Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat, 62928-62960 [2011-25539]
Download as PDF
62928
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0107; 92210
1111 0000–B2]
RIN 1018–AV88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Status for the
Altamaha Spinymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Final rule.
ACTION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, list the Altamaha
spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa), a
freshwater mussel endemic to the
Altamaha River drainage of southeastern
Georgia, as an endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and designate
approximately 237.4 kilometers (km)
(147.5 miles (mi)) of mainstem river
channel as critical habitat in Appling,
Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long,
Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs,
Wayne, and Wheeler Counties, Georgia.
This final rule will implement the
Federal protections provided by the Act.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
November 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and final
economic analysis are available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used
in preparing this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia
Ecological Services Office, 105
Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA
30606; telephone 706–613–9493;
facsimile 706–613–6059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia
Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES above). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document consists of: (1) A final rule to
list the Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio
spinosa) as endangered; and (2) a final
rule to designate critical habitat for this
species.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for this species prior
to October 6, 2010, are outlined in our
proposed rule (75 FR 61664), which was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
published on that date. Publication of
the proposed rule opened a 60-day
comment period, which closed on
December 6, 2010. We reopened the
comment period from May 12, 2011,
through June 13, 2011, in order to
announce the availability of and receive
comments on a draft economic analysis
(DEA), and to extend the comment
period on the proposed listing and
designation (76 FR 27629).
Public Comments
We received comments from the
public on the proposed listing action
and proposed critical habitat
designation, and, in this rule, we
respond to these issues in a single
comments section. Below, we present
the listing analysis first, followed by the
analysis for designation of critical
habitat.
Background
Species Description
The Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio
spinosa) is a freshwater mussel in the
family Unionidae, endemic to (found
only in) the Altamaha River drainage of
southeastern Georgia. The Altamaha
River is formed by the confluence of the
Ocmulgee and Oconee rivers and lies
entirely within the State of Georgia. The
species was described by I. Lea in 1836
from a site near the mouth of the
Altamaha River in Darien, Georgia
(Johnson 1970, p. 303).
This species reaches a shell length of
approximately 11.0 centimeters (cm)
(4.3 inches (in)). The shell is
subrhomboidal or subtriangular in
outline and moderately inflated. As the
name implies, the shells of these
animals are adorned with one to five
prominent spines. These spines may be
straight or crooked, reach lengths from
1.0 to 2.5 cm (0.39 to 0.98 in), and are
arranged in a single row that is
somewhat parallel to the posterior ridge.
In young specimens, the outside layer or
covering of the shell (periostracum) is
greenish-yellow with faint greenish
rays, but as the animals get older, they
typically become a deep brown,
although some raying may still be
evident in older individuals. The
interior layer of the shell (nacre) is pink
or purplish (Johnson 1970, p. 303).
Life History and Habitat
Adult freshwater mussels are filterfeeders, siphoning phytoplankton,
diatoms, and other microorganisms from
the water column. For the first several
months, juvenile mussels employ pedal
(foot) feeding, extracting bacteria, algae,
and detritus from the sediment (Yeager
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1994, pp. 217–221; Cope et al. 2008, p.
457).
Although the life history of the
Altamaha spinymussel has not been
studied, the life histories of other
mussels in the Elliptio genus have been.
Internal fertilization results in the
female brooding the larvae (glochidia),
which when mature are released. To
ensure survival, glochidia must come
into contact with a specific host fish or
fishes to develop into juvenile mussels.
Other mussels in the genus Elliptio are
broadcast releasers, which may release
conglutinates that resemble insect
larvae. This reproductive strategy
depends on clear water during the time
of the year when mussels release their
glochidia (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,
p. 375). The Altamaha spinymussel is
thought to reproduce in late spring and
release glochidia by May or June
(Johnson 2004, p. 2; Bringolf 2011, pers.
comm.). The host fish of the Altamaha
spinymussel is currently unknown.
Furthermore, juvenile age classes of
other mussels are commonly found
during surveys; however, no
spinymussel recruitment has been
evident in surveys conducted since
1990 (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.;
Wisniewski 2008, pers. comm.).
Research to develop a better
understanding of the natural history and
the reasons for a lack of recruitment in
the species is continuing.
This spinymussel is known only from
Georgia in Glynn, Ben Hill, McIntosh,
Telfair, Tattnall, Long, Montgomery,
Toombs, Wheeler, Appling, Jeff Davis,
Coffee, and Wayne Counties. This
spinymussel is considered a ‘‘big river’’
species; is associated with stable,
coarse-to-fine sandy sediments of
sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel
islands; and appears to be restricted to
swiftly flowing water (Sickel 1980, p.
12). Johnson (1970, p. 303) reported
Altamaha spinymussels buried
approximately 5.1 to 10.2 cm (2.0 to 4.0
in) below the substrate surface.
Species Distribution and Status
The historical range of the Altamaha
spinymussel was restricted to the
Coastal Plain portion of the Altamaha
River and the lower portions of its three
major tributaries, the Ohoopee,
Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers (Johnson
1970, p. 303; Keferl 2001, pers. comm.).
Large-scale, targeted surveys for the
mussel have been conducted since the
1960s (Keferl 1993, p. 299). Recent
surveys have revealed a dramatic
decline in recruitment, the number of
populations, and number of individuals
within populations throughout the
species’ historic range (Stringfellow and
Gagnon 2001, pp. 1–2; Keferl 1995, pp.
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3–6; Keferl 2008 pers. comm.;
Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Ohoopee River
In a survey of the Ohoopee River,
Keferl (1981, pp. 12–14) found at least
30 live specimens of the Altamaha
spinymussel at seven of eight collection
sites, in thinly scattered beds, in the
lower 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi))
of the river. Spinymussels were not
found higher in the watershed,
presumably because there are
insufficient flows to support this
species. By the early 1990s, however,
only two live specimens were found at
the same sites (Keferl 1995, pp. 3–6;
Keferl 2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski
2006, pers. comm.). Stringfellow and
Gagnon (2001, pp. 1–2) resurveyed these
sites using techniques similar to those
used by Keferl (1981, p. 12), but did not
find any live Altamaha spinymussels in
the Ohoopee River. Therefore, the
species is currently either extirpated
from the Ohoopee River or present in
such low numbers that it is
undetectable.
Ocmulgee River
The Altamaha spinymussel is known
from the Ocmulgee River from its
confluence with the Oconee River
upstream to Red Bluff in Ben Hill
County (approximately 110 km/68.3
mi). Early collecting efforts in the
Ocmulgee River near Lumber City
yielded many live Altamaha
spinymussels. In 1962, Athearn made a
single collection of 40 live spinymussels
downstream of U.S. Highway 341 near
Lumber City (Johnson et al. 2008,
Athearn database). Researchers
collected 19 and 21 live individuals,
respectively, during two surveys at Red
Bluff (Thomas and Scott 1965, p. 67). In
1986, Stansbery collected 11 live
individuals at the U.S. Highway 441
Bridge near Jacksonville, Georgia
(Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.).
The lower Ocmulgee River was
surveyed by Keferl in the mid 1990s,
during 2000–2001 (Cammack et al.
2001, p. 11; O’Brien 2002, p. 2), and in
2004 (Dinkins 2004, pp. 1–1 and 2–1).
Over 90 sites have been surveyed since
1993, many of which were repeatedly
surveyed, resulting in a total of 19 live
Altamaha spinymussels detected at 10
sites, distributed from Jacksonville
downstream to the Oconee River
confluence.
Oconee River
There are few historical records of
Altamaha spinymussels from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Oconee River. Athearn collected 18
spinymussels, including 5 juveniles, at
a site in Montgomery County near
Glenwood in the late 1960s (Johnson et
al. 2008, Athearn database). The species
has not been collected there since and
is probably extirpated from the Oconee
River system (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.).
In 1995, as part of a dam relicensing
study, 41 sites between Lake Sinclair
and Dublin were surveyed (EA
Engineering 1995, pp. 1–1, 3–1, 3–2, 4–
2, and 4–3). One hundred forty-four
hours of search time yielded 118 live
mussels, but no Altamaha spinymussels.
Compared to the other portions of its
range, the Oconee River has not been
extensively surveyed, in part because
the entire mussel fauna of this river
appears to be sparse.
Altamaha River
Most surveys for Altamaha
spinymussels have been conducted in
the Altamaha River. Although
methodological differences preclude
accurate comparison of mussel
abundances over time, there is evidence
that higher abundances of Altamaha
spinymussels occurred in the Altamaha
River historically. Early surveys at the
U.S. Route 301 crossing documented 20
individuals in 1963, 7 in 1965, and 43
in 1970. Sickel sampled seven sites
downstream of the U.S. Route 1 bridge
in 1967. Sixty spinymussels were
collected in one 500-square meters (m2)
(5382-square feet (ft2)) site, and an
additional 21 spinymussels were
collected in a 400-m2 (4306-ft2) (Sickel
1980, p. 11; Wisniewski 2006, pers.
comm.) site. One site had five live
spinymussels, two sites had one each,
and two sites had no Altamaha
spinymussels.
From 1993 to 1996, Keferl surveyed
164 sites on the mainstem of the
Altamaha River between the OcmulgeeOconee River confluence and the
Interstate 95 crossing near the river’s
mouth (approximately 189 km/117 mi.).
A total of 63 live Altamaha
spinymussels were collected from 18 of
these sites, located between the Oconee
River and U.S. Route 301 (116 km/72
mi); however, no Altamaha
spinymussels were collected below U.S.
Route 301 (73 km/45 mi), suggesting
absence or extreme rarity in the reach
between U.S. Route 301 and the river’s
mouth (approximately 73 km (45 mi)).
In addition, 10 of these sites were
clustered within a 4-km (2-mi) reach
upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing
near Jesup; the remaining eight sites
were isolated by long distances of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62929
habitat with no or sub-detectable
numbers of live spinymussels.
O’Brien (2002, pp. 3–4) surveyed 30
sites on the Altamaha River from the
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee
Rivers downstream to U.S. Route 301
during 2001, including the 18 known
Altamaha spinymussel sites, reported by
Keferl, within the reach. She collected
a total of six live individuals from five
different sites and freshly dead shells
from two additional sites.
In 2003 and 2004, researchers
surveyed 25 sites to collect specimens
for host-fish trials (Albanese 2005, pers.
comm.). Live Altamaha spinymussels
were detected at only four sites. Five of
the seven sites documented by O’Brien
and all four sites documented during
the host-fish surveys were clustered
within a short reach (15 km/24 mi) of
the Altamaha River just upstream of the
U.S. Route 301 crossing near Jesup,
Georgia.
To summarize, researchers were able
to find 60 Altamaha spinymussels at a
single site on the Altamaha River in
1967; in contrast, the largest number of
Altamaha spinymussels observed from a
single site on the Altamaha River during
the 1990s or 2000s was nine (Albanese
2005, pers. comm.).
Summary of Basin-Wide Population
Estimates
In 1994, researchers spent 128 searchhours throughout the Altamaha Basin to
find 41 spinymussels (Keferl 1995, p. 3).
From 1997 through 2006, researchers
searched 233 sites throughout the basin
to document 34 spinymussels in more
than 550 hours of searching
(Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.); from
2007 to 2009, only 23 spinymussels
were found from more than 110 sites
(Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). In
summary, the Altamaha spinymussel is
considered extirpated from two rivers in
its historical range, the Ohoopee (15 km
(9 mi)) and Oconee Rivers (45 km (28
mi)), as well as the lower 73 km (45 mi)
of the Altamaha River (Table 1). Since
1997, despite extensive survey efforts
made by several different researchers,
only 57 spinymussels have been
observed from 7 sites in the Ocmulgee
(110 km (68 mi)) and 15 sites in the
upper Altamaha (116 km (72 mi))
combined, and while individual
spinymussels have been found scattered
throughout this stretch of river, most of
these sites have been clustered in the 10
km (6 mi) immediately north of the U.S.
Route 301 crossing.
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62930
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—DECLINE IN RANGE OF THE ALTAMAHA SPINYMUSSEL
River reach
Historically
occupied
(linear km/mi)
Current habitat
Ohoopee ..................................
Oconee .....................................
Ocmulgee .................................
Upper Altamaha .......................
Lower Altamaha .......................
15 km/9 mi ..............................
45 km/28 mi ............................
110 km/68.3 mi .......................
116 km/72 mi ..........................
73 km/45 mi ............................
Not seen since 1997 .................................................................
Not seen since 1968 .................................................................
Widely scattered ........................................................................
Widely scattered individuals ......................................................
Not seen since 1970 .................................................................
4
12.5
0
0
20
Total ..................................
359 km/222 mi ........................
226 km/140 mi ..........................................................................
36.5
Using Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (GDNR)’s database, which
included many of the surveys
mentioned above, Wisniewski et al.
(2005, p. 2) conducted a test for a
temporal change in sites occupied in the
Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers between
the early 1990s and the early 2000s.
Live Altamaha spinymussels were
detected at 24 of 241 sites (10 percent)
sampled before 2000 and at 14 of 120
sites (12 percent) sampled after 2000.
Although the percentage of sites
occupied is not indicative of a decline,
an analysis of 39 sites sampled during
both time periods, of which the
spinymussel was initially present in 13
of the 39 sites, indicated that the
spinymussel was lost from significantly
more sites (11 sites) than it colonized (3
sites) between the early 1990s and early
2000s (Wisniewski et al. 2005, p. 2).
This test is imprecise because the failure
to detect Altamaha spinymussels when
present could result in both false
colonizations (species missed during
early surveys but detected in recent
survey) and false extirpations (species
detected during early survey but missed
during recent survey). Thus, although
the exact number of extirpations and
colonizations between the two time
periods may not be accurate, the much
higher number of extirpations is
suggestive of a decline over this time
period.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
During the open comment periods for
the proposed rule (75 FR 61664) and
draft economic analysis, we requested
that all interested parties submit
comments or information concerning
the proposed listing and designation of
critical habitat for the Altamaha
spinymussel. We contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies
(including the State of Georgia, from
whom we directly requested comments),
county governments, elected officials,
scientific organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment. Articles concerning the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
proposed rule and inviting public
comment were published by the
Associated Press, The Brunswick News
and the Florida Times Union. An article
was also published by the Center for
Biological Diversity.
