Rule2023-03998
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Longsolid and Round Hickorynut and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 9, 2023
Effective
April 10, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for the longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) and round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda), freshwater mussels. We also designate critical habitat for both species. For the longsolid, in total, approximately 1,115 river miles (1,794 river kilometers) fall within 12 units of critical habitat in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama. For the round hickorynut, in total, approximately 921 river miles (1,482 river kilometers) fall within 14 units of critical habitat in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. We also finalize a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act for both species that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of these species.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14794-14869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03998]
[[Page 14793]]
Vol. 88
Thursday,
No. 46
March 9, 2023
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Longsolid and Round Hickorynut and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 14794]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0010; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BD32
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Longsolid and Round Hickorynut and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for the longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) and round
hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda), freshwater mussels. We also designate
critical habitat for both species. For the longsolid, in total,
approximately 1,115 river miles (1,794 river kilometers) fall within 12
units of critical habitat in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia,
Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama. For the round hickorynut, in total,
approximately 921 river miles (1,482 river kilometers) fall within 14
units of critical habitat in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky,
West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. We also finalize a
rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act for both species
that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of these species.
DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0010.
Supporting materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the
species status assessment reports and supporting information that we
developed for the critical habitat designation, are available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0010. For the
critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are included in the decision file and
are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0010, and on the Service's Environmental Conservation Online
System (ECOS) website at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880</a> and
<a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office,
160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC 28801; telephone 828-258-3939.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
longsolid and round hickorynut meet the definition of threatened
species; therefore, we are listing them as such and finalizing a
designation of their critical habitat. Both listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species and designating critical habitat can
be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative
Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule lists the longsolid and round
hickorynut as threatened species, and issues regulations under section
4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'') for the conservation of both species.
This rule designates critical habitat for the longsolid in 12 units
totaling approximately 1,115 river miles (mi) (1,794 river kilometers
(km)) within portions of 7 counties in Pennsylvania, 16 counties in
Kentucky, 10 counties in West Virginia, 4 counties in Virginia, 6
counties in Tennessee, and 3 counties in Alabama. Additionally, this
rule designates critical habitat for the round hickorynut in 14 units
totaling approximately 921 river mi (1,482 river km) within portions of
2 counties in Pennsylvania, 3 counties in Ohio, 4 counties in Indiana,
18 counties in Kentucky, 11 counties in West Virginia, 3 counties in
Tennessee, 3 counties in Alabama, and 1 county in Mississippi.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of 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; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the longsolid and round
hickorynut are threatened species due to the following threats: habitat
degradation or loss (Factor A) from a variety of sources (e.g., dams
and other barriers, resource extraction); degraded water quality from
chemical contamination and erosion from development, agriculture,
mining, and forest conversion (Factor A); direct mortality from
dredging (Factor E); residual impacts (reduced population size) from
historical harvest (Factor B); and the proliferation of invasive,
nonnative species (Factor E). These threats also contribute to the
negative effects associated with the species' small population sizes
(Factor E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (85
FR 61384) for the longsolid and round hickorynut published on September
29, 2020, for a
[[Page 14795]]
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these
species.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for the
longsolid and round hickorynut. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA reports
represent a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of each of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting them.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the SSA reports. As discussed in
the proposed rule, we sent the SSA reports to 10 independent peer
reviewers on both the longsolid and round hickorynut and received 3
responses on the longsolid SSA report, and no responses on the round
hickorynut SSA report. The peer reviews for the longsolid SSA report
can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0010. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results
of these reviews, as appropriate; both SSA reports were the foundation
for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review
comments and our responses can be found in the Peer Reviewer Comments
section of this final rule.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates several changes from what was
contained in our proposed rule (85 FR 61384; September 29, 2020) based
on the comments we received during the comment period. Minor,
nonsubstantive changes and corrections were made throughout this rule
and in the SSA reports in response to comments (e.g., updated range map
for round hickorynut based on survey information in Ohio, revised
forest conversion section in the discussion of threats). The
information we received during the comment period did not change our
determination that the longsolid and round hickorynut are threatened
species.
We received substantive comments on the proposed listing and
proposed 4(d) rule (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations,
below), and we made changes as follows:
<bullet> We received comments from multiple State agencies across
the ranges of the longsolid and round hickorynut. The State agencies
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions associated with
threats to the longsolid and round hickorynut. Minor edits associated
with threats and their association with populations in West Virginia
have been incorporated into the preamble of this rule, and additional
citations have been added to support statements regarding contaminants
and resource extraction and their effects on stream habitats and
macroinvertebrates. These added citations are Pond et al. (2008) and
Entrekin et al. (2015). Additionally, special management
recommendations for the nonnative round goby (Neogobius melanostomus)
have been incorporated into the discussion of the longsolid's French
Creek critical habitat unit (Unit LS 1) in Pennsylvania.
<bullet> We received comments requesting clarification of
broodstocking activities as they relate to the 4(d) exception
associated with conservation and restoration efforts by State wildlife
agencies. Accordingly, the first exception for incidental take
associated for both species' 4(d) rules clarifies this activity
includes population monitoring, relocation, and collection of
broodstock; tissue collection for genetic analysis; captive
propagation; and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and
unoccupied areas within both species' historical ranges.
<bullet> We received comments requesting clarification on the third
exception in the 4(d) rule for bank restoration projects that use
bioengineering methods to reduce bank erosion and instream
sedimentation and improve habitat conditions for both species.
Specifically, the commenter indicated, and we agree, that this
exception should be referred to as bank stabilization projects, which
may include channel restoration activities, and relocation of mussels
prior to implementation of these types of projects may be (as opposed
to must be) necessary. Accordingly, this exception of the 4(d) rule
reflects these changes.
<bullet> Several commenters indicated that the Service should
consider forest management best management practices (BMPs; i.e.,
practices that reduce the amount of nonpoint pollution from forest
management) as part of the overall conservation benefit for the
species, account for these beneficial actions in any threat analysis,
and incorporate an associated exception into the 4(d) rules for both
species. Additionally, Warrington et al. (2017) was described as being
cited erroneously in the proposed rule's preamble. Forested watersheds
contribute to the current condition of each species and have been
factored in as a positive factor (i.e., benefit) in the SSAs and
proposed rule. State-approved forest management BMPs vary across the
large geographic areas occupied by the longsolid and round hickorynut,
but we support and encourage their use throughout the species' ranges.
Accordingly, this final rule includes an exception to the prohibitions
in both species' 4(d) rules for State-approved forest management BMPs
in response to public comments we received on the proposed rule.
We also note that forestry activities were not a primary threat in
our current and future condition analyses, and that the conversion of
forested habitats to other land uses, such as agriculture or urban
development, contribute to greater habitat and water quality
degradation than forest management. Clarity regarding forest conversion
to other land uses, not forestry, and its contribution to freshwater
mussel habitat degradation and loss has been incorporated into the
preamble of this rule. Several populations of the longsolid and round
hickorynut occur on U.S. Forest Service lands; therefore, any actions
that may affect these populations are subject to section 7 consultation
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This rule does not make any changes to the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat designation for either species based on
public comments we received.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
Please refer to the September 29, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 61384)
and the SSA reports for full summaries of species information. These
documents are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2020-0010, and on the ECOS website at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880</a> and <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879</a>.
The longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) is a freshwater river mussel
belonging to the Unionidae family, also known as the naiads and pearly
mussels. Longsolid adults are light brown in color, darkening with age.
The shell is thick and medium-sized (up to 5 inches (in) (125
millimeters (mm)), and typically has a dull sheen (Williams et al.
2008, p. 322). There is variability in the inflation of the shell
depending on population and latitudinal location
[[Page 14796]]
(Ortmann 1920, p. 272; Watters et al. 2009, p. 130).
The longsolid is currently found in the Ohio, Cumberland, and
Tennessee River basins, overlapping within the States of Alabama,
Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia (Service 2018, appendix A; see figure 1,
below). It is considered extirpated from Georgia, Indiana, and
Illinois.
Additionally, it is classified as an endangered species by the
State of Ohio, and considered to have various levels of concern,
imperilment, or vulnerability (see table 1-1 in the SSA report) by the
States of Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 14797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR23.015
Similar to the longsolid, the round hickorynut also belongs to the
Unionidae family of naiads and pearly mussels. Round hickorynut adult
mussels are greenish-olive to dark or chestnut brown, sometimes
blackish in older individuals, and may have a yellowish band dorsally
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 168). Inflation of the shell is variable
depending on population and latitudinal location (Ortmann 1920, p. 272;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 474). The shell is thick, solid, and up to 3
in (75 mm) in length, but usually is less than 2.4 in (60 mm)
[[Page 14798]]
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 473; Watters et al. 2009, p. 209). A
distinctive characteristic is that the shell is round in shape, nearly
circular, and the umbo (the raised portion of the dorsal margin of a
shell) is centrally located.
Within the United States, the round hickorynut is currently found
in the Great Lakes, Ohio, Cumberland, Tennessee, and Lower Mississippi
River basins, overlapping within the States of Alabama, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and
West Virginia (Service 2019, appendix A; see figure 2, below). It is
considered extirpated from Georgia, Illinois, and New York.
Additionally, it has State-level conservation status, ranging across
various levels of concern, imperilment, or vulnerability (see table 1-1
in the SSA report), in the States of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The round
hickorynut also occurs within the Canadian Province of Ontario, where
it was listed as an endangered species in 2005, due to the loss of and
significant declines in populations (Committee on the Status of Species
at Risk in Ontario 2013, p. 4); a single remaining population (showing
no recruitment (Morris 2018, pers. comm.)) occurs in Lake St. Clair and
the East Sydenham River.
[[Page 14799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR23.016
[[Page 14800]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Thorough reviews of the taxonomy, life history, ecology and State
listing status of the longsolid and round hickorynut are presented in
detail in the SSA reports (Service 2018, pp. 14, 15, 22-30; Service
2019, pp. 14, 15, 22-29).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set
forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019). We collectively
refer to these actions as the 2019 regulations.
As with the proposed rule, the regulations that are in effect and
therefore applicable to this final rule are 50 CFR part 424, as amended
by (a) revisions that we issued jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service in 2019 regarding both the listing, delisting, and
reclassification of endangered and threatened species and the criteria
for designating listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August
27, 2019); and (b) revisions that we issued in 2019 eliminating for
species listed as threatened species are September 26, 2019, the
Service's general protective regulations that had automatically applied
to threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act
applies to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following 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; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of both species, including an assessment of potential
threats to the species. The SSA reports do not represent our decision
on whether either species should be listed as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. However, they do provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the longsolid's and round hickorynut's viability, we used
the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and
[[Page 14801]]
biological environment (for example, climate changes, pathogen). In
general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA reports for the longsolid and round hickorynut; the full SSA
reports can be found on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket FWS-R4-
ES-2020-0010, and on the Service's ECOS website at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880</a> and <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
longsolid and round hickorynut, their resources, and the threats that
influence both species' current and future condition, in order to
assess each species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
We assessed the best available information to identify the physical
and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages
for the longsolid and round hickorynut. Full descriptions of all needs
are available in chapter 4 of the SSA reports (Service 2018, pp. 25-30;
Service 2019, pp. 30-36), which can be found in docket number FWS-R4-
ES-2020-0010 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Based upon the best
available scientific and commercial information, and acknowledging
existing ecological uncertainties (see section 4.3 in the SSA reports),
the resource and demographic needs for both the longsolid and round
hickorynut are characterized as:
<bullet> Clean, flowing water with appropriate water quality and
temperate conditions, such as (but not limited to) dissolved oxygen
above 2 to 3 parts per million (ppm), ammonia generally below 0.5 ppm
total ammonia-nitrogen, temperatures generally below 86 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (30 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), and (ideally) an
absence of excessive total suspended solids and other pollutants.
<bullet> Natural flow regimes that vary with respect to timing,
magnitude, duration, and frequency of river discharge events.
<bullet> Predominantly silt-free, stable sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates.
<bullet> Suspended food and nutrients in the water column including
(but not limited to) phytoplankton, zooplankton, protozoans, detritus,
and dissolved organic matter.
<bullet> Availability of sufficient host fish numbers to provide
for glochidia infestation and dispersal. Host fishes for the longsolid
are currently unknown but likely include (but may not be limited to):
minnows of the family Cyprinidae as well as potentially freshwater
sculpins of the genus Cottus. Host fish species documented for the
round hickorynut include the banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae), eastern
sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida), emerald darter (Etheostoma
baileyi), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), Iowa darter
(Etheostoma exile), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), Cumberland
darter (Etheostoma gore), spangled darter (Etheostoma obama), variegate
darter (Etheostoma variatum), blackside darter (Percina maculata), and
frecklebelly darter (Percina stictogaster).
<bullet> Connectivity among populations. Although the species'
capability to disperse is evident through historical occurrence of a
wide range of rivers and streams, the fragmentation of populations by
small and large impoundments has resulted in isolation and only patches
of what once was occupied contiguous river and stream habitat. Genetic
exchange occurs between and among mussel beds via sperm drift, host
fish movement, and movement of mussels during high flow events. For
genetic exchange to occur, connectivity must be maintained. Most
freshwater mussels, including the longsolid and round hickorynut, are
typically found in mussel beds that vary in size and are often
separated by stream reaches in which mussels are absent or rare (Vaughn
2012, p. 983). These species are often a component of a healthy mussel
assemblage within optimal mussel habitats; therefore, the beds in which
they occur are necessary for the species to be sufficiently resilient
over time.
Current Conditions
Current (and future) conditions are described using categories that
estimate the overall condition of the longsolid and round hickorynut
mussel populations. These categories include:
<bullet> High--Sufficiently resilient populations with evidence of
recruitment and multiple age classes represented. They are likely to
maintain viability and connectivity among populations, and populations
are not linearly distributed (i.e., occur in tributary streams within a
management unit). Populations are expected to persist in 20 to 30 years
and beyond and withstand stochastic events. (Thriving; capable of
expanding range.)
