometers (rkm) (12
river miles (rmi)) of Horse Lick Creek, in Rockcastle and Jackson
Counties, KY. It includes the mainstem of Horse Lick Creek from its
confluence with the Rockcastle River (-84.13780, 37.31991) upstream to
Clover Bottom Creek (-84.12200, 37.40879).
(ii) Map of Units FK1 and FK2 follows:
[[Page 60848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.002
(7) Unit FK2: Middle Fork Rockcastle River, Jackson County,
Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes 12.5 rkm (7.7 rmi) of the Middle Fork
Rockcastle River from its confluence with the Rockcastle River (-
84.11895, 37.33581) upstream to its confluence with Indian Creek and
Laurel Fork E (-84.04897, 37.36765) in Jackson County, KY.
(ii) Map of Units FK1 and FK2 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of
this entry.
(8) Unit FK3: Rockcastle River, Pulaski, Laurel, and Rockcastle
Counties, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately 70 rkm (43 rmi) of the
Rockcastle River from the backwaters of Lake Cumberland near its
confluence with Cane Creek along the Laurel and Pulaski County line, KY
(-84.30594, 37.03423), upstream to its confluence with Horse Lick Creek
along the Laurel and Rockcastle County line, KY (-84.13766, 37.31944).
(ii) Map of Unit FK3 follows:
[[Page 60849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.003
(9) Unit FK4: Buck Creek, Pulaski County, Kentucky.
(i) This unit includes 61 rkm (38 rmi) of Buck Creek from State
Route 192 (-84.42681, 37.05977) upstream to Route 328 (-84.55492,
37.32430), Pulaski County, KY.
(ii) Map of Unit FK4 follows:
[[Page 60850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.004
(10) Unit FK5: Rock Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of Rock Creek
from its confluence with White Oak Creek (-84.69103, 36.65145) upstream
to the low water crossing at rkm 25.6 (rmi 15.9) (-84.58888, 36.70800)
in McCreary County, KY.
(ii) Map of Units FK5 and FK6 follows:
[[Page 60851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.005
(11) Unit FK6: Little South Fork Cumberland River, McCreary and
Wayne Counties, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes 65.5 rkm (40.7 rmi) of the Little South Fork
Cumberland River from its confluence with the Big South Fork Cumberland
River (-84.58269, 36.82690), where it is the dividing line between
Wayne and McCreary Counties, upstream to its confluence with Dobbs
Creek (-84.85344, 36.62588) in Wayne County, KY.
(ii) Map of Units FK5 and FK6 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of
this entry.
(12) Unit FK7: Big South Fork Cumberland River, Fentress, Morgan,
and Scott Counties, Tennessee, and McCreary County, Kentucky.
(i) The unit includes approximately 45 rkm (28 rmi) of the Big
South Fork of the Cumberland River from its confluence with Laurel
Crossing Branch downstream of Big Shoals (-84.53642, 36.64114),
McCreary County, KY, upstream to its confluence with Clear Fork and of
the New River (-84.62394, 36.42475), Scott County, TN. This unit also
includes 32.3 rkm (20.0 rmi) of Clear Fork from its confluence with the
Big South Fork and New River (-84.62394, 36.42475) in Scott County, TN,
upstream to its confluence with Crooked Creek (-84.78637, 36.32533)
along the Fentress and Morgan County
[[Page 60852]]
line, TN. This unit also includes 14.7 rkm (9.1 rmi) of the New River
from its confluence with the Big South Fork (-84.62394, 36.42475)
upstream to the Highway 27 Bridge crossing (-84.55290, 36.38279) in
Scott County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.006
(13) Unit FK8: Wolf River and Town Branch, Pickett and Fentress
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes 41.0 rkm (25.5 rmi) of the Wolf River from
its inundation at Dale Hollow Lake (-85.14414, 36.60670) in Pickett
County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Delk Creek (-84.91064,
36.52784) in Fentress County, TN. This unit also includes 3.4 rkm (2.0
rmi) of Town Branch from its confluence with Wolf River (-85.11787,
36.58321) upstream to its headwaters (-85.12136, 36.55947) in Pickett
County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK8 follows:
[[Page 60853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.007
(14) Unit FK9: West Fork Obey River, Overton County, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 19 rkm (12 rmi) of the West
Fork Obey River from the Highway 52 Bridge crossing (-85.17410,
36.39731) upstream to its confluence with Dry Hollow Creek (-85.20747,
36.25989) in Overton County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK9 follows:
[[Page 60854]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.008
(15) Unit FK10: Indian Creek, Tazewell County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 6.7 rkm (4.2 rmi) of Indian Creek from its
confluence with the Clinch River (-81.76608, 37.08893) upstream to the
fourth Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing at Van Dyke (-81.71975,
37.11206) in Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Units FK10 and FK11 follows:
[[Page 60855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.009
(16) Unit FK11: Little River, Russell and Tazewell Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 50 rkm (31 rmi) of Little River
from its confluence with the Clinch River (-81.92582, 37.00223) in
Russell County, VA, upstream to its confluence with Liberty and Maiden
Spring Creeks (-81.67240, 37.03760) in Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Units FK10 and FK11 is provided at paragraph (15)(ii)
of this entry.