During the comment periods, we
received a total of 79 comments. We
received comments supporting the
listing of the Altamaha spinymussel
from the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources–Wildlife Resources Division,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, three
environmental groups, and 70
individuals including 9 letters and 65
postcards. We received two requests for
an extension of the open comment
period and notified requestors that the
comment period would reopen for the
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Economic Analysis, published on May
12, 2011. We received no requests for,
and therefore did not hold, a public
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
requested the opinions of four
knowledgeable individuals with
expertise on freshwater mollusks, the
Altamaha River Basin, and conservation
biology principles. The purpose of peer
review is to ensure that the designation
is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses, including
input of appropriate experts and
specialists. We received written
responses from three of the peer
reviewers.
Peer reviewers stated that: (1) The
proposal included a thorough and
accurate review of the available
scientific and commercial data on this
mussel and its habitats; (2) the best
available scientific data documented
substantial declines in its abundance
and distribution; and (3) the data
supported the proposed listing as
endangered with the designation of
approximately 237.4 km (147.5 mi) of
critical habitat. Two peer reviewers
provided additional details and
correction about the life history of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Percent of
historical
range lost
spinymussel, one of these reviewers also
provided specific recommendations for
the primary constituent elements
(PCEs). The information provided by the
reviewers has been incorporated into
the appropriate sections of this final
rule or is addressed in the comments
below.
We reviewed all comments received
for substantive issues and new data
regarding the spinymussel, its critical
habitat, and the draft economic analysis.
Written comments received during the
comment periods are addressed in the
following summary. For readers’
convenience, we have combined similar
comments into single comments and
responses.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Water quality standards
set by the State of Georgia are based on
water quality criteria established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for protection of aquatic life, not
humans. Mussels are not currently
represented in datasets used by EPA for
derivation of water quality criteria. If
adopted, the proposed criteria for
ammonia will be the first to include
mussel sensitivity data. Therefore, the
statement that many of the standards
may not be protective of mussels is
accurate.
Our response: We agree, and have
incorporated this information into the
Physical or Biological Features Section
to reflect this comment. Also see
Comment 4 below.
(2) Comment: Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
concentrations of 33.1 mg/L appear
unusually high for a river segment with
no dams. It seems appropriate to
exclude this value as described by
reporting the 10th and 90th percentiles
for DO.
Our response: After reviewing the
data, we found three data points to be
exceptionally high. All three were taken
from the same timeframe with the same
device, which suggests that the device
may not have been calibrated correctly.
These three data points have been
thrown out, and the concentration range
has been recalculated to 0.42–
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
20.3 mg/l. The benefit of using the 10th
and 90th percentiles is that it allows us
to exclude the outliers from the data
that may be due to device errors.
(3) Comment: Populations of several
fish species, particularly anadromous
fishes (e.g. striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), Atlantic and shortnose
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A.
brevirostrum), American shad (Alossa
sapidissima), and other herrings), have
declined substantially in recent
decades. Host trials for spinymussels
with 10 species of fish from six families
(Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae, Ictaluridae,
Moronidae, Acipenseridae,
Catostomidae) have been conducted.
Unfortunately, none of these trials have
produced juvenile spinymussels.
Our response: We agree. One of the
largest gaps in knowledge of this species
is host fish information. Presence of
suitable host fish in the basin is critical
for survival of this species. Evaluation
of habitat suitability for the spinymussel
would be greatly enhanced with
knowledge of the host fish occurrence
and distribution; suitable habitat must
also be present for the host fish(es).
Though all 85 fish species native to the
Altamaha Basin are still present,
populations of several fish species have
declined substantially compared to
historic numbers. Host fish have been
identified for other members of the
genus Elliptio, and these species should
provide a starting point for the
spinymussel. Identification of suitable
host fish is also critical for development
of a propagation program. Laboratory
culture of juveniles would allow for a
potential population augmentation
program and/or could be used to
produce organisms for toxicity testing
purposes. The Service has incorporated
this information into the Physical or
Biological Features Section to reflect
this comment.
(4) Comment: EPA has recently (2009)
proposed to revise the chronic water
quality value for ammonia (at pH 8 and
25 C) from 1.2 mg/L to 0.26 mg/L. This
value is calculated to protect 95% of
aquatic species. Because ammonia
toxicity data have not been generated for
the Altamaha spinymussel it is prudent
for the Service to consider a lower PCE
value for ammonia such as 0.22 mg
N/L as indicated in the proposal.
Our response: We agree. We believe
the value chosen for the PCE for
ammonia is well supported, which is
why it is being adopted by EPA (Newton
et al. 2003, p. 2556 and Wang et al.
2007, pp. 2041–2043).
(5) Comment: The commenter
recommends adding criteria for copper,
nickel, and pyrene. Copper toxicity to
early life stages of unionids has been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
reported as low as 6.8 ug/L in a 96-hr
test at a water hardness of 177 mg/L
(Wang et al. 2007, p. 2043). Hardness
buffers metal toxicity by reducing
bioavailability of metal ions. Hardness
values are much lower (20–40 mg/L) in
the Altamaha, thus toxicity would be
expected at even lower copper
concentrations. Chronic criteria should
be substantially lower than this acute
value.
Nickel toxicity has been reported for
juvenile unionids at 190 ug/L in a 96hr test with soft water (hardness <50
mg/L). Acute and chronic nickel criteria
should be lower than 190 ug/L (no
citation provided).
Pyrene is a polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) that may be
associated with pulp and paper mills
among other industrial and urban
sources. This PAH is toxic to unionid
glochidia (24 h LC50) at 2.63 ug/L in the
presence of UV light (no citation
provided). Chronic criteria for
persistent, bioaccumulative compounds
like PAHs should be substantially lower
than acute toxicity values.
Our response: The Service routinely
consults with other federal agencies
regarding the effects of their actions,
and uses the best science available.
Given the complex and unique
conditions inherent in individual
consultations, as well as at different
times of year and areas of the river, we
believe it would not be prudent to set
standards for these compounds at this
time because temperature, life stage, and
other unknowns may have substantial
impact on their toxicity (e.g.,
temperature and copper interaction).
Where surrogate science was available
and appropriate to establish general
guidelines for water quality, it was
applied in this manner. However, we do
not have sufficient data to develop
water quality criteria for copper, nickel,
and pyrene at the level of specificity
suggested by the commenter.
Comments From the State
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the
Secretary shall submit to the State
agency a written justification for his
failure to adopt regulations consistent
with the agency’s comments or
petition.’’ Comments received from the
State regarding the proposal to designate
critical habitat for the Altamaha
spinymussel are addressed below.
Because the comments of one peer
reviewer (a State of Georgia employee)
were adopted by the State, we are
including them in our response to State
comments. The State supports the
designation of critical habitat for the
occupied reaches of the Altamaha and
Ocmulgee rivers as proposed, including
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62931
the exclusion of the Altamaha River
between U.S. Route 1 and the upper
property boundary of Moody Forest
Natural Area from proposed critical
habitat. Georgia concurs with the
Service that the designation of critical
habitat in only the currently occupied
reaches of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee
Rivers would not adequately conserve
the Altamaha spinymussel because this
range is connected in a linear pattern
that could be destroyed by a single
event in the Ocmulgee, flowing
downstream into the Altamaha.
Therefore, the proposed designation of
critical habitat in at least one additional
tributary that historically harbored the
Altamaha spinymussel is necessary to
conserve the species.
(6) Comment: One item that appears
to be poorly supported is the
considerable discussion found within
the Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species regarding contaminants in
sediments of the Oconee River as
primary threats. In the proposed rule the
Service included extensive text on
heavy metal toxicity due to kaolin
mining/processing as a threat to
unionids in the Oconee River Basin. The
Service should also include extensive
text regarding the presence and
operations of Lake Sinclair.
Our response: The effects of
contaminants in sediment in the Oconee
River and the entire Altamaha Basin are
not well understood. However, it is
clear that contaminants in sediment are
a threat to mussel fauna in the Southeast
and are, therefore, a potential threat to
the spinymussel that must be evaluated
in the Threats Assessment (Cope 2008,
pp. 452–459). Currently there are no
data to describe the sensitivity of the
spinymussel to environmental stressors
such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and contaminants, but tolerances to
stressors can be inferred from other
mussel species. The effects of these
stressors on mussel fauna are often
interconnected. Standardized ASTM
(American Society for Testing and
Materials) guidelines are currently
available for toxicity tests with early life
stages (glochidia and juveniles) of
freshwater mussels. As a result, toxicity
and thermal tolerance data are being
generated for a growing number of
unionid species. The Service considers
contaminants in sediment a potential
threat to the spinymussel throughout its
range. The nearest reservoir is
approximately 120 km (75 miles) from
the historic range of the spinymussel
and approximately 165 km (103 mi.)
from occupied habitat, thus, the effects
of hypolimnetic discharges are not
considered a threat to the Altamaha
spinymussel (also see Comment 7 and
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62932
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Factor E. Other Natural and Man
Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence).
(7) Comment: The Oconee River
downstream of Lake Sinclair was
generalized as having sparse mussel
populations. The proposal strongly
suggests that this is a result of
contaminants but does not allude to any
effects due to the presence of a major
dam and hydroelectric generation
facility located at Lake Sinclair.
Numerous published studies have
recognized reservoirs and hydroelectric
generation facilities as one of the
leading reasons for declines and
extinctions of unionids throughout
North America.
Our response: The Oconee River
downstream of Lake Sinclair to U.S.
Route 280 is poorly surveyed for
mussels. Available surveys had
described the mussel fauna as
depauperate (EA Engineering 1995, pp.
1–1, 3–1, 3–2, 4–2, and 4–3). Typically,
habitats immediately downstream of
dams are unsuitable for unionids due to
the highly erosive nature of the
substrates during channel forming
events (e.g., spring floods), which scour
substrates and deposit those benthic
organisms occupying these habitats
elsewhere. Additionally, eroding
substrates are often deposited upon
downstream habitats where unionids
occur and thus impede their mobility
and their ability to siphon or reproduce.
Generally, the effects of reservoir
operations on river channels are greatest
closest to dams and gradually decline as
rivers flow downstream. This effect is
observed in the Oconee River, which
has a deeply entrenched channel near
Dublin, Georgia, upstream of the
historic range of the spinymussel.
Conversely, the Oconee River
downstream of U.S. Route 280 near Mt.
Vernon (within the historic range of the
spinymussel), has a wider, less
entrenched channel with good
floodplain connectivity, gentle bank
slope, and riparian buffers. Mussel
fauna diversity greatly increases in the
lower portion of the Oconee, suggesting
that the habitat is not degraded by dam
operations. While the dam at Lake
Sinclair certainly has a profound effect
on the ecology of the Oconee River, it
is 75 miles from the historic range of the
spinymussel and, therefore, was not
considered a threat (see Factor E. Other
Natural and Man Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence).
(8) Comment: The inclusion of the
Lower Oconee River as critical habitat
would more adequately conserve the
Altamaha spinymussel than the
inclusion of the Ohoopee River, as the
Oconee River is a much larger
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
watershed and would be less vulnerable
to dewatering during periods of extreme
drought, which will likely become more
frequent in the future. The Oconee River
from U.S. 280 in Mt. Vernon
downstream to its confluence with the
Altamaha River should be designated as
an unoccupied stream reach proposed
for critical habitat.
Our response: 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 critical habitat area is
unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species. The Service
agrees that it is essential for the
conservation of the species that one of
the unoccupied tributaries to the
Altamaha be included as critical habitat
to avoid a linear distribution that might
be vulnerable to a single catastrophic
event. The Service has determined that
only one of the unoccupied rivers is
essential. In deciding which of the two
rivers to include as critical habitat we
looked at all historic records of
spinymussel. In the Oconee River, the
only record of spinymussels was from a
single collection in 1968. The
spinymussel has not been seen in the
Oconee from any other locations or at
any other time and is now considered
extirpated from this river. Conversely,
spinymussels have been found from
multiple locations over several decades
in the Ohoopee and were found as
recently as 1997. Keferl referred to the
Ohoopee as a possible refugia for the
species endemic to the Altamaha,
including the spinymussel (Keferl 1981,
p. 15). Furthermore, the Oconee has
many human-induced threats that are
not well understood, including: Kaolin
mining, agriculture, and municipal
water treatment. The Ohoopee has fewer
inputs of point source pollution within
this basin; however, this river is
impacted by municipal water treatment,
drought, and, during low flows, vehicle
traffic in the river bed. Drought is a
natural event which mussel species
have evolved to survive. Vehicle traffic
in the river bed could be more easily
managed than the potential threats to
the Oconee, which may need extensive
study to be understood. In determining
which river would best serve to protect
the spinymussel, the Service chose the
Ohoopee because it was known to be
inhabited by the spinymussel more
recently, it was considered high-quality
habitat (habitat that includes multiple
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PCEs), and manmade impacts should be
easier to manage.
(9) Comment: The continued declines
of the Altamaha spinymussel are likely
exacerbated by density-dependence in
which too few individuals exist to
adequately repopulate the basin at
observable levels.
Our response: We agree, and consider
this to be the most serious threat faced
by this mussel (for further explanation
see Factor E. Other Natural and Man
Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence and
Determination).
Public Comments
(10) Comment: In the proposed rule,
the Service has not adequately
considered the cost to other Federal
agencies and how the listing might
impact civil works programs such as
dredging for commercial navigation or
ecosystem restoration on the Altamaha,
Oconee, and Ocmulgee Rivers.
Our response: The Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(b) prohibit
us from considering the possible
economic impacts associated with
listing a species. However, we do take
into consideration economic impacts
associated with designating critical
habitat in accordance with section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Under section 7 of the
Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) will need to consult with us for
activities that may affect the Altamaha
spinymussel or its critical habitat. We
have broadly defined activities that may
affect, destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat below (see Application
of the ‘‘Adverse Modification’’
Standard, below), and will work with
the Corps to ensure that the best
available information is used when they
consult with us. Our final economic
analysis (Industrial Economics, Inc.
2011, pp. ES–2, ES–3, ES–4) found that
there would be only marginal
incremental administrative costs
associated with this critical habitat
designation. Incremental administrative
costs are costs that would occur only as
a result of the critical habitat
designation, which are above and
beyond costs associated with listing the
species (i.e., baseline costs). The
economic analysis projects
approximately $37,100 of total
incremental impacts (over the next 30
years (2011–2040)) using a seven
percent discount rate), as the result of
critical habitat designation for the
Altamaha spinymussel.
In order to estimate the cost of
consultation the Service contacted the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) to see how many consultations
they conduct for the shortnose sturgeon
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in the Altamaha River. NMFS biologists
informed us that they average less than
one formal consultation on the
Altamaha annually and would estimate
that they would conduct three formal
consultations annually if critical habitat
were designated for this species (Bolden
2011, pers. comm.). Because a listed
species already occurs in these rivers,
the Altamaha spinymussel listing and
critical habitat designation would not be
likely to prompt a large increase in the
need for consultation or the associated
costs to the Corps.
