[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1647-1658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-565]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC64


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the Cumberland Elktoe, Oyster Mussel, 
Cumberlandian Combshell, Purple Bean, and Rough Rabbitsfoot

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered 
status for five freshwater mussels--Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta 
atropurpurea), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), Cumberlandian 
combshell (Epioblasma brevidens), purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea), 
and rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata)--under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). All five species have 
undergone significant reductions in range and numbers. They now exist 
as relatively small, isolated populations. The Cumberland elktoe exists 
in very localized portions of the Cumberland River system in Kentucky 
and Tennessee. The oyster mussel and Cumberlandian combshell persist at 
extremely low numbers in portions of the Cumberland and Tennessee river 
basins in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The purple bean and rough 
rabbitsfoot currently survive in a few river reaches in the upper 
Tennessee River system in Tennessee and Virginia. These species were 
eliminated from much of their historic range by impoundments. 
Presently, these species and their habitats are being impacted by 
deteriorated water quality, primarily resulting from poor land-use 
practices. Because the species have such restricted ranges, they are 
vulnerable to toxic chemical spills.

DATES: Effective February 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative file for this rule is available 
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa 
Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard G. Biggins at the above 
address, or telephone 704/258-3939, Ext. 228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea)
    The Cumberland elktoe, described by Rafinesque (1831), has a thin 
but not fragile shell. The shell's surface is smooth, somewhat shiny, 
and covered with greenish rays. Young specimens have a yellowish brown 
shell, and the shells of adults are generally black. The inside of the 
shell is shiny with a white, bluish white, or sometimes peach or salmon 
color (see Clarke (1981) for a

[[Page 1648]]

more complete description of the species).
    The Cumberland elktoe is endemic to the Cumberland River system in 
Tennessee and Kentucky and is considered endangered in the State of 
Kentucky (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) 1991). 
Historic records exist from the Cumberland River and from its 
tributaries entering from the south between the Big South Fork 
Cumberland River upstream to Cumberland Falls. Specimens have also been 
taken from Marsh Creek above Cumberland Falls. Old records of a related 
species, Alasmidonta marginata, exist from other creeks above 
Cumberland Falls; and there is speculation that these specimens were 
probably the Cumberland elktoe (Gordon 1991). Because the area above 
the falls has been severely impacted by coal mining, any populations of 
A. atropurpurea that might have existed there were likely lost (Gordon 
1991). A record of one fresh dead specimen exists from the Collins 
River, Grundy County, Tennessee. However, extensive searches of the 
collection site and other sites in the Collins River and adjacent 
rivers have failed to find another specimen. If the species did exist 
in the Collins River, it has likely been extirpated.
    Presently, three populations of the Cumberland elktoe are known to 
persist. The species survives in the middle sections of Rock Creek, 
McCreary County, Kentucky; the upper portions of the Big South Fork 
Cumberland River basin in McCreary County, Kentucky; and Scott, 
Fentress, and Morgan counties, Tennessee; and in Marsh Creek, McCreary 
County, Kentucky (Gordon 1991). Marsh Creek likely contains the best 
surviving elktoe population (Robert McCance, KSNPC, in litt., 1994).
    Any Cumberland elktoe populations that may have existed in the main 
stem of the Cumberland River were likely lost when Wolf Creek Dam was 
completed. Other tributary populations were likely lost due to the 
impacts of coal mining, pollution, and spills from oil wells. The upper 
Big South Fork basin population is threatened by coal mining runoff and 
could also be threatened by impoundments. The Marsh Creek population 
has been adversely affected and is still threatened by potential spills 
from oil wells. The Rock Creek population could be threatened by 
logging. All three populations, especially Rock Creek and Marsh Creek, 
are restricted to such short stream reaches that they could be 
eliminated by naturally occurring events such as toxic chemical spills.
Oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
    The oyster mussel (Lea 1834) has a dull to sub-shiny yellowish- to 
green-colored shell with numerous narrow dark green rays. The shells of 
females are slightly inflated and quite thin towards the shell's 
posterior margin. The inside of the shell is whitish to bluish white in 
color (see Johnson (1978) for a more complete description of the 
species). The species is considered endangered in the States of 
Kentucky (KSNPC 1991) and Virginia (Neves 1991; Sue Bruenderman, 
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), in litt., 
1992).
    This species historically occurred throughout much of the 
Cumberlandian region of the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages in 
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (Gordon 1991), and Ortmann 
(1918) considered the species to be very abundant in the upper 
Tennessee River drainage.
    Currently, within the Cumberland River, the oyster mussel survives 
as a very rare component of the benthic community in Buck Creek, 
Pulaski County, Kentucky; and it still survives in a few miles of the 
Big South Fork Cumberland River, McCreary County, Kentucky, and Scott 
County, Tennessee (Bakaletz 1991; McCance, in litt., 1994). Within the 
Tennessee River system, only small populations survive at a few sites 
in the Powell River, Lee County, Virginia; and Hancock and Claiborne 
counties, Tennessee; in the Clinch River system, Scott County, 
Virginia, and Hancock County, Tennessee; Copper Creek (a Clinch River 
tributary), Scott County, Virginia; and Duck River, Marshall County, 
Tennessee. Although not seen in recent years, the species may still 
persist at extremely low numbers in the lower Nolichucky river, Cocke 
and Hamblem counties, Tennessee, and in the Little Pigeon River, Sevier 
County, Tennessee (Gordon 1991).
    Much of the oyster mussel's historic range has been impounded by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps). Other populations were lost due to various forms of 
pollution and siltation. The present populations are threatened by the 
adverse impacts of coal mining, poor land-use practices, and pollution, 
primarily from nonpoint sources. The Duck River population could be 
lost if the proposed Columbia Dam on the Duck River at Columbia, 
Tennessee, is completed as presently proposed. All the known 
populations are small and could be decimated by naturally occurring 
events such as toxic chemical spills.
Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens)
    The Cumberlandian combshell (Lea 1831) has a thick, solid shell 
with a smooth to cloth-like outer surface. It is yellow to tawny brown 
in color with narrow green broken rays. The inside of the shell is 
white. The shells of females are inflated with serrated teeth-like 
structures along a portion of the shell margin (see Johnson (1978) for 
a more complete description of the species). The species is considered 
endangered in the States of Kentucky (KSNPC 1991) and Virginia (Neves 
1991; Bruenderman, in litt., 1992) and a species of special concern in 
Tennessee (Bogan and Parmalee 1983).
    The Cumberlandian combshell historically existed throughout much of 
the Cumberlandian portion of the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems 
in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (Gordon 1991). Presently, 
it survives in the Cumberland River basin, as a very rare component of 
the benthic community in Buck Creek, Pulaski County, Kentucky, and in a 
few miles of the Big South Fork Cumberland River, McCreary County, 
Kentucky, and Scott County, Tennessee (Bakaletz 1991; Gordon 1991; 
McCance, in litt., 1994). A few old, non-reproducing individuals may 
also survive in Old Hickory Reservoir on the Cumberland River, Smith 
County, Tennessee (Gordon 1991).
    Within the Tennessee River basin, the species still survives in 
very low numbers in the Powell and Clinch rivers, Lee and Scott 
counties, Virginia; and Claiborne and Hancock counties, Tennessee. The 
Clinch and Powell river populations are very small and in decline 
(Neves 1991; Richard Neves, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 
Research Unit, personal communication, 1991).
    Many of the Cumberlandian combshell's historic populations were 
lost when impoundments were constructed on the Tennessee and Cumberland 
rivers by TVA and the Corps. Other populations were lost due to various 
forms of pollution and siltation. The present populations are 
threatened by the adverse impacts of coal mining, poor land-use 
practices, and pollution, primarily from nonpoint sources. All the 
known populations are small and could be decimated by naturally 
occurring events such as toxic chemical spills.