(17) Unit FK12: North Fork Holston River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 67 rkm (42 rmi) of the North
Fork Holston River from its confluence with Beaver Creek (-81.70277,
36.90825), upstream of Saltville, in Smyth County, VA, upstream to
Ceres (-81.33775, 37.01035), Bland County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK12 follows:
[[Page 60856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.010
(18) Unit FK13: Middle Fork Holston River, Washington, Smyth, and
Wythe Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 89 rkm (55 rmi) of the Middle
Fork Holston River from its inundation at South Holston Lake (-
81.90427, 36.66338) in Washington County, VA, upstream to its
headwaters (-81.31345, 36.88666) in Wythe County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK13 follows:
[[Page 60857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.011
(19) Unit FK14: Big Moccasin Creek, Scott and Russell Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 33 rkm (21 rmi) of Big Moccasin
Creek from the Highway 71 Bridge crossing (-82.48361, 36.69109) in
Scott County, VA, upstream to the Route 612 Bridge crossing (-82.32348,
36.73740) near Collinwood in Russell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK14 follows:
[[Page 60858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.012
(20) Unit FK15: Copper Creek, Scott County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 55.5 rkm (34.5 rmi) of Copper Creek from its
confluence with the Clinch River (-82.74538, 36.65544) upstream to the
Highway 71 Bridge crossing (-82.43514, 36.73473) in Scott County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK15 follows:
[[Page 60859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.013
(21) Unit FK16: Clinch River, Hancock County, Tennessee, and Scott,
Russell, and Tazewell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 263 rkm (163 rmi) of the Clinch River from
rkm 255 (rmi 159) immediately below Grissom Island (-83.40106,
36.43081) in Hancock County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Indian
Creek near Cedar Bluff (-81.74999, 37.07995), Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK16 follows:
[[Page 60860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.014
(22) Unit FK17: Powell River, Claiborne and Hancock Counties,
Tennessee, and Lee County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 153 rkm (95 rmi) of the Powell
River from the U.S. 25E Bridge (-83.63102, 36.54143) in Claiborne
County, TN, upstream to rkm 256 (rmi 159) (-82.98111, 36.75730,
upstream of Rock Island in the vicinity of Pughs) in Lee County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit FK17 follows:
[[Page 60861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.015
(23) Unit FK18: Nolichucky River, Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 52 rkm (32 rmi) of the
Nolichucky River from rkm 14 (rmi 9), approximately 0.6 rkm (0.4 rmi)
upstream of Enka Dam (-83.19630, 36.12970), where it divides Hamblen
and Cocke Counties, TN, upstream to its confluence with Pigeon Creek,
just upstream of the Highway 321 Bridge crossing (-82.92926, 36.07545),
in Greene County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK18 follows:
[[Page 60862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.016
(24) Unit FK19: Holston River, Knox, Grainger, and Jefferson
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 85 rkm (53 rmi) of the Holston
River from its confluence with the French Broad River (-83.84967,
35.95903) in Knox County, TN, upstream to the base of Cherokee Dam at
rkm 83.7 (rmi 52.3) (-83.49855, 36.16666) along the Grainger and
Jefferson County, TN, line.
(ii) Map of Units FK19 and FK20 follows:
[[Page 60863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.017
(25) Unit FK20: French Broad River, Knox and Sevier Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 56 rkm (35 rmi) of the French
Broad River from its confluence with the Holston River (-83.84967,
35.95903) in Knox County, TN, upstream to the base of Douglas Dam at
rkm 51.7 (rmi 32.3) (-83.53821, 35.96073) in Sevier County, TN.
(ii) Map of Units FK19 and FK20 is provided at paragraph (24)(ii)
of this entry.
