Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698

Document ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0004
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Fish And Wildlife Service
Received Date: February 16 2010, at 09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: February 17 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: December 14 2009, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: February 16 2010, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80aa4eb4
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

As a steward of the lower Colorado River and its tributaries, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) routinely reviews proposals that affect the Colorado River basin. LCRA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 90-day finding on two petitions. The petitions list nine species of freshwater mussels as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) and designate critical habitat. The LCRA is a conservation and reclamation district, which provides electric utility services, water quality protection, flood control, water and wastewater services, economic development programs and other public services to the citizens of Texas. LCRA was created by the Texas Legislature in 1934 and receives no state tax money nor can LCRA levy taxes. LCRA manages a significant portion of the lower Colorado River basin from San Saba County to Matagorda Bay. Four of the nine species of freshwater mussels proposed for listing are located within the lower Colorado River basin and could significantly impact LCRA’s water supply operations, water quality policies and LCRA’s customers. With respect to the above referenced petitions, LCRA has specific concerns relating to the scientific information utilized to support the listing of these species, and to the identified threats. The petition references NatureServe (2009), which relies almost exclusively on distributional surveys of freshwater bivalves in Texas, conducted in the 1990s by Robert G. Howells. These surveys were limited in spatial extent to easily accessible locations in selected river basins, and are not reflective of an exhaustive search of potential mussel habitat in the state. Density was only estimated at some of the sample sites, and no estimates of overall population are described. Please see the attached PDF file for additional comments.

Attachments:

Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698

Title:
Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698

View Attachment: View as format pdf

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 13
Public Comment
Public Submission    Posted: 01/20/2010     ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0002

Feb 16,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698
Public Submission    Posted: 02/17/2010     ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0003

Feb 16,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698
Public Submission    Posted: 02/17/2010     ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0005

Feb 16,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698
Public Submission    Posted: 02/17/2010     ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0006

Feb 16,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-29698
Public Submission    Posted: 02/17/2010     ID: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0076-0007

Feb 16,2010 11:59 PM ET