[[Page 1649]]

Purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea)
    The purple bean mussel (Lea 1861) has a small- to medium-sized 
shell. The shell's outer surface is usually dark brown to black with 
numerous closely spaced fine green rays. The inside of the shell is 
purple, but the purple may fade to white in dead specimens (see Bogan 
and Parmalee (1983) for a more complete description of the species). 
The species is considered endangered in Tennessee (Bogan and Parmalee 
1983) and Virginia (Neves 1991; and Bruenderman, in litt., 1992).
    The purple bean historically occupied the upper Tennessee River 
basin in Tennessee and Virginia upstream of the confluence of the 
Clinch River (Gordon 1991). Ortmann (1918) considered the species ``not 
rare'' in Virginia. Presently, it survives in limited numbers at a few 
locations in the upper Clinch River basin, Scott, Tazewell, and Russell 
counties, Virginia; Copper Creek (a Clinch River tributary), Scott 
County, Virginia; Indian Creek (a Clinch River tributary), Tazewell 
County, Virginia (the Indian Creek location information was received 
from the Service's Abingdon Field Office, Abingdon, Virginia, after the 
close of the comment period. However, the purple bean was known to 
occur in the Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia, near the mouth of 
Indian Creek during the open comment period, and another federally 
listed mussel (tan riffleshell) was also found in the same reach of 
Indian Creek. The Service has determined that, because this new 
information did not substantially affect the listing decision, 
extending the public comment period was not warranted); Obed River, 
Cumberland and Morgan counties, Tennessee; Emory River just below its 
confluence with the Obed River, Morgan County, Tennessee; and Beech 
Creek, Hawkins County, Tennessee (Gordon 1991).
    The purple bean populations in the lower Clinch, Powell, and 
Holston rivers were extirpated by reservoirs. The decline of the 
species throughout the rest of its range was likely due to the adverse 
impacts of coal mining, poor land-use practices, and pollution; 
primarily from nonpoint sources. The population centers that remain are 
so limited that they are very vulnerable to naturally occurring events 
such as toxic chemical spills.
Rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata)
    The rough rabbitsfoot (Wright 1898) has an elongated heavy, rough 
textured, yellow- to greenish-colored shell. The shell's surface is 
covered with green rays, blotches, and chevron patterns. The inside of 
the shell is silvery to white with an iridescence in the posterior area 
of the shell (see Bogan and Parmalee (1983) for a more complete species 
description). The species is considered threatened in Virginia (Neves 
1991; Bruenderman, in litt., 1992) and a species of special concern in 
Tennessee (Bogan and Parmalee 1983).
    Historically, this mussel was restricted to the upper Tennessee 
River basin in the Clinch, Powell, and Holston river systems (Gordon 
1991). It still survives in all three of these systems, but only in 
limited areas and at low population levels. Populations persist in the 
Powell River, Lee County, Virginia; and Claiborne and Hancock counties, 
Tennessee; Clinch River, Scott County, Virginia; and Hancock County, 
Tennessee; Copper Creek (a Clinch River tributary), Scott County, 
Virginia; and North Fork Holston River, Washington County, Virginia 
(Gordon 1991).
    The rough rabbitsfoot populations in the lower Clinch, Powell, and 
Holston river systems were extirpated by reservoirs. The decline of the 
species throughout the rest of its range was likely due to the adverse 
impacts of coal mining, poor land-use practices, and pollution, 
primarily from nonpoint sources. The population centers that remain are 
so limited that they are vulnerable to extirpation from naturally 
occurring events such as toxic chemical spills.

Previous Federal Action

    In the Service's notice of review for animal candidates, published 
in the Federal Register of November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), the 
Cumberland elktoe, oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, 
and rough rabbitsfoot were included as Category 2 species. At that 
time, a Category 2 species was one that was being considered for 
possible addition to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. Designation of Category 2 species was discontinued in the 
February 28, 1996, Federal Register notice (61 FR 7596). These mussels 
were approved for elevation to candidate status by the Service on 
August 30, 1993. A candidate species is a species for which the Service 
has sufficient information to propose it for protection under the Act. 
On August 25, 1992, the Service notified by mail (129 letters), 
potentially affected Federal and State agencies and local governments 
within the species' present range, and interested individuals that a 
status review of the above mentioned five mussels and the slabside 
pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) was being conducted. (The 
slabside pearlymussel has not been included in this final rule. 
Additional populations of this species were discovered and further 
evaluation is needed before a decision can be made regarding the 
species' need for Federal protection.)
    Seven agencies responded to the August 25, 1992, notification. The 
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the U.S. Soil 
Conservation Service) stated: ``It is not anticipated that any planned 
or current activities will adversely affect these species or their 
habitat.'' The KSNPC, the Kentucky Department of Environmental 
Protection, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Virginia 
Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), and VDGIF provided 
information on the decline and status of the species in their States.
    The Duck River Agency (DRA) provided comments on the status of the 
oyster mussel in the Duck River. It stated that, as the Duck River 
population of the oyster mussel is extremely small, it is believed 
highly unlikely that the stream supports a viable population of E. 
capsaeformis. In contrast to DRA's statement, Don Hubbs (TWRA, in 
litt., 1992) stated that fresh dead oyster mussel individuals (from 
young and older cohorts) were not uncommon in muskrat middens on the 
Duck River in Marshall County, Tennessee. The Service, however, 
currently has insufficient information to judge the species' long-term 
viability either in the Duck River or on a rangewide basis.
    The DRA took issue with the Service's statement in the notification 
that the proposed Columbia Dam on the Duck River could eliminate the 
oyster mussel from the Duck River. It stated that current project 
alternatives under consideration by the DRA and TVA could result in a 
project that would flood less than one third of the area and would 
enhance the future viability of the population segment above the pool. 
The Service agrees that a smaller Columbia Dam pool would reduce the 
amount of the oyster mussel population lost to the direct effects of 
the dam. However, the details of these Columbia Dam alternatives have 
not been provided to the Service.
    The DRA commented that statements in the mussel species accounts 
(Gordon 1991) used as an information source to prepare the August 25, 
1992, notification contained language that appeared to indicate that 
the Service had already made a decision to list the species prior to 
receiving any comments