<bullet> Medium--Spatially restricted populations with limited
connectivity and reduced levels of recruitment or age class structure.
Resiliency is less than under high conditions, but the majority of
populations (approximately 75 percent) are expected to persist beyond
20 to 30 years. (Stable; not necessarily thriving or expanding its
range.)
<bullet> Low--Small and highly restricted populations, with no
evidence of recent recruitment or age class structure, and limited
detectability. These populations have low resiliency, are not likely to
withstand stochastic events, and potentially may be extirpated in 20 to
30 years. Populations are linearly distributed within a management
unit. (Surviving and observable, but population likely declining.)
Given the longsolid's and round hickorynut's ranges include lengthy
rivers, such as the Ohio, Allegheny, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers,
all of which include populations fragmented primarily by dams, we
identified separate populations for each hydrologic unit code (HUC)
(Seaber et al. 1987, entire; U.S. Geological Survey 2018, entire) at
the fourth of 12 levels (i.e., HUC-8 watershed). The HUC-8 watersheds
are analogous to medium-sized river basins across the United States.
Our analysis describes conditions relevant to longsolid and round
hickorynut populations and the overarching HUC-8 watersheds, identified
herein as a ``management unit.'' A management unit could harbor one or
more populations. See chapter 2 in the SSA reports for further
explanation of the analysis methodology (Service 2018, pp. 15-19;
Service 2019, pp. 17-22).
Longsolid
The longsolid's current range extends over nine States, including
New York,
[[Page 14802]]
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Alabama; the species is now considered extirpated in
Georgia, Illinois, and Indiana. This range encompasses three major
river basins (the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee basins); the species
now no longer exists in the Great Lakes basin (loss of six historical
populations and four management units). In addition, its representation
in the Cumberland River basin is currently within a single population
and management unit (loss of nine historical populations and eight
management units). Overall, the longsolid is presumed extirpated from
62 percent (100 of 160 populations) of its historically occupied
populations, including 6 populations (the entirety) in the Great Lakes
basin, 62 populations in the Ohio River basin, 8 populations in the
Cumberland River basin, and 24 populations in the Tennessee River basin
(see appendix B in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 131-154)). Of the
current populations, 3 (5 percent) are estimated to be highly
resilient, 8 (13 percent) are estimated to be moderately resilient, and
49 (79 percent) are estimated to have low resiliency.
The longsolid was once a common, occasionally abundant component of
the mussel assemblage in rivers and streams where it is now extirpated.
Examples include the Beaver River, Pennsylvania (Ortmann 1920, p. 276);
Ohio River, Pennsylvania (Tolin 1987, p. 11); Mahoning River,
Pennsylvania (Ortmann 1920 p. 276); Wabash River, Indiana/Illinois
(Cummings et al. 1992, p. 46); Nolin River, Kentucky (Taylor 1983a, p.
111); and the South Fork Holston River, Virginia/Tennessee (Parmalee
and Pohemus 2004, p. 234). Significant declines of the longsolid have
been observed and documented in the Ohio and Cumberland Rivers (Neel
and Allen 1964, p. 434, Haag and Cicerello 2016, p. 139) and in the
Muskingum River system, which harbors the last remaining populations
(Muskingum, Tuscarawas, and Walhonding) in Ohio (Watters and Dunn 1993-
94, p. 252; Watters et al. 2009, p. 131).
Round Hickorynut
The current range of the round hickorynut extends over nine States,
including Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia; the species is now
considered extirpated in Georgia, Illinois, and New York. This range
encompasses five major river basins (Great Lakes, Ohio River,
Cumberland River, Tennessee River, and Lower Mississippi River). Round
hickorynut representation in the Cumberland River basin is restricted
to two linear populations within two management units, while it exists
in the Lower Mississippi River basin in a single population. Therefore,
while the species currently maintains representation from historical
conditions, it is at immediate risk of losing 40 percent (2 of 5
basins) of its representation due to these small, isolated populations
under a high degree of threats from habitat loss and water quality
degradation.
Overall, the round hickorynut has lost approximately 232 of 301
known populations (77 percent), and 102 of 138 management units (74
percent). This includes 25 populations in the Great Lakes basin, 146
populations in the Ohio River basin, 23 populations in the Cumberland
River basin, 29 populations in the Tennessee River basin, and 9
populations in the Lower Mississippi River basin (see appendix B in the
SSA report (Service 2019, pp. 191-212)). Of the current populations, 4
(6 percent) are estimated to be highly resilient, 16 (23 percent) are
estimated to be moderately resilient, and 49 (71 percent) are estimated
to have low resiliency.
The round hickorynut was once a much more common, occasionally
abundant component of the mussel assemblage in rivers and streams
across much of the eastern United States. Population extirpations have
been extensive and widespread within every major river basin where the
round hickorynut is found. Surveys throughout eastern North America
have not targeted the round hickorynut specifically, and as a result,
there could have been additional population losses or declines that
have gone undocumented. Conversely, it is possible that there are
populations that have gone undetected. However, the majority of the
species' range has been relatively well-surveyed for freshwater mussel
communities, and the likelihood is low that substantial or stronghold
populations remain undetected. Patterns of population extirpation and
declines are pronounced, particularly in the Ohio River basin, which
appears to be the basin most important for redundancy and
representation for the species due to its documented historical
distribution and remaining concentration of populations within the
basin.
Populations of the round hickorynut have been lost from entire
watersheds and management units in which the species once occupied
multiple tributaries, such as the Allegheny, Coal, Little Scioto,
Miami, and Vermilion River management units in the Ohio River basin.
The State of Ohio, for example, has lost 49 populations of round
hickorynut, along with 17 management units (Watters et al. 2009, p.
210). The species is also critically imperiled in Canada, and as a
result, the future of the species in Canada may be reliant on hatchery-
supported activities or augmentation activities coordinated with the
United States.
Precipitous declines and extirpations of round hickorynut
populations have been documented in the Great Lakes, Ohio, Cumberland,
Tennessee, and Lower Mississippi basins. Chronological museum
collections and published literature accounts of the species
demonstrate that individuals were more abundant in populations and
there were more populations across the range (see appendix D in the SSA
report (Service 2019, pp. 214-238)). While this documentation could be
a result of more intensive survey effort in the core of the species'
distribution, regardless, the extirpation of formerly abundant and
extensive populations, has been most pronounced in the Ohio and
Cumberland basins.
Examples of rivers where the round hickorynut is extirpated within
these basins include: Crooked Creek, Pennsylvania (Ortmann 1913, p.
298); West Branch Mahoning River, Ohio (Swart 1940, p. 42); Coal River,
West Virginia (Carnegie Museum and University of Michigan Museum of
Zoology records); Olentangy River, Ohio (Stein 1963, p. 109); Blaine
Creek, Kentucky (Bay and Winford 1984, p. 19); Embarras River, Illinois
(Parmalee 1967, p. 80); Big Vermilion River, Illinois (Parmalee 1967,
p. 80); Cumberland River, Kentucky (Neel and Allen 1964, p. 442);
Stones River, Tennessee (Ohio State University Museum records); and Red
River, Tennessee/Kentucky (Ohio State University Museum records).
Threats Analysis
The following discussions include evaluations of three threats and
associated sources that are affecting the longsolid and round
hickorynut and their habitats: (1) Habitat degradation or loss, (2)
invasive and nonnative species, and (3) negative effects associated
with small population size, including potential cumulative or
synergistic effects (Service 2018 and 2019, chapter 6). We note that
potential impacts associated with overutilization were evaluated, but
we found no evidence of current effects on the species' viability
(noting historical effects from harvest on the longsolid that no longer
occur). In addition, potential impacts from disease, parasites, and
predation, as well as potential impacts to host
[[Page 14803]]
species, were evaluated but were found to have minimal effects on
viability of either species based on current knowledge (Service 2018,
pp. 70, 73-74; Service 2019, pp. 91-95). Finally, we also considered
effects associated with enigmatic population declines, which have been
documented in freshwater river mussel populations since the 1960s;
despite speculation and repeated aquatic organism surveys and water
quality monitoring, the causes of these events are unknown (Haag 2019,
p. 43). In some cases, the instream habitat often remains basically
intact and continues to support other aquatic organisms such as fish
and crayfish. Full descriptions of each of the threats and their
sources, including specific examples across the species' range where
threats are impacting the species or its habitat, are available in
chapter 6 and appendix A of the SSA reports (Service 2018, pp. 43-76,
134-157; Service 2019, pp. 58-96, 169-187).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in both the longsolid and round
hickorynut SSA reports, we have not only analyzed individual effects on
the two species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative
effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis
when we characterize the current and future condition of the species.
To assess the current and future condition of each of the species, we
undertake an iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the
threats individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of
all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including
threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers
not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a
standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Habitat Degradation or Loss
Development/Urbanization
Development and urbanization activities that may contribute to
longsolid and round hickorynut habitat degradation and loss, including
reduced water quality, occur throughout the species' range. The term
``development'' refers to urbanization of the landscape, including (but
not limited to) land conversion for residential, commercial, and
industrial uses and the accompanying infrastructure. The effects of
urbanization may include alterations to water quality, water quantity,
and habitat (both in-stream and streamside) (Ren et al. 2003, p. 649;
Wilson 2015, p. 424). Urban development can lead to increased
variability in streamflow, typically increasing the extent and volume
of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it
takes for the water to travel over the land before entering the stream
(Giddings et al. 2009, p. 1). Deleterious effects on streams (i.e.,
water collection on impervious surfaces that rapidly flows into storm
drains and local streams), including those that may be occupied by the
longsolid and round hickorynut include:
(1) Water Quantity: Storm drains deliver large volumes of water to
streams much faster than would naturally occur, often resulting in
flooding and bank erosion that reshapes the channel and causes
substrate instability, resulting in destabilization of bottom
sediments. Increased, high-velocity discharges can cause species living
in streams (including mussels) to become stressed, displaced, or killed
by fast-moving water and the debris and sediment carried in it.
Displaced individuals may be left stranded out of the water once
floodwaters recede.
(2) Water Quality: Pollutants (e.g., gasoline, oil drips,
fertilizers) that accumulate on impervious surfaces may be washed
directly into streams during storm events. Contaminants contained in
point and non-point source discharges degrade water and substrate
quality, and can result in reduced survival, growth, and reproduction
of mussels.
(3) Water Temperature: During warm weather, rain that falls on
impervious surfaces becomes superheated and can stress or kill
freshwater species when it enters streams.
Other development-related impacts to the longsolid and round
hickorynut, or their habitats, may occur as a result of:
<bullet> Water infrastructure. This includes water supply,
reclamation, and wastewater treatment, which results in pollution point
discharges to streams. Concentrations of contaminants (including
nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and personal care products) increase with urban
development (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p.
1,311).
<bullet> Utility crossings and right-of-way maintenance. Direct
impacts from utility crossings include direct exposure or crushing of
individuals, sedimentation, and habitat disturbance. The greatest
cumulative impact involves cleared rights-of-way that result in direct
runoff and increased stream temperature at the crossing location, and
potentially promote maintenance utility and all-terrain vehicle access
from the rights-of-way (which destroys banks and instream habitat, and
thus can lead to increased erosion (see also Service 2017, pp. 48-49)).
<bullet> Anthropogenic activities. These types of activities may
act to lower water tables, making the longsolid or round hickorynut
susceptible to depressed flow levels. Water infrastructure (see above)
and water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, and industrial water
supplies are an increasing concern due to expanding human populations.
It is currently unknown whether anthropogenic effects of development
and urbanization are likely to impact the longsolid or round hickorynut
at the individual or population level. However, secondary impacts such
as the increased likelihood of potential contaminant introduction,
stream disturbance caused by impervious surfaces, barrier construction,
and forest conversion are likely to act cumulatively on longsolid and
round hickorynut populations.
Agricultural activities are pervasive across the range of the
longsolid and round hickorynut. Examples include (but are not limited
to):
<bullet> Longsolid: Agricultural erosion is listed among the
factors affecting the Clinch and Powell Rivers (Ahlstedt et al. 2016,
p. 8).
<bullet> Longsolid: Sedimentation and other non-point source
pollution, primarily of agricultural origin, are identified as a
primary threat to aquatic fauna of the Nolichucky River (Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) 2006, p. 11).
<bullet> Longsolid: Agricultural impacts have been noted to take a
toll on mussel fauna in the Goose Creek watershed of the South Fork
Kentucky River (Evans 2010, p. 15).
<bullet> Longsolid and round hickorynut: The Elk River in Tennessee
is a watershed with significant agricultural activity (Woodside et al.
2004, p. 10).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: Water withdrawals for irrigation for
agricultural uses have increased recently in the Tippecanoe River
(Fisher 2019, pers. comm.).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: Sedimentation and other point and non-
point source pollution, primarily of agricultural origin, are
identified as a primary threat to aquatic fauna of Big Darby Creek and
Killbuck Creek, Ohio (Ohio Department of the Environmental Protection
Agency 2004, p. 1; Ohio Department of the Environmental Protection
Agency 2011, p. 31).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: Approximately 25 percent of the land use
area in the
[[Page 14804]]
West Fork River management unit in West Virginia is in agriculture,
increasing by as much as 9 percent as most recently reported in 2010
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 8).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: Large-scale mechanized agricultural
practices threaten the last remaining population in the Lower
Mississippi River basin, in the Big Black River, where the species has
already undergone range reduction (Peacock and James 2002, p. 123).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: The Duck, Buffalo, and Elk Rivers in
Tennessee are watersheds with significant agricultural activity in
their headwaters and tributaries and are a suspected cause for mussel
community declines throughout those rivers (Reed 2014, p. 4).