(26) Unit FK21: Hiwassee River, Polk County, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 24 rkm (15 rmi) of the Hiwassee
River from the Highway 315 Bridge crossing (-84.50234, 35.18875)
upstream to the Highway 68 Bridge crossing (-84.31728, 35.16811) in
Polk County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK21 follows:
[[Page 60864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.018
(27) Unit FK22: Elk River, Limestone County, Alabama, and Giles,
Lincoln, Franklin, and Moore Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 164 rkm (102 rmi) of the Elk
River from its inundation at Wheeler Lake (-87.06503, 34.89788) in
Limestone County, AL, upstream to its confluence with Farris Creek (-
86.31996, 35.16288) at the dividing line between Franklin and Moore
Counties, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK22 follows:
[[Page 60865]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.019
(28) Unit FK23: Duck River, Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 348 rkm (216 rmi) of the Duck
River from its inundation at Kentucky Lake (-87.88011, 36.00244) in
Humphreys County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Flat Creek (-
86.48778, 35.47209) near Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK23 follows:
[[Page 60866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.020
(29) Unit FK24: Buffalo River, Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes 50 rkm (31 rmi) of the Buffalo River from its
confluence with the Duck River (-87.84261, 35.99477) in Humphreys
County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Cane Creek (-87.78718,
35.72298) in Perry County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit FK24 follows:
[[Page 60867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.021
Slabside Pearlymussel (Pleuronaia dolabelloides)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted on the maps below for
Colbert, Jackson, Limestone, Madison, and Marshall Counties, Alabama;
Tishomingo County, Mississippi; Bedford, Bledsoe, Claiborne, Cocke,
Franklin, Giles, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, Hickman, Humphreys, Lincoln,
Marion, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Perry, Polk, and Sequatchie Counties,
Tennessee; and Bland, Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington,
and Wythe Counties, Virginia.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
slabside pearlymussel consist of five components:
(i) Riffle habitats within large, geomorphically stable stream
channels (channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal
profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or
degrading bed elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand, gravel, and cobble with low to
moderate amounts of fine sediment and containing flow refugia with low
shear stress.
(iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain
benthic habitats where the species are found, and connectivity of
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability for all life
stages, and spawning habitat for native fishes.
(iv) Water quality with low levels of pollutants and including a
natural
[[Page 60868]]
temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not less
than 5.0 milligrams/liter), hardness, and turbidity necessary for
normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(v) The presence of abundant fish hosts necessary for recruitment
of the slabside pearlymussel.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, dams, roads, and other paved areas) and the land
on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created with USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD\+\) GIS data. The
1:100,000 river reach (route) files were used to calculate river
kilometers and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 10.0 software was used to determine
longitude and latitude coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units was USA Contiguous Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS version, NAD 83, meters. The following data sources
were referenced to identify features (like roads and streams) used to
delineate the upstream and downstream extents of critical habitat
units: NHD\+\ flowline and waterbody data, 2011 Navteq roads data, USA
Topo ESRI online basemap service, DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The maps in this entry, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the field office
Internet site (https://www.fws.gov/cookeville), https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0004, and at the
Service's Tennessee Fish and Wildlife Office. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) An overview of critical habitat locations for the slabside
pearlymussel in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia follows:
[[Page 60869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.022
(6) Unit SP1: North Fork Holston River, Smyth and Bland Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 67 river kilometers (rkm) (42
river miles (rmi)) of the North Fork Holston River from its confluence
with Beaver Creek (-81.70277, 36.90825), upstream of Saltville, in
Smyth County, VA, upstream to Ceres (-81.33775, 37.01035), Bland
County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP1 follows:
[[Page 60870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.023
(7) Unit SP2: Middle Fork Holston River, Washington, Smyth, and
Wythe Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 89 rkm (55 rmi) of the Middle
Fork Holston River from its inundation at South Holston Lake (-
81.90427, 36.66338) in Washington County, VA, upstream to its
headwaters (-81.31345, 36.88666) in Wythe County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP2 follows:
[[Page 60871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.024
(8) Unit SP3: Big Moccasin Creek, Scott and Russell Counties,
Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 33 rkm (21 rmi) of Big Moccasin
Creek from the Highway 71 Bridge crossing (-82.48361, 36.69109) in
Scott County, VA, upstream to the Route 612 Bridge crossing (-82.32348,
36.73740) near Collinwood in Russell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP3 follows:
[[Page 60872]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.025
(9) Unit SP4: Clinch River, Hancock County, Tennessee, and Scott,
Russell, and Tazewell Counties, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes 263 rkm (163 rmi) of the Clinch River from
rkm 255 (rmi 159) immediately below Grissom Island (-83.40106,
36.43081) in Hancock County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Indian
Creek near Cedar Bluff (-81.74999, 37.07995), Tazewell County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP4 follows:
[[Page 60873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.026
(10) Unit SP5: Powell River, Claiborne and Hancock Counties,
Tennessee, and Lee County, Virginia.