(11) Comment: The proposal contains
considerable speculation as to the
possible causes for reduced populations
of the Altamaha spinymussel but
provides no substantive detail or
analysis concerning the relative
importance of factors contributing to the
supposed primary stressors,
sedimentation and contaminants.
Our response: The Service has
monitored the decline of the
spinymussel since it first became a
candidate species in 1984. Since that
time the Service and the State have
funded numerous efforts to develop a
better understanding of the natural
history of this species. Unfortunately,
the low numbers of this species have
made it difficult to study; therefore, we
have analyzed the threats to this species
using the best available science on
surrogate species. The natural history of
this species is likely very similar to
other species in the family Unionidae,
and it is reasonable to assume that
similar threats will affect this species in
a similar manner. Each threat is
discussed in detail in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species and is
summarized in the Determination
sections. A Threats Matrix detailing our
best understanding of the relative
importance has been developed and has
been provided to the commenter. A
copy of the Threats Matrix is on file and
available upon request. We have also
clarified the relative importance of
specific threats, as needed, within the
Threats Analysis of this rule.
(12) Comment: The proposed rule
misrepresents the (EPA’s) Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
and the impaired waters identification
process and erroneously suggests that
the current regulatory process is
inadequate and will not afford
protection to the spinymussel. The
proposed rule implies or states directly
that current regulatory water quality
management tools are inadequate to
protect existing spinymussel
populations.
Our response: The completion of and
compliance with a TMDL removes a
stream from the 303(d) list (list of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
impaired waterbodies). However, as
stated, the stream is then placed on the
305(b) list of impaired streams with a
completed TMDL whether or not water
quality conditions improve.
Furthermore, several waterbodies have
been removed from the 303(d) list upon
completion of a TMDL, only to return to
the 303(d) list due to additional
violations. This indicates that while the
TMDL program can improve water
quality in streams, it does not prevent
water quality violations from occurring,
which could have a deleterious effect on
the Altamaha spinymussel.
(13) Comment: The proposed rule
provides little or no justification for the
water quality metrics (primary
constituent elements, or PCEs) that are
suggested as ‘‘necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability at all life
stages.’’
Our response: In developing the
parameters for the water quality PCE,
we used the best available information
to create specific guidelines
(considering mussel life stage and
interactions with variables such as
temperature) including temperature,
dissolved oxygen, ammonia, pH, and
cadmium. How we derived these criteria
is explained below. Conversely, there
are many possible toxicity issues for
which we do not believe there is
sufficient information to develop water
quality standards that would be
protective of the spinymussel at this
time (see also response to Comment 5).
Temperature PCE
We believe that the maximum
temperature and the maximum daily
temperature fluctuation criteria
identified in PCE 3 are supported by the
best available data generated from direct
temperature measurements of the
Altamaha River, as well as comparisons
to three temperature gauge stations on
the Savannah River, which is similar in
size, hydrology, and proximity
(Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.).
Therefore, a maximum temperature of
32.6 °C with no more than a 2 °C daily
fluctuation appears justified. See the
Physical or Biological Features
discussion to see how these were
derived.
Dissolved Oxygen PCE
Comments suggesting that dissolved
oxygen in bottom layers of critical
habitat may be lower than the PCE are
not appropriate because spinymussels
are found in the mainstem river in areas
of moving water that does not stratify.
Therefore, the water should be wellmixed and dissolved oxygen should be
consistent throughout the water column.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62933
Ammonia PCE
For ammonia, 1.5 mg N/L is the
criteria maximum concentration (CMC)
and 0.22 mg N/L is the criteria
continuous concentration (CCC). A
review of mussel ammonia literature
indicates that at least some juvenile
mussels are sensitive to ammonia at
concentrations as low as 0.093 mg NH3/
L in 10-d assays (Newton et al. 2003, p.
2556) and 0.37 mg N/L in 28-d tests
(Wang et al. 2007, pp. 2041–2043). EPA
did not include all mussel toxicity test
data in derivation of the proposed
criteria (2009) because some tests did
not use ‘standardized’ methods (Bringolf
2011, pers. comm.). The Service
considered all available mussel
ammonia toxicity data in deriving PCEs.
The Service arrived at the ammonia PCE
values as a compromise between the
mussel toxicity literature and the
proposed EPA criteria. There are no
ammonia toxicity data available for
spinymussel, therefore, we believe this
to be the most valid approach for
establishing a standard.
pH PCE
The Service attempted to determine
the ‘central range’ of pH values in the
Altamaha River by generating the 10th
and 90th percentiles (the point at which
10% and 90%, respectively, of the
observed values fell) of pH. Because the
causes of the decline of the spinymussel
remain unidentified, and no data are
available regarding the optimal pH for
this species, it is reasonable to designate
a PCE for critical habitat that does not
include the extremes of any water
quality parameter (Bringolf 2011, pers.
comm.). Critical habitat must be
supportive of the species, and it is
reasonable to assume that extremes of
any parameter could be detrimental to
this species. Critical habitat PCEs
should incorporate the most stable
habitats.
Cadmium PCE
Mussel toxicity to cadmium (Cd) is
reported to occur at concentrations as
low as 16 mg/L in 96-h tests with
juveniles (Wang et al. 2010, pp. 2056–
2057). The Cd criteria for Georgia are 1
mg/L (CMC) and 0.15 mg/L (CCC).
However, the commenter suggests that
the Cd concentrations required to cause
toxicity are 2000 to 13,000 times greater
than GA water quality criteria (1 ug/L).
The Cd concentration that caused acute
toxicity with juvenile mussels is only 16
times higher than the Georgia Cd
criteria. Therefore, it is not prudent to
assume that Cd is not a significant
contributor to decline in spinymussel
populations. Early life stages are
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62934
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
generally more sensitive than adults;
therefore, PCEs were established based
on a survey of all published mussel
early-life-stage toxicity data since 1992.
Comment (14): Climate change
models do not provide information that
is appropriate for making management
decisions regarding the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Our response: The Service agrees that
it would not be appropriate to use
climate change models to make
management decisions regarding the
Altamaha spinymussel. However, the
Service acknowledges that climate
change could alter the severity of storms
and droughts, which could affect
spinymussels in the future (See Factor
E. Other Natural and Man Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence, also see the discussion under
Critical Habitat, Background).
Comment (15): The Service should
consider that factors unrelated to
habitat, such as invasive species, may be
the most important limiting factor for
the Altamaha spinymussel.
Our response: While invasive species
may be affecting the Altamaha
spinymussel (either directly or
indirectly), there is little, if any,
information to support that invasive
species are the most important limiting
factor affecting the Altamaha
spinymussel or other mussels native to
the Altamaha or Atlantic Slope of
Georgia. The flathead catfish (Pylodictis
olivaris) was likely introduced into the
Altamaha River during the 1970s or
1980s, and populations began to greatly
increase during the 1990s. Flathead
catfish may predate the host fish for the
Altamaha spinymussel and other native
unionids (see discussion under Factor E.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence).
However, despite the introduction of
this piscivorous (fish eating) fish, most
fish and mollusk species known from
the Altamaha Basin as well as the
remainder of the Atlantic Slope of
Georgia, where the flathead catfish has
been introduced, appear to be extant
and relatively abundant. Similar trends
occur in the nearby Flint River Basin
where the flathead catfish has been
introduced. Despite the introduction of
this species and the highly altered
nature of the Flint River, mussel species
composition is similar to those
experienced prior to the introduction of
the flathead catfish (Wisniewski 2011,
pers. comm.).
The competition between the Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea) and native
unionids has been examined, but results
have been contradictory. Yeager et al.
(2000, pp. 256–258) suggested that high
densities of Asian clam may negatively
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
influence unionid recruitment.
However, Vaughn and Spooner
(unpublished data, p. 5) indicated that
Asian clam densities were generally
lower when populations of native
unionids were dense, but increased with
declining populations of native
unionids. Gardner et al. (1976, pp. 122–
124) hypothesized that the decline in
bivalve populations in the Altamaha
River co-occurred with the invasion of
Corbicula; they also admit that ‘‘a
combination of factors probably was
responsible for the success of Corbicula
and the decline of other bivalves in the
Altamaha River.’’ It is likely that the
apparent declines in the densities of
Altamaha spinymussels are a result of a
variety of factors, some of which may be
attributed to invasive species. The
extent to which they are adversely
affected by flathead catfish and Asian
clam is currently unknown.
Comment (16): The Service should
recognize that suspended solids from
biological wastewater treatment plants
are often comprised largely of organic
matter and that such solids would not
be expected to contribute to
sedimentation.
Our response: The Service concurs
with this comment; we have no
information that suspended solids are a
threat to the spinymussel at this time.
Comment (17): Sediment issues in the
southeastern United States are
complicated by a legacy of poor
agricultural practices during the 1800s
and early 1900s, which raises questions
about sources of sediment problems and
the relative magnitudes of different
sediment sources today. Silvicultural
activities generally have only a small,
short-lived impact on water quality,
especially when compared with other
land uses.
Our response: We agree that the
primary source of sedimentation is
legacy sediment and that silvicutural
activities have a small and short-lived
impact on water quality (see Factor A.
The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range). Legacy sediment
migrating through the floodplains of the
Altamaha Basin is likely one of the most
severe threats to the spinymussel. As an
example, in Murder Creek, a tributary of
the Oconee River, over 1.6 m (5.3 ft) of
legacy sediment was observed (Jackson
et al. 2005, p. 1). Much of the eroded
sediment was believed to remain in
valley storage or in transport as bedload
in Georgia’s Piedmont streams (Jackson
et al. 2005, p. 3). Based upon estimates
of inputs from various sources and
exports via total suspended solids and
bedload, sediment exports were greater
than sediment inputs. It is assumed that
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the remainder of the sediment came
from excavation and mobilization of
stored valley sediments, principally
through lateral migration of stream
channels and bank erosion (Jackson et
al. 2005, pg 10). Legacy sediment is an
ongoing threat as it moves downstream
covering suitable habitat.
Comment (18): The Service should
consider that implementation rates for
forestry best management practices are
high nationally and in Georgia,
including the Altamaha River Basin.
Our response: We agree that the rates
of implementation for forestry BMPs are
high and consider sediment from
silvicultural activities to be a small and
short-lived impact.
Comment (19): When properly
implemented, forestry BMPs protect
water quality and habitat for the
Altamaha spinymussel. BMPs are
critical in mitigating water quality
degradation from silviculture, and when
appropriately implemented and
maintained, are very effective in
controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution. Because of the overwhelming
body of research related to BMPs and
their effectiveness for protecting water
quality and aquatic habitat, it is not
surprising that the Service has
recognized in previous regulatory
proposals that BMPs are an important
component of conservation strategies for
freshwater mussels.
Our Response: The Service agrees that
BMPs are protective of water quality
and mussel habitat, and that industrial
forestry activities generally do a good
job of implementing BMPs. However,
some harvesting operations fail to use
BMPs adequately, and localized impacts
can and do occur.
Comment (20): The Georgia Forestry
Commission’s BMP education and
monitoring programs are effective at
encouraging implementation of forestry
BMPs and provide ‘‘reasonable
assurance’’ that forestry BMPs are
implemented effectively in Georgia.
Our response: We generally agree
with this comment, particularly on
industrial forests. However, there are
individual exceptions, with compliance
reported by the Georgia Forestry
Commission at around 95 percent.
Comment (21): Sustainable forestry
certification programs require
participants to meet or exceed forestry
BMPs and help ensure high rates of
BMP implementation.
Our response: The Service agrees that
the sustainable forestry program is one
of the most effective programs to ensure
BMPs are properly implemented.
Comment (22): Preliminary sampling
of direct tributaries in forested
watersheds within the Altamaha River
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Basin suggests that mussel communities
are diverse and abundant. The role of
lakes in supporting the mussel
community within the basin is not
known, but could be significant and
should be explored further.
Our response: We believe that
floodplain lakes within the Altamaha
Basin are of little importance to the
Altamaha spinymussel as they do not
have habitat to sustain the species.
Dinkins (2007, p. 4) provides support
for this by stating, ‘‘species typically
found in the river where the substrate
has a dominant sand matrix and/or
slight to moderate current during
normal flow conditions (e.g., Elliptio
spinosa, Lampsilis dolabraeformis) were
not present in Cogden Lake.’’ Cogden
Lake is a floodplain lake in the Basin.
The Altamaha spinymussel is typically
found in association with protected
areas around sand bars, in medium to
coarse hard-packed sand, with rather
swift current near gently sloping, soft
banks with its distribution greatly
restricted to these habitats (Meador 2009
p. 52, Sickel 1980, pp. 10–11;
Wisniewski 2008, p. 2). In general,
floodplain lakes within the Altamaha
River Basin exhibit habitats that are not
conducive to the survival of the
Altamaha spinymussel as these habitats
typically have little or no flow and silty
or muddy substrates.
In conclusion, there is not sufficient
evidence to support the existence of
potential populations of the Altamaha
spinymussel in these floodplain lakes or
tributaries.
Comment (23): The summary
paragraph within Factor A, The present
or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range, is over-reaching and
contains speculative language.
Inferences that enforcement of laws and
regulations may be subverted to
economic interests and citing pending
investigations by nongovernmental
environmental groups (such as
Riverkeepers) should not be relied on as
the best scientific information available
and are highly speculative regarding
impacts to mussels and their habitat.
Our response: The Service considers
the best scientific and commercial
information available when making
listing decisions, and Riverkeepers have
provided extensive and detailed field
notes concerning water quality
violations. Few of these notes were
considered sufficient enough to include
in this rule; however, the Altamaha
Riverkeeper has successfully brought
three cases to court (Altamaha
Riverkeeper v. Amercord, Inc., No. CV
300–042 (S.D. Ga) (Order on Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, Mar. 15,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
2001); Altamaha Riverkeeper v. City of
Lumber City, CV–300–043 (S.D. Ga);
Altamaha Riverkeepers v City of
Cochran, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D.
Ga. 2001)) regarding water quality
standard violations (see Factor A
discussion below for more detail). We
consider these court findings to be
relevant information related to
enforcement of laws and regulations
within the watershed.
Comment (24): Two comments
supported additional critical habitat
including the entire historic range of the
spinymussel, as well as, associated dry
lands and wetlands.