Transportation
Transportation-related impacts include both road development and
river navigation. By its nature, road development increases impervious
surfaces as well as land clearing and habitat fragmentation. Roads are
generally associated with negative effects on the biotic integrity of
aquatic ecosystems, including changes in surface water temperatures and
patterns of runoff, changes in sedimentation levels, and increased
heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organics, and nutrients to
stream systems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 18). The adding of
salts through road de-icing results in high salinity runoff, which is
toxic to freshwater mussels. In addition, a major impact of road
development is improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings,
which can act as barriers if flow through the culvert varies
significantly from the rest of the stream, or if the culvert ends up
becoming perched (i.e., sitting above the downstream streambed), and
fishes that serve as mussel hosts cannot pass through them.
With regard to river navigation, dredging and channelization
activities (as a means of maintaining waterways) have altered riverine
habitats nationwide (Ebert 1993, p. 157). Channelization affects many
physical characteristics of streams through accelerated erosion,
increased bed load, reduced depth, decreased habitat diversity,
geomorphic instability, and riparian canopy loss (Hartfield 1993, p.
139). All of these impacts contribute to loss of habitat for the
longsolid and round hickorynut and alter habitats for host fish.
Changes in both the water velocity and deposition of sediments not only
alters physical habitat, but the associated increases in turbulence,
suspended sediment, and turbidity affect mussel feeding and respiration
(Aldridge et al. 1987, p. 25). The scope of channel maintenance
activities over extensive areas alters physical habitat and degrades
water quality. In addition to dredging and channel maintenance, impacts
associated with barge traffic, which includes construction of fleeting
areas, mooring cells, docking facilities, and propeller wash, also
destroy and disrupt mussel habitat (see Miller et al. (1989, pp. 48-49)
as an example for disturbance from barges).
Transportation-related impacts across the range of the longsolid
and round hickorynut include (but are not limited to) the following
examples:
<bullet> Channelization and dredging--Longsolid populations in the
Eel, Vermilion, and Embarras Rivers and Killbuck Creek are extirpated.
Round hickorynut populations in the Vermilion and Embarras Rivers are
extirpated, while populations in the Eel and Killbuck Creek management
units are in low condition; these streams have been extensively dredged
and channelized (Butler 2007, p. 63; Appendix B). Additionally,
dredging for barge traffic and navigation is identified as the primary
cause for suitable habitat loss in the Kanawha River (below river mile
79) in West Virginia (Taylor 1983b, p. 3).
<bullet> Barge traffic, which includes construction of fleeting
areas, mooring cells, docking facilities, and propeller wash, destroys
and disrupts mussel habitat, currently affecting at least 15 (25
percent) of the longsolid populations in the Ohio, Cumberland, and
Tennessee River basins (Hubbs et al. 2006, p. 169; Hubbs 2012, p. 3;
Smith and Meyer 2010, p. 555; Sickel and Burnett 2005, p. 7; Taylor
1983b, p. 5). All six of the Ohio River mainstem longsolid populations
that are considered in low condition are affected by channel
maintenance and navigation operations; at least five (8 percent) of the
round hickorynut populations in the Ohio basin are affected.
<bullet> Channel maintenance and navigation are affecting the low
condition populations in the lower Allegheny, Kanawha, and Tennessee
Rivers due to their clustered distribution and proximity to locks and
dams. For the longsolid, these include two Allegheny River populations
below Redbank, Pennsylvania (Smith and Meyer 2010, p. 556); one
population in the Kanawha River, West Virginia; and three low condition
populations in the Tennessee River main stem above Kentucky Dam.
<bullet> Although most prevalent on the mainstem Ohio and Tennessee
Rivers, commerce and commercial navigation currently affect round
hickorynut populations in the Black and Muskingum Rivers.
Contaminants
Contaminants contained in point and non-point discharges can
degrade water and substrate quality and adversely impact mussel
populations. Although chemical spills and other point sources of
contaminants may directly result in mussel mortality, widespread
decreases in density and diversity may result in part from the subtle,
pervasive effects of chronic, low-level contamination (Naimo 1995, p.
354). The effects of heavy metals, ammonia, and other contaminants on
freshwater mussels were reviewed by Mellinger (1972), Fuller (1974),
Havlik and Marking (1987), Naimo (1995), Keller and Lydy (1997), and
Newton et al. (2003).
The effects of contaminants such as metals, chlorine, and ammonia
are profound on juvenile mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2,571;
Bartsch et al. 2003, p. 2,566). Juvenile mussels may readily ingest
contaminants adsorbed to sediment particles while pedal feeding (Newton
and Cope 2007, p. 276). These contaminants also affect mussel
glochidia, which are sensitive to some toxicants (Goudreau et al. 1993,
p. 221; Jacobson et al. 1997, p. 2,386; Valenti et al. 2005, p. 1,243).
Mussels are noticeably intolerant of heavy metals (Havlik and
Marking 1987, p. 4). Even at low levels, certain heavy metals may
inhibit glochidial attachment to fish hosts. Cadmium appears to be the
heavy metal most toxic to mussels (Havlik and Marking 1987, pp. 4-9),
although chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc also negatively affect
biological processes (Naimo 1995, p. 355; Jacobson et al. 1997, p.
2,389; Valenti et al. 2005, p. 1,243). Chronic mercury contamination
from a chemical plant on the North Fork Holston River, Virginia,
destroyed a diverse mussel fauna downstream of Saltville, Virginia, and
potentially contributed to the extirpation of the longsolid from that
river (Brown et al. 2005, p. 1,459). An example of long-term declines
and extirpation of mussels attributed to copper and zinc contamination
originating from wastewater discharges at electric power plants
includes the Clinch River in Virginia (a portion of which the longsolid
currently occupies) (Zipper et al. 2014, p. 9). This highlights that,
despite localized improvements, these metals can stay bound in
sediments, affecting recruitment and densities of the mussel fauna for
decades (Price et al. 2014, p. 12; Zipper et al. 2014, p. 9).
[[Page 14805]]
Examples of contaminant-related impacts across the range of
longsolid and/or round hickorynut include (but are not limited to):
<bullet> Contaminants have affected mussel glochidia on the Clinch
River, which is a stronghold population for the longsolid (Goudreau et
al. 1993, p. 221; Jacobson et al. 1997, p. 2,386; Valenti et al. 2005,
p. 1,243); round hickorynut is now considered extirpated in the
Tennessee section of the river.
<bullet> The toxic effects of high salinity wastewater from oil and
natural gas drilling on juvenile and adult freshwater mussels were
observed in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, and in the Ohio River
basin (Patnode et al. 2015, p. 55).
<bullet> Numerous streams throughout both species' ranges have
experienced mussel and fish kills from toxic chemical spills, such as
Fish Creek in Indiana for the round hickorynut (Sparks et al. 1999, p.
12), and the upper Tennessee River system in Virginia for the longsolid
(Ahlstedt et al. 2016, p. 8; Neves 1987, p. 9; Jones et al. 2001, p.
20; Schmerfeld 2006, p. 12). Also in the Tennessee River basin, high
counts of coliform bacteria originating from wastewater treatment
plants have been documented, contributing to degradation of water
quality being a primary threat to aquatic fauna (Neves and Angermeier
1990, p. 50).
<bullet> Heavy metals and their toxicity to mussels have been
documented in the Great Lakes and in the Clinton, Muskingum, Ohio, Fox,
Powell, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers where one or both of these species
occur (Havlik and Marking 1987, pp. 4-9; van Hees et al. 2010, p. 606).
Coal plants are also located on the Kanawha, Green, and Cumberland
Rivers, and the effects of these facilities on water quality and the
freshwater mussel fauna, including the longsolid and round hickorynut,
are likely similar.
The degradation of water quality as a result of land-based oil and
gas drilling activities has a significant adverse effect on freshwater
mussels, and specifically on the longsolid in the Ohio River basin and
populations in the Allegheny River, as well as the Kanawha, Little
Kanawha, and Elk Rivers (Entrekin et al. 2015, p. 2; Ecological
Specialists, Inc. 2009, p. 27; Pond et al. 2008, p. 723; Patnode et al.
2015, p. 55).
Agricultural Activities
The advent of intensive row crop agricultural practices has been
cited as a potential factor in freshwater mussel decline and species
extirpation in the eastern United States (Peacock et al. 2005, p. 550).
Nutrient enrichment and water withdrawals, which are threats commonly
associated with agricultural activities, are most likely to affect
individual longsolid and round hickorynut mussels, although in some
instances may be localized and limited in scope. However, chemical
control using pesticides, including herbicides, fungicides,
insecticides, and their surfactants and adjuvants, are highly toxic to
juvenile and adult freshwater mussels (Bringolf et al. 2007, p. 2,092).
Waste from confined animal feeding and commercial livestock operations
is another potential source of contaminants that comes from
agricultural runoff. The concentrations of these contaminants that
emanate from fields or pastures may be at levels that can affect an
entire population, especially given the highly fragmented distributions
of the longsolid and round hickorynut (also see Contaminants, above).
Agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Soil and Water Conservation
Districts provide technical and financial assistance to farmers and
private landowners. Additionally, county resource development councils
and university agricultural extension services disseminate information
on the importance of minimizing land use impacts, specifically
agriculture, on aquatic resources. These programs help identify
opportunities for conservation through projects such as exclusion
fencing and alternate water supply sources, which help decrease
nutrient inputs and water withdrawals, and help keep livestock off of
stream banks and shorelines, thus reducing erosion. However, the
overall effectiveness of these programs over a large scale is unknown
given the longsolid's and round hickorynut's wide distribution and
varying agricultural intensities.
Given the large extent of private land and agricultural activities
within the ranges of the longsolid and round hickorynut, the effects of
agricultural activities that degrade water quality and result in
habitat deterioration (also see Development/Urbanization, above) are
not frequently detected until after the event(s) occur. In summary,
agricultural activities are pervasive across the ranges of the
longsolid and round hickorynut. The effects of agricultural activities
on the longsolid and round hickorynut are a factor in their historical
decline and localized extirpations.
Agricultural activities are pervasive across the range of the
longsolid and round hickorynut. Specifically, agricultural impacts have
affected and continue to affect high, medium, and low condition
longsolid populations within these basins, including:
<bullet> Longsolid only: French Creek and Allegheny River
(Pennsylvania), Hughes River (West Virginia), Tuscawaras River (Ohio),
Rolling Fork River (Kentucky), Little River and Valley River (North
Carolina), Nolichucky River (Tennessee), Clinch and Powell Rivers
(Tennessee and Virginia), and Estill Fork (Alabama).
<bullet> Round hickorynut only: South Fork Hughes River (West
Virginia), and Pine, Belle, and Black Rivers (Michigan).
<bullet> Both species: Shenango River (Pennsylvania); Middle Island
Creek, Elk, Little Kanawha, and North Fork Hughes Rivers (West
Virginia); Licking and Kentucky Rivers (Kentucky); Elk and Buffalo
Rivers (Tennessee); and Paint Rock River (Alabama).
Dams and Barriers
The effects of impoundments and barriers on aquatic habitats and
freshwater mussels are relatively well-documented (Watters 2000, p.
261). Dams alter and disrupt connectivity, and alter water quality,
which affect longsolid and round hickorynut species. Extinction/
extirpation of North American freshwater mussels can be traced to
impoundment and inundation of riffle habitats in all major river basins
of the central and eastern United States (Haag 2009, p. 107). Humans
have constructed dams for a variety of reasons: flood prevention, water
storage, electricity generation, irrigation, recreation, and navigation
(Eissa and Zaki 2011, p. 253). Dams, either natural (by beavers or by
aggregations of woody debris) or manmade, have many impacts on stream
ecosystems. Reductions in the diversity and abundance of mussels are
primarily attributed to habitat shifts caused by impoundments (Neves et
al. 1997, p. 63). The survival of mussels and their overall
reproductive success are influenced:
<bullet> Upstream of dams, by the change from flowing to impounded
waters, increased depths, increased buildup of sediments, decreased
dissolved oxygen, and the drastic alteration in resident fish
populations.
<bullet> Downstream of dams, by fluctuations in flow regimes,
minimal releases and scouring flows, seasonal depletion of dissolved
oxygen, reduced or increased water temperatures, and changes in fish
assemblages.
Additionally, improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings
may act as barriers and have some similar negative effects as dams on
stream systems. Fluctuating flows through the culvert can vary
significantly from the rest of the stream, preventing fish passage and
[[Page 14806]]
scouring downstream habitats. For example, if a culvert sits above the
streambed, aquatic organisms cannot pass through it. These barriers
fragment habitats along a stream course and contribute to genetic
isolation of the aquatic species inhabiting the streams.
Whether constructed for purposes such as flood control, navigation,
hydropower, water supply or multi-purpose uses, the construction and
continued operation of dams (per existing licensing schedules) is a
pervasive negative influence on the longsolid, round hickorynut, and
their habitats throughout their ranges. Although there are recent
efforts to remove older, failing dams within the ranges of the
longsolid and round hickorynut, such as Lock and Dam 6 on the Green
River, and Six Mile Dam on the Walhonding River, dams and their effects
on longsolid and round hickorynut population distributions have had
perhaps the greatest documented negative influence on these species
(Hardison and Layzer 2001, p. 79; Layzer et al. 1993, p. 68; Parmalee
and Polhemus 2004, p. 239; Smith and Meyer 2010, p. 543; Hubbs 2012, p.
8; Watters and Flaute 2010, p. 2).
Over 20 of the rivers and streams currently occupied by the
longsolid are directly affected by dams, thus directly influencing the
species' distribution rangewide. For the round hickorynut, all occupied
rivers and streams are directly or indirectly affected by dams. See
section 6.1.5 of the SSA reports for specific areas where dams and
other impoundments occur within the range of the species (Service 2018,
pp. 59-63; Service 2019, pp. 73-77).
Changing Climate Conditions
Changing climate conditions that can influence freshwater mussels
include increasing or decreasing water temperatures and precipitation
patterns that result in increased flooding, prolonged droughts, or
reduced stream flows, as well as changes in salinity levels (Nobles and
Zhang 2011, pp. 147-148). An increase in the number of days with heavy
precipitation over the next 25 to 35 years is expected across the
longsolid's range (U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program 2017, p.
