[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13717-13720]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-34]
[[Page 13717]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0010]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria
jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the southern hickorynut mussel (Obovaria
jacksoniana) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. Based on our review, we find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the southern hickorynut mussel may be
warranted. Therefore, we will not be initiating a further status review
in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of,
or threats to, the southern hickorynut mussel or its habitat at any
time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 23,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Hartfield at the Jackson, MS,
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone (601-
321-1125) or by facsimile to 601-965-4340. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Petition History
On October 15, 2008, we received a petition, dated October 9, 2008,
from WildEarth Guardians, Santa Fe, NM, requesting that the southern
hickorynut mussel and five other mussel species be listed as threatened
or endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite identification information of the
petitioner required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 26, 2008, letter
to the petitioner, we acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated
that the petition for the six mussel species was under review by staff
in our Southwest (Region 2) and Southeast (Region 4) Regional Offices.
Region 2 already addressed 5 of the 6 petitioned species including
smooth pimpleback, Texas pimpleback, false spike, Mexican fawnsfoot,
and Texas fawnsfoot, in a separate finding (74 FR 66260; December 15,
2009). This finding addresses the petition to list the southern
hickorynut mussel.
Legal Requirements for Petition Review
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time the petition is received. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is, ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species (status review), which is
subsequently summarized in a 12-month finding.
We base this finding on information provided by the petition that
we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
receipt of the petition. We have been accumulating information on
mussel species of concern, including the southern hickorynut, for a
number of years ; therefore, we have considerable information in our
files regarding this species. We evaluated all information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our
regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
Species Information
The southern hickorynut is a medium-sized mussel growing to 55
millimeters (2 inches) in length. The shell is moderately thick,
smooth, and oval to subtriangular in shape; the beaks are raised above
the hinge line. Shell color is brown to black, sometimes with dark
green rays. The interior of the shell is white in color, iridescent
along the margin; the beak cavity is moderately deep. For a more
detailed description, see Williams et al. 2008, p. 463. The southern
hickorynut can be confused with the Alabama hickorynut (Obovaria
unicolor), the ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), and the black
clubshell (P. curtum) in the Mobile River drainage (Williams et al.
2008, p. 464); the Ouachita creekshell (Villosa arkasasensis) in the
Ouachita and White river drainages (WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 10;
NatureServe 2008); and round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) in the
Lower Mississippi River drainage (Hartfield and Ebert 1986, p. 23;
Hartfield and Rummel 1985, p. 118). Taxonomic problems with
identification of the species have been recently noted. Phylogenetic
analysis suggests that Ouachita creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis) may
be the same species as the southern hickorynut (Inoue et al. 2008,
unpaginated). It has also been suggested that populations of southern
hickorynut from the east and west sides of the Mississippi river may be
taxonomically distinct (Inoue et al. 2008, unpaginated).
The southern hickorynut is found in small streams to large rivers
in stable sand and gravel substrates, and in slow to moderate currents
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 464). Fish hosts for the species are unknown.
The southern hickorynut is widely distributed in streams of the
Gulf Coastal plain from the Mobile River Basin west to the Neches River
in Eastern Texas (Williams et al. 2008, p. 464), and north into
Arkansas, Oklahoma, southeastern Missouri, and western Tennessee
(NatureServe 2008). The species occurs sporadically within this area.
Known drainage populations
[[Page 13718]]
include the Buttahatchee and East Fork Tombigbee Rivers and Yellow
Creek (Mississippi), and the Sipsey River and Lubbub Creek (Alabama) in
the Mobile River drainage (Williams et al. 2008, p. 464); the Big
Black, Bayou Pierre, and Pascagoula Rivers in Mississippi, the Pearl
River in Mississippi and Louisiana, and the Amite River in Mississippi
and Louisiana (Hartfield and Ebert 1986, p. 23; Hartfield and Rummel
1985, p. 118; Jones et al. 2005, p. 90; NatureServe 2008); the Tickfaw,
Tangipahoa, Tensas, Boeuf, Ouachita, Dugdemona, Little, Cane, Sabine,
and Neches Rivers, and Bayou Dorcheat and Kisatchie Bayou in Louisiana
(Vidrine 1993, p. 207); the South Fourche LaFave, Strawberry, Arkansas,
Ouachita, and White river systems in Arkansas (Harris et al. 1997, pp.