[[Page 1650]]

from the notification. The Service agrees that the species accounts, 
which were prepared by a non-Service biologist under contract to the 
Service, contain language regarding the need to reverse the species' 
decline as a means to preserve and recover the mussels. However, these 
statements, made by a Service contractor, do not represent a 
predecisional statement by the Service. Statements in the species 
accounts were considered along with all presently available information 
on these species, as well as information obtained through the 
notification and the proposed rule, when making the final decision 
regarding the status of the species.
    The processing of this final rule conforms with the Service's final 
listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on May 16, 
1996 (61 FR 24722). The guidance clarifies the order in which the 
Service will process rulemakings following two related events--(1) the 
lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed 
on April 10, 1995 (Public Law 104-6), and (2) the restoration of 
significant funding for listing through the passage of the omnibus 
budget reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe funding 
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between 
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest 
priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest 
priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of the outstanding 
proposed listings. This final rule falls under Tier 2. At this time, 
there are no pending Tier 1 actions.
    In the development of this final rule, the Service has conducted an 
internal review of a draft of this rule and other Service-generated 
information. Based on this review, the Service has determined that 
there is no new information that would substantively affect this 
listing decision and that additional public comment is not warranted.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On July 14, 1994, a proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 35901) stating that the Cumberland elktoe, oyster 
mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot 
were being considered for endangered species status under the Act. In 
the proposed rule, in legal notices (published in the Kingsport Daily 
News, Kingsport, Tennessee, on August 2, 1994; Crossville Chronicle, 
Crossville, Tennessee, and Bristol Herald Courier, Bristol, Virginia, 
on August 3, 1994; Knoxville Journal, Knoxville, Tennessee, on August 
8, 1994; Columbia Herald, Columbia, Tennessee, on August 10, 1994; and 
Nashville Banner, Nashville, Tennessee, on August 17, 1994) and in 
letters dated July 26, 1994, the Service requested Federal and State 
agencies, local governments, scientific organizations, and interested 
parties to comment and submit factual reports and information that 
might contribute to development of a final determination for these five 
mussels, and provided notification that a public hearing on the 
proposal could be held, if requested.
    In response to the above notifications, the Service received 
several public hearing requests from within the following counties--
Fentress, Cumberland, and Marshall counties, Tennessee; and McCreary 
County, Kentucky. The Service held two public hearings (December 13, 
1994, at the York Institute, Jamestown, Tennessee; and December 15, 
1994, at the Marshall County Courthouse, Lewisburg, Tennessee), and 
reopened the comment period from November 23, 1994, to December 30, 
1994. Notices of these hearings and the reopening of the comment period 
were published in the Federal Register on November 18, 1994, (59 FR 
59200) and in the following newspapers--Daily Herald, Columbia, 
Tennessee, and Bristol Herald Courier, Bristol, Virginia, on November 
20, 1994; Knoxville News Sentinel, Knoxville, Tennessee, and 
Commonwealth Journal, Somerset, Kentucky, on November 21, 1994; and 
Nashville Banner, Nashville, Tennessee, Daily News of Kingsport, 
Kingsport, Tennessee, and Crossville Chronicle, Crossville, Tennessee, 
on November 22, 1994. Additionally, the Service, by letters dated 
November 21, 1994, notified Federal and state agencies, local 
governments, scientific organizations, and interested parties of the 
public hearings and the reopening of the comment period.
    The Service received nineteen written comments and eight oral 
comments on the proposal to list the five mussels. Numerous questions 
on the proposal and related issues were asked at the public hearings. 
Comments in support of the proposed rule were received from the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Park Service, Big South 
Fork National River and Recreation Area; KSNPC; Kentucky Department of 
Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR); Department of Fisheries and 
Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC); VDCR; 
VDGIF; and two private individuals. The listing of one or more of these 
species was opposed by the DRA; Fentress County Utility District, 
Jamestown, Tennessee; and one individual. The remainder of the 
respondents expressed concerns over what impact these listings would 
have on various activities. The following is a summary of the comments, 
concerns, and questions (referred to as ``Issues'' for the purposes of 
this summary) regarding the proposed rule that were expressed in 
writing or presented orally at the public hearings. Comments of similar 
content have been grouped together.
    Issue 1: One respondent expressed concern that listing the purple 
bean could significantly impact efforts to build a water supply 
reservoir on Clear Creek, an Obed River tributary, in Morgan County, 
Tennessee, and asked specific questions regarding how this reservoir 
project would impact the species.
    Response: The purple bean is the only one of these five species 
that occurs in the Obed River system. However, based on available 
information, this species does not exist at the proposed reservoir site 
or in the area downstream of the site that would be significantly 
affected by the project. Therefore, because the Service does not 
anticipate that the project will have a significant impact on the 
purple bean, the listing will not significantly impact the reservoir 
project. Specific questions on how a reservoir, which will likely have 
only minimal, if any, impact to the species, might negatively or 
possibly positively affect the species cannot be fully evaluated until 
detailed project plans are available for review. These issues, however, 
would be addressed in any biological opinion that may be developed for 
this proposed project.
    Issue 2: Several respondents expressed concern that listing these 
five mussels could have a significant impact on private landowners.
    Response: Currently, there are 24 federally listed mussels in the 
Tennessee and Cumberland river systems. These species, many of which 
have been listed for over 10 years, have not had a significant impact 
on private lands activities (e.g., logging, agriculture, land 
development, and home construction). Therefore, based on this historic 
perspective, the Service does not anticipate that listing these 
additional species will have a significant impact on private 
landowners. In fact most individuals that own or farm lands along 
streams that are inhabited by listed aquatic species are unaware of the 
species' existence because their presence has never affected their 
activities.