207). Although changing climate conditions have potentially affected
the longsolid, the timing, frequency, and extent of these effects is
currently unknown. Possible impacts to the species could include
alteration of the fundamental ecological processes, such as thermal
suitability; changes in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff,
which could alter the hydrology of streams; and changes in the presence
or combinations of invasive, native or nonnative species.
We examined information on anticipated climate effects to wide-
ranging mussels, which included a study that used representative
concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6 and 8.5 and was conducted on the
federally endangered spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta). Our
analysis of the best available climate change information revealed that
within the range of both the longsolid and round hickorynut, shifts in
the species-specific physiological thresholds in response to altered
precipitation patterns and resulting thermal regimes are possible.
Additionally, the expansion of invasive, nonnative species because of
climatic changes has the potential for long-term detriments to the
mussels and their habitats. Other potential impacts are associated with
changes in food web dynamics and the genetic bottleneck that can occur
with low effective population sizes (Nobles and Zhang 2011, p. 148).
The influences of these changes on the longsolid and round hickorynut
are possible in the future (see Scenario 3 discussions under Future
Conditions, below). Multi-scale climate models that can be interpreted
at both the rangewide and population levels, and are tailored to
benthic invertebrates, which incorporate genetic and life-history
information, are needed before the longsolid and round hickorynut
declines can be correlated with climate change. At this time, the best
available information indicates that climate change is considered a
secondary factor influencing the viability of the longsolid and round
hickorynut and is not currently thought to be a primary factor in the
longsolid's or round hickorynut's occurrence and distribution across
their ranges.
Resource Extraction
The most intensive resource extraction activities affecting the
longsolid, round hickorynut, and their habitats are coal mining and oil
and gas exploration, which are summarized here. Additional less
intensive resource extraction activities affecting the species include
gravel mining/dredging, which is detailed in the SSA reports (Service
2018, pp. 64-65; Service 2019, pp. 79-83).
Activities associated with coal mining and oil and gas drilling can
contribute chemical pollutants to streams. Acid mine and saline
drainage (AMD) is created from the oxidation of iron-sulfide minerals
such as pyrite, forming sulfuric acid (Sams and Beer 2000, p. 3). This
AMD may be associated with high concentrations of aluminum, manganese,
zinc, and other constituents (Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) 2014, p. 72). These metals, and the high acidity
typically associated with AMD, can be acutely and chronically toxic to
aquatic life (Jones 1964, p. 96).
Natural gas extraction has negatively affected water quality
through accidental spills and discharges, as well as increased
sedimentation due to increases in impervious surface and tree removal
for drill pads and pipelines (Vidic et al. 2013, p. 6). Disposal of
insufficiently treated brine wastewater is known to adversely affect
freshwater mussels (Patnode et al. 2015, p. 62). Contaminant spills are
also a concern.
Unconsolidated sediment appears to be the largest impact to mussel
physical habitat in streams as a result of gas extraction activities
(Entrekin et al. 2015, p. 23). Excessive suspended sediments can impair
feeding processes, leading to acute short-term or chronic long-term
stress. Both excessive sedimentation and excessive suspended sediments
can lead to reduced mussel fitness (Ellis 1936, p. 29; Anderson and
Kreeger 2010, p. 2). This sediment is generated by construction of the
well pads, access roads, and pipelines (for both gas and water).
Examples of the variety of resource extraction activities (coal,
oil, gas, and gravel mining) that occur across the range of the
longsolid and round hickorynut include (but are not limited to):
<bullet> Longsolid: The Cumberland Plateau and Central Appalachian
regions of Tennessee and Kentucky (upper Cumberland River system and
upper Tennessee River system) continue to experience mining activity
that impairs water quality in streams (TDEC 2014, p. 62).
<bullet> Longsolid: High levels of copper, manganese, and zinc,
metals toxic to freshwater mussels, were found in sediment samples from
both the Clinch and Powell Rivers, and mining impacts close to Big
Stone Gap, Virginia, have almost eliminated the mussel fauna in the
upper Powell River. The longsolid is considered extirpated from the
South Fork Powell River and Cane Creek, both tributaries to the upper
portion of the Powell River (Ahlstedt and Tuberville 1997, p. 75;
appendix D in the SSA report).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: Although populations persist in the
Rockcastle River and Buck Creek in the Cumberland basin, coal and
gravel mining continue to occur in these watersheds.
<bullet> Round hickorynut: The extensive mining of gravel in
riparian zones
[[Page 14807]]
reduces vegetative buffers and causes channel instability and has been
implicated in mussel declines in the Walhonding River, Ohio, which
harbors a low condition population (Hoggarth 1995-96, p. 150).
<bullet> Round hickorynut: The West Fork River in West Virginia has
oil and gas activity within the watershed, as well as legacy mining
issues, which have resulted in biological impairment throughout the
drainage (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 2014,
pp. 23-29).
<bullet> Both species: Impacts from natural gas pipelines have a
high potential to occur in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Tank trucks
hauling such fluids can overturn into mussel streams, which has
occurred in Meathouse Fork of Middle Island Creek (Clayton 2018, pers.
comm.).
<bullet> Both species: Natural gas extraction in the Marcellus
Shale region (the largest natural gas field in the United States that
runs through northern Appalachia) has negatively affected water quality
through accidental spills and discharges in populations in the
Shenango, Elk, Little Kanawha, and Kanawha management units.
<bullet> Both species: Coal mining has been implicated in sediment
and water chemistry impacts in the Kanawha River in West Virginia,
potentially limiting the Kanawha River populations of both species
(Morris and Taylor 1978, p. 153).
<bullet> Both species: Resource extraction and AMD have been cited
as contributors to the loss of mussel species in the Cumberland basin
(Haag and Cicerello 2016, p. 15), including the loss of longsolid from
Rockcastle and Caney Fork Rivers, and the loss of round hickorynut in
the Caney Fork, Little South Fork, Big South Fork, and Cumberland
Rivers (Anderson et al. 1991, p. 6; Layzer and Anderson 1992, p. 97;
Warren and Haag 2005, p. 1,383).
<bullet> Both species: In the upper Kentucky River watershed, where
both species exhibit a lack of recruitment (and also in the Red River
for round hickorynut), historical un-reclaimed mines and active coal
mines are prevalent (Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
2015, p. 66).
Forest Conversion
Clearing large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems
eliminates shade once provided by tree canopies, exposing streams to
more sunlight and increasing the in-stream water temperature (Wenger
1999, p. 35). The increase in stream temperature and light after
deforestation alters macroinvertebrate (and other aquatic species)
richness, abundance, and composition in streams to various degrees
depending on a species' tolerance to temperature changes and increased
light in the aquatic system (Kishi et al. 2004, p. 283; Couceiro et al.
2007, p. 272; Caldwell et al. 2014, p. 2,196).
Sediment runoff from clearing forested areas is a known stressor to
aquatic systems (e.g., Webster et al. 1992, p. 232; Jones III et al.
1999, p. 1,455; Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004, p. 286; Aust et al. 2011,
p. 123). The physical characteristics of stream channels are affected
when large quantities of sediment are added or removed (Watters 2000,
p. 263). Mussels and fishes are potentially affected by changes in
suspended and bed material load, changes in bed sediment composition
associated with increased sediment production and runoff, changes in
channel formation, stream crossings, and inadequately buffered clear-
cut areas, all of which can be sources of sediment entering streams
(Taylor et al. 1999, p. 13).
Forest conversion to other land uses such as agriculture and urban
development has occurred across the range of the longsolid and round
hickorynut. Siltation and erosion from forest conversion to other land
use activities without BMPs is a well-documented stressor to aquatic
systems throughout the eastern United States, and can have an impact
depending on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
adjacent streams (Allan and Castillo 2007, p. 107). Forest conversion
has been documented in all basins in which these species occur.
Also, some forestry practices have the potential to result in
increased siltation in riparian systems through the cycle of forest
thinning, final harvest, site preparation, and re-planting activities.
However, implementation of BMPs and establishment of SMZs can minimize
these impacts (Service 2018 and 2019, chapter 6); adherence to these
BMPs and SMZs broadly protects water quality, particularly related to
sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; Warrington
et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire).
Invasive and Nonnative Species
When a nonnative species is introduced into an ecosystem, it may
have many advantages over native species, such as easy adaptation to
varying environments and a high tolerance of living conditions that
allow it to thrive in its new habitat. There may not be natural
predators to keep the nonnative species in check; therefore, it can
potentially live longer and reproduce more often, further reducing the
biodiversity in the system. The native species may become an easy food
source for invasive, nonnative species, or the invasive species may
carry diseases that extirpate populations of native species. Invasive,
nonnative species are pervasive across the longsolid's and round
hickorynut's ranges. Examples of invasive, nonnative species that
affect freshwater mussels like the longsolid and round hickorynut are
the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha), quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), black carp
(Mylopharyngodon piceus), didymo (also known as rock snot;
Didymosphenia geminata), and hydrilla (also known as water-thyme;
Hydrilla verticillata).
<bullet> The Asian clam alters benthic substrates, may filter
mussel sperm or glochidia, competes with native species for limited
resources, and causes ammonia spikes in surrounding water when they die
off en masse (Scheller 1997, p. 2).
<bullet> Dreissenid mollusks, such as the zebra mussel and quagga
mussel, adversely affect native species through direct colonization,
reduction of available habitat, changes in the biotic environment, or a
reduction in food sources (MacIsaac 1996, p. 292). Zebra mussels are
also known to alter the nutrient cycle in aquatic habitats, affecting
other mollusks and fish species (Strayer 1999, p. 22).
<bullet> Given their size and diet preferences, black carp have the
potential to restructure benthic communities. Mussel beds consisting of
smaller individuals and juvenile recruits are probably most vulnerable
to being consumed by black carp (Nico et al. 2005, p. 192).
Furthermore, because black carp attain a large size (well over 3.28-ft
(1-m) long), and their life span is reportedly over 15 years, they are
expected to persist for many years. Therefore, they have the potential
to cause harm to native mollusks by way of predation on multiple age
classes (Nico et al. 2005, p. 77).
<bullet> The two nonnative plant species that are most problematic
for the longsolid and round hickorynut (i.e., impacting the species
throughout their ranges) are hydrilla and didymo. Hydrilla is an
aquatic plant that alters stream habitat, decreases flows, and
contributes to sediment buildup in streams (National Invasive Species
Council Management Plan 2018, p. 2). High sedimentation can cause
suffocation, reduce stream flow, and make it difficult for mussels'
interactions with host fish necessary for development. Didymo can alter
the
[[Page 14808]]
habitat and change the flow dynamics of a site (Jackson et al. 2016, p.
970). Invasive plants grow uncontrolled and can smother habitat, affect
flow dynamics, alter water chemistry, and increase water temperatures,
especially in drought conditions (Colle et al. 1987, p. 416).
<bullet> Specifically for the round hickorynut, the nonnative round
goby can out-compete native benthic fishes (such as darters and
sculpin) for food and other resources, and may also prey especially
heavily on juvenile native mussels, such as round hickorynut (Bradshaw-
Wilson et al. 2019, p. 268)
Effects Associated With Small Population Size
Without the level of population connectedness that the species
experienced historically (i.e., without barriers such as reservoirs),
small, isolated populations that may now be comprised predominantly of
adult individuals could be slowly dying out. Even given the very
improbable absence of other anthropogenic threats, these disjunct
populations could be lost simply due to the consequences of below-
threshold effective population sizes. Because only 60 primarily
disjunct streams among 160 historically occupied areas continue to
harbor populations of the longsolid, and 69 primarily disjunct streams
of 301 historically occupied areas continue to harbor populations of
the round hickorynut, this is likely partial testimony to the principle
of effective population size and its role in population loss.
The longsolid and round hickorynut exhibit several traits that
influence population viability, including relatively small population
size and low fecundity at many locations compared to other mussels (see
appendix A in Service 2018 and 2019). Small population size puts the
species at greater risk of extirpation from stochastic events (e.g.,
drought) or anthropomorphic changes and management activities that
affect habitat. In addition, small longsolid or round hickorynut
populations may have reduced genetic diversity, be less genetically
fit, and be more susceptible to disease during extreme environmental
conditions compared to large populations (Frankham 1996, p. 1,505).
Genetic drift occurs in all species, but the lack of drift is more
likely to negatively affect populations that have a smaller effective
population size (number of breeding individuals) and populations that
are geographically spread out and isolated from one another. Relatively
low fecundity, commonly observed in species of Fusconaia, is another
inherent factor that could influence population viability (Geist 2010,
p. 91). Survival of juveniles in the wild is already low, and females
produce fewer offspring than other mussel species (Haag and Staton
2003, p. 2,125). Factors such as low effective population size, genetic
isolation, relatively low levels of fecundity and recruitment, and
limited juvenile survival could all affect the ability of these species
to maintain current population levels and to rebound if a reduction in
population occurs (e.g., through predation, toxic releases or spills,
or poor environmental conditions that inhibit successful reproduction).
Additionally, based on our presumption of fish hosts of the longsolid
and the known species of fish hosts for the round hickorynut, they are
small-bodied fishes that have comparatively limited movement (Vaughn
2012, p. 6); therefore, natural expansion of longsolid and round
hickorynut populations is limited.
Dendritic (branched) streams and rivers are highly susceptible to
fragmentation and may result in multiple habitat fragments and isolated
populations of variable size (Fagan 2002, p. 3,247). In contrast to
landscapes where multiple routes of movement among patches are
possible, pollution or other habitat degradation at specific points in
dendritic landscapes can completely isolate portions of the system
(Fagan 2002, p. 3,246).