80-81; NatureServe 2008); the Kiamichi, Little, Mountain Fork, and
Glover Rivers in Oklahoma (NatureServe 2008); the Neches River drainage
in Texas (Howells et al. 1996, p. 86); the Hatchie River of west
Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 163); and the Whitewater River
and Cane Creek in Missouri (Oesch 1984, p. 162).
Status of the species in most historically occupied stream
drainages is poorly known, but the southern hickorynut is apparently
extirpated from the Cahaba River, Alabama (McGregor et al. 2000, p.
230), and the Saint Francis and Black Rivers, Missouri (NatureServe
2008). It is likely extirpated from the mainstem Tombigbee River in
Alabama and Mississippi (e.g., McGregor and Garner 2001, p. 7), and the
mainstem Alabama River in Alabama (e.g., Hartfield and Garner 1998, p.
15). The southern hickorynut is considered uncommon to rare in all
States where it occurs; however, status is poorly known and threats
have not been adequately assessed (NatureServe 2008). The species is
reported as locally common in the Ouachita River and tributaries in
Arkansas (Anderson 2006, p. 971), and Vidrine (2008, p. 127) notes the
species is common in Kisatchie Bayou and in numerous streams of the
Calcasieu River in Louisiana.
Five-Factor Analysis
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species
to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act: (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) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the southern hickorynut, as presented in the petition and
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation
of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition asserts that the range of the southern hickorynut is
declining, especially in Louisiana, and that it has been extirpated
from two sites in Alabama (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 11-12). The
petition asserts that the southern hickorynut is declining at a short-
term global rate of 10 to 30 percent, and is threatened by loss of
habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 11-12) attributed to
sedimentation, channelization, impoundment, sand and gravel mining, and
chemical runoff (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 21-26).
Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Our Files
The southern hickorynut continues to be reported throughout its
geographical range, which includes Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma,
Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, and Louisiana (NatureServe 2008, WildEarth
Guardians 2008, pp. 11-12). There is evidence that some population
segments have become extirpated in the Mobile River Basin. For example,
the species has not been collected in the Cahaba River since 1973,
apparently due to historical episodes of water quality degradation
(McGregor et al. 2000, p. 230); and surveys in recent years have also
failed to locate southern hickorynut in the Alabama River (Hartfield
and Garner 1998, p. 15) or the mainstem Tombigbee River (Hartfield and
Jones 1989, p. 10; McGregor and Garner 2001, p. 7), which have been
impounded and channeled for navigation. However, there are several
population segments of southern hickorynut known to persist in the
Mobile River Basin that were not recognized in the petition, including
the Buttahatchee and East Fork Tombigbee Rivers and Yellow Creek in
Mississippi, the Sipsey River and Lubbub Creek in Alabama, and Bayou
Pierre in Mississippi (Hartfield and Ebert 1986, p. 23; Williams et al.
2008, p. 464, McGregor and Haag 2004, p. 22).
The petition specifically notes a decline in the abundance and
range of southern hickorynut in Louisiana (WildEarth Guardians 2008, p.
11). based on the NatureServe (2008) account of , suspected
extirpations from most historically occupied streams in Louisiana, and
a conclusion that the species is uncommon to rare throughout its range
(WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 11).
NatureServe (2008) reports that occurrences of the species have
declined from 16 streams in Louisiana (Vidrine 1993, p. 207), to only
two streams, based on a publication by Brown and Banks (2001, p. 195).
Information in our files does not support this assertion. Brown and
Banks (2001, p. 195), surveyed only portions of 3 of the 16 streams
referenced by Vidrine's comprehensive report (1993, p. 207). There is
no information presented in NatureServe, the petition, or in our files
to document that the southern hickorynut has declined or become
extirpated from any of the other 13 streams cited by Vidrine (1993) as
occupied by the species. Rather, information in our files includes a
recent report that the southern hickorynut is considered common in
Kisatchie Bayou as well as in numerous streams of the Calcasieu River
in Louisiana (Vidrine 2008, p. 127). This report, as well as an account
that the species is locally common in the Ouachita River and
tributaries in Arkansas (Anderson 2006, p. 971), contradicts the
petition assertion that the species is uncommon to rare throughout its
range.