[[Page 1651]]

    Issue 3: One respondent requested information on the impact of this 
listing on mining activities.
    Response: If a mining activity comes under the jurisdiction of a 
state or Federal agency and one of these five mussels or any other 
listed species may be in the project area, the project's impacts to the 
species must be considered. However, it has been the Service's 
experience, after dealing with hundreds of mining projects, that in 
nearly all cases where there is a conflict between endangered species 
and a mining project, the project is permitted with only minor 
modifications.
    Issue 4: Several respondents expressed concern that the listing of 
the Cumberland elktoe could adversely impact the completion of a 
proposed water supply reservoir on Crooked Creek, a tributary of the 
Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Fentress County, Tennessee.
    Response: The Service does not believe the listing of the 
Cumberland elktoe will stop completion of the proposed Crooked Creek 
Reservoir. The Service is consulting with the Farm Services Agency on 
this project. A segment of the Cumberland elktoe population does exist 
at the site of the proposed reservoir. However, this population segment 
is small and likely is not essential to the species' survival and 
recovery. Therefore, based on available information, the Service does 
not anticipate that a jeopardy biological opinion will result from this 
consultation. The Service's biological opinion will outline measures to 
minimize incidental take of the elktoe and suggest conservation 
recommendations, but the project will not be blocked by the Federal 
listing of the elktoe.
    Issue 5: Listing the Duck River population of the oyster mussel was 
questioned because it was felt that this population was not viable.
    Response: The Duck River oyster mussel population may be currently 
below the number of individuals necessary to maintain long-term 
viability. However, that does not disqualify this population from 
protection under the Act. If the population is below the threshold 
number needed for long-term viability, the population could be 
augmented with juveniles produced through artificial propagation or 
with adults from another population.
    Issue 6: In the proposed rule, the Service made reference to oyster 
mussels collected from a muskrat midden. One respondent questioned the 
Service's use of this information in its assessment of the Duck River's 
oyster mussel population.
    Response: It is a common practice of the Service, other Federal and 
state agencies, and mussel researchers to utilize information from 
muskrat middens. Mussels deposited in middens by muskrats can not 
provide a quantitative assessment of mussel density, but observations 
of the numbers of specimens in a midden can provide insight into a 
species' status in the adjacent river reach.
    Issue 7: Requests were made that the Service identify--(1) those 
activities that will not be considered likely to result in a violation 
of section 9 of the Act and (2) those activities that will be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act.
    Response: This issue is addressed in the ``Available Conservation 
Measures'' section of this rule.
    Issue 8: One respondent wanted to know what impact these listings 
would have on the placement of docks and piers into rivers inhabited by 
these mussels.
    Response: There should be minimal impact on dock and pier 
construction as a result of this listing. The construction of piers and 
docks involves work in navigable waters of the United States and 
includes the discharge of dredge material back into the waterway. Thus, 
dock and pier construction comes under the Corps' permit authority 
pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 U.S.C. 
403) and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). 
Thus, a permit must be received from the Corps prior to the 
construction of a dock or pier. If a federally listed species may be 
adversely impacted by this activity, the Corps must consult with the 
Service to determine if the project is likely to jeopardize the 
species' continued existence.
    It is possible that construction of a few piers or docks could be 
delayed due to the presence of one of these species. However, it is 
unlikely that any projects would be stopped. Most piers and docks are 
constructed in pool habitat, and these mussels primarily inhabit 
relatively shallow riffles. Most piers and docks constructed on the 
rivers and streams inhabited by these mussels would be relatively small 
and have only minimal impact on the mussels. Additionally, from an 
historical perspective, the 24 mussel species that are already listed 
in the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems have had little impact on 
the issuance of permits for these structures.
    Issue 9: One respondent asked what impact these listings would have 
on dredging and in-stream gravel mining projects.
    Response: In-stream dredging and gravel mining involves work in 
navigable waters of the United States and can result in the discharge 
of dredge material back into the water. Thus, in-stream dredging and 
gravel mining comes under the Corps' permit authority pursuant to 
section 10 of the RHA (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the CWA (33 
U.S.C. 1344). If a federally listed species may be adversely impacted 
by this activity, the Corps must consult with the Service to determine 
if the project is likely to jeopardize the species' continued 
existence.
    It is possible that a few in-stream dredging and gravel mining 
projects could be impacted due to the presence of one of these species. 
However, it has been the experience of the Service that most of these 
projects can be designed in such a way (i.e., removing the gravel only 
from above the water line) that the project objectives and the needs of 
the species can be met. Additionally, as some of these newly listed 
species exist in areas that are already inhabited by listed mussels, 
the listing of these species that coexist with currently listed mussels 
will not add any additional permit restrictions to these areas.
    Issue 10: Several respondents were concerned with the potential 
impacts these listings could have on water withdrawal projects.
    Response: As water withdrawal projects often require construction 
of a structure in the water, these projects typically require a permit 
from the Corps under section 10 of the RHA (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 
404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). If a federally listed species may be 
adversely impacted by this activity, the Corps must consult with the 
Service to determine if the project is likely to jeopardize the 
species' continued existence. It is possible that a few water 
withdrawal projects that propose to extract a significant portion of a 
river's flow could be affected due to the presence of one of these 
species. However, if the water withdrawal project meets state water 
quality standards, it has generally been the Service's experience that 
endangered species will be protected without further significant 
restrictions.
    Issue 11: Several respondents were concerned with the potential 
impacts these listings could have on waste water discharge projects.
    Response: The potential exists for point discharges to impact these 
species, and there is an increasing demand for discharge permits in the 
Tennessee and Cumberland river systems. However, the States of

[[Page 1652]]