Future Conditions
In the SSA reports, we forecast the longsolid's and round
hickorynut's response to plausible future scenarios of environmental
conditions and conservation efforts. The future scenarios project the
threats into the future and consider the impacts those threats could
have on the viability of the longsolid and round hickorynut. We apply
the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to the
future scenarios to describe possible future conditions of the
longsolid and round hickorynut. The scenarios described in the SSA
reports represent only three possible future conditions for each of the
species. Uncertainty is inherent in any risk assessment, so we must
consider plausible conditions to make our determinations. Viability is
not a specific state, but rather a continuous measure of the likelihood
that the species will sustain populations over time.
In the SSA reports, we considered three future scenarios. Scenario
1 assesses the species' response to factors influencing current
longsolid and round hickorynut populations and management units,
assuming the current level of impacts remains constant into the future.
Scenario 2 assesses the species' response when factors that negatively
influence most of the extant populations and management units are
reduced by additional conservation. Scenario 3 assesses the species'
response to worsening conditions of the factors that most influence the
species due to the implementation of known existing and projected
development, resource extraction, hydroelectric projects, etc. An
important assumption of the predictive analysis presented herein is
that future population resiliency for each species is largely dependent
on water quality, water flow, instream habitat conditions, and
condition of riparian vegetation (see Species Needs, above).
The future conditions timeframe for our analysis is different for
each species. A timeframe of 50 to 70 years into the future is
evaluated for the longsolid, and 20 to 30 years into the future is
evaluated for the round hickorynut. We selected these timeframes based
on the availability of trends and threat information, planning
documents, and climate modeling that could be reliably projected into
the future, and also the consideration of at least two generations for
each species (i.e., 25 to 35 years for the long-lived longsolid, and on
average 12-13 years (Shepard 2006, p. 7; Ehlo and Layzer 2014, p. 11)
for the round hickorynut).
Longsolid
Our assessment predicts that if conditions remain the same or
worsen into the future, all 60 populations would experience negative
changes to the species' important habitat requisites (see Species
Needs, above), including the loss of the single remaining population in
the Cumberland River basin, and potentially resulting in no highly
resilient populations (Scenario 3). Alternatively, the scenario that
incorporates additive conservation measures beyond those currently
implemented (Scenario 2) could result in the continued persistence of
all 60 populations in the future. However, we note that approximately
30 of 60 (50 percent) of these are currently low condition populations,
based on either surveys that pre-date 2000 or on the collection of only
five or fewer older, non-reproducing individuals. Some of these
populations may already be extirpated. The risks facing the longsolid
populations varied among scenarios and are summarized below
[[Page 14809]]
(see table 8-1 and table ES-1 in the SSA report).
Under Scenario 1, lowered resiliency, representation, and
redundancy are expected. Under this scenario, we predict that 1
population of the current 3 high condition populations would remain in
high condition, 6 populations (10 percent) in medium condition, and 15
populations (25 percent) in low condition. Redundancy would be reduced
with likely extirpation of 38 out of 60 (63 percent) currently extant
populations; only the Ohio River basin (one of the three basins
currently occupied by the species) would retain one highly resilient
population (i.e., the Green River population in the Upper Green
management unit). Representation would be reduced, with two of the
three currently occupied river basins continuing to harbor longsolid
populations.
Under Scenario 2, we predict higher levels of resiliency in some
areas of the longsolid's range than was estimated for Scenario 1;
representation and redundancy would remain the same level as current
conditions, with the species continuing to occur within all currently
occupied management units and States across its range. Seven
populations (12 percent) are predicted to be in high condition,
compared to the current four populations in high condition. Scenario 2
also predicts 20 populations (33 percent) in medium condition and 33
populations (52 percent) in low condition; no populations would become
extirpated. All three currently occupied major river basins would
remain occupied, and the existing levels of redundancy and
representation would improve. It is possible that this scenario is the
least likely to occur in the future as compared to Scenario 1 or 3 only
because it will take many years (potentially beyond the 50- to 70-year
timeframe analyzed in the SSA report) for all of the beneficial effects
of management actions that are necessary to be implemented and realized
on the landscape.
Under Scenario 3, we predict a significant decrease in resiliency,
representation, and redundancy across the species' range. Redundancy
would be reduced from three major river basins to two basins with no
high condition populations remaining, and the likely extirpation of 44
(73 percent) of the currently extant populations. The resiliency of the
remaining 16 populations is expected to be reduced to 3 populations (5
percent) in medium condition and 13 (22 percent) in low condition. In
addition to the loss of 44 populations, 32 (29 percent) of the
management units are predicted to become extirpated. Representation
would be reduced to 13 management units, 2 major river basins, and 3
States (as compared to the current 9 States) occupied by the species.
Round Hickorynut
Our assessment predicts that if conditions remain the same
(Scenario 1), 44 of 69 populations (62 percent) would experience
negative changes to the important habitat requisites, including the
potential loss of 23 populations. This includes the predicted
extirpation of the two populations in the Cumberland River basin and
the population in the Lower Mississippi River basin. Additionally,
under Scenario 3, no highly resilient populations are able to persist,
and 90 percent of remaining populations are in low condition.
Alternatively, the scenario that includes additive conservation
measures beyond those currently implemented (Scenario 2) could result
in the continued persistence of all 69 populations in the future.
However, approximately 49 of 69 (71 percent) of these populations are
currently in low condition. Many of the known populations of the round
hickorynut have been collected as 10 or fewer individuals, with limited
extent information available, due to the lack of survey effort
targeting the species (Service 2019, appendix A). The risks facing
round hickorynut populations varied among scenarios and are summarized
below (see also table 8-1 and table ES-1 in the SSA report).
Under Scenario 1, lowered resiliency, representation, and
redundancy are expected. We predict that only one of the current four
high condition populations would remain in high condition. Under this
scenario, only the Great Lakes basin (one of the five basins currently
occupied by the species) would retain a highly resilient population
(i.e., the Grand River). Of the 69 extant populations, 14 (20 percent)
would be in medium condition and 31 (45 percent) would be in low
condition. We estimate extirpation of 23 out of 69 (33 percent)
populations. Redundancy would decline due to these population and
management unit losses, resulting in a loss of the species from
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Representation would be reduced through
extirpation of populations and management units in the Cumberland and
Great Lakes basins, a 40 percent loss of redundancy compared to current
conditions. Under this scenario, only three of the five currently
occupied river basins (Great Lakes, Ohio, and Tennessee) continue to
harbor round hickorynut populations.
Under Scenario 2, we predict higher levels of resiliency in some
areas of the round hickorynut's range than is estimated for Scenario 1;
representation and redundancy would remain the same level as current
conditions with the species continuing to occur within all currently
occupied management units and States across the species' 9-State range.
Up to 15 populations (23 percent) are predicted to be high condition
compared to the current 4 populations in high condition. Scenario 2
also predicts 39 populations (56 percent) in medium condition and 15
populations (22 percent) in low condition. All currently occupied major
river basins would remain occupied, and the existing levels of
redundancy and representation would improve. There are sufficient
population sizes within each basin to facilitate augmentation and
restoration efforts, whether it be within-basin translocations or
captive propagation techniques. It is possible that this scenario is
the least likely to occur in the future as compared to Scenario 1 or 3.
This is because it will take many years (potentially beyond the 20- to
30-year time frame analyzed in the SSA report) for all of the
beneficial effects of management actions that are necessary to be
implemented on the landscape to be realized.
Under Scenario 3, we predict a significant decrease in resiliency,
representation, and redundancy across the species' range. Redundancy
would be reduced from five major river basins to three basins, with
extirpations expected to occur in the Cumberland and Lower Mississippi
River basins. No high condition populations would remain, and 49 (71
percent) of the 69 extant populations are likely to become extirpated.
The resiliency of the remaining 20 populations is expected to be
reduced to 2 populations (10 percent) in medium condition and 18 (90
percent) in low condition. In addition to the potential loss of 49
populations, 23 (68 percent) of the currently extant 36 management
units are predicted to no longer harbor the species. Representation
could be reduced to 14 management units across 3 major river basins.
Extirpations are expected from the States of Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Mississippi, leaving 6 States (as compared to the current 9, and
historically 12) occupied by the species.
Determination of Status for the Longsolid and Round Hickorynut
Introduction
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
[[Page 14810]]
for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered
species'' as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a
species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act
requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of
endangered species or threatened species because of any of the
following 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; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In conducting our status assessment of the longsolid and round
hickorynut, we evaluated all identified threats under the Act's section
4(a)(1) factors and assessed how the cumulative impact of all threats
acts on the viability of the species as a whole. That is, all the
anticipated effects from both habitat-based and direct mortality-based
threats are examined in total and then evaluated in the context of what
those combined negative effects will mean to the current and future
condition of the longsolid and round hickorynut. However, for the vast
majority of potential threats, the effect on the longsolid and round
hickorynut (e.g., total losses of individual mussels or their habitat)
cannot be quantified with available information. Instead, we use the
best available information to gauge the magnitude of each individual
threat on the longsolid and round hickorynut, and then assess how those
effects combined (and as may be ameliorated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts) will impact the longsolid's or
round hickorynut's current and future viability.
Longsolid--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the species' distribution and abundance has been
reduced across its range as demonstrated by both the number of occupied
management units and the number of populations where it historically
occurred. Historically, the species occurred within 160 populations and
105 management units across 12 States; currently, the species occurs in
60 populations and 45 management units across 9 States, which
represents a 62 percent reduction of its historically occupied
populations (although we note that the remaining populations are well-
distributed as opposed to concentrated within its range). The
conditions of the remaining 60 extant populations vary between being
highly resilient, moderately resilient, or having low resiliency (see
Current Conditions, above, and section 5.2 in the SSA report (Service
2018, pp. 34-37)).
Currently, 3 populations (5 percent) are highly resilient, 8 (13
percent) are moderately resilient, and 49 (71 percent) have low
resiliency. Although downward trends are evident compared to historical
information, 11 highly to moderately resilient populations are present
within three of the four major river basins the species is historically
known to occupy. Current and ongoing threats from habitat degradation
or loss (Factor A), residual impacts from past harvest and
overutilization (Factor B), and invasive, nonnative species (Factor E)
contribute to the species' negative effects associated with small
population size (Factor E). The continued occupancy of these 11
populations (in addition to some survey information) implies that
recent recruitment is occurring in some populations to help maintain a
level of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
longsolid is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the longsolid
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
At this point in time, and as noted above, the threats currently
acting on the species include habitat degradation or loss from a
variety of sources and invasive, nonnative species, all of which
contribute to the negative effects associated with the species' small
population size. Our analysis revealed that these threats are likely to
continue into the foreseeable future, or approximately 50 to 70 years.
This timeframe accounts for reasonable predictions of threats
continuing into the future based on our examination of empirical data
available over the last 30 years (e.g., survey data, how threats are
manifesting themselves on the landscape and the species, implementation
of management plans and voluntary conservation actions), and also takes
into consideration the biology of the species (multiple generations of
a long-lived species) and the licensing schedules of dams within the
species' range.
The best available information, including our consideration of
comments we received on the September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61384), proposed
rule, indicates that the threats currently acting upon the longsolid
are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, some of which
(e.g., water quality and habitat degradation, and invasive, nonnative
species) are reasonably expected to worsen over time, including
concurrent with increasing human population trends that further reduce
the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation across its
range. Our analysis reveals the potential for either none or a single
population (i.e., the Green River in Kentucky) to persist as highly
resilient (i.e., continued reproduction with varied age classes
present) in the foreseeable future, assuming threats remain or worsen
on the landscape. Additionally, the majority of the remaining
populations would exhibit low resiliency, while many (between 30 and 73
percent of the current low condition populations) would potentially
become extinct or functionally extinct (e.g., significant habitat
degradation; no reproduction due to highly isolated, non-recruiting
individuals). Our future analysis also reveals a high risk that the
species would become extirpated in one of the four historically
occupied river basins (i.e., Cumberland River basin); it has already
been lost from the Great Lakes basin. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the longsolid is not currently
in danger of extinction but is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Longsolid--Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435
F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the aspect of the Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578; July
1, 2014) that provided that the Service does not undertake an analysis
of significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants
listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
[[Page 14811]]
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for the longsolid, we choose to address the
status question first--we consider information pertaining to the
geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the
species faces to identify portions of the range where the species may
be in danger of extinction.
We evaluated the range of the longsolid to determine if the species
is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range. The range
of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We examined the species entire range in an attempt to
focus this analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the
definition of an endangered species. For the longsolid, we considered
whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any
biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other
portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that
portion.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we considered
the time horizon for the threats that are driving the longsolid to
warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its range. We
then considered whether these threats or their effects are occurring in
any portion of the species' range such that the species is in danger of
extinction now in that portion of its range. We examined the following
threats: habitat degradation or loss; invasive, nonnative species;
effects associated with small population size; and the potential for
cumulative effects. We also considered whether these threats may be
exacerbated by small population size (or low condition). Overall, we
found that threats are likely acting on individuals or populations, or
even basins, similarly across the species' range. These threats are
certain to occur, and in those basins with few populations that are
predominantly in low condition, these populations are facing the same
threats, and these threats can be of greater magnitude in some areas or
of greater impact, given small population sizes.
One basin--the Cumberland River--has been reduced by 91 percent
with one remaining low condition population. Although there are low
condition populations in all three basins in which the species occurs,
because this basin has seen its populations significantly reduced to a
single population currently in low condition, this circumstance--in
combination with the other threats acting on the species throughout its
range--may indicate that the species may be in danger of extinction now
in this portion of the range.
Small, isolated populations often exhibit reduced levels of genetic
variability, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and
respond to environmental changes, thereby decreasing the probability of
long-term persistence. Small populations may experience reduced
reproductive vigor, for example, due to inbreeding depression. Isolated
individuals may have difficulty reproducing. The problems associated
with small population size and vulnerability to random demographic
fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further magnified by
synergistic interactions with other threats, such as those discussed
above. Based on our review of information and the synergistic effects
of threats exacerbated by a single low-condition population in the
Cumberland River basin, we find that this basin is a portion of the
longsolid's range with a potential difference in biological condition.