Our response: We believe the
occupied and unoccupied areas we are
designating as critical habitat
adequately represent the geographical
areas essential for the conservation of
the species. See our response to
Comment 8.
Comment (25): Why was the area
around Plant Hatch excluded from
Critical Habitat designation?
Our response: We did not include the
section of the Altamaha River between
US Route 1 and the upper property
boundary of Moody Forest Natural Area
from proposed critical habitat because it
does not contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Dredging
operations and thermal stress in the
vicinity of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
have altered the habitat quality so that
the PCEs are not present in this river
reach. Habitat within this reach is
generally unstable, consisting of coarse,
mobile sand.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors
are: (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; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62935
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Bogan (1993, pp. 599–600 and 603–
605) linked the decline and extinction
of bivalves to a wide variety of threats
including siltation, industrial pollution,
municipal effluents, modification of
stream channels, impoundments,
pesticides, heavy metals, invasive
species, and the loss of host fish. The
Altamaha spinymussel lives within a
large river drainage exposed to a variety
of landscape uses. Habitat and water
quality for the Altamaha spinymussel
face degradation from a number of
sources. Primary among these are
threats from sedimentation and
contaminants within the streams that
the spinymussel inhabits.
Sickel (1980, p. 12) characterized the
habitat of the Altamaha spinymussel as
coarse-to-fine-grain sandbars, and
suggested that this may make the
Altamaha spinymussel susceptible to
adverse effects from sediment (siltation).
Sediments deposited on the stable
sandbars required by the Altamaha
spinymussel could make sandbars
unstable, result in suffocation, or simply
change the texture of the substrate,
making them unsuitable for the species.
Sedimentation, including siltation from
surface runoff, has been implicated as a
factor in water quality impairment in
the United States and has contributed to
the decline of mussel populations in
streams throughout the country (Ellis
1936, pp. 39–41; Coon et al. 1977,
p. 284; Marking and Bills 1979, pp. 209–
210; Wilber 1983, pp. 25–57; Dennis
1984, pp. 207–212; Aldridge et al. 1987,
pp. 25–26; Schuster et al. 1989, p. 84;
Wolcott and Neves 1991, pp. 1–6; Houp
1993, p. 96; Bogan 1993, pp. 603–605;
Waters 1995, pp. 53–77; Richter et al.
1997, p. 1084).
Specific impacts on mussels from
sediments include reduced feeding and
respiratory efficiency, disrupted
metabolic processes, reduced growth
rates, increased substrata instability,
and the physical smothering of mussels
(Ellis 1936, pp. 39–41; Stansbery 1970,
p. 10; Markings and Bills 1979, pp. 209–
210; Kat 1982, p. 124; Aldridge et al.
1987, pp. 25–26; Hartfield and Hartfield
1996, p. 375; Brim Box and Mossa 1999,
pp. 99–102; TNC 2004, p. 4; Cope 2008,
pp. 452–459). Many southeastern
streams have increased turbidity levels
due to siltation (van der Schalie 1938,
p. 56). Since turbidity is a limiting
factor that impedes the ability of sightfeeding fishes to forage (Burkhead and
Jenkins 1991, pp. 324–325), turbidity
within the Altamaha River Basin during
the times that Altamaha spinymussels
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62936
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
attempt to reproduce may reduce the
ability of the host fish to find glochidia,
and may contribute to the decline of the
spinymussel by reducing its efficiency
at infecting the fish hosts necessary for
reproduction. In addition, sediment can
eliminate or reduce the recruitment of
juvenile mussels (Brim Box and Mossa
1999, pp. 101–102), interfere with
feeding activity (Dennis 1984, pp. 207–
212), and act as a vector in delivering
contaminants to streams (Salomons et
al. 1987, p. 28).
From 1700 to 1970, agricultural
practices in the Southern Piedmont
physiographic province resulted in
extreme soil erosion, removing more
than 17.8 cm (7 in.) of soil across the
landscape (Trimble 1974, p. 1). The
Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers
all drain through the Piedmont and
were directly affected by this erosion
and resulting sedimentation. In 1938,
van der Schalie (p. 56) reported the
Altamaha River as being yellow in color,
due to the large amount of suspended
silt originating from intensive farming
and road construction occurring in the
headwaters. The sediment from these
practices moved into stream channels
and valleys, covering most of the
original bottomlands (Trimble 1974,
p. 26) and is now referred to as legacy
sediment (Jackson et al. 2005, pg. 3). As
a result, stream profiles have been
dramatically altered with unstable
sediment deposits being dissected and
streams being incised with entrained
sediment migrating downstream to be
deposited in stream channels and
floodplains (Trimble 1974, pp. 116–121;
Jackson et al. 2005, pg 1). The GDNR,
Environmental Protection Division (EPD
2007, p. iii) reported to EPA that
approximately 75 percent of the average
sediment load in the Altamaha River
Basin resulted from row crops and that
it contributed an average sediment load
of 1 ton per acre per year. The EPD
concluded that this sediment is
probably a legacy of past land use. The
mobilization of legacy sediments,
principally through lateral migration of
stream channels and bank erosion is an
ongoing threat as it moves downstream
covering suitable habitat (Jackson et al.
2005, p. 10). Large -scale sediment
movement and deposition may result in
increased embeddedness, which would
generally decrease habitat quality
(Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). The degree
to which rocks (gravel, cobble, and
boulders) and snags are covered or
sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of the
stream bottom is a measure of
embeddedness, and is a parameter
evaluated in the riffles and runs of
streams (also see Our Response to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Comment 17). Although it is the
historical, anthropogenic land use that
created the legacy sediment, the volume
of legacy sediment still migrating
through the Altamaha River Basin is a
significant threat to the spinymussel.
Studies of the fish populations in the
Altamaha River Basin were conducted
in 2000 by the GDNR Wildlife Resources
Division (WRD). The Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) and modified Index of
Well-Being (IWB) rate fish populations
as being in Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor,
or in Very Poor condition, and were
applied by the WRD to identify
impaired fish populations in the
Altamaha River. Stream segments with
fish populations rated as Poor or Very
Poor were listed as Biota Impacted. A
lack of fish habitat due to stream
sedimentation was generally the cause
of a low IBI score.
Five Mile Creek (14.5 km/9 mi),
Bullard Creek (12.8 km/8 mi), and Jacks
Creek (14.5 km/9 mi) were rated as
‘‘Very Poor’’ and placed on the State of
Georgia’s 303(d) list of impaired waters
due to a significant impact on fish (EPD
2007a, pp. 1–2). These three streams
eventually feed into the mainstem of the
Altamaha River via larger channels. As
sediment moves through the basin,
habitat is periodically buried. WRD
recommends that there be no net
increase in sediment delivered to the
impaired stream segments so that these
streams will recover over time (EPD
2007a, p. 26). Agriculture and roads
were identified as the major sources of
sediment with silviculture, mining sites,
grazing, and urban development also
contributing nonpoint sources of
sediment (EPD 2007a, p. 9). Agriculture,
including row crops, poultry farms, and
pastures, constitute 15.5 percent of the
land cover in the Piedmont and 32.7
percent of the land cover in the Coastal
Plain (GDNR 2005, pp. 97, 132).
In addition to agriculture, there are
numerous sources of sediment within
the Altamaha River Basin, including
silviculture, unpaved roads, kaolin
mines, and construction sites. A threat
assessment conducted by TNC (2004, p.
9) listed sediment from urban,
industrial, and nonpoint sources (NPSs)
as a threat to the spinymussel. The EPD
(2007, p. v) reported that, while
historical row crop-based land use
contributes the majority of sediment in
the Altamaha River (75 percent), that
among other sources, approximately
17.3 percent of the total sediment load
is from roads; 4.3 percent from grasses
and wetlands; 1.5 percent from urban
lands; and 1.0 percent from quarries,
strip mines, and gravel pits. In addition,
estimates of the contribution from
construction could not be obtained, but
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
could represent a comparatively high
sediment load on a per -acre basis (EPD
2007, p. v).
Industrial forest management is
practiced on approximately 8,000
hectares (40,000 acres) or 33 percent of
the floodplain of the Altamaha River
(TNC 1997, p. 19). Typical forest
management regimes in the Altamaha
River Basin use timber harvest methods
and conduct other activities that result
in ground disturbances. These ground
disturbances can result in transport of
sediment to streams during and after
precipitation events. In addition, forest
management operations often require
miles of unpaved roads to extract timber
and to provide access for management
activities. The majority of sediment
from forestry occurs from roads and site
preparation activities (EPD 2007a, p.
11). These roads, in conjunction with
existing unpaved county roads that are
prevalent throughout the Altamaha
River Basin, contribute to sediment
loading in streams after precipitation
events. Through an agreement with the
EPD, the Georgia Forestry Commission
(GFC) is responsible for implementing
the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediment
from activities related to forestry, such
as timber harvest, haul road
construction, stream crossings, stream
side management zones, site
preparation, and reforestation. However,
the Erosion and Sediment Control Act
(O.C.G.A. 12–7–1) exempts commercial
forestry activities from the need to
acquire permits and meet the minimum
requirements of that act (Georgia’s BMPs
for Forestry 2009, p. 64). Therefore,
compliance with BMPs is voluntary and
is dependent on education about BMPs
to reduce sediment from reaching the
Altamaha River (EPD 2007a, p. 28) (also
see our Response to Comments 18, 19,
20 and 21), but appears to be high.
A number of kaolin mines are located
along the Fall Line, a geologic land form
that separates the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain physiographic provinces, within
the Oconee and Ocmulgee River Basins.
The operation of these mines and their
supporting infrastructure, including
haul roads and settling ponds, have the
potential to increase downstream
sediment loads if adequate erosion
control measures are not maintained to
stabilize areas subjected to miningassociated ground disturbances (Lasier
2004, p. 139).
In addition, sediment can act as a
vector in delivering contaminants (such
as heavy metals, ammonia, chlorine,
numerous organic compounds) to
streams (Salomons et al. 1987, p. 28;
TNC 2004, p. 9). Because spinymussels
are filter-feeders and bury themselves in
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the substrate, they are exposed to metals
dissolved in water, contained within
suspended particles, and deposited in
bottom substrates (Naimo 1995, p. 341).
Cope et al. (2008, pp. 452–459)
described potential routes of a variety of
contaminants absorbed by mussels in
various stages of their lifecycle.
Contaminants contained in point and
nonpoint discharges can degrade water
and substrate quality and adversely
impact, if not destroy, mussel
populations (Horne and McIntosh 1979,
pp. 127–132; McCann and Neves 1992,
pp. 80–87; Havlik and Marking 1987,
p. 14).
Contaminants associated with
industrial and municipal effluents may
cause decreased oxygen, increased
acidity, and other water chemistry
changes that may be lethal to mussels,
particularly during the highly sensitive
early life stages (Sheehan et al. 1989,
pp. 139–140; Keller and Zam 1991,
pp. 541–543; Bogan 1993, pp. 603–604;
Goudreau et al. 1993, pp. 216–227; TNC
2004, pp. 8–9). Exposure to sublethal
levels of toxic metals can alter growth,
filtration efficiency, enzyme activity,
and behavior (Naimo 1995, pp. 341,
354). In laboratory experiments, mussels
suffered mortality when exposed to 16
ug/L, 96-h EC50 cadmium (Wang et al.
2010), 0.093 mg N/L, 10-d LC50
ammonia (Newton et al. 2003), 39 ug/L,
96-h LC50 chromium (Keller and Zam
1991), 16 ppm arsenic trioxide, 6.8 ug/
L, 96-h EC50 copper (Wang et al. 2007),
and 151 ug/L, 96-h EC50, hardness
∼45 mg/L zinc (Wang et al. 2010);
however, effects depend upon the
length of exposure and mussel life stage
(Havlik and Marking 1987, p. 1). The
adults of certain species may tolerate
short-term exposure (Keller 1993, p.
701), but low levels of some metals may
inhibit glochidial attachment in others
¨
(Huebner and Pynnonen 1992, p. 2353;
Jacobson et al. 1993, pp. 881–882) likely
due to toxicity to glochidia. Mussel
recruitment may be reduced in habitats
with low but chronic heavy metal and
other toxicant inputs (Yeager et al. 1994,
p. 217; Naimo 1995, pp. 347 and 351–
352; Ahlstedt and Tuberville 1997,
p. 75). Researchers found that several
heavy metals were found to have toxic
effects at different levels and duration of
exposure; however, no toxicity studies
have been conducted specifically on the
Altamaha spinymussel (Havlik and
Marking 1987, p. 3; Naimo 1995, p. 341;
Keller and Lydy 1997, p. 4).
Furthermore, differences between
controlled laboratory experiments and
field conditions (with multiple and
unknown variables) make it difficult to
predict how contaminants affect wild
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
populations (Wisniewski 2008, pers.
comm.).
From 2000 to 2008, many stream
segments in the Altamaha Basin have
been listed on the State’s 303(d) list of
impaired waters for a variety of reasons.
Once a stream segment is listed as
impaired, the State must complete a
plan to address the issue causing the
impairment; this plan is called a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Completion of the plan is generally all
that is required to remove the stream
segment from the 303(d) list and does
not mean that water quality has
changed. Once the TMDL is completed,
the stream segment may be placed on
the 305(b) list of impaired streams with
a completed TMDL. Many of these
stream segments have appeared
repeatedly on the 303(d) list. The
Ohoopee River and Little Ohoopee River
have been listed on nearly every report
for almost every violation. Other stream
segments that have repeatedly been
identified on the 303(d) list from 2000
until 2008 include Big Cedar Creek,
Doctors Creek, Jacks Creek, Milligan
Creek, Oconee Creek, Pendleton Creek,
Rocky Creek, Sardis Creek, Swift Creek,
Tiger Creek, and Yam Gandy Creek.
This demonstrates a chronic threat, from
multiple sources of pollution, scattered
across the basin.
In 2000, the Altamaha River was
listed on the 303(d) list of impaired
waters due to excessive mercury levels
in fish tissue. In 2002, EPA Region 4
established a TMDL for mercury levels
for the Altamaha River from its
confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee
Rivers to Penholloway Creek (149.5 km/
92.9 mi) including Appling, Jeff Davis,
Long, Tattnall, Tombs, and Wayne
Counties. This river segment is entirely
within the current or historic range of
the spinymussel with four National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitted facilities, including:
• Rayonier Inc.-Jesup (67 million
gallons per day (MGD));
• Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant
(Plant Hatch) (43.4 MGD);
• Jesup Water Pollution Control Plant
(WPCP) (2.5 MGD); and
• Glennville WPCP (0.88 MGD) (EPA
2002a, pp. 1–5).