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, with assistance from and oversight 
by the EPA, set water quality standards that are presumably protective 
of aquatic life, including the 24 mussel species that are already 
listed in the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems. Thus, there 
should be no significant increase in regulatory burden regarding waste 
water discharge permits as a result of listing these five species in 
areas where these species coexist with one or more of the mussels that 
are currently listed. If new information indicates that current water 
quality criteria are insufficient to prevent the likelihood of jeopardy 
to these freshwater mussels, new standards may be needed. If revised 
standards are implemented, some discharge permits could be further 
regulated if these species are present. However, in areas where listed 
mussels already exist, the listing of these five mussels will not add 
any significant additional burden.
    Issue 12: Several respondents were concerned with the degree of 
impact these listings might have on landowners who have erosion 
problems on their land.
    Response: Siltation can negatively impact the aquatic environment. 
However, based on a historical perspective, the Act has not impacted 
individual landowners with erosion problems that might affect the 24 
mussel species that are currently listed in the Tennessee and 
Cumberland river systems. Thus, the Service does not anticipate that 
the listing of these species will burden private landowners regarding 
this issue.
    The Service, through a proactive and coordinated effort with other 
agencies, conservation groups, and local governmental bodies, is 
assisting willing private landowners in the restoration of riparian 
habitat to control siltation. This program (``Partners for Wildlife'') 
is currently funding projects on the Clinch River (a Tennessee River 
tributary in eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia) and the 
Little Tennessee River (a Tennessee River tributary in western North 
Carolina). Both rivers have endangered fish and mussel fauna and this 
program has developed cooperative agreements with willing landowners to 
improve stream side habitat for the benefit of all aquatic species.
    Issue 13: One respondent wanted to know what impact these listings 
would have on the use of pesticides.
    Response: The EPA, during its pesticide registration process, 
consults with the Service to determine if a pesticide will likely 
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species. If 
it is determined that the application of the chemical is likely to 
jeopardize a species, the Service provides reasonable and prudent 
chemical application alternatives that would avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardy. These recommendations generally suggest some type of 
application restriction (i.e., prohibit pesticide application within a 
prescribed distance from an inhabited stream reach) that would protect 
the species.
    Although there may be some added restrictions to pesticide use as a 
result of these listings, the Service believes that the resulting 
impacts to pesticide users should be minimal. Many of the stream 
reaches inhabited by these five mussels are populated with previously 
listed mussels that have already been assessed for pesticide 
restrictions; many pesticides reviewed for registration are not 
believed to be harmful to mussels and no restrictions are applied to 
their use; and if a pesticide is found to be harmful to a species, 
there are often unrestricted, alternative chemicals that can be used to 
control the same pest.
    Issue 14: One respondent wanted to know if the information that 
these rules are based on had been peer reviewed.
    Response: The information utilized in determining to propose these 
species has been peer reviewed. On August 25, 1992, the Service mailed 
a summary of the available status information on the five species to 47 
agencies, organizations, and individuals familiar with the status of 
freshwater mussels and solicited their comments on the need to propose 
these species. Prior and subsequent to the August 25, 1992, 
notification, a copy of the status report used to make the 
determination to propose these five species was sent to biologists and 
agencies familiar with the plight of these species. With the exception 
of the DRA, none of the respondents questioned the need to propose 
these species for Federal protection. (See the last paragraph under the 
``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section for further 
information.)
    Issue 15: One respondent was concerned that these listings could 
restrict the farming communities' use of fords (stream crossings).
    Response: There are numerous active fords in the Tennessee and 
Cumberland river systems used by the farming community, and many of 
these fords are in streams inhabited by federally protected mussels. 
The Act has not restricted the use of these fords, and the listing of 
these five mussels will not alter this situation.
    Issue 16: One respondent wanted to know if the Service planned to 
designate critical habitat for these five mussels.
    Response: The Service is not and has no plans to designate critical 
habitat for these species (see the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this 
rule).
    Issue 17: Several respondents were concerned that these listings 
would affect current farming methods in the watershed.
    Response: The Service will encourage the use of buffer strips along 
water courses, reduction of pesticide and herbicide applications, and 
soil conservation practices that help control soil loss and siltation.
    Issue 18: One respondent questioned the statement in the proposed 
rule that implicated poor land-use practices as a threat to these 
mussels, and the individual was concerned that the farming community 
might have been the primary target of this statement.
    Response: Siltation from soil erosion is not just or primarily an 
agricultural problem. Any activity that removes natural vegetated 
ground cover (e.g., logging, bridge and road construction, mining, and 
land clearing for industrial and residential construction) can cause 
significant stream siltation if adequate control measures are not 
taken. Silt can have a devastating impact on aquatic ecosystems, 
especially those species that evolved in a relatively silt free 
environment. Mussels are filter feeders and they can live in one 
location for most of their lives. High silt loads disrupt their ability 
to feed and reproduce, and at extreme silt levels, they can be 
smothered under deep layers of silt.
    As mentioned in response to Issue 12, the Service, through its 
``Partners for Wildlife'' program, is working with willing landowners 
to assist in restoration of stream side habit to control siltation. The 
Service also encourages the use of ``Best Management Practices'' to 
control erosion and minimize the impacts of silt to aquatic resources.
    Issue 19: One respondent wanted to know how the listing of the 
oyster mussel would affect the completion of Columbia Dam.
    Response: The Service stated in a 1979 Biological Opinion that 
completion of a proposed reservoir project (Columbia Dam) on the Duck 
River in Maury and Marshall counties, Tennessee, would likely 
jeopardize the continued existence of two federally listed mussels. 
Although our Biological Opinion included reasonable and prudent 
alternatives that would have allowed the project to go forward, TVA has 
not implemented those measures and has been reevaluating the project 
and considered other alternatives to meet the project objectives. (A 
third

[[Page 1653]]

mussel listed prior to the issuance of the Biological Opinion is now 
known from the proposed flood pool.) Although the presence of a fourth 
endangered mussel (oyster mussel) may somewhat complicate this issue, 
any measures needed to avoid a jeopardy situation for the currently 
listed mussels would not be expected to change significantly with the 
addition of a fourth listed species.
    Issue 20: One respondent noted that since species go extinct 
because of natural causes why should these species receive special 
protection.
    Response: It is true that natural and catastrophic events over 
geological time have resulted in the extinction of millions of species. 
However, the rate of extinctions in the past couple of centuries has 
accelerated dramatically as a direct result of human activities. The 
Act specifically states that species of fish, wildlife, and plant are 
of value to this nation, and the Act requires the Department of the 
Interior to maintain a list of endangered and threatened species. The 
Service believes that these five mussels meet the criteria for the 
Act's protection (see the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
section of these rules).
    Issue 21: One respondent suggested that the Service should postpone 
the decision to list the five species until Congress reauthorizes the 
Act.
    Response: The Act as currently written requires the Department of 
the Interior to maintain a list of endangered and threatened species 
and the Act provides five criteria to consider when determining to list 
a species (see the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section 
of these rules). Based on the best available information, these five 
species meet these criteria and qualify for the Act's protection. The 
Service believes that delaying these listings to await Congressional 
reauthorization would be a violation of existing Federal law.
    Issue 22: One respondent wanted to know if a biological survey was 
required when a Federal permit was needed in areas inhabited by listed 
species and if a survey was needed, who would conduct the survey.
    Response: Often the Service or other agencies have sufficient 
status information on the species in a project area, and no addtional 
site specific surveys are needed to determine project impacts to the 
species. However, if site-specific species information is unavailable 
or insufficient, a survey of the project impact area may be needed to 
fully assess the project's impacts. If a survey is needed, it is 
generally not conducted by the Service. Survey responsibility falls 
onto the permitting agency. However, the permitting agency usually 
requires the permit applicant to obtain the needed status information 
as part of the application process.
    Issue 23: One respondent commented that the Service should initiate 
a massive education effort with the farm community to help build trust 
and encourage community involvement regarding the protection and 
recovery of aquatic species.
    Response: The Service agrees that local community support is 
essential to fully protect and recover listed species. The Service has 
increased its efforts in this area through ``Partners for Wildlife'' 
and other programs that work with community leaders and willing 
landowners to build the necessary partnerships.
    Issue 24: The VDCR stated that the rough rabbitsfoot was listed as 
threatened by the VDGIF. Thus, they felt it might be more appropriate 
to list this species as threatened rather than endangered.
    Response: The rough rabbitsfoot is listed as a threatened species 
by the VDGIF. However, this list was developed in the late 1980's and 
published in 1991 (Neves 1991). Since the publication of the state 
list, the rough rabbitsfoot has declined significantly in the Clinch 
River and may no longer survive in Copper Creek (Neves, personal 
communication, 1995). Neves (personal communication, 1995), was a 
primary consultant used by the VDGIF in determining state status for 
the rough rabbitsfoot, and he plans to recommend State endangered 
status for this species when the state list is revised. Additionally, 
he recommended Federal endangered status for this species in response 
to the proposed rule (Neves, in litt., 1994). Based on this information 
and the information presented in the ``Background'' and the ``Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species'' sections of these rules, the Service 
believes that endangered status is appropriate for the rough 
rabbitsfoot.
    Issue 25: The EPA requested that the Service clarify what it meant 
by the following statement that appeared in the July 14, 1994, proposed 
rule:

    Existing authorities available to protect aquatic systems, such 
as the Clean Water Act, administered by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, have not been fully 
utilized and may have led to the degradation of aquatic environments 
in the Southeast Region, thus resulting in a decline of aquatic 
species.

    Response: Through EPA's implementation of the CWA, water quality 
has been improved and mussel populations have benefited. However, in 
spite of general water quality improvements, numerous freshwater mussel 
populations in the southeastern United States are continuing to decline 
even in areas that appear to have suitable physical habitat. The 
Service believes that it is likely that some insidious environmental 
factor(s), possibly contaminants, may be adversely affecting the 
growth, reproduction, or survival of these populations. Of all the 
potential impacts to mussels, less is known about the potential effects 
of contaminants on these species. The Service believes that EPA could, 
through the CWA, play a more active role in identifying potential 
contaminant impacts to mussels.
    Issue 26: The EPA also requested that the Service identify in any 
final rule specific deficiencies and/or inadequacies in the following 
areas related to their implementation of the CWA in the States of 
Tennessee and Kentucky--state adopted narrative and numeric water 
quality criteria; state water use classifications by streams occupied 
by the five mussels; aquatic life criteria guidance values; and 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 
procedures.
    Response: As mentioned in response to Issue 25, little is known 
about the potential impacts of contaminants on freshwater mussels. 
Research is needed to address the lethal and sublethal effects of acute 
and chronic exposure of toxins to all life stages of freshwater 
mussels. This research will entail identifying appropriate surrogate 
species, devising test protocols, and conducting studies to evaluate 
the protectiveness of these criteria. Additionally, the Service is 
currently working with EPA to develop a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 
that will address how EPA and the Service will interact relative to CWA 
water quality criteria, standards, and NPDES permits within the 
Service's Southeast Region. Until the MOA is developed and data are 
available to fully evaluate the effectiveness of current national water 
quality criteria and standards and the need for site-specific criteria, 
the Service believes it is premature to attempt, in this final rule, to 
address any specific deficiencies and/or inadequacies that may exist in 
EPA's implementation of the CWA regarding the protection of water 
quality.
    The Service also solicited the expert opinions of ten appropriate 
and independent mussel specialists regarding the pertinent scientific 
or commercial data and assumptions relating to taxonomy, population 
status, and biological and ecological information on these five 
mussels. One

[[Page 1654]]

response from a specialist was received, and those comments were 
incorporated into this final rule.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations 
(50 CFR Part 424) issued to implement the listing provisions of the Act 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A 
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due 
to one or more of the five factors described in Section 4(a)(1). These 
factors and their application to the Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta 
atropurpurea), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), Cumberlandian 
combshell (Epioblasma brevidens), purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea), 
and rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata) are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. Mussel populations throughout the 
Central and Eastern United States have been declining since modern 
civilization began to significantly alter aquatic habitats. The Ohio 
River drainage, which includes the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, was 
a center for freshwater mussel evolution and historically contained 
about 127 distinct mussel species and subspecies. Of this once rich 
mussel fauna, 11 mussels are extinct, and 33 mussels (including the 5 
species covered in this final rule) are classified as Federal 
endangered species. In less than 100 years, 35 percent of the Ohio 
River system's mussel fauna has either become extinct or federally 
endangered. No other wide-ranging faunal group in the continental 
United States has experienced this degree of loss within the last 100 
years.
    The mussel fauna in most streams of the Ohio River basin has been 
directly impacted by impoundments, siltation, channelization, and water 
pollution. Reservoir construction is the most obvious cause of the loss 
of mussel diversity in the basin's larger rivers. Most of the main stem 
of both the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers and many of their 
tributaries are impounded. For example, over 2,300 river miles or about 
20 percent of the Tennessee River and its tributaries with drainage 
areas of 25 square miles or greater are impounded (TVA 1971). In 
addition to the loss of riverine habitat within impoundments, most 
impoundments also seriously alter downstream aquatic habitat; and 
mussel populations upstream of reservoirs may be adversely affected by 
changes in the fish fauna essential to a mussel's reproductive cycle.
    Coal mining-related siltation and associated toxic runoff have 
adversely impacted many stream reaches. Numerous streams have 
experienced mussel and fish kills from toxic chemical spills, and poor 
land-use practices have fouled many waters with silt. Runoff from large 
urban areas has degraded water and substrate quality. Because of the 
extent of habitat destruction, the overall aquatic faunal diversity in 
many of the basins' rivers has declined significantly. As a result of 
this destruction of riverine habitat, 8 fishes and 24 mussels in the 
Tennessee and Cumberland river basins have already required the Act's 
protection, and numerous other aquatic species in these two basins are 
currently considered species of concern and could warrant listing in 
the future.
    The mussel fauna in the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers has been 
extensively sampled, and much is known about the historic and present 
distribution of this rich fauna. Gordon (1991) provided an extensive 
review of the literature regarding the past and present ranges of the 
Cumberland elktoe, oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, 
and rough rabbitsfoot. Based on Gordon's (1991) review and personal 
communications with numerous Federal, State, and independent 
biologists, it is clear that these five mussel species have undergone 
significant reductions in range and that they now exist as only remnant 
isolated populations. (See ``Background'' section for a discussion of 
current and historic distribution and threats to the remaining 
populations.)
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. These five mussels are not commercially valuable; 
but as they are extremely rare, they could be sought by collectors. The 
specific areas inhabited by these species are presently unknown to the 
general public. As a result, their overutilization has not been a 
problem to date. Most stream reaches inhabited by these mussels are 
extremely small. Thus, populations of the species could be easily 
eliminated or significantly reduced using readily available toxic 
chemicals. Although scientific collecting is not presently identified 
as a threat, take by private and institutional collectors could pose a 
threat if left unregulated. Federal protection of these species will 
help to minimize illegal and inappropriate take.
    C. Disease and predation. Disease occurrence in freshwater mussels 
is virtually unknown. However, since 1982, biologists and commercial 
mussel fishermen have reported extensive mussel die-offs in rivers and 
lakes throughout the United States. The cause(s) of many of these die-
offs is unknown, but disease has been suggested as a possible factor.
    Shells of all five species are often found in muskrat middens. The 
species are also presumably consumed by other mammals, such as raccoons 
and mink. While predation is not thought to be a significant threat to 
a healthy mussel population, Neves and Odum (1989) suggest it could 
limit the recovery of endangered mussel species or contribute to the 
local extirpation of already depleted mussel populations. Predation 
would be of particular concern to oyster mussel, Cumberlandian 
combshell, and purple bean, which exist only as extremely small, 
remnant populations.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The States of 
Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia prohibit the taking of fish 
and wildlife, including freshwater mussels, for scientific purposes 
without a State collecting permit. However, enforcement of this permit 
requirement is difficult. Also, State regulations do not generally 
protect these mussels from other threats.
    Existing authorities available to protect aquatic systems, such as 
the CWA, administered by the EPA and the Corps, may not have been fully 
utilized. This may have contributed to the degradation of aquatic 
environments and the decline of aquatic species in the Southeast (see 
response to Issue 25 in the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' 
of this final rule). As these mussels (Cumberland elktoe, Cumberlandian 
combshell, oyster mussel, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot) coexist 
with other federally listed species throughout most or all of their 
range, some of the habitats of these species are indirectly provided 
some Federal protection from Federal actions and activities through 
section 7 of the Act. However, Federal listing will provide additional 
protection for all five species throughout their range by requiring 
Federal permits to take the species and by requiring Federal agencies 
to consult with the Service when activities they fund, authorize, or 
carry out may specifically adversely affect these species.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. The populations of these species (Cumberland elktoe, oyster 
mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot) 
are small and geographically isolated. This isolation prohibits the 
natural interchange of genetic material between populations,