Therefore, the information provided by the petition, along with
NatureServe records, appears to reflect a lack of recent survey effort
and information on the status of the southern hickorynut throughout
most of its range rather than the documentation of a range-wide
decline. While there is evidence that the species has been locally
extirpated from some historical collection sites, information in our
files indicates the southern hickorynut continues to persist throughout
most of its historical range.
The petition provides general information and references on impacts
of sand and gravel mining to freshwater mussels and other invertebrates
(e.g., WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 21-22, citing National Marine
Fisheries Service 1996, Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 103-104; Roell
1999). Information in our files document past events of instream sand
and gravel mining in the Amite and Tangipahoa Rivers in
[[Page 13719]]
Louisiana, and stream capture by floodplain mines in the Buttahatchee
River in Mississippi, along with detrimental effects to the mussel
communities in those streams (Hartfield 1993, pp. 135-138). The decline
in abundance of southern hickorynut in the Buttahatchee River, however,
occurred prior to stream capture by the mines and was attributed to
geomorphic effects from the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway, and/or sedimentation from headwater kaolin mines (Hartfield
and Jones 1990, pp. 22-24). The kaolin mines that were the suspected
source of sedimentation in the Buttahatchee have since been stabilized,
sand and gravel mining is now regulated and Best Management Practices
have been developed and implemented to protect water and habitat
quality (e.g., Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2007).
Neither the petition nor our files contain any site-specific threats to
the southern hickorynut from current sand and gravel mining activities.
The petition provides general information and references on impacts
of dredging and channelization to freshwater mussels (e.g., WildEarth
Guardians 2008, pp. 22-23, citing Aldridge 2000, p. 247), but no
information on activities conducted within streams occupied by the
southern hickorynut. Information in our files suggests channelization
has impacted mussel faunas in areas known to be occupied by the
southern hickorynut in the Big Black, Yazoo, and Buttahatchee Rivers,
and Luxapalila Creek in Mississippi (Hartfield 1993, pp. 132-138);
however, the southern hickorynut continues to persist in these
drainages. Although there has been a documented decline from historical
population levels in the Buttahatchee River (Hartfield and Jones 1990,
pp. 22-24), the primary causes of the decline have been stabilized, and
this population segment of southern hickorynut has continued to persist
over the past two decades. We have no information that any additional
channel work is planned for these streams, and the petition does not
contain any site-specific threats to southern hickorynut from dredging
and channelization.
The petition provides general information and references on impacts
of impoundment to freshwater mussels (e.g., WildEarth Guardians 2008,
pp. 23-24, citing Burlakovaa and Karatayev 2007, pp. 290-291; Vaughn
and Taylor 1999, p. 912; Watters 1999, pp. 261and 268); however, the
petition provides no information specific to the streams occupied by
the southern hickorynut. Information in our files suggests impoundment
contributed to the apparent extirpation of southern hickorynut from the
mainstem Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers (e.g., Hartfield and Jones 1989,
p. 10; Hartfield and Garner 1998, p. 15). However, we have no
information on threats of impoundment to streams currently occupied by
southern hickorynut.
The petition notes the harmful effects of water fluctuation in
impoundments to mollusk fauna inhabiting reservoirs (WildEarth
Guardians 2008, p. 24). The southern hickorynut is not known to
currently or historically inhabit any impounded areas, so this is not a
historical or current documented threat to the species.
The petition provides general information and references on impacts
of excessive sediments to freshwater mussels (WildEarth Guardians 2008,
pp. 24-25). The petition notes the contribution of activities such as
logging, agriculture, ranching, mining, urban development, and
construction activities to excessive sediment rates in some streams,
along with the potential impacts of excessive sediments on freshwater
mussel communities. However, the petition does not provide, nor do our
files contain, any specific evidence of detrimental rates of
sedimentation to any southern hickorynut mussel population segment.
The petition states that pollutants pose a threat to the hickorynut
(WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 12); however, the petition provides only
general information and references on impacts of contaminants and
polluted runoff to freshwater mussels (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp.
25-26, citing Foster and Bates 1978, p. 958). No information is
provided, nor are we currently aware of information on, any specific
contaminant or pollution threats to the southern hickorynut in the
stream drainages known to be occupied by the species.