This 149.5-km (92.9-mi) segment of
the Altamaha River, from the confluence
of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to
Penholloway Creek, was removed from
the 303(d) list in 2002 because the
TMDL was completed; it is currently
listed as a stream supporting its
designated use (fishing).
In 2000, EPD added 23 stream
segments, totaling 411.9 km (256 mi), to
the 303(d) list for not meeting dissolved
oxygen standards (EPD 2002, p. 1). All
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62937
of these segments are within tributaries
to the Altamaha River within the range
of the spinymussel. Between 2000 and
2001, there were nine NPDES permitted
discharges with effluent limits for
oxygen -consuming substances
identified in the Altamaha River Basin
watershed above the 23 stream segments
listed (EPD 2002, p. 11). Nonpoint
source runoff from natural sources
contributed oxygen-demanding
pollutants (EPD 2002, p. 12). Upon
completion of a TMDL in 2002, these
river segments were removed from the
303(d) list.
In 2006, EPD listed 18 stream
segments totaling 280 km (174 mi) as
impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria
in excess of water quality standards
(EPD 2007c, pp. 1–2). All of these
stream segments are tributaries to the
Altamaha River within the current or
historic range of the species. Between
2005 and 2006, there were 10 municipal
wastewater treatment plants that
discharged more than 0.1 MGD, along
with four confined animal feed
operations that were considered sources
of fecal coliform. Nonpoint sources
include wildlife, livestock grazing,
livestock access to streams, application
of manure to pastureland and cropland,
leaking sanitary sewer lines, leaking
septic systems, land application systems
(6 in the basin), and landfills (43 in the
basin) (EPD 2007c, pp. 10–16). Even
after the completion of the TMDL, six of
these stream segments remain on the
303(d) list.
In 2008, EPD listed 583 km (362 mi.)
of tributaries to the Altamaha River to
the 305(b)/303(d) list of impaired
waters, and all of these stream segments
have completed TMDLs (EPD 2008 pp.
A–130–A–134). The draft 2010 305(b)/
303(d) list of impaired waters for the
Altamaha River included all of the
stream segments from the 2008 list and
added an additional 48 km (30 mi).
These are all tributaries to the Altamaha
or Ohoopee Rivers within the current or
historic range of the Altamaha
spinymussel. These stream segments are
listed as impaired for a variety of
reasons (e.g., dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliform, and mercury levels within fish
tissue). All of these river segments, such
as the Ohoopee River (including the
historic range of the spinymussel), have
TMDLs but are still considered
impaired.
More than 161 km (100 mi) of the
Ohoopee River and its tributaries were
added to the 303(d) list in 2000 due to
excessive mercury levels in fish tissue.
The primary source of mercury is
believed to be deposition of atmospheric
mercury. During 1998–1999, there were
seven municipal wastewater treatment
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62938
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
facilities (EPA 2002b, pp. 1–3) and as
many as 170 sources of air emissions in
the watershed (EPA 2002b, p. 18). These
sources of mercury impacted all of the
extirpated range of the spinymussel on
the Ohoopee River, which is a major
tributary to the Altamaha River. A
TMDL was established in 2002;
however, based on additional
information gathered since 2002, EPA
will begin revising needed load
reductions in 2011 (EPA 2002b, p. 2).
These segments of the Ohoopee remain
on the 303(d) list.
In 2006, EPD added five stream
segments, totaling 64.3 km (40 mi),
within the Ohoopee drainage to the
303(d) list for not meeting dissolved
oxygen standards (EPD 2007b, p. 1). All
of these segments are within the range
of the spinymussel. During 2004–2005,
there were eight NPDES permitted
discharges with effluent limits for
oxygen-consuming substances identified
in the Altamaha River Basin watershed
(EPD 2007b, p. 10). There were four
animal feeding lots and six wastewater
land application operations that were
identified as sources of oxygendemanding nutrients. Nonpoint source
runoff from forestry, row crop
agriculture, pastureland, urban
development, and natural sources also
contribute oxygen-demanding
pollutants (EPD 2007b, pp. 13–15).
Upon completion of a TMDL in 2007,
these five river segments were removed
from the 303(d) list.
In addition, there have been illegal
effluent discharges into the Ohoopee
that may have an adverse impact on the
Altamaha spinymussel. For instance,
the wastewater treatment discharge from
Rogers State Prison enters the Ohoopee
River approximately 10 km (6 mi)
upstream of the largest historical
population of Altamaha spinymussels
known in the Ohoopee River. The
Altamaha Riverkeeper reported fecal
coliform discharges from the prison that
exceeded the prison’s NPDES permit
(Holland 2002, pers. comm.).
The Altamaha Riverkeeper, a
conservation group that works to
maintain the quality of the Altamaha
River system, has discovered a number
of illegal discharges that could impact
the Altamaha spinymussel. In 2001, a
court found that Amercord Inc. had
violated its NPDES permit multiple
times at its Lumber City tire plant by
discharging quantities of cyanide,
copper, zinc, and lead into the
Ocmulgee River in excess of permit
limitations (Altamaha Riverkeeper v.
Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300–042 (S.D.
Ga.) (Order on Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001)). In
a second case, following allegations of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
discharges into the Ocmulgee River
from Lumber City’s waste treatment
pond in excess of its NPDES permit,
Lumber City agreed to implement
several short- and long-term wastewater
treatment improvements, which are
expected to protect a population of
Altamaha spinymussels (Altamaha
Riverkeeper v. City of Lumber City, CV–
300–043 (S.D. Ga.)). The Altamaha
Riverkeeper also discovered that from
July 1995 to April 2001, the City of
Cochran’s waste treatment pond had
discharged in violation of its NPDES
permit (Altamaha Riverkeepers v. City
of Cochran, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1368,
1369–70 (M.D. Ga. 2001)). The City had
been releasing ferric sulfate (used to
treat fecal coliform) into Jordan Creek, a
tributary of the Ocmulgee River
approximately 80 km (50 mi) upstream
of known populations of Altamaha
spinymussels.
Sediment in the Oconee River carries
toxic loads of heavy metals presumably
discharged from municipal wastewater
treatment plants and kaolin-mining
settling ponds (Lasier 2004, pp. 139–
140, 144–151). Wastewater treatment
plants and kaolin mines often employ
settling ponds to allow pollutants to
settle and turbidity to decrease. Copper
sulfate and aluminum sulfate are often
used as algaecides, to reduce algae
blooms, and as flocculants to force
precipitation of turbid waters and, in
water treatment processes, to improve
the sedimentation or filterability of
small particles.
Lasier (2004, pp. 150–151) reported
‘‘abnormally’’ high levels of chromium,
copper, mercury, and zinc in the lower
Oconee river that would indicate a
‘‘significant’’ impact to the quality of
sediment and pore water (the water in
contact with the river bottom, and the
water in which mussels reside). TNC
(2004, p. 9) found water quality and
sediment quality reflected ‘‘significant’’
inputs of pollution with concentrations
of heavy metals (including cadmium,
copper, chromium, lead, and zinc) at
levels above regional and national
concentrations. Shoults-Wilson (2008,
pp. 86–92) sampled sites throughout the
Altamaha River Basin to evaluate the
presence of heavy metals in the water
column and in the sediment and
compared the bioaccumulation of heavy
metals by Asian clams to E.
hopetonensis (an Altamaha River
endemic). Sampling of sites upstream
and downstream of potential point
sources of heavy metals demonstrated
‘‘significantly’’ elevated
bioaccumulation of cadmium, copper,
and mercury below inputs from kaolin
processing, as well as elevated zinc and
chromium below Plant Hatch, the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Rayonier pulp mill in Jesup, Georgia,
and the Amercord tire facility. Mussels
in the Altamaha River Basin may
accumulate trace elements from the fine
fraction of sediment as well as the water
column.
The cumulative effects of effluent
from wastewater treatment plants and
kaolin mines on Altamaha spinymussel
habitat have not been quantified;
however, mussels appear to be among
the most intolerant organisms to heavy
metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p. 545),
and several heavy metals are lethal,
even at relatively low levels (Havlik and
Marking 1987, p. 3). Most metals are
persistent in the environment,
remaining available for uptake,
transportation, and transformation by
organisms until they are removed from
the river (Hoover 1978, pp. 28–38;
Lasier 2004, p. 140) through processes
such as washing out to sea, leaching
through the soil, or being taken up by
an organism that is then removed from
the river.
In areas of heavy agricultural use in
the Southeast, surface runoff can move
pesticides, including malathion and
other insecticides, into surface water
(McPherson et al. 2003, pp. 1–2). Stream
ecosystems are negatively impacted
when nutrients are added at
concentrations that cannot be
assimilated (TNC 2004, p. 7). The effects
of pesticides on mussels may be
particularly profound, potentially
altering metabolic activities or resulting
in delayed mortality (Fuller 1974, pp.
252–253; Havlik and Marking 1987, pp.
9–11; Moulton et al. 1996, pp. 132–136);
commonly used pesticides have been
directly implicated in a North Carolina
mussel die-off (Fleming et al. 1995, pp.
877–879). The Oconee, Ocmulgee, and
Ohoopee River systems contain
significant acreage in cotton and onion
farming. Malathion, one of the most
important pesticides used in cotton
farming, inhibits physiological activities
of mussels (Kabeer et al. 1979, pp. 71–
72) and may decrease the ability of
mussels to respire and obtain food.
Malathion toxicity (24 h LC50) has been
reported as low as 8 mg/L for glochidia
of Lampsilis siliquoidea and other
unionid species (Keller and Ruessler
1997, p. 1).
The operations of Plant Hatch, located
on the Altamaha River in Appling
County, may pose a threat to the
Altamaha spinymussel. On September
14, 2001, the Service received Joint
Public Notice 940003873 from the
Corps, Savannah District, describing a
project to expand and maintain Plant
Hatch’s intake basin within the
Altamaha River. Implementation of this
permit authorized annual dredging of
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the plant intake basin and authorized
removing 33,965 cubic meters (44,424
cubic yards) of material biannually from
the intake basin. While the amount of
material removed annually is generally
far less than the amount permitted
(Dodd 2008, pers. comm.), annual
dredging could negatively impact the
Altamaha spinymussel by decreasing
channel stability (creating a potential
head cut), altering sediment transport
dynamics, increasing sedimentation and
turbidity downstream during dredging
operations, and decreasing habitat
quality for host fishes. It is unknown
how far downstream these impacts
extend.
Impacts to aquatic fauna through
entrainment of potential host fishes and
thermal discharges may also occur.
Plant Hatch takes in water to create
steam, and then uses the steam to
generate electricity. Following a cooling
process, the water is returned to the
river, and although it has been cooled,
the water temperature is warmer than
the ambient temperature of the river.
Plant Hatch has made substantial efforts
to reduce thermal discharges through
the construction of cooling towers that
have significantly reduced the thermal
plume. However, thermal discharges
could still negatively impact the
Altamaha spinymussel from heat stress;
higher water temperatures can increase
the sensitivity of mussels to certain
pollutants (Augspurger et al. 2003, p.
2574). Pandolfo et al. (2010, pp. 693–
698) also reported that high water
temperatures can increase the
sensitivity of early life stages of mussels
to copper). These effects would be
exacerbated during years of low rainfall,
when less water would be available to
dissipate the heat of the Plant Hatch
effluent. Plant Hatch also monitors fish
entrainment, so if the host fish of the
spinymussel was known, management
efforts could be made to reduce the
potential of this impact.
In summary, the loss and
modification of habitat is a significant
threat to the Altamaha spinymussel.
Degradation from sedimentation and
contaminants threatens the habitat and
water quality necessary to support the
Altamaha spinymussel. Sediment from
unpaved roads, kaolin mines, past and
current agriculture practices,
silviculture, and construction sites
within the Altamaha River Basin can
suffocate Altamaha spinymussels and
make stable sandbars required by
Altamaha spinymussels unstable or
change the texture of the substrate,
rendering them unsuitable for the
species. Contaminants associated with
industrial and municipal effluents (e.g.,
heavy metals, ammonia, chlorine,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
numerous organic compounds) may
cause decreased oxygen, increased
acidity, and other water chemistry
changes that are lethal to mussels,
particularly the highly sensitive early
life stages of mussels; exposure to
sublethal levels of toxic metals can alter
growth, filtration efficiency, enzyme
activity, and behavior. As a result we
have determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the Altamaha
spinymussel’s habitat or range is a
threat to the continued existence of the
Altamaha spinymussel throughout its
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The Altamaha spinymussel is not a
commercially valuable species, nor are
the streams that it inhabits subject to
commercial mussel harvesting activities.
However, this species has been actively
sought for scientific and private
collections (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.);
such activity may increase if the species
becomes rarer. Overcollection may have
been a localized factor in the decline of
this species, particularly in the Ohoopee
River where a 1986 collection consisted
of at least 30 live individuals (Keferl
2008, pers. comm.). Although the GDNR
can regulate the number of mussels
collected with a Scientific Collection
Permit, the localized distribution and
small size of known populations renders
them extremely vulnerable to
overzealous recreational or scientific
collecting. However, we have no
specific information indicating that
overcollection is currently a threat or
that overcollecting may occur in the
future.
Therefore, we find that overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes is not a threat
to the Altamaha spinymussel at this
time.
C. Disease or Predation
Diseases of freshwater mussels are
poorly known, and we have no specific
information indicating that disease
occurs within Altamaha spinymussel
populations or poses a threat. Juvenile
and adult mussels are preyed upon by
some invertebrate species (particularly
as newly metamorphosed juveniles),
parasites (for example, nematodes,
trematodes, and mites), a few vertebrate
species (for example, otter, raccoon, and
turtles) and some fish. However, we
have no evidence of any specific
declines in the Altamaha spinymussel
due to predation.
In summary, diseases and predation
of freshwater mussels remain largely
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62939
unstudied and are not considered a
threat to the Altamaha spinymussel.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Altamaha spinymussel is listed as
a high-priority species by the State of
Georgia (GDNR 2005, p. 135) and has
recently been listed as Endangered
under Georgia’s Endangered Wildlife
Act (EWA). Under the EWA, it is
unlawful to intentionally harm, disturb,
or sell a protected animal, unless
authorized, or to cause the destruction
of habitat of protected animals on Stateowned lands. The EWA specifically
states, however, that rules and
regulations promulgated under the EWA
shall not impede construction of any
nature. Thus, protection under the EWA
prevents unlawful capture or killing of
the listed species, but does not prevent
habitat changes that lead to population
loss.