Because we have determined the Cumberland River basin is a portion
of the range that may be in danger of extinction now, we next evaluate
whether this portion may be significant. We first examined this area's
contribution to the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the
species. We determined that this basin contains 1 of 60 populations
(1.7 percent) identified in the SSA report. Therefore, this single
population does not contribute significantly, either currently or in
the foreseeable future, to the species' total resiliency at a
biologically meaningful scale compared to other representative areas.
The overall representation described herein would likely be the same
under two of the three scenarios. We conclude that the Cumberland River
basin population does not contribute meaningfully to the species'
viability overall. We evaluated the best available information for the
Cumberland River basin in this context, assessing its significance in
terms of these conservation concepts and determined that this single
portion is not biologically significant to the species.
The single population in the Cumberland River basin does not act as
a refugia for the species or as an important spawning ground. In
addition, the water quality is similar throughout the species' range
with impaired water quality occurring in all three basins. Since the
longsolid occurs in similar aquatic habitats across its range, the
Cumberland River basin portion provides similar habitat characteristics
as the remainder of the range. Therefore, there are no unique habitat
characteristics attributable to just the Cumberland River basin portion
of the range, and this portion serves a similar role in supporting the
species' viability as compared to the rest of the range.
Overall, and in summary, we found one portion of the longsolid's
range, the Cumberland River basin, that may have a different status as
compared to the remaining portion of the longsolid's range. We found
the Cumberland River basin was not a biologically meaningful portion of
the longsolid's range; in other words, we found it was not significant
in terms of its overall contribution to the species' resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, nor was it found to be significant in
terms of high-quality habitat or habitat that is otherwise important
for the species' life history. As a result, while Cumberland River
basin may have a different status, we determined it is not a
significant portion of the range. Accordingly, no portion of the
longsolid's range provides a basis for determining that the species is
in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we
determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does
not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal.
2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did
not apply the aspects of the Final
[[Page 14812]]
Policy, including the definition of ``significant'' that those court
decisions held to be invalid.
Longsolid--Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the longsolid meets the definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the longsolid as a
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
Round Hickorynut--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined that the round hickorynut's abundance has been
reduced across its range as demonstrated by both number of occupied
management units and the number of populations where the species has
historically occurred. Historically, the species occurred within 301
populations and 138 management units across 12 States (plus at least 10
populations and 8 management units within the Canadian Province of
Ontario); currently, the species occurs in 69 populations and 36
management units across 9 States, which represents a 77 percent
reduction of its historically occupied populations (although we note
that the remaining populations are widely distributed as opposed to
concentrated within its range). The species also continues to occur in
Canada, although it is estimated to have declined by greater than 92
percent, as reported in 2013 (Committee on the Status of Species at
Risk in Ontario 2013, p. 4). The conditions of the remaining 69
currently extant populations in the United States vary between being
highly resilient, moderately resilient, or having low resiliency (see
Current Conditions, above, and section 5.2 in the SSA report (Service
2019, pp. 43-47)).
Currently, 4 round hickorynut populations (6 percent) are highly
resilient, 16 (23 percent) are moderately resilient, and 49 (71
percent) have low resiliency. Although downward trends are evident
compared to historical information, 20 highly to moderately resilient
populations in the United States continue to occupy 4 of the 5 major
river basins where the species is historically known to occur. Current
and ongoing threats from habitat degradation or loss (Factor A), and
invasive, nonnative species (Factor E), contribute to the negative
effects associated with the species' small population size (Factor E).
The continued occupancy of these 20 populations (in addition to some
survey information) implies that recent recruitment is occurring in
some populations, and they maintain a level of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the round hickorynut is not currently in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed
with determining whether the round hickorynut is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
As noted above, the threats acting on the species include habitat
degradation or loss from a variety of sources and invasive, nonnative
species, both of which contribute to the negative effects associated
with the species' small population size. Our analysis revealed that
these threats are likely to continue into the foreseeable future, or
approximately 20 to 30 years. This timeframe accounts for reasonable
predictions of threats continuing into the future based on our
examination of empirical data in our files (e.g., survey data, how
threats are manifesting themselves on the landscape and the species,
implementation of management plans and voluntary conservation actions),
and also takes into consideration the biology of the species and the
licensing schedules of dams within the species' range.
The best available information, including our consideration of
comments we received on the September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61384), proposed
rule, suggests that the threats currently acting upon the round
hickorynut are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The
effects of water quality and habitat degradation, and invasive,
nonnative species, are reasonably expected to worsen over time,
including concurrent with increasing human population trends, thus
further reducing the species' resiliency, redundancy, and
representation across its range. Our analysis reveals the potential for
either none or a single population (i.e., the Grand River in Ohio) to
persist as highly resilient (i.e., continued reproduction with varied
age classes present) in the foreseeable future, assuming threats remain
or worsen on the landscape. Additionally, the majority of the remaining
populations would exhibit low resiliency, while many (between 33 and 71
percent of the current low condition populations) would potentially
become extinct or functionally extinct (e.g., significant habitat
degradation; no reproduction due to highly isolated, non-recruiting
individuals). Our future analysis also reveals a high risk that the
species would become extirpated in two of the five historically
occupied river basins (i.e., Cumberland River basin and Lower
Mississippi River basin). Overall, the current threats acting on the
species and its habitat are expected to continue, and there are no
indications that these threats would be lessened or that declining
population trends would be reverted. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the round hickorynut is not
currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Round Hickorynut--Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
See above, under Longsolid--Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range, for a description of our evaluation methods and our
policy application.
In undertaking the analysis for the round hickorynut, we choose to
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify portions of the range where the species
may be endangered.
We evaluated the range of the round hickorynut to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range. The
range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways. We examined the species entire range in an
attempt to focus this analysis on portions of the species' range that
may meet the definition of an endangered species. For the round
hickorynut, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the
species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the
species' range than in other portions such that the species is in
danger of extinction now in that portion.
As similarly described above for the longsolid, the statutory
difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is
the timeframe in which the species becomes in danger of extinction; an
endangered species is in danger of extinction now while a threatened
species is not in danger of extinction now but is likely to become so
in the foreseeable future. Thus, we considered the time horizon for the
threats that are driving the round hickorynut to warrant listing as a
threatened species throughout all of its range. We then considered
whether these threats or their effects are occurring in any portion of
the species' range such that the species is in danger
[[Page 14813]]
of extinction now in that portion of its range. We examined the
following threats: habitat degradation or loss; invasive, nonnative
species; negative effects associated with small population size; and
the potential for cumulative effects. We also considered whether these
threats may be exacerbated by small population size (or low condition).
Overall, we found that threats are likely acting on individuals or
populations, or even basins, similarly across the species' range. These
threats are certain to occur, and in those basins with few populations
that are predominantly in low condition, these populations are facing
the same threats, and these threats can be of greater magnitude in some
areas or of greater impact, given small population sizes.
Three of five basins where round hickorynut has historically
occurred (Great Lakes, Cumberland River, and Lower Mississippi River
basins) have been reduced to predominantly low condition populations.
Specifically, the Great Lakes basin has been reduced from 25
populations to 5 low condition populations, 1 medium condition
population, and 1 high condition population; the Cumberland River basin
has been reduced from 23 populations to 2 low condition populations;
and the Lower Mississippi River basin has been reduced from 9
populations to a single remaining low condition population. Although
there are low condition populations in every basin in which the species
occurs, because these three basins have seen their populations
significantly reduced and a predominance of the Great Lakes basin
populations and the remaining populations for the other two basins are
currently in low condition, these circumstances--in combination with
the other threats acting on the species throughout its range--may
indicate that the species may be in danger of extinction now in these
portions of the range.
As similarly described above for the longsolid, small, isolated
populations often exhibit reduced levels of genetic variability, which
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental
changes, thereby decreasing the probability of long-term persistence.
Small populations may experience reduced reproductive vigor, for
example, due to inbreeding depression. Isolated individuals may have
difficulty reproducing. The problems associated with small population
size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural
catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions with
other threats, such as those discussed above. Based on our review of
information and the synergistic effects of threats exacerbated by a
predominance of populations in low condition within the Great Lakes,
Cumberland, and Lower Mississippi River basins (where populations have
been significantly extirpated), we find that these three basins are
portions of the round hickorynut's range with a potential difference in
biological condition.
Because we have determined the Great Lakes, Cumberland, and Lower
Mississippi River basins are portions of the range that may be in
danger of extinction now, we next evaluate whether those portions may
be significant (see additional discussion above for the longsolid). We
first examined each of these area's contributions to the resiliency,
redundancy, and representation of the species. Although these basins
contain 10 of 69 populations (15 percent) identified in the SSA report,
the Great Lakes basin consists of 1 population currently with moderate
resiliency and 1 with high resiliency, and the remaining 5 populations
demonstrate low resiliency; the remaining 3 populations in the
Cumberland River basin and the Lower Mississippi River basin are all
low condition populations. These low condition populations do not
contribute significantly, either currently or in the foreseeable
future, to the species' total resiliency at a biologically meaningful
scale compared to other representative areas. Although the low
condition populations in these basins are relatively small, the current
and future redundancy suggests that threats would be unlikely to
extirpate round hickorynut in the Great Lakes basin, but there is
potential to lose the remaining three low condition populations under
the current level of threats scenario (Scenario 1). Overall
representation would be modified through loss of two currently occupied
basins. We evaluated the best available information for the Great
Lakes, Cumberland River, and Lower Mississippi River basins in this
context, assessing each portion's significance in terms of these
conservation concepts (i.e., resiliency, representation, and
redundancy), and determined that there is not substantial information
to indicate that any of these areas may be biologically significant to
the species.
Round hickorynut populations are widely distributed over nine
States and five major river basins, and we considered geographic range
as a surrogate for geographic variation and proxy for potential local
adaptation and adaptive capacity. A river basin is any area of land
where precipitation collects and drains off into a common outlet, such
as into a river, bay, or other body of water. The river basin includes
all the surface water from precipitation runoff and nearby streams that
run downslope towards the shared outlet, as well as the groundwater
underneath the earth's surface. River basins connect into other
drainage basins at lower elevations in a hierarchical pattern, with
smaller sub-drainage basins. Given there are no data indicating genetic
or morphological differentiation between the five major river basins
for the species, and these specific portions of the range do not
provide high value or high quality habitat to the species as compared
to the rest of the range, we conclude that these areas are not
biologically significant to the round hickorynut. Further, the round
hickorynut occurs in similar aquatic habitats across its range and does
not use unique observable environmental or behavioral characteristics
attributable to just the Great Lakes, Cumberland River, or Lower
Mississippi River basin populations. Therefore, the species exhibits
similar basin-scale use of habitat.
The Great Lakes, Cumberland River, and Lower Mississippi River
basin portions occur in stream habitat comprised of substrate types
similar to the other basins where the round hickorynut performs the
important life-history functions of breeding, feeding, and sheltering,
and occur in areas with water quality sufficient to sustain these
essential life-history traits. These three basins do not act as refugia
for the species or as an important spawning ground. In addition, the
water quality is similar throughout the species' range with impaired
water quality occurring in all basins. Since the round hickorynut
occurs in similar aquatic habitats across its range, the Great Lakes,
Cumberland River, and Lower Mississippi River basin portions provide
similar habitat characteristics as the remainder of the species' range.
Therefore, there are no unique habitat characteristics attributable to
just these basins, and these portions serve a similar role in
supporting the species' viability as compared to the rest of the range.
Overall, and in summary, we found three portions of the round
hickorynut's range--the Great Lakes, Cumberland, and Lower Mississippi
River basins--that may have a different status then the remaining
portion of the round hickorynut's range. Our analysis indicated these
three basins are not significant in terms of their contribution to the
species' resiliency, redundancy,
[[Page 14814]]
and representation, nor were they found to be significant in terms of
high-quality habitat or habitat that is otherwise important for the
species' life history. As a result, while these portions may have a
different biological status, we determined they are not significant
portions of the species' range. Accordingly, no portion of the round
hickorynut's range provides a basis for determining that the species is
in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we
determine that the round hickorynut is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D.
Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp.
3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we
did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition
of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Round Hickorynut--Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the round hickorynut meets the definition of
a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the round hickorynut as
a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are 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. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. 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 consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline shortly
after a species is listed. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), 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 (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
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 websites
(<a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9880</a>, and <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9879</a>), or from our Asheville 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, Tribes, 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.
Following publication of this rule, 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,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the longsolid or round hickorynut or both
species. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the longsolid or round hickorynut. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new information on these 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 listed as an endangered or
threatened species 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)(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 any endangered or threatened 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 (action agency) must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference, consultation, or both as described in the preceding
paragraph may include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the following agencies:
(1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (channel dredging and maintenance;
dam projects including flood control, navigation, hydropower, bridge
projects, stream restoration, and Clean Water Act permitting).
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency (technical and financial
assistance for projects) and the Forest Service (aquatic habitat
restoration, fire management plans, fire suppression, fuel reduction
treatments, forest plans, mining permits).
[[Page 14815]]
(3) U.S. Department of Energy (renewable and alternative energy
projects).
(4) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (interstate pipeline
construction and maintenance, dam relicensing, and hydrokinetics).
(5) U.S. Department of Transportation (highway and bridge
construction and maintenance).
(6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (issuance of section 10 permits
for enhancement of survival, habitat conservation plans, and safe
harbor agreements; National Wildlife Refuge planning and refuge
activities; Partners for Fish and Wildlife program projects benefiting
these species or other listed species; Wildlife and Sportfish
Restoration program sportfish stocking).
(7) Environmental Protection Agency (water quality criteria,
permitting).
(8) Tennessee Valley Authority (flood control, navigation,
hydropower, and land management for the Tennessee River system).
(9) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (land
resource management plans, mining permits, oil and natural gas permits,
abandoned mine land projects, and renewable energy development).
(10) National Park Service (aquatic habitat restoration, fire
management plans, fire suppression, fuel reduction treatments, land
management plans, mining permits).
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 listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the listed species.
