Note: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will hold a public hearing on proposed critical habitat designation for the Appalachian Elktoe mussel on June 6 from 6-9 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the Swain County Administration Building at 101 Mitchell Street in Bryson City.

For background information — the proposed changes, the draft economic analysis, and the hearing — visit the website at http://southeast.fws.gov/hotissues.

The tiny Appalachian elktoe mussel is caught in a disagreement between government wildlife agencies and environmental groups.

Both groups are trying to protect the mussel, but government biologists say its listing under the Endangered Species Act is sufficient. Two environmental organizations, however, want the elktoe’s habitat listed as “critical,” a move that government biologists say is unnecessary and that some industry advocates say could lead to new restrictions on land use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of conducting two public hearings regarding the designation of critical habitat for the mussel. The elktoe was placed on the endangered listed in 1994. At that time, USF&W determined it was “not prudent” to designate critical habitat for the mussel.

The Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project (SABP) and the Foundation for Global Sustainability, however, filed a lawsuit challenging that determination in 1999. As a result, USF&W agreed to withdraw its “not prudent” determination and propose critical habitat designation.

Representatives from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and USF&W say they see little benefit in designating critical habitat for the elktoe.

“I don’t see that it helps. Critical habitat designation adds no new restrictions. Section seven consultations (Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act) are required as it is because the Appalachian elktoe is an endangered species,” said Chris McGrath, a non-game biologist for NCWRC said.

Marty Bergoffen of the SABP said that’s not true. “Critical habitat adds a layer of protection,” Bergoffen said.

According to Bergoffen, without critical habitat designation, USF&W only has to meet the “jeopardy standard” of the ESA, which prohibits any action that might jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. He said the critical habitat designation also brings into play that part of Section 7 of the ESA which prohibits the adverse modification of the habitat of the species in question.

John Fridell of USF&W admits that only the jeopardy standard currently applies to the elktoe, but he says the problem is one of semantics.

“Jeopardy includes any activity that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species. Any adverse modification to the habitat would trigger the jeopardy standard.”

Endemic to the upper Tennessee River in Western North Carolina and East Tennessee, the elktoe is surviving in very small fragmented areas of its former distribution. Today it is found in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Little Tennessee River system, the Pigeon River system, the Little River in North Carolina and the Nolichucky River system in North Carolina and Tennessee. The mussel’s thin, yellowish-brown to brown kidney-shaped shell is about three inches long and one inch wide. It inhabits shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, highly oxygenated water.

The elktoe feeds by filtering diatoms, phytoplankton and zooplankton from the water. The larvae are dependent upon a fish host, the mottled and/or banded sculpin for survival. The elktoe is susceptible to sedimentation and/or chemical pollution. Its presence is accepted as an indicator of good water quality.

Some of the 144 miles of area waterways covered by the proposed critical habitat designation include the main stem of the Little Tennessee from Lake Emory dam to Fontana Lake; scattered reaches of the Tuckasegee in Jackson and Swain counties and parts of the Pigeon River above Canton.

Bergoffen said the proposed areas were too limited and that SABP was calling on USF&W to designate more habitat. Fridell said SABP’s proposal to reconnect all populations of elktoes wasn’t feasible. “Stretches along the Little Tennessee, Tuckasegee and Cheoah are separated by reservoirs and it would be impossible to connect those. Our designations are based on the best scientific data we could find and follows the published Recovery Plan,” Fridell said.

The public hearings are also designed to solicit comment on a draft economic analysis regarding the implementation of the critical habitat designation. Bergoffen said the analysis was skewed towards the cost of implementing the designation.

“The analysis spends 20 pages on the cost and only two quantifying benefits. We believe there are tens of thousands of dollars in economic benefits that will be realized from critical habitat designation,” he said.

The Southern Appalachian Multiple-Use Council, a timber industry advocacy organization based in Waynesville, is one of two organizations that called for public hearings (Private Property Rights Congress of America was the other.) In a letter to USF&W, Steve Henson of the SAMUC wrote: “We do not subscribe to the apparent ‘no impact to private land owners’ analysis promoted in USF&WS information describing this proposed designation.... We believe this proposal will raise the level of protection/regulation not only in the waters but also on all lands in the surrounding watersheds. Each and every landowner in the watersheds of the proposed designations should be made aware of the potential for loss of property rights and property values as a result of these designations.”

According to a USF&W release, “A critical habitat designation, however, does not set up a preserve or refuge, nor does it affect activities on private lands that have no federal involvement. Its protection therefore, only applies to situations where federal funding, authorization or land is involved.... This requirement has no regulatory impact on landowners taking actions on their lands that do not involve federal funding or authorization.”

Fridell said that critical habitat designation had become a financial boondoggle for USF&W. He said the agency’s entire listing budget for the past year was allocated to court-ordered critical habitat designations and/or settlement. According to Fridell, there are more than 200 candidates for the Federal Endangered Species list but there is no money for listing because of court-ordered critical habitat proceedings.

The public may comment on the draft economic analysis as well as any other aspect of the proposal. Individuals may comment in person at the June 6 meeting or by writing to State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801; or fax to 828.258.5330; or by email to john_fridell@fws.gov.