Sources of nonpoint-source pollution
include timber operations (see Our
Response to Comments 18, 19, 20 and
21), clearing of riparian vegetation,
urbanization, road construction, and
other practices that allow sediment to
enter streams (TNC 2004, p. 13).
Although BMPs for sediment and
erosion control are often recommended
or required by local ordinances for
construction projects, compliance,
monitoring, and enforcement of these
recommendations are often poorly
implemented. Furthermore, Georgia’s
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
exempts commercial forestry activities
from the need to acquire permits and
meet the minimum requirements of the
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
(Georgia’s BMPs for Forestry 2009, p.
64). While compliance rates are high in
the state, compliance with BMPs is
voluntary and is dependent on
education on proper implementation of
BMPs to reduce sediment from reaching
the Altamaha River (EPD 2007a, p. 28).
Although historical row crop-based land
use contributes the majority of sediment
to the Altamaha River, other sources
continue to contribute to the total
sediment load (See discussion under
Factor A).
Point-source discharges within the
range of the Altamaha spinymussel have
been reduced since the inception of the
Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.), but this may not provide
adequate protection for filter-feeding
organisms that can be impacted by
extremely low levels of contaminants.
Municipal wastewater plants continue
to discharge large amounts of effluent
and, in some circumstances, in excess of
permitted levels (see discussion under
Factor A). There is no specific
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62940
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
information on the sensitivity of the
Altamaha spinymussel to common
industrial and municipal pollutants,
and very little information on other
freshwater mollusks. Current State and
Federal regulations regarding pollutants
are assumed to be protective of
freshwater mollusks; however, this
species may be more susceptible to
some pollutants than test organisms
commonly used in bioassays. For
example, several recent studies have
suggested that EPA’s criteria for
ammonia may not be protective of
freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al.
2003, p. 2571; Newton et al. 2003, pp.
2559–2560; Mummert et al. 2003, pp.
2548–2552). New ammonia criteria have
been proposed by EPA (2009) that
would be more protective of unionids.
Wang et al. (2007a, p. 2036, 2007b, p.
2048, 2010, p. 2053) have also reported
toxicity data for unionid early life stages
for chlorine, metals and ammonia. In a
review of the effects of eutrophication
on mussels, Patzner and Muller (2004,
p. 329) noted that stenoecious (narrowly
tolerant) species disappear as waters
become more eutrophic. They also refer
to studies that associate increased levels
of nitrate with the decline and absence
of juvenile mussels (Patzner and Muller
2004, pp. 330–333). Other studies have
also suggested that early life stages of
mussels are sensitive to inorganic
chemicals such as chlorine, metals, and
ammonia (Keller and Zam 1991, pp.
543–545; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 221;
Naimo 1995, pp. 354–355). Therefore, it
appears that a lack of adequate research
and data prevents existing regulations,
such as the Clean Water Act
(administered by EPA and the Corps),
from being fully utilized or effective.
In summary, some regulations exist
that protect the species and its habitat;
however, these regulations enforced by
the State provide little direct protection
of Altamaha spinymussel and only if
protection of the spinymussel will not
inhibit economic development.
Nonpoint-source pollution is not
regulated, and the Clean Water Act does
not adequately protect the habitat from
degradation caused by point-source
pollutants. As described under Factor A,
there have been a number of recent
illegal effluent discharges into the
Altamaha River Basin, in excess of
permit limits, that may have impacted
the Altamaha spinymussel, and other
investigations are pending (Altamaha
Riverkeeper v. Amercord, Inc., No. CV
300–042 (S.D. Ga) (Order on Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, Mar. 15,
2001); Altamaha Riverkeeper v. City of
Lumber City, CV–300–043 (S.D. Ga);
(Altamaha Riverkeepers v City of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Cochran, No. CV–447–2)). Thus,
existing regulations are not effective at
protecting the spinymussel and its
habitat from sedimentation and lethal
contaminants. Therefore, we find the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the Altamaha spinymussel
throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Withdrawal of surface water within
the Altamaha Basin for thermoelectric
power generation, public water
supplies, commercial industrial uses,
and agriculture has a dramatic effect on
flow rates (TNC 2004, p. 8). No major
dams are located on the Altamaha River
system within the known historical
range of the Altamaha spinymussel, and
the nearest reservoir is approximately
165 km (102.5 mi) from occupied
habitat. However, the dams that form
Sinclair Reservoir on the Oconee River
and Jackson and Tobesofkee Reservoirs
in the Ocmulgee River Basin can
influence downstream mussels and their
populations through changes in flows
that result from electrical power
generation and water storage (TNC 2004,
p. 6) (see Our Response to Comment 7).
Within the Altamaha River Basin, 1,149
MGD was withdrawn for thermoelectric
power generation in 1990 (Marella and
Fanning 1990, pp. 14–17); water
withdrawals of this magnitude can
cause drastic flow reductions and
alterations that may strand mussels on
sandbars, resulting in mortality of
individuals and harm to populations.
Laurens County, Georgia, which
includes the City of Dublin, withdrew
2.64 MGD for public water supplies,
12.79 MGD for commercial industrial
use, and 5.57 MGD for agricultural uses
in 1990 (Marella and Fanning 1990, p.
16). In 1990, the total amount of surface
water withdrawn from the Altamaha
River Basin was approximately 1,315
MGD (Marella and Fanning 1990, p. 61).
This information regarding water
withdrawals dates back to 1990, which
is the most recent comprehensive effort
to study water withdrawals from this
watershed. As development pressures
continue to grow, water withdrawals are
expected to increase.
Drought conditions were prevalent in
Georgia between 1998 and 2002, and
again in 2007 and 2008, which may
have negatively affected the Altamaha
spinymussel. Georgia averages 127 cm
(50 in) of precipitation annually (U.S.
Geological Survey 1986, p. 195; GDNR
2005, p. 41) but received less than 102
cm (40 in) of precipitation annually
during recent droughts in 2000, 2002,
and 2007 (Knaak and Joiner 2007, pp. 1–
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2). The Ohoopee River and many other
streams in the basin suffered reduced
flow rates, and the Ohoopee River was
reported to have low water levels with
an estimated average depth of 15 cm (6
in) in the main channel during summer
surveys (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001,
p. 3) when normal channel depth is
several feet or more. Normally, mussels
will bury themselves in the river bottom
as a mechanism to survive a drought,
but many mussels may have died from
desiccation during this prolonged
drought (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.).
Although the effects of the drought on
the Altamaha spinymussel have not
been quantified, mussel declines as a
direct result of drought have been
documented (Golladay et al. 2004, p.
494; Haag and Warren 2003, p. 1165).
Furthermore, there is a growing concern
that climate change may lead to
increased frequency of severe storms
and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p.
504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074;
Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015) (see Comment
14). Reduction in local water supplies
due to drought is also compounded by
increased human demand and
competition for surface and ground
water resources for power production,
irrigation, and consumption (Golladay
et al. 2004, p. 504).
In addition, low flow conditions
provide access to the river margins and
channels for all-terrain vehicles (ATV)
and four-wheel drive vehicles (TNC
2004, p. 12; Stringfellow and Gagnon
2001, p. 3). During a survey in 2001,
Stringfellow and Gagnon (2001, p. 3)
observed heavy ATV and four-wheel
drive vehicle traffic and high levels of
erosion near bridges and homes. They
encountered several groups of ATV
users, 2 to 12 persons per group, riding
in the river channel. Because water
levels were so low, ATV use of the
stream extended to all portions of the
channel, including pools, runs, and
dried sandbars. Observations on the
Ohoopee River during low flow in
October of 2006 revealed extensive ATV
traffic that destroyed mussel beds
(Rickard 2006, personal observation).
These vehicles may directly crush
mussels and may also destabilize stream
banks and increase sedimentation rates,
burying mussels or impairing feeding,
respiration, metabolism, and
reproductive success (Stringfellow and
Gagnon 2001, p. 3).
Nonindigenous species such as the
flathead catfish and the Asian clam have
been introduced to the Altamaha Basin
and may be adversely affecting the
Altamaha spinymussel. Flathead catfish
are fast-growing fish that are dominant
predators in river systems and are
usually exclusively piscivorous in their
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
adult stage (Bourret et al. 2008, p. 413;
Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867). Since its
introduction outside its native range,
the flathead catfish has altered the
composition of native fish populations
through predation (Bourett et al. 2008,
p. 413; Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867; Sea
Grant, 2006, p. 2; Pine et al. 2005, p.
902). Flatheads were introduced to the
Altamaha Basin in the 1970s (USGS
2009, unpaginated).
Although the host fish or fishes of the
Altamaha spinymussel have not been
identified, in other native freshwater
mussels, various centrarchids (sunfish),
ictalurids (catfish), and catostomids
(suckers) have been identified as hosts
of the larvae. Other species of mussels
in the genus Elliptio are known to
parasitize various species of Etheostoma
and Percina (darters), and other streamadapted fish species (Haag and Warren
2003, p. 80). Flatheads introduced in the
Altamaha River eliminated bullhead
catfish (Ameiurus sp.) and caused an 80
percent decline in redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus) (Sea Grant 2006, p. 2);
centrarchids and ictalurids were
dominant prey items (Sakaris 2006, p.
867). Other potential centrachid host
fish such as the largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill (L.
macrochirus) have all suffered
population declines (Harrison 2001,
pers. comm.), as well as the robust
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum),
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum), and shad (Alosa
sapidissima) (TNC 2004, p. 5). Some of
these declines may be attributable, at
least in part, to flathead catfish (TNC
2004, p.5). If one or more of these
species is the host fish for the Altamaha
spinymussel, the spinymussel’s
breeding success and recruitment could
be reduced by the presence of flathead
catfish (Keferl 2001, pers. comm).
Asian clams were observed in the
Altamaha River in 1971, and are
believed to have been introduced in the
Ocmulgee River in 1968 or 1969
(Gardner 1976, p. 117). Surveys have
found large numbers of Asian clams in
the Altamaha Basin for more than 25
years (Gardner et al. 1976, pp. 118–124;
Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 2;
O’Brien, pers. comm., 2001). The
invasion of Asian clams in the Altamaha
River has been accompanied by drastic
declines in populations of native
mussels, although it is unknown if the
clams competitively excluded the
mussels or simply colonized their
habitat when they declined due to other
factors (Gardner 1976, p. 124). Asian
clams may pose a direct threat to native
species through competition for
available resources (space, minerals, or
food), resulting in decline or local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
extirpation (Williams et al. 1993, p. 7;
Bogan 1993, p. 605).
The linear nature of the Altamaha
spinymussel’s habitat, reduced range,
and very small population size make
this species vulnerable to random
detrimental or catastrophic events.
Small, isolated populations may
experience decreased demographic
viability (population birth and death
rates, immigration and emigration rates,
and sex ratios), increased susceptibility
of extinction from stochastic
environmental factors (e.g., weather
events, disease), and an increased threat
of extinction from genetic isolation and
subsequent inbreeding depression and
genetic drift. Surviving populations of
spinymussels are small (see summary of
Basin-wide Population Estimates),
extremely localized, and vulnerable to
habitat modification, toxic spills,
progressive degradation from
contaminants (see discussions under
Factors A and D), and natural
catastrophic changes to their habitats
(for example, flood scour and drought).
Low numbers of individuals may also
increase inbreeding and reduce genetic
diversity (Lynch 1996, pp. 493–494) (see
Our Response to Comment 9).
In summary, a variety of natural and
manmade factors currently threatens the
Altamaha spinymussel. Withdrawal of
surface water within the Altamaha
Basin for thermoelectric power
generation, public water supplies,
commercial industrial uses, and
agriculture can cause drastic flow
reductions and alterations that may
strand mussels on sandbars, resulting in
mortality of individuals and harm to
populations. Recurring drought and
water withdrawal, combined with
impacts of off-road vehicles, has
reduced flows and destabilized stream
banks required to support this mussel.
Nonindigenous species, such as flathead
catfish and the Asian clam, have
potentially adversely impacted
populations of the spinymussel’s host
fish, thereby affecting recruitment, and
may directly impact the spinymussel
through competition for resources.
Lastly, because the Altamaha
spinymussel populations are so small
and isolated, any factor (i.e., habitat
change or natural and manmade factors)
that results in a decline in habitat or
individuals may be problematic for the
long-term recovery of this species.
Therefore, we have determined that
other natural and manmade factors are
threats to the continued existence of the
Altamaha spinymussel throughout its
range.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62941
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Altamaha
spinymussel. Section 3 of the Act
defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as
‘‘any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened
species’’ as ‘‘any species which is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ As
described in detail above, the species is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D), and other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence (Factor E). This
species’ extremely small and isolated
populations make it particularly
susceptible to extinction at any time due
to threats described under Factors A, D,
and E.
The Altamaha spinymussel has been
observed at only 22 sites since 2000,
despite extensive survey efforts made by
several different researchers. Most of
these sites are clustered geographically
within short reaches of the lower
Ocmulgee River and the Altamaha River
upstream of U.S. Route 301, and there
are long reaches with no or undetectable
numbers of Altamaha spinymussels
separating these groups of sites. Meador
(2009, p. 51) attempted to estimate
abundance of Altamaha spinymussel in
the mainstem Altamaha, but was unable
to capture, tag, and recapture sufficient
individuals for an assessment. Recent
surveys of the Ohoopee River and the
analysis presented by Wisniewski et al.
(2005) suggest that the species may still
be declining. Finally, the comparatively
low numbers of Altamaha spinymussels
collected during recent surveys of the
Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers further
suggests that this species has declined
substantially from historical levels. To
summarize, researchers were able to
find 60 Altamaha spinymussels at a
single site on the Altamaha River in
1967; in contrast, the largest number of
Altamaha spinymussels observed from a
single site on the Altamaha River during
the 1990s or 2000s was nine (Albanese
2005, pers. comm.).
The remaining small spinymussel
populations are threatened by a variety
of factors that are expected to persist
indefinitely and impact, or have the
potential to impact, remaining
spinymussel habitat. These factors
include siltation, industrial pollution,
municipal effluents, modification of
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62942
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
stream channels, pesticides, heavy
metals, invasive species, loss of host
fish, water withdrawal, recurring
drought, and loss of genetic viability. In
addition, as described under Factor D,
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the Altamaha spinymussel
and its habitat. We believe the
remaining small, isolated populations of
spinymussels are not large enough to be
resilient against any of the above factors
acting on the species itself or its habitat.