The discussion below regarding protective regulations under section
4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.
II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D.
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity,
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species.
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such
species, or [s]he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising its authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
rule that is designed to address the longsolid's and round hickorynut's
specific threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not
require us to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect
to the adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that
this rule as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the
Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the longsolid and round hickorynut. As discussed
above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded
that the longsolid and round hickorynut are likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to declines
in water quality; loss of stream flow; fragmentation, alteration, and
deterioration of instream habitats; and nonnative species. These
threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization
and the effects of climate change, were central to our assessment of
the future viability of the longsolid and round hickorynut. The
provisions of this 4(d) rule will promote conservation of the longsolid
and round hickorynut by encouraging management of the landscape in ways
that meet both land management considerations and the conservation
needs of the longsolid and round hickorynut and are consistent with
land management considerations. The provisions of this rule are one of
many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the
longsolid and round hickorynut.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, 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.
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 Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 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, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
This obligation does not change in any way for a threatened species
with a species-specific 4(d) rule. Actions that result in a
determination by a Federal agency of ``not likely to adversely affect''
continue to require the Service's written concurrence and actions that
are ``likely to adversely affect'' a species
[[Page 14816]]
require formal consultation and the formulation of a biological
opinion.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule
This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the longsolid
and round hickorynut by prohibiting the following activities, except as
otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take;
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation
includes most of these prohibitions because the longsolid and round
hickorynut are at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and
putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent further
declines, preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their rate
of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
ongoing or future threats.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
multiple factors are affecting the status of the longsolid and round
hickorynut. A range of activities have the potential to affect these
species, including declines in water quality, loss of stream flow,
riparian and instream fragmentation, alteration and deterioration of
instream habitats, and nonnative species. These threats, which are
expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization and the effects of
climate change, were central to our assessment of the future viability
of the longsolid and round hickorynut. Therefore, we prohibit actions
resulting in the incidental take of longsolid and round hickorynut by
altering or degrading the habitat. Regulating incidental take resulting
from these activities will help preserve the species' remaining
populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease synergistic,
negative effects from other stressors.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
incidental and intentional take of the longsolid and round hickorynut
will help preserve and recover remaining populations of these species,
including slowing their date of decline and decreasing negative effects
from threats. Therefore, we prohibit intentional take of longsolid and
round hickorynut, except for take resulting from those actions and
activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
The 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of the species by
allowing exceptions, including certain standard exceptions, to
incidental take prohibitions caused by actions and activities that,
while they may have some minimal level of disturbance to the longsolid
and round hickorynut, are not expected to negatively impact the
species' conservation and recovery efforts. The proposed exceptions to
these prohibitions include incidental take associated with (1)
conservation and restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, (2)
channel restoration projects, (3) bank restoration projects, and (4)
forest management activities that implement State-approved BMPs.
The first exception is for incidental take associated with
conservation and restoration efforts for listed species conducted by
State wildlife agencies, and including, but not limited to, population
monitoring, relocation, and collection of broodstock; tissue collection
for genetic analysis; captive propagation; and subsequent stocking into
currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of
the species. We recognize our special and unique relationship with our
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, in addition to the first exception
for incidental take described above, any qualified employee or agent of
a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, and coordinates these
activities with us, would be able to conduct activities designed to
conserve the longsolid and round hickorynut that may result in
otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
The second exception is for incidental take resulting from channel
and bank restoration projects for creation of natural, physically
stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland
systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These
projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the
desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of
water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable
reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and
groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel;
riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of
large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent
riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands.
The third exception is for incidental take caused by bank
stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-
existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream
banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and
improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these
bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native
species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into
the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow),
native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows,
bound together into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or native species
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species
vegetation includes woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the
region and habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole
use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion
structures. Prior to channel restoration and bank stabilization
actions, surveys conducted in coordination with the appropriate Service
field office to determine presence of longsolid and round hickorynut
must be performed, and if located, relocation prior to project
implementation may be necessary, with post-implementation monitoring.
The fourth exception is for incidental take associated with forest
management activities that implement State-approved BMPs. Forest
landowners who properly implement these BMPs are helping conserve the
longsolid and round hickorynut, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for
all landowners to properly implement BMPs to avoid any take
implications.
We reiterate that these actions and activities may result in some
minimal level of take of the longsolid and round hickorynut, but they
are unlikely to negatively impact the species'
[[Page 14817]]
conservation and recovery efforts. To the contrary, we expect they
would have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species'
range, instream habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation
and by direct channel disturbance. The activities in the 4(d) rule are
intended to improve habitat conditions for the species in the long
term.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. The statute
also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found
in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct
activities designed to conserve the longsolid and round hickorynut that
may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional
authorization.
Nothing in this 4(d) rule will change in any way the recovery
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service
to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the
longsolid and round hickorynut. However, interagency cooperation may be
further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the
species between Federal agencies and the Service.
III. Critical Habitat for the Longsolid and Round Hickorynut
Background
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.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
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 also 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 requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species;
instead, they must 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 was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are 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 data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
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.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific 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
[[Page 14818]]
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 from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas 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 ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the section 4(d) rule.
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 will
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 will 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.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
As described above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
longsolid and round hickorynut mussels occur in river or stream
reaches. Occasional or regular interaction among individuals in
different reaches not interrupted by a barrier likely occurs, but in
general, interaction is strongly influenced by habitat fragmentation
and distance between occupied river or stream reaches. Once released
from their fish host, freshwater mussels are benthic, generally
sedentary aquatic organisms and closely associated with appropriate
habitat patches within a river or stream.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the longsolid and round hickorynut from studies of these species'
(or appropriate surrogate species') habitat, ecology, and life history.
The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of the longsolid
and round hickorynut include water quality, water quantity, substrate,
habitat connectivity, and the presence of host fish species to ensure
recruitment. These features are also described above as resource needs
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, and a full description
is available in the SSA reports; the individuals' needs are summarized
below in Table 1.
[[Page 14819]]
Table 1--Requirements for Each Life Stage of the Longsolid and Round Hickorynut Mussels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources needed to complete life stage
Life stage \1\ Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilized eggs--early spring........ <bullet> Clear, flowing water Berg et al. 2008, p. 397;
<bullet> Sexually mature males upstream Haag 2012, pp. 38-39.
from sexually mature females
<bullet> Appropriate spawning temperatures
Glochidia--late spring to early <bullet> Clear, flowing water Strayer 2008, p. 65; Haag
summer. <bullet> Enough flow to keep glochidia or 2012, pp. 41-42.
conglutinates adrift and to attract drift-
feeding host fish
<bullet> Presence of host fish for
attachment
Juveniles--excystment from host fish <bullet> Clear, flowing water Dimock and Wright 1993, pp.
to approx. 0.8 in (~20 mm) shell <bullet> Host fish dispersal 188-190; Sparks and Strayer
length. <bullet> Appropriate interstitial 1998, p. 132; Augspurger et
chemistry; low salinity, low ammonia, low al. 2003, p. 2,574;
copper and other contaminants, high Augspurger et al. 2007, p.
dissolved oxygen 2,025; Strayer and Malcom
<bullet> Appropriate substrate (clean 2012, pp. 1,787-1,788.
gravel/sand/cobble) for settlement
Adults--greater than 0.8 in (20 mm) <bullet> Clear, flowing water Yeager et al. 1994, p. 221;
shell length. <bullet> Appropriate substrate (stable Nichols and Garling 2000, p.
gravel and coarse sand free from 881; Chen et al. 2001, p.
excessive silt) 214; Spooner and Vaughn
<bullet> Adequate food availability 2008, p. 308.
(phytoplankton and detritus)
<bullet> High dissolved oxygen
<bullet> Appropriate water temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These resource needs are common among North American freshwater mussels; however, due to lack of species-
specific research, parameters specific to longsolid and round hickorynut are unavailable.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the longsolid and round hickorynut from studies of
the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in chapter 4 of the SSA reports
(Service 2018, pp. 27-32; Service 2019, pp. 30-39), both of which are
available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0010. We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential to the conservation of the longsolid and round
hickorynut:
(1) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the
species are found and to maintain stream connectivity, specifically
providing for the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of
the mussels' and fish host's habitat and food availability, maintenance
of spawning habitat for native fishes, and the ability for newly
transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure delivery of oxygen, enable
reproduction, deliver food to filter-feeding mussels, and reduce
contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial spaces. Stream
velocity is not static over time, and variations may be attributed to
seasonal changes (with higher flows in winter/spring and lower flows in
summer/fall), extreme weather events (e.g., drought or floods), or
anthropogenic influence (e.g., flow regulation via impoundments).
(2) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats,
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (i.e.,
channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel
and native fish (such as, stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide
flow refuges consisting of predominantly silt-free, stable sand,
gravel, and cobble substrates).
(3) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages, including (but not limited to): Dissolved oxygen
(generally above 2 to 3 parts per million (ppm)), salinity (generally
below 2 to 4 ppm), and temperature (generally below 86 [deg]F ([deg]F)
(30 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C)). Additionally, water and sediment should be
low in ammonia (generally below 0.5 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen) and
heavy metal concentrations, and lack excessive total suspended solids
and other pollutants (see Threats Analysis, above).
(4) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for
recruitment of the longsolid (currently unknown, likely includes
minnows of the family Cyprinidae and banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae))
and the round hickorynut (i.e., eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta
pellucida), emerald darter (Etheostoma baileyi), greenside darter (E.
blennioides), Iowa darter (E. exile), fantail darter (E. flabellare),
Cumberland darter (E. susanae), spangled darter (E. obama), variegate
darter (E. variatum), blackside darter (Percina maculata), frecklebelly
darter (P. stictogaster), and banded sculpin).
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 features essential to the conservation of the longsolid and
round hickorynut may require special management considerations or
protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Alteration of the
natural flow regime (modifying the natural hydrograph and seasonal
flows), including water withdrawals, resulting in flow reduction and
available water quantity; (2) urbanization of the landscape, including
(but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use,
infrastructure (pipelines, roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water
uses (resource extraction activities, water supply reservoirs,
[[Page 14820]]
wastewater treatment, etc.); (3) significant alteration of water
quality and nutrient pollution from a variety of activities, such as
mining and agricultural activities; (4) impacts from invasive species;
(5) land use activities that remove large areas of forested wetlands
and riparian systems; (6) culvert and pipe installation that creates
barriers to movement for the longsolid and round hickorynut, or their
host fishes; (7) changes and shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns
as a result of climate change; and (8) other watershed and floodplain
disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the
water.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to: Use of BMPs designed to reduce sedimentation,
erosion, and bank destruction; protection of riparian corridors and
woody vegetation; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to
maintain natural flow regimes; improved stormwater management; and
reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are designating as
critical habitat contain the physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. Special management
considerations or protection may be required of the Federal action
agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, the threats
affecting the physical and biological features of each unit.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not designating any areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the longsolid or round
hickorynut because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat, and we have determined that
occupied areas are sufficient to conserve these two species.
Methodology Used For Selection of Units
First, we included stronghold (high) or medium condition
populations (resiliency) remaining from historical conditions. These
populations show recruitment or varied age class structure, and could
be used for recovery actions to re-establish populations within basins
through propagation activities or augment other populations through
direct translocations within their basins.
Second, we evaluated spatial representation and redundancy across
the species' ranges, to include last remaining consistently observable
population(s) in major river basins and the last remaining
population(s) in States if necessary, as States are crucial partners in
monitoring and recovery efforts.
Third, we examined the overall contribution of medium condition
populations and threats to those populations. Adjacency and
connectivity to stronghold and medium populations was considered, and
we did not include populations that have a potentially low likelihood
of recovery due to limited abundances or populations currently under a
high level of threats.
Finally, we evaluated overlap of longsolid and round hickorynut
occurrences, as well as other listed aquatic species and designated
critical habitat, to see if there are ongoing conservation and
monitoring efforts that can be capitalized on for efficiency. Rangewide
recovery considerations, such as maintaining existing genetic diversity
and striving for representation of all major portions of the species'
current ranges, were considered in formulating these critical habitat
designations. For example, in the Cumberland River basin, there is only
one remaining population of the longsolid (mainstem Cumberland River)
and only two populations remaining of the round hickorynut (Buck Creek
and Rockcastle River). In addition, in the Mississippi River basin,
only one population of the round hickorynut remains (Big Black River).
The distribution of the longsolid and round hickorynut in these basins
is substantially reduced when compared to historical data that indicate
these species were formerly much more widespread within these
drainages. Therefore, these rivers and streams were included to
maintain basin representation.
The critical habitat designation does not include all rivers and
streams currently occupied by the species, nor all rivers and streams
known to have been occupied by the species historically. Instead, it
includes only the occupied rivers and streams within the current range
that we determined have the physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of these species and meet the definition
of critical habitat. These rivers and streams contain populations large
and dense enough and most likely to be self-sustaining over time
(despite fluctuations in local conditions), and also have retained the
physical or biological features that will allow for the maintenance and
expansion of existing populations. These units also represent
populations that are stable and distributed over a wide geographic
area. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area
currently occupied by either the longsolid or round hickorynut because
we determined that occupied areas are sufficient to conserve the two
species. Accordingly, we did not find any unoccupied areas to be
essential to the conservation of these species.
Sources of data for these critical habitat designations include
multiple databases maintained by universities, information from State
agencies throughout the species' ranges, and numerous survey reports on
streams throughout the species' ranges (see SSA reports (Service 2018,
entire; Service 2019, entire)). We have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat requirements of these species.
Sources of information on habitat requirements include studies
conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles,
agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts (Service
2018, entire; Service 2019, entire).