[[Page 1655]]

and the small population sizes reduce the reservoir of genetic 
variability within the populations. It is likely that some of the 
populations of the Cumberland elktoe, oyster mussel, Cumberlandian 
combshell, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot may be below the level 
required to maintain long-term genetic viability. Also, because most of 
the extant populations of these mussels are restricted to short river 
reaches, they are very vulnerable to extirpation from a single 
catastrophic event, such as a toxic chemical spill or a major stream 
channel modification. Because the populations of each species are 
isolated from one another because of impoundments, natural repopulation 
of any extirpated population is impossible without human intervention.
    The invasion of the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) into 
the Great Lakes poses a potential threat to the Ohio River's mussel 
fauna. The zebra mussel has recently been reported from the Tennessee 
and Cumberland rivers, but the extent of its impact on the basin's 
freshwater mussels is unknown. Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes have 
been found attached in large numbers to the shells of live and freshly 
dead native mussels, and zebra mussels have been implicated in the loss 
of entire mussel beds.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by these mussels in determining to make this rule 
final. Based on these evaluations, the preferred action is to list the 
Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea), oyster mussel (Epioblasma 
capsaeformis), Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens), purple 
bean (Villosa perpurpurea), and rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica 
strigillata) as endangered species. The Cumberland elktoe, purple bean, 
and rough rabbitsfoot are known from three populations each, and the 
Cumberlandian combshell and oyster mussel are known from five 
populations each. These five species and their habitat have been and 
continue to be impacted by habitat destruction and range reduction. 
Their limited distribution also makes them very vulnerable to possible 
extinction from toxic chemical spills. Because of their restricted 
distributions and their vulnerability to extinction, endangered status 
appears to be the most appropriate classification for these species.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered 
or threatened. The Service's regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 
that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking 
or other activity and the identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. 
The Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent 
for these species. Such a determination would result in no known 
benefit to these species, and designation of critical habitat could 
pose a further threat to them through publication of their site-
specific localities.
    Section 7(a)(2) and regulations codified at 50 CFR Part 402 require 
Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with and with the 
assistance of the Service, that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, 
if designated. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer 
informally with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a proposed species or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. (See 
``Available Conservation Measures'' section for a further discussion of 
section 7.) As part of the development of this final rule, Federal and 
state agencies were notified of the mussels' general distributions, and 
they were requested to provide data on proposed Federal actions that 
might adversely affect the species. Should any future projects be 
proposed in areas inhabited by these mussels, the involved Federal 
agency will already have the general distributional data needed to 
determine if the species may be impacted by its action; and if needed, 
more specific distributional information would be provided.
    Each of these mussels occupies very restricted stream reaches. 
Thus, because any significant adverse modification or destruction of 
these species' habitat would likely jeopardize their continued 
existence, no additional protection for the species would accrue from 
critical habitat designation that would not also accrue from listing 
these species. Therefore, habitat protection for these species would be 
accomplished through the section 7 jeopardy standard and section 9 
prohibitions against take.
    In addition, these mussels are rare, and taking for scientific 
purposes and private collection could pose a threat if specific site 
information were released. The publication of critical habitat maps in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers, and other publicity 
accompanying critical habitat designation could increase the collection 
threat and increase the potential for vandalism, especially during the 
often controversial critical habitat designation process. The locations 
of populations of these species have consequently been described only 
in general terms in this rule. Any existing precise locality data would 
be available to appropriate Federal, state, and local governmental 
agencies from the following offices--the Service office described in 
the Addresses section of these rules; the Service's Cookeville Field 
Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee 38501; the Service's 
White Marsh Field Office, P.O. Box 480, Mid-County Center, U.S. Route 
17, White Marsh, Virginia 23183; the Service's Southeastern Virginia 
Field Office, P.O. Box 2345, 332 Cummings Street, Abingdon, Virginia 
24212; KDFWR; KSNPC; TWRA; TDEC; VDGIF; and VDCR.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, state, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the states and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer informally with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of