Furthermore, we believe these threats,
particularly the threats to populations
resulting from habitat degradation,
small population size, and drought, are
current and are projected to continue
into the future. If the present trends that
negatively affect the species and its
limited and restricted habitat continue,
the Altamaha spinymussel is in
immediate danger of extinction
throughout all of its range; therefore,
proposing threatened status is not
appropriate.
We find that the Altamaha
spinymussel is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range,
based on the immediacy and magnitude
of the threats described above. Based on
our analysis, we have no reason to
believe that the negative population
trends for the Altamaha spinymussel
will improve, nor will the effects of
current threats acting on the species be
ameliorated in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we are listing the Altamaha
spinymussel as an endangered species
throughout all of its range.
Furthermore, because we find that the
Altamaha spinymussel is endangered
throughout all of its range, there is no
reason to consider its status in a
significant portion of its range.
Consequently, we are listing the
Altamaha spinymussel as an
endangered species under the Act.
Critical Habitat
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(i) 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
(I) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(II) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(ii) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
essential for the conservation of the
species.
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
under 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
prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires
consultation on Federal actions that
may affect 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 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 seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an
action that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act would apply, but even in the event
of a destruction or adverse modification
finding, the Federal action agency’s and
the applicant’s obligation is not to
restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat
designation, the habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed must
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, and be included only if
those features may require special
management considerations or
protection. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, habitat areas that provide
essential life-cycle needs of the species
(areas on which are found the physical
or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species). Under the
Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
we can designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
only when we determine that those
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species and that designation
limited to those areas occupied at the
time of listing would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial 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
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
we should designate as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species
may move from one area to another over
time. In particular, we recognize that
climate change may cause changes in
the arrangement of occupied habitat
river reaches. Climate change may lead
to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et
al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002,
p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
Drought conditions in 2000–2001 and
2007–2008 greatly reduced the habitat
of the spinymussel in the Ohoopee
River and rendered the populations
vulnerable to anthropogenic
disturbances, such as water extraction
and vehicles within the riverbed (Keferl
2008, pers. comm.; Stringfellow and
Gagnon 2001, p. 3).
The information currently available
on the effects of global climate change
and increasing temperatures does not
make sufficiently precise estimates of
the location and magnitude of the
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
effects. Nor are we currently aware of
any climate change information specific
to the habitat of the Altamaha
spinymussel that would indicate what
areas may become important to the
species in the future. Therefore, we
were unable to determine what
additional areas, if any, may be
appropriate to include in the critical
habitat for this species. Furthermore, we
recognize that designation of critical
habitat may not include all of the
habitat areas we may eventually
determine, based on scientific data not
now available to the Service, that 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 required for
recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, but are
outside the critical habitat designation,
will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we implement
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. These
areas are also subject to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined
on the basis of the best available
scientific information at the time of the
agency action. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. 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 to these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining occupied areas
that contain the features that are
essential to the conservation of the
Altamaha spinymussel, and unoccupied
areas that are essential for the
conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel.
We have reviewed the available
information pertaining to historical and
current distribution, life history, and
habitat requirements of this species. Our
sources included: Peer-reviewed
scientific publications; unpublished
survey reports; unpublished field
observations by the Service, State, and
other experienced biologists; and notes
and communications from qualified
biologists or experts.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species which may require special
management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
and rearing of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distribution of a species.
We consider the physical or biological
features to be the primary constituent
elements (PCEs) laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential for the
conservation of the species. We derive
the PCEs from the biological needs of
the species as described in the
Background section of this proposal.
Unfortunately, little is known of the
specific habitat requirements for the
Altamaha spinymussel other than that
they require flowing water, stable river
channels, and adequate water quality.
Altamaha spinymussel mussel larvae
also require a currently unknown fish
host for development to juvenile
mussels. To identify the physical or
biological needs of the species, we have
relied on current conditions at locations
where the species survives, the limited
information available on this species
and its close relatives, and factors
associated with the decline and
extirpation of these and other aquatic
mollusks from extensive portions of the
Altamaha River Basin.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Altamaha spinymussel is
historically associated with the main
stem of the Altamaha River and its
larger tributaries (greater than 500 cubic
feet per second (cfs) Mean Monthly
Discharge (MMD)), and does not occur
in smaller tributaries. Spinymussels are
generally associated with stable, coarseto-fine sandy sediments of sandbars,
sloughs, and mid-channel islands, and
they appear to be restricted to swiftly
flowing water (Sickel 1980, p. 12).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62943
Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel
islands provide space for the
spinymussel and also provide cover,
shelter, and sites for breeding,
reproduction, and growth of offspring.
Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel
islands are dynamic habitats formed and
maintained by water quantity, channel
slope, and sediment input to the system
through periodic flooding, which
maintains connectivity and interaction
with the flood plain. Changes in one or
more of these parameters can result in
channel degradation or channel
aggradation, with serious effects to
mollusks. Therefore, we believe that
stream channel stability and floodplain
connectivity are essential to the
conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Water
The Altamaha spinymussel is a
riverine-adapted species that depends
upon adequate water flow and is not
found in ponds or lakes. Continuously
flowing water is a habitat feature
associated with all surviving
populations of this species. Flowing
water maintains the river bottom,
sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel
islands habitat where this species is
found, transports food items to the
sedentary juvenile and adult life stages
of the Altamaha spinymussel, removes
wastes, and provides oxygen for
respiration for this species.
The ranges of standard physical and
chemical water quality parameters (such
as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and conductivity) that define suitable
habitat conditions for the Altamaha
spinymussel have not been investigated.
However, as relatively sedentary
animals, mussels must tolerate the full
range of such parameters that occur
naturally within the streams where they
persist. Both the amount (flow) and the
physical and chemical conditions (water
quality) where this species currently
exists vary widely according to season,
precipitation events, and seasonal
human activities within the watershed.
Conditions across their historical ranges
vary even more due to geology,
geography, and differences in human
population densities and land uses. In
general, the species survives in areas
where the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of water flow
is adequate to maintain stable sandbar,
slough, and mid-channel-island habitats
(for example, sufficient flow to remove
fine particles and sediments without
causing degradation), and where water
quality is adequate for year-round
survival (for example, moderate to high
levels of dissolved oxygen, low to
moderate input of nutrients, and
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62944
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
relatively unpolluted water and
sediments). Therefore, adequate water
flow and water quality (as defined
below) are essential to the conservation
of the Altamaha spinymussel.
It is apparent that heat stress from
increased water temperature makes
mussels more sensitive to contaminants.
A growing body of literature is
addressing the acute thermal tolerance
of mussels, (Pandolfo et al 2009, p. 347;
2010a, p. 959; 2010b, p. 691). Pandolfo
et al. (2010a, p. 959) reported upper
lethal temperatures for early life stages
of 8 species of unionid mussels and the
average median lethal temperature
(LT50) was 31.6 °C. Pandolfo et al.
(2009, p. 347) reported a measurable
physiological indicator of stress (i.e.,
increased heart rate) in juvenile mussels
exposed to temperatures as little as 3 °C
above ambient (i.e. 30 °C). Pandolfo et
al. (2010b, p. 691) clearly demonstrated
an interaction between temperature and
sensitivity to copper in juveniles of
three mussel species: fatmucket
(Lampsilis siliquoidia), pink heelsplitter
(Potamilus alatus), and black sandshell
(Ligumia recta). In short, mussels
exposed to copper were less able to
withstand thermal stress. Clearly
stressors do not occur in isolation and
more multiple-stressor research is
desperately needed. Because thermal
tolerance data do not exist for
spinymussel or other Altamaha mussel
species, we are left to use the best
available data to approximate
spinymussel thermal tolerance, and we
believe this to be the most valid
approach for establishing a thermal PCE
for spinymussel. Pandolfo et al. (2010a,
p. 959) indicates that the lowest 48-hr
LT50 (median lethal temperature) was
33.8 °C.
In addition to physiological stress due
to temperature itself, temperature
greatly influences the form (and thereby
the toxicity) of other compounds, most
notably ammonia. Higher temperatures
result in a shift from the nontoxic
ammonium ion (NH4∂) to the highly
toxic ammonia ion (NH3). Ammonia
may be one of the primary limiting
factors in reaches of river downstream
from point and nonpoint sources of
nitrogen such as municipal wastewater
treatment facilities and agricultural
fields, among others (Bringolf 2011,
pers. comm.).
These rivers (in the Altamaha Basin),
like most Atlantic Slope drainages in
Georgia receive a majority of their water
through overland flow and runoff
whereas streams in the southwestern
part of Georgia receive a large
proportion of their water though
groundwater discharges, which have
greater influences on stream flows and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
temperatures. Additionally, streams in
the southwestern part of Georgia are
greatly affected by agricultural
withdrawals, which can reduce or
eliminate the volume of groundwater
being discharged into waters in this part
of the state and thus affect water
temperatures in these creeks and rivers
more than waters in other basins. The
Altamaha River in the historical and
current range of the Altamaha
spinymussel is largely forested and rural
and exhibits those conditions most
similar to the Savannah River gauge
near Port Wentworth (02198840). Unlike
the Savannah River near the gauge in
Augusta (02197000), the Altamaha River
Basin in the area that is designated as
critical habitat is more than 165 km (103
miles) from the nearest reservoir and
thus the effects of hypolimnetic
discharges are not considered a threat to
the Altamaha spinymussel. (Layzer and
Madison 1995, pp. 340–344; Watters
2000, p. 265; Wisniewski 2011, pers.
comm.).
The water quality metrics PCE was
derived using data collected from the
Altamaha River and its tributaries
within the historical range of the
Altamaha spinymussel. Temperature
measurements collected throughout the
Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Oconee rivers
in this area ranged from 8.6 °C to 32.6
°C (47.5 to 90.7 °F). Observations of
historical United States Geological
Survey (USGS) gauge data at several
sites on the Altamaha River near Jesup
indicated that the maximum water
temperature observed between 1974 and
1984 was 32 °C (89.7 °F) (Dyar and
Alhadef 1997, p. 26). Since none of the
USGS gauge stations on the Altamaha
River or its major tributaries include
recent temperature data, we
downloaded daily stream temperature
data from the USGS gauge stations
found on the nearby Savannah River,
which is similar to the Altamaha River
in size and its location within the
Coastal Plain physiographic province of
Georgia. Three gauge stations on the
Savannah River collect temperature
data: Savannah River at Augusta
(02197000), Savannah River near Port
Wentworth, upstream of Interstate 95
(02198840), and Savannah River at Port
Wentworth (02198920). At the gauge
station in Augusta, the maximum water
temperature recorded in the 323 days
within the day period of record (4/21/
2010–3/9/2011) was 24.8 °C (76.6 °F)
and the maximum daily water
temperature fluctuation was 5.7 °C (42.3
°F). The maximum water temperature
recorded in the 3,835 days within the
period of record (10/13/1999–3/9/2011)
for the Savannah River near Port
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Wentworth was 31.7 °C (89.1 °F) with a
maximum daily water temperature
fluctuation of 2.1 °C (35.8 °F). The
maximum water temperature recorded
in the 3,883 days within the period of
record (11/5/1999–3/9/2011) for the
Savannah River at GA highway 25 in
Port Wentworth was 32.4 °C (90.3 °F)
with a maximum daily water
temperature fluctuation of 3.7 °C (38.7
°F).
Although the maximum daily water
fluctuations of the Savannah River at
Augusta (02197000) and the Savannah
River at Port Wentworth (02198920) are
greater than the daily temperature
fluctuation recommended in the PCEs of
the Altamaha spinymussel listing
proposal, it is important to note that
these sites are located in or immediately
downstream of major industrial/urban
areas or dams which likely contribute to
the greater daily fluctuations in water
temperatures. Furthermore,
temperatures on the Savannah River in
Augusta are influenced by hypolimnetic
discharges from Clarks Hill Reservoir
and New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam,
which are located immediately
upstream of the USGS gauge station.
Therefore, water temperatures at the
Savannah River gauge (02198840)
upstream of Port Wentworth, which is
located in a densely forested and rural
area and well downstream of any
potential hypolimnetic discharges are
likely more similar to those
temperatures and fluctuations observed
in the Altamaha River (Wisniewski
2011, pers. comm.).
A natural flow regime that includes
periodic flooding and maintains
connectivity and interaction with the
flood plain is critical for the exchange
of nutrients, spawning activities for
potential host fish, and sand bar
maintenance. In 2007, persistent severe
drought conditions throughout the
southeastern United States created
record low discharges (streamflow) in
the Altamaha River at the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gauge station
in Doctortown, Georgia. During the
driest portions of the 2006–2009
drought period, the lowest discharges
observed were 25 percent of the MMD
for the 77-year period of record for the
Doctortown gauge. Despite record low
flows, native unionids (mussels)
appeared to persist throughout most of
the Lower Altamaha River Basin.
The numeric standards for pollutants
and water quality parameters (for
example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy
metals) have been adopted by the State
of Georgia under the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Water quality
standards set by the State of Georgia are
based on water quality criteria
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
established by EPA for protection of
aquatic life. That said, mussels are not
currently represented in datasets used
by EPA for derivation of water quality
criteria. Some of these standards
(particularly organic and heavy metal
contaminants) may not adequately
protect Altamaha spinymussels, or are
not being appropriately measured,
monitored, or achieved in some reaches
(see discussions under Factors A and D).
While Georgia’s pH criterion is a range
of 6.0 to 8.5 under the adopted State
standards, data compiled by the GDNR
indicate that pH at 159 sites in the
Altamaha River Basin averaged 6.9 and
ranged from 4.9 to 9.1, which means
many sites are outside of the range
adopted by the State. Potential
contaminants such as ammonia may be
more lethal at pH levels at the edges of
the observed range. Therefore, we
removed outliers from this data set by
generating the 10th and 90th percentiles
for pH, which were 6.1 to 7.7 standard
units. These levels are likely more
representative of natural pH levels
associated with the Altamaha River
Basin and would likely reduce lethal
contaminant associations between other
chemicals in the watershed.
Current Georgia TMDLs for waters
supporting warm-water fishes require a
daily average dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a
minimum of 4.0 mg/l. The mean DO
concentration of 217 measurements
made in known spinymussel sites
throughout the Altamaha River Basin
was 8.7 mg/l and ranged from
0.42 mg/l to 20.3 mg/l. The 10th and
90th percentiles for DO were 4.3 and 9.7
mg/l, which are similar to the
observations of Golladay et al. (2004,
pp. 501–503). A daily average DO
concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a
minimum DO concentration of 4.0 mg/
l should provide adequate protection for
the Altamaha spinymussel.