(i) The unit includes approximately 153 rkm (95 rmi) of the Powell
River from the U.S. 25E Bridge (-83.63102, 36.54143) in Claiborne
County, TN, upstream to rkm 256 (rmi 159) (-82.98111, 36.75730,
upstream of Rock Island in the vicinity of Pughs) in Lee County, VA.
(ii) Map of Unit SP5 follows:
[[Page 60874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.027
(11) Unit SP6: Nolichucky River, Cocke, Hamblen, and Greene
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 52 rkm (32 rmi) of the
Nolichucky River from rkm 14 (rmi 9), approximately 0.6 rkm (0.4 rmi)
upstream of Enka Dam (-83.19630, 36.12970), where it divides Hamblen
and Cocke Counties, TN, upstream to its confluence with Pigeon Creek,
just upstream of the Highway 321 Bridge crossing (-82.92926, 36.07545),
in Greene County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP6 follows:
[[Page 60875]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.028
(12) Unit SP7: Hiwassee River, Polk County, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 24 rkm (15 rmi) of the Hiwassee
River from the Highway 315 Bridge crossing (-84.50234, 35.18875)
upstream to the Highway 68 Bridge crossing (-84.31728, 35.16811) in
Polk County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP7 follows:
[[Page 60876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.029
(13) Unit SP8: Sequatchie River, Marion, Sequatchie, and Bledsoe
Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 151 rkm (94 rmi) of the
Sequatchie River from the Highway 41, 64, 72, 2 Bridge crossing (-
85.60583, 35.06576) in Marion County, TN, upstream to the Ninemile
Cross Road Bridge crossing (-85.08304, 35.69162) in Bledsoe County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP8 follows:
[[Page 60877]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.030
(14) Unit SP9: Paint Rock River, Madison, Marshall, and Jackson
Counties, Alabama.
(i) The unit includes approximately 86 rkm (53 rmi) of the Paint
Rock River from the Highway 431 Bridge crossing (-86.39109, 34.49926)
along the Madison and Marshall County line, AL, upstream to Estill Fork
(-86.17048, 34.89811); approximately 11 rkm (7 rmi) of Larkin Fork from
its confluence with the Paint Rock River (-86.20833, 34.86218) upstream
to its confluence with Bear Creek (-86.22512, 34.94205) in Jackson
County, AL. This unit also includes approximately 13 rkm (8 rmi) of
Estill Fork from its confluence with the Paint Rock River (-86.17048,
34.89813) upstream to its confluence with Bull Run (-86.15283,
34.99118) in Jackson County, AL. This unit also includes approximately
16 rkm (10 rmi) of Hurricane Creek from its confluence with the Paint
Rock River (-86.17048, 34.89813) upstream to its confluence with Turkey
Creek (-86.09441, 34.98370) in Jackson County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit SP9 follows:
[[Page 60878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.031
(15) Unit SP10: Elk River, Limestone County, Alabama, and Giles,
Lincoln, Franklin, and Moore Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 164 rkm (102 rmi) of the Elk
River from its inundation at Wheeler Lake (-87.06503, 34.89788) in
Limestone County, AL, upstream to its confluence with Farris Creek (-
86.31996, 35.16288) at the dividing line between Franklin and Moore
Counties, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP10 follows:
[[Page 60879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.032
(16) Unit SP11: Bear Creek, Colbert County, Alabama, and Tishomingo
County, Mississippi.
(i) The unit includes approximately 42 rkm (26 rmi) of Bear Creek
from its inundation at Pickwick Lake at rkm 37 (rmi 23) (-88.08373,
34.68909) in Colbert County, AL, upstream through Tishomingo County,
MS, and ending at the Mississippi-Alabama State line (-88.15388, 34.
49139).
(ii) Map of Unit SP11 follows:
[[Page 60880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.033
(17) Unit SP12: Duck River, Humphreys, Perry, Hickman, Maury,
Marshall, and Bedford Counties, Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes approximately 348 rkm (216 rmi) of the Duck
River from its inundation at Kentucky Lake (-87.88011, 36.00244) in
Humphreys County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Flat Creek (-
86.48778, 35.47209) near Shelbyville in Bedford County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP12 follows:
[[Page 60881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.034
(18) Unit SP13: Buffalo River, Humphreys and Perry Counties,
Tennessee.
(i) The unit includes 50 rkm (31 rmi) of the Buffalo River from its
confluence with the Duck River (-87.84261, 35.99477) in Humphreys
County, TN, upstream to its confluence with Cane Creek (-87.78718,
35.72298) in Perry County, TN.
(ii) Map of Unit SP13 follows:
[[Page 60882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC12.035
* * * * *
Dated: September 17, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24019 Filed 10-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P