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition,
as well as other information in our files, does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range,
especially given its continued persistence in seven States and numerous
stream drainages, information that it is locally common in Louisiana
and Arkansas, and in the absence of documented threats to habitat or
range of extant populations.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide any information concerning this
factor. Information in our files shows that mussels have historically
been, and continue to be, commercially exploited for their shells in
some States; however, southern hickorynut is not considered a
commercial species and has little value in commerce. Additionally, all
States within the range of the southern hickorynut either regulate or
restrict mussel harvest. For example, the State of Mississippi is
closed to any mussel harvest, and the State of Alabama prohibits mussel
harvest in streams currently known to be occupied by the southern
hickorynut. All States within the range of the hickorynut require
permits to take mussels for scientific purposes. Therefore, there is no
evidence that overutilization is a threat to southern hickorynut.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not provide any information concerning this
factor. Information in our files indicates that disease in freshwater
mussels is poorly known, and there is no evidence of disease in any
population of southern hickorynut. Freshwater mussels are consumed by
various vertebrate predators, including fishes, mammals, and possibly
birds. Predation by naturally occurring predators is a normal aspect of
the population dynamics of a mussel species and is not known to be a
threat to any of the existing populations of the southern hickorynut.
Therefore, there is no information provided in the petition, or other
information in our files, that presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition asserts that the southern hickorynut is not protected
under any existing Federal or State Law, and therefore, current
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for conservation. The petition
references the need to protect mussels from commercial harvest.
Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Our Files
Contrary to the assertion in the petition, the southern hickorynut
is identified as a species of conservation concern in all States where
it occurs. This recognition extends some level of consideration under
State and Federal
[[Page 13720]]
environmental laws when project impacts are reviewed. Although, current
State and Federal regulations regarding pollutants are generally
assumed to be protective of freshwater mollusks, we do have information
to indicate that some pollutant standards may not be protective for
freshwater mussels (e.g., Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2026). However,
there is no information in our files to suggest specific pollution
threats to the southern hickorynut in any specific area, and the
petition provided no information to support the assertion therein that
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species.
Furthermore, as noted under Factor B, above, the southern hickorynut is
not considered a commercial species, has little value in commerce, and
all States within the range of the southern hickorynut either regulate
or restrict mussel harvest.
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition,
as well as other information in our files, does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulations.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petition asserts that fragmentation of freshwater mussel stream
habitat makes mussel species more vulnerable to droughts and floods
attributed to climate change (e.g., WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 27,
citing Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007, p. 43).
Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Our Files
The petition provided no information on habitat fragmentation or
changes in the frequency of droughts and floods within the range of the
southern hickorynut, or on specific detrimental effects of habitat
fragmentation, droughts, or floods to the hickorynut. Information in
our files documents mollusk declines within small perennial streams
that have lost flow as a direct result of drought (for example,
Golladay et al. 2004, p. 494; Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1165). However,
most recent site records of the southern hickorynut are from medium to
large perennial stream channels (e.g., the Big Black, Buttahatchee,
Amite, Pearl, Tickfaw, Neches, Arkansas, White, Ouachita, and Hatchie
Rivers) that are less susceptible to total loss of flow by drought. In
addition, the wide distribution of the species reduces its
vulnerability to extinction due to local stochastic threats. Therefore,
information provided by the petition and in Service files does not
indicate or document a threat to southern hickorynut mussels due to
drought or floods.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided
with the petition and evaluated that information in relation to other
pertinent literature and information, and we have evaluated the
information to determine whether the sources cited support the claims
made in the petition. We recognize that many freshwater mussel species
are experiencing declines in both range and population abundances due
to the generalized threats identified by the petition. However, review
of the information provided in the petition and in our files indicates
that this species is not declining range-wide.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act. We
found no information to suggest that threats are acting on the southern
hickorynut such that the species may become extinct now or in the
foreseeable future.
Based on this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does
not present substantial scientific or commercial information to
indicate that listing the southern hickorynut under the Act as
threatened or endangered may be warranted at this time. Although we
will not commence a status review at this time, we encourage interested
parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the
conservation of the species. If you wish to provide information
regarding the species, you may submit your information or materials to
the Field Supervisor, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section) at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Paul Hartfield (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 9, 2010.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6111 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S