Other factors that can potentially alter
water quality are droughts and periods
of low-flow, nonpoint-source runoff
from adjacent land surfaces (for
example, excessive amounts of
nutrients, pesticides, and sediment),
and random spills or unregulated
discharge events. This could be
particularly harmful during drought
conditions when flows are depressed
and pollutants are more concentrated.
Adequate water quality is essential for
normal behavior, growth, and viability
during all life stages of the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Food
Unionid mussels, such as the
Altamaha spinymussel, filter algae,
detritus, and bacteria from the water
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
column (Williams et al. 2008, p. 67).
Although the life history of the
Altamaha spinymussel has not been
studied, the life histories of other
mussels in the Elliptio genus indicate
that adult freshwater mussels are filterfeeders, siphoning phytoplankton,
diatoms, and other microorganisms from
the water column. For the first several
months, juvenile mussels employ pedal
(foot) feeding, extracting bacteria, algae,
and detritus from the sediment (Yeager
et al. 1994, pp. 217–221; Cope et al.
2008, p. 457). Food availability and
quality for the Altamaha spinymussel in
sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channelisland habitats are affected by habitat
stability, floodplain connectivity, flow,
and water quality.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing
Freshwater mussels require a host fish
for transformation of larval mussels
(glochidia) to juvenile mussels
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 68); therefore,
the presence of the appropriate host fish
is essential to the conservation of the
Altamaha spinymussel. The specific fish
host(s) for the Altamaha spinymussel is
unknown; however, other species of
mussels in the genus Elliptio are known
to parasitize various species of
Etheostoma, Percina, and other streamadapted fish species (Haag and Warren
2003, p. 80). Eighty-five fish species
representing 22 families are native to
the Altamaha River Basin. Five families
account for 65 percent of the native fish
species in the Altamaha River Basin.
The family Cyprinidae comprises 20
percent of the fish species, while
Centrarchidae, Catostomidae,
Ictaluridae, and Percidae comprise 15
percent, 12 percent, 11 percent, and 8
percent of the species, respectively.
These families are known to be suitable
hosts for most unionids in North
America. All 85 species native to the
Altamaha River Basin are still present
within the basin; however, populations
of several fish species, particularly
anadromous fishes (e.g., striped bass,
Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon,
American shad and other herrings),
have declined substantially in recent
decades and, if used as hosts, may be
related to declines in Altamaha
spinymussel abundance. Host trials
with 10 species of fish from six families
(Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae, Ictaluridae,
Moronidae, Acipenseridae,
Catostomidae) did not produce any
juvenile Altamaha spinymussels
(R. Bringolf 2010, pers. comm.).
Juvenile Altamaha spinymussels
require stable sandbar, slough, and midchannel-island habitats for growth and
survival. Excessive sediments or dense
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62945
growth of filamentous algae can expose
juvenile mussels to entrainment or
predation and be detrimental to the
survival of juvenile mussels (Hartfield
and Hartfield 1996, pp. 372–374).
Geomorphic instability can result in the
loss of interstitial habitats and juvenile
mussels due to scouring or deposition
(Hartfield 1993, pp. 372–373).
Therefore, stable sandbar, slough, and
mid-channel-island habitats with low to
moderate amounts of filamentous algae
growth are essential to the conservation
of the Altamaha spinymussel.
Periodic floodplain connectivity that
occurs during wet years provides
habitats for spawning and foraging
activities to fishes requiring floodplain
habitats for successful reproduction and
recruitment to adulthood. Barko et al.
(2006, pp. 252–256) found several fish
species benefited from the resource
exploitation of floodplain habitats that
were not typically available for use
during hydrologically normal years.
Furthermore, Kwak (1988, pp. 243–247)
and Slipke et al. (2005, p. 289) indicated
that periodic inundation of floodplain
habitats increased successful fish
reproduction, which leads to increased
availability of native host fishes for
unionid reproduction. However, Rypel
et al. (2009, p. 502) indicated that
unionids tended to exhibit minimal
growth during high flow years.
Therefore, optimal flooding of these
habitats would not be too frequent and
should occur at similar frequencies to
that of the natural hydrologic regime of
the Altamaha River.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
for the Altamaha Spinymussel
Based on the above needs and our
current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species, we
have determined that the Altamaha
spinymussel’s PCEs are:
(1) Geomorphically stable river
channels and banks (channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation) with stable
sandbar, slough, and mid-channelisland habitats of coarse-to-fine sand
substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(2) A hydrologic flow regime (the
magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time)
necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species are found and to
maintain connectivity of rivers with the
floodplain, allowing the exchange of
nutrients and sediment for sand bar
maintenance, food availability, and
spawning habitat for native fishes.
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62946
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(3) Water quality necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages, including specifically
temperature (less than 32.6 °C (90.68 °F)
with less than 2 °C (3.6 °F) daily
fluctuation)), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen
content (daily average DO concentration
of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0 mg/
l), an ammonia level not exceeding
1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L (normalized to
pH 8 and 25 °C (77 °F)), and other
chemical characteristics.
(4) The presence of fish hosts
(currently unknown) necessary for
recruitment of the Altamaha
spinymussel. The continued occurrence
of diverse native fish assemblages
currently occurring in the basin will
serve as an indication of host fish
presence until appropriate host fishes
can be identified for the Altamaha
spinymussel.
This final designation is designed to
conserve those areas containing the
PCEs in the appropriate spatial
arrangement and quantity essential to
the conservation of the species.
Units are designated based on
sufficient PCEs present to support at
least one of the species’ life history
functions. In this final designation, all
occupied areas (Units 1, 2, and 3)
contain all PCEs and support multiple
life processes. The unoccupied area
(Unit 4) contains PCEs 1, 2 and 4, but
does not currently meet the water
quality standard (see Unit 4 below).
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and whether
those features may require special
management considerations or
protection. None of the critical habitat
units being designated for this species
have been designated as critical habitat
for other species under the Act. Large
areas of upland habitat adjacent to the
designated critical habitat are currently
protected or receive special
management; 13.4 km (8.4 mi.) on both
sides of the river and 75.9 km (47.0 mi)
on one side of the river only are
managed as conservation properties
through easements with 300’ buffers on
many timber lands and active
management on lands owned by the
State and The Nature Conservancy (see
Table 2). However, approximately 148
km (92 mi) have no protection. Various
activities in or adjacent to each of the
critical habitat units described in this
final rule may affect one or more of the
PCEs and may require special
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
management considerations or
protection. Some of these activities
include, but are not limited to, those
discussed in the ‘‘Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species,’’ above. Features
in all the final critical habitat units may
require special management due to
threats posed by land-use runoff and
point- and nonpoint-source water
pollution (see discussion under Factor
A and Factor D). Other activities that
may affect PCEs in the final critical
habitat units include those listed in the
‘‘Effects of Critical Habitat’’ section
below.
In summary, we find that the areas we
are designating as critical habitat that
were occupied at the time of listing
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Altamaha spinymussel, which may
require special management
considerations or protection. Special
management consideration or protection
may be required to eliminate, or to
reduce to negligible levels, the threats
affecting each unit and to preserve and
maintain the essential features that the
final critical habitat units provide to the
Altamaha spinymussel. We are also
designating areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that have
been determined to be essential for the
conservation of the species. Additional
discussions of threats facing individual
sites are provided in the individual unit
descriptions.
Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel (see above), and areas
outside of the geographical area
occupied by the species that are
essential for the conservation of the
species. We are designating as critical
habitat all river channels that are
currently occupied by the species. We
are also designating a specific area not
currently occupied but that was
historically occupied, because we have
determined (1) That the area is essential
for the conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel, and (2) that designating
only occupied habitat is not sufficient to
conserve this species.
When determining final critical
habitat boundaries, we make every effort
to avoid including developed areas such
as lands covered by buildings,
pavement, and other structures because
such lands usually lack PCEs for
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
endangered or threatened species. Areas
designated as critical habitat for the
Altamaha spinymussel include only
stream channels within the ordinary
high-water line, and do not contain any
developed areas or structures. The
ordinary high-water line defines the
stream channel and is the point on the
stream bank where water is continuous
and leaves some evidence such as
erosion or aquatic vegetation.
Occupied Stream Reaches Designated as
Critical Habitat
We have defined occupied habitat as
those stream reaches known to be
currently occupied by the Altamaha
spinymussel. We used information from
surveys and reports prepared by the
GDNR, private contractors, and Service
field records to identify the specific
locations occupied by the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Currently, the limited occupied
habitat for this species is extremely
scattered and isolated. The Altamaha
spinymussel persists in scattered
portions of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee
Rivers (see Population Estimates and
Status above). We have determined that
all occupied areas contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species.
River habitats are highly dependent
upon upstream and downstream
channel habitat conditions for their
maintenance. Therefore, where one
occurrence record was known from a
river reach, we considered the entire
reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied
habitat, as discussed below.
The Altamaha spinymussel is
currently known to survive in scattered
populations along 223 km (138 mi) of
the Ocmulgee and upper Altamaha
Rivers extending from Telfair and Ben
Hill Counties to Long and Wayne
Counties, Georgia, except for a 2.7-km
(1.7-mi) reach of river in the vicinity of
the Plant Hatch facility. From 1997
through 2009, researchers searched 336
sites throughout the basin and
documented 57 Altamaha spinymussels,
with all occurrences widely scattered
throughout its current range. There are
no known barriers to movement in this
range; therefore, we consider the entire
223-km (138-mi) reach between the
uppermost and lowermost collection
sites for the Altamaha spinymussel as
occupied habitat. In the area designated
as critical habitat, boundaries extend
from the nearest downstream landmark
at both ends of the reach.
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Unoccupied Stream Reaches Designated
as Critical Habitat
In identifying unoccupied river
reaches that could be essential for the
conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel, we first considered the
availability of potential habitat
throughout the historical range that may
be suitable for the survival and
persistence of the species. We also
eliminated from consideration freeflowing rivers or river segments without
any historical records of occurrence
(that is the Little Ocmulgee River and
the upper portions of the Oconee and
Ocmulgee Rivers). We eliminated the
lower portion of the Altamaha River
from consideration because of poor
water quality and limited habitat
availability. The lower Oconee River
was initially eliminated due to poor
water quality and limited habitat
availability, however, recent mussel
surveys have demonstrated that water
quality is likely adequate for the
spinymussel and suitable habitat is
available. However, only one tributary is
needed as critical habitat, and the lower
Oconee only has one known observation
of spinymussels from 1968, conversely
the Ohoopee has multiple reports of
spinymussel with the most recent in
1997. See our response to Comment 8.
We have identified 14.4 km (9 mi) of
habitat in the Ohoopee River that is
currently unoccupied by the Altamaha
spinymussel and that meets the criteria
for designation as critical habitat.
Historical records of Altamaha
spinymussel occurred in the lower
portions of the Ohoopee River. Keferl
(1981, p. 15) referred to the Ohoopee as
a possible refuge for the Altamaha
spinymussel. However, extreme drought
and all-terrain vehicle disturbance
appear to have extirpated the species
from otherwise suitable habitat.
The unoccupied stream reach we are
designating as critical habitat was
historically occupied (i.e., prior to 1997;
see Table 1). We believe that this reach
is essential for Altamaha spinymussel
conservation because the range of the
Altamaha spinymussel has been
severely curtailed, occupied habitats are
limited and isolated, and population
sizes are extremely small, and the area
meets the selection criteria identified
below. Furthermore, the occupied
habitats are contiguous, placing them at
high risk of extirpation and extinction
from stochastic events. The inclusion of
essential unoccupied areas, in a separate
tributary, will provide habitat for
population reintroduction, reduce the
level of stochastic threats to the species’
survival, and decrease the risk of
extinction for this species.
The area designated as critical habitat
that is not known to be currently
occupied meets all of the following
criteria:
(1) It contains sufficient PCEs (for
example, such characteristics as
geomorphically stable channels,
62947
perennial water flows, and appropriate
benthic substrates) to support life
history functions of the Altamaha
spinymussel;
(2) It supports diverse aquatic mollusk
communities, including the presence of
closely related species requiring PCEs
similar to the Altamaha spinymussel;
and
(3) It is adjacent to currently occupied
areas where there is potential for natural
dispersal and reoccupation by the
Altamaha spinymussel.
(4) It is essential to the conservation
of the species.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating four units, totaling
approximately 237.4 km (147.5 mi), as
critical habitat for the Altamaha
spinymussel. Georgia owns navigable
stream bottoms within the ordinary
high-water line. All units are considered
navigable and, as stated below, critical
habitat is designated for the stream
channel within the ordinary high-water
line only. Accordingly, the State of
Georgia owns the stream bottoms within
all of the areas designated as critical
habitat. Lands adjacent to critical
habitat units are either in private
ownership or conservation status. Table
2 identifies the critical habitat units,
occupancy of the units, the approximate
extent designated as critical habitat, and
provides information on adjacent land
ownership and conservation status.
TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY AND OWNERSHIP OF LANDS ADJACENT TO CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR ALTAMAHA SPINYMUSSEL
Total length
km (mi)
Private
km (mi)
Conservation/
private
km (mi)
Conservation
km (mi)
Unit
Location
Occupancy
1 ....................
2A ..................
2B ..................
3 ....................
4 ....................
Ocmulgee River ..................
Upper Altamaha River A .....
Upper Altamaha River B .....
Middle Altamaha River .......
Lower Ohoopee River .........
Occupied .............................
Occupied .............................
Occupied .............................
Occupied .............................
Unoccupied .........................
110 (68.3)
31.4 (19.5)
30.7 (19.1)
50.9 (31.6)
14.4 (9.0)
89.2 (55.4)
2.7 (1.7)
22.9 (14.2)
18.8 (11.7)
14.4 (9.0)
14.3 (8.8)
21.6 (13.4)
7.8 (4.9)
32.1 (19.9)
0 (0)
6.4 (4.0)
7.1 (4.4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Total .......
.............................................
.............................................
237.4 (147.5)
148 (92)
75.9 (47)
13.4 (8.4)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
* Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private), conservation area on one bank and private on the other
(Conservation/Private), and conservation area on both banks (Conservation).
The critical habitat units include the
river channels below the ordinary high
water mark. As defined in 33 CFR
329.11, the ordinary high water mark on
nontidal rivers is the line on the shore
established by the fluctuations of water
and indicated by physical
characteristics, such as a clear, natural
line impressed on the bank; shelving;
changes in the character of soil;
destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the
presence of litter and debris; or other
appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
For each stream reach designated as a
critical habitat unit, the upstream and
downstream