[[Page 1656]]

proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
formal consultation with the Service.
    The Service notified Federal agencies that may have programs which 
could affect these species. One major Federal project, a proposed TVA 
impoundment on the Duck River, Columbia, Tennessee, could have a 
significant impact on the oyster mussel. Construction of Columbia Dam 
was suspended in the late 1970's after the Service issued a Biological 
Opinion stating that the dam's completion would likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of two federally listed mussels. Although our 
Biological Opinion included reasonable and prudent alternatives that 
would have allowed the project to go forward, TVA has not implemented 
those measures and has been reevaluating the project and considered 
other alternatives to meet the project objectives. (A third mussel 
listed prior to the issuance of the Biological Opinion is now known 
from the proposed flood pool.) Although the presence of a fourth 
endangered mussel (oyster mussel) may somewhat complicate this issue, 
any measures needed to avoid a jeopardy situation for the currently 
listed mussels would not be expected to change significantly with the 
addition of a fourth listed species (see response to Issue 19 in the 
``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section of these rules).
    A water supply reservoir is under consideration on Crooked Creek in 
the upper Big South Fork of the Cumberland River watershed, Fentress 
County, Tennessee. This project would inundate and adversely impact a 
portion of the Cumberland elktoe population that exists in the upper 
Big South Fork basin. This water supply project, proposed by the 
Fentress County Utility District, is one of a series of water supply 
alternatives currently under review for a permit pursuant to section 
404 of the CWA. However, the Service does not believe the listing of 
the Cumberland elktoe will stop completion of the Crooked Creek 
Reservoir (see response to Issue 4 in the ``Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations'' of these rules).
    Another water supply reservoir is under consideration by the 
Catoosa Utility District for Clear Creek, an Obed River tributary, 
Morgan County, Tennessee. The purple bean occurs in the Obed River 
system. However, based on available information, this species does not 
exist at the proposed reservoir site or in the area downstream of the 
site that would be significantly affected by the project. Therefore, as 
the Service does not anticipate that the project will have a 
significant impact on the purple bean, the listing will not have any 
significant impact on this reservoir project (see response to Issue 1 
in the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' of this rule).
    Since the close of the comment period on this rule, the 
Southeastern Virginia Field Office has become involved in an informal 
section 7 consultation regarding a proposed Federal prison in Lee 
County, Virginia, and its potential impacts to eight federally listed 
mussels that live in the Powell River. The Cumberlandian combshell, 
oyster mussel, and purple bean are also known from the Powell River and 
will now need to be considered in this consultation. However, since the 
eight listed mussels are already being considered with regard to this 
project, the outcome of the consultation should not be affected by the 
addition of these three more listed mussels. Based on this review, the 
Service has determined that there is no information that would 
substantively affect these listing decisions and that additional public 
comment is not warranted.
    No other specific proposed Federal actions were identified that 
would likely affect any of the species. Federal activities that could 
occur and impact the species include, but are not limited to, the 
carrying out or the issuance of permits for reservoir construction, 
stream alterations, waste water facility development, water withdrawal 
projects, pesticide registration, mining, and road and bridge 
construction. However, it has been the experience of the Service that 
nearly all section 7 consultations have been resolved so that the 
species have been protected and the project objectives have been met.
    The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or 
collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in 
interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It 
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions 
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such 
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994,(59 FR 34272) to identify at the time of listing, to 
the maximum extent practicable, those activities that would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness as to the effects of these 
listings on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. 
During the public comment periods, comments were received questioning 
the effect these listings would have on private landowners (see 
response to Issue 2 and 12 in the ``Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations'' section of this rule), pesticide application (see 
response to Issue 13), use of existing river fords by the farming 
community (see response to Issue 15), and traditional farming practices 
(see response to Issue 17). The Service believes, based on the best 
available information as outlined in the ``Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations'' section of this rule, that the aforementioned actions 
will not result in a violation of section 9 provided the activities are 
carried out in accordance with any existing regulations and permit 
requirements. In addition, the Service also believes that certain other 
activities will not result in a section 9 violation. They include use 
of the river by boaters, anglers, and other existing recreational uses.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially result in 
``take'' of these mussels, include, but are not limited to, the 
unauthorized collection or capture of the species; unauthorized 
destruction or alteration of the species' habitat (e.g., in-stream 
dredging, channelization, discharge of fill material); violation of any 
discharge or water withdrawal permit; and illegal discharge or dumping 
of toxic chemicals or other pollutants into waters supporting the 
species.
    Other activities not identified in the above two paragraphs will be 
reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 
9 of the Act may

[[Page 1657]]

be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider 
these lists to be exhaustive and provides them as information to the 
public.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
the Service's Asheville Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations on listed species and inquiries regarding 
prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services (TE), 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30345-3301 (404/679-7096).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements. This rulemaking was not subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

Bakaletz, S. 1991. Mussel survey of the Big South Fork National 
River Recreation Area. M.S. Thesis. Tennessee Technological 
University, Cookeville, Tennessee. 62 pp.
Bogan, A. E., and P. W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife, 
Volume II: the mollusks. 123 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: 
Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian 
Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Gordon, M. E. 1991. Species accounts for Cumberland elktoe 
(Alasmidonta atropurpurea), Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma 
brevidens), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), rough 
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), and purple bean 
(Villosa perpurpurea). Unpublished reports to The Nature 
Conservancy. 75 pp.
Johnson, R. I. 1978. Systematics and zoogeography of Plagiola 
(=Dysnomia=Epioblasma), an almost extinct genus of mussels 
(Bivalvia: Unionides) from middle North America. Bull. Mus. Comp. 
Zool. 148:239-320.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1991. Endangered, 
Threatened, and Special Concern Plant and Animal Species of 
Kentucky. March 1991. 15 pp.
Neves, R. J. 1991. Mollusks. In Virginia's endangered species, 
proceedings of a symposium. Coordinated by Karen Terwilliger. 
McDonald & Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Neves, R. J., and M. C. Odum. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered 
freshwater mussels in Virginia. Jour. Wildl. Manage. 53(4):939-940.
Ortmann, A. E. 1918. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the upper 
Tennessee drainage with notes on synonymy and distribution. 
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 57:521-626.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1971. Stream length in the Tennessee 
River Basin. Tennessee River Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee, 25 pp.

Author

    The primary author of this final rule is Richard G. Biggins, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa Street, 
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 (704/258-3939, Ext. 228).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under ``CLAMS,'' to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         SPECIES                                                     Vertebrate                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical    Special 
                                                               Historic range       endangered or        Status      When listed    habitat      rules  
            Common name                Scientific name                               threatened                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
CLAMS:                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Bean, purple..................  Villosa perpurpurea..  U.S.A. (TN and VA)...  NA                E                        602           NA         NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Combshell, Cumberland.........  Epioblasma brevidens.  U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN,    NA                E                        602           NA         NA
                                                            and VA).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Elktoe, Cumberland............  Alasmidonta            U.S.A. (KY and TN)...  NA                E                        602           NA         NA
                                     atropurpurea.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Mussel, oyster................  Epioblasma             U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN,    NA                E                        602           NA         NA
                                     capsaeformis.          and VA).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 1658]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Rabbitsfoot, rough............  Quadrula cylindrica    U.S.A. (TN and VA)...  NA                E                        602           NA         NA
                                     strigillata.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 6, 1996.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-565 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P