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by these
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using a precise set of criteria. Specifically, we identified
river and stream reaches with observations from 2000 to present, given
the variable data associated with timing and frequency of mussel
surveys conducted throughout the species' ranges. We determined it is
reasonable to find these areas occupied due to the longevity of the
longsolid, the potential for incomplete survey detections for the round
hickorynut, highly variable recent survey information across both
species' ranges, and available State heritage databases and information
support for the likelihood of both species' continued presence in these
areas within this timeframe. Specific habitat areas were delineated
based on Natural
[[Page 14821]]
Heritage Element Occurrences, and unpublished survey data provided by
States, universities, and nongovernmental organizations. These areas
provide habitat for longsolid and round hickorynut populations and are
large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite fluctuations in
local conditions. The areas within the critical habitat units represent
continuous river and stream reaches of free-flowing habitat patches
capable of sustaining host fishes and allowing for seasonal transport
of glochidia, which are essential for reproduction and dispersal of
longsolid and round hickorynut. We consider portions of the following
rivers and streams to be occupied by the species at the time of
listing, and meet the definition of critical habitat:
(1) Longsolid--French Creek, Allegheny River, Shenango River,
Middle Island Creek, Little Kanawha River, Elk River, Kanawha River,
Licking River, Green River, Cumberland River, Clinch River, and Paint
Rock River (see Final Critical Habitat Designation, below).
(2) Round hickorynut--Shenango River, Grand River, Tippecanoe
River, Middle Island Creek, Little Kanawha River, Elk River, Kanawha
River, Licking River, Rockcastle River, Buck Creek, Green River, Paint
Rock River, Duck River, and Big Black River (see Final Critical Habitat
Designation, below).
Critical Habitat Maps
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings,
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or
biological features necessary for the longsolid and round hickorynut.
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 rule have been excluded by
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific action will affect the
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat stream reaches that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of these
species. Twelve units for the longsolid and 14 units for the round
hickorynut are designated based on the presence of the physical or
biological features that support the longsolid's or round hickorynut's
life-history processes. All of the units for both species contain all
of the identified physical or biological features and support multiple
life-history processes.
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 under Regulation Promulgation. 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0010.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating a total of 1,115 river mi (1,794 km) in 12 units
as occupied critical habitat for the longsolid and a total of 921 river
mi (1,482 km) in 14 units as occupied critical habitat for the round
hickorynut. All or portions of some of these units overlap, and all 26
units are occupied by one or both species. The critical habitat areas
we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for the longsolid and round
hickorynut. The 12 areas designated as critical habitat for the
longsolid are: French Creek, Allegheny River, Shenango River, Middle
Island Creek, Little Kanawha River, Elk River, Kanawha River, Licking
River, Green River, Cumberland River, Clinch River, and Paint Rock
River. The 14 areas designated as critical habitat for the round
hickorynut are: Shenango River, Grand River, Tippecanoe River, Middle
Island Creek, Little Kanawha River, Elk River, Kanawha River, Licking
River, Rockcastle River, Buck Creek, Green River, Paint Rock River,
Duck River, and Big Black River. Tables 2 and 3 show the critical
habitat units and the approximate river miles of each unit.
Table 2--Critical Habitat Units for the Longsolid. All Units Are
Occupied by the Species
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent riparian
Critical habitat unit (State) land ownership by Approximate river
type miles (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LS 1. French Creek Public (Federal, 14 (22.1)
(Pennsylvania). State);.
Private........... 106 (170.6)
Total = 120
(191.5)
LS 2. Allegheny River Public (Federal, 84 (135.8)
(Pennsylvania). State);.
Private........... 15 (24.1)
Total = 99 (159.3)
LS 3. Shenango River Public (Federal, 7 (11.3)
(Pennsylvania). State);.
Private........... 15 (24.3)
Total = 22 (35.5)
LS 4. Middle Island Creek (West Public (Local);... 0.13 (0.2)
Virginia).
Private........... 14 (23.5)
Total = 14 (23.7)
LS 5. Little Kanawha River (West Public (Federal, 0.53 (0.9)
Virginia). State);.
Private........... 122 (197.2)
Total = 123 (198)
LS 6. Elk River (West Virginia). Public (Federal, 7 (12.7)
State, Local);.
Private........... 93 (150.3)
Total = 101 (163)
LS 7. Kanawha River (West Public (Federal, 2 (4.6)
Virginia). State, Local);.
Private........... 18 (29.3)
Total = 21 (33.9)
LS 8. Licking River (Kentucky).. Public (Federal, 19 (31.7)
State, Local);.
[[Page 14822]]
Private........... 161 (259.7)
Total = 181
(291.5)
LS 9. Green River (Kentucky).... Public (Federal, 51 (82.4)
State, Local);.
Private........... 105 (169.2)
Total = 156
(251.6)
LS 10. Cumberland River Public (Federal).. Total = 48 (77.5)
(Tennessee).
LS 11. Clinch River (Virginia Public (Federal, 17 (27.3)
and Tennessee). State);.
Private........... 160 (258.8)
Total = 177
(286.1)
LS 12. Paint Rock River Public (Federal, 56 (90.4)
(Alabama). State);.
Private........... 2 (4.1)
Total = 58 (94.5)
---------------------------------------
Public...................... .................. 305 (491)
Private..................... .................. 810 (1,304)
---------------------------------------
Total................... .................. 1,115 (1,794)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: River miles may not sum due to rounding.
Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the Round Hickorynut. All Units Are
Occupied by the Species
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent riparian Approximate
Critical habitat unit land ownership by river miles
type (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH 1. Shenango River Public (Federal, 7 (11.1)
(Pennsylvania). State);.
Private.............. 15 (24.3)
Total = 22 (35.5)
RH 2. Grand River (Ohio)...... Public (State, 33 (53)
Local);.
Private.............. 59 (95.2)
Total = 92
(148.2)
RH 3. Tippecanoe River Public (State, 9 (14.5)
(Indiana). Easement);.
Private.............. 66 (105.6)
Total = 75
(120.8)
RH 4. Middle Island Creek Public (Federal, 0.2 (0.4)
(West Virginia). State);.
Private.............. 74.8 (120.4)
Total = 75
(120.8)
RH 5. Little Kanawha River Public (Federal, 0.7 (1.2)
(West Virginia). State, Local);.
Private.............. 109 (175.4)
Total = 110
(176.6)
RH 6. Elk River (West Public (Federal, 7 (12.7)
Virginia). State, Local);.
Private.............. 93 (150.3)
Total = 101 (163)
RH 7. Kanawha River (West Public (Federal, 4 (7.2)
Virginia). State, Local);.
Private.............. 33 (53.2)
Total = 37.5
(60.4)
RH 8. Licking River (Kentucky) Public (Federal, 18 (30)
State, Local);.
Private.............. 131 (211.8)
Total = 150
(241.9)
RH 9. Rockcastle River Public (Federal);.... 15 (24.2)
(Kentucky).
Private.............. 0.3 (0.4)
Total = 15.3
(24.6)
RH 10. Buck Creek (Kentucky).. Public (State, 3 (5.5)
Local);.
Private.............. 33 (52.6)
Total = 36 (58.1)
RH 11. Green River (Kentucky). Public (Federal, 37 (59.4)
State);.
Private.............. 61 (98.4)
Total = 98
(157.7)
RH 12. Paint Rock River Public (Federal, 46 (73.4)
(Alabama). State);.
Private.............. 2 (4.1)
Total = 48 (77.5)
RH 13. Duck River (Tennessee). Public (State, 32 (51.1)
Local);.
Private.............. 27 (43.7)
Total = 59 (94.8)
RH 14. Big Black River Private.............. Total = 4 (7)
(Mississippi).
------------------
[[Page 14823]]
Public.................... ..................... 212 (341)
Private................... ..................... 709 (1,141)
------------------
Total................. ..................... 921 (1,482)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: River miles may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the longsolid and round
hickorynut, below. There are a total of 12 units for the longsolid and
14 units for round hickorynut, 8 of which overlap in part or whole for
both species, and all of which contain all of the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of both species.
Also, the majority of units overlap in part or whole with existing
critical habitat designated for other federally endangered species
(i.e., diamond darter (Crystallaria cincotta), Short's bladderpod
(Physaria globosa), purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea), rough
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), Cumberlandian combshell
(Epioblasma brevidens), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis),
slabside pearlymussel (Pleuronaia (=Lexingtonia) dolabelloides), and
fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentus)) or federally threatened
species (i.e., rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), yellowfin
madtom (Noturus flavipinnis), and slender chub (Erimystax (=Hybopsis)
cahni)), as specified below.
LS 1: French Creek
Unit LS 1 consists of 120 stream mi (191.5 km) of French Creek in
Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango Counties, Pennsylvania, from Union
City Dam west of Union City, Erie County, downstream to its confluence
with the Allegheny River near the City of Franklin, Venango County.
Riparian lands that border the unit include approximately 106 stream mi
(170.6 km; 76 percent) in private ownership and 14 stream mi (22.1 km;
24 percent) in public (Federal or State) ownership. General land use on
adjacent riparian lands and the surrounding HUC 8-level management unit
includes agriculture, several State-managed game lands, the communities
of Cambridge Springs and Venango, and the cities of Meadville and
Franklin. Union City Dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Unit LS 1 is occupied by the species and contains all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. The entire 120 stream mi (191.5 km) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened rabbitsfoot
mussel (80 FR 24692; April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within this unit include the degradation of
habitat and water quality from impoundments, siltation and pollution
due to resource extraction, agriculture, timbering practices, and human
development; flow reduction and water quality degradation due to water
withdrawals and wastewater treatment plants; and the presence of
invasive, nonnative species. Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include
monitoring water quality degradation within the species' range
resulting from row crop agriculture and oil and gas development, and
efforts to prevent the spread of invasive, nonnative species,
specifically the round goby (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
LS 2: Allegheny River
Unit LS 2 consists of 99 river mi (159.3 km) of the Allegheny River
in Warren, Crawford, Forest, Venango, and Clarion Counties,
Pennsylvania, from Kinzua Dam east of Warren, Warren County, downstream
to the Pennsylvania Route 58 crossing at Foxburg, Clarion County,
Pennsylvania. Riparian lands that border the unit include approximately
15 river mi (24.1 km; 14 percent) in private ownership and 84 river mi
(135.8 km; 86 percent) in public (Federal or State government)
ownership. General land use on adjacent riparian lands and the
surrounding HUC 8-level management unit includes forestry, agriculture,
and State-managed game lands. The public land ownership for this unit
is a combination of Allegheny National Forest lands and State lands,
and the Kinzua Dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Unit LS 2 is occupied by the species and contains all of the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
There is overlap of approximately 35 river mi (57 km) of this unit with
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened rabbitsfoot
mussel (80 FR 24692; April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within Unit LS 2 include the degradation of
habitat and water quality from impoundments, channelization, siltation
and pollution due to improper timbering practices, resource extraction,
water withdrawals, development, and wastewater treatment plants, and
the presence of invasive, nonnative species. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include modifying dam releases from Kinzua Dam to mimic the
natural hydrograph, improvements to water quality to reverse
degradation resulting from row crop agriculture and oil and gas
development, and efforts to prevent the spread of invasive, nonnative
species (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
LS 3: Shenango River
Unit LS 3 is the same as Unit RH 1, described below for the round
hickorynut. Unit LS 3 consists of 22 river mi (35.5 km) of the Shenango
River in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, from Pymatuning Dam downstream
to the point of inundation by Shenango River Lake near Big Bend, Mercer
County, Pennsylvania. Riparian lands that border the unit include
approximately 15 river mi (24.3 km; 32 percent) in private ownership
and 7 river mi (11.3 km; 68 percent) in public (Federal or State)
ownership. General land use on adjacent riparian lands and the
surrounding HUC 8-level management unit includes the City of Greenville
and its associated industry, and the unincorporated communities of
Jamestown and New Harrisburg. Pymatuning Dam is owned by the State of
Pennsylvania. Unit LS 3 is occupied by the species and contains all of
the physical or biological features essential
[[Page 14824]]
to the conservation of the species. There is overlap of approximately
14.5 river mi (23.4 km) of this unit with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened rabbitsfoot mussel (80 FR 24692; April 30,
2015).
Threats identified within Unit LS 3 include the degradation of
habitat and water quality from impoundments, domestic and industrial
pollution due to human development, resource extraction, water
withdrawals, and wastewater treatment plants, and the presence of
invasive, nonnative species. Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include
modifying dam releases from Pytmatuning Dam to mimic the natural
hydrograph, and efforts to prevent the spread of invasive, nonnative
species (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
LS 4: Middle Island Creek
Unit LS 4 partially overlaps with Unit RH 4 for the round
hickorynut, described below. Unit LS 4 consists of 14 stream mi (23.7
km) of Middle Island Creek in Doddridge and Tyler Counties, West
Virginia, from the mouth of Meathouse Fork south of Smithburg,
Doddridge County, downstream to its confluence with Arnold Creek at the
Tyler/Doddridge County line. Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 14 stream mi (23.5 km; 99 percent) in private
ownership and 0.13 river mi (0.2 km; less than 1 percent) in public
(local government) ownership. General land use on adjacent riparian
lands and the surrounding HUC 8-level management unit includes forestry
and the communities of Smithburg, Avondale, and West Union. Unit LS 4
is occupied by the species and contains all of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Threats identified within Unit LS 4 include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments, siltation and pollution due to
improper timbering practices, resource extraction, water withdrawals,
development, and wastewater treatment plants, and the presence of
invasive, nonnative species. Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include
actions to alleviate the threats of water quality and habitat
degradation from hydrofracking wastewater discharges and impoundments
downstream on the Ohio River, and efforts to prevent the spread of
invasive, nonnative species (see Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
LS 5: Little Kanawha River
Unit LS 5 partially overlaps with Unit RH 5 for the round
hickorynut, described below. Unit LS 5 consists of 123 river mi (198
km) of the Little Kanawha River in Calhoun, Gilmer, Ritchie, and Wood
Counties, West Virginia, from Burnsville Dam (which is in neighboring
Braxton County) downstream to its confluence with the Ohio River in
Parkersburg, Wood Count
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on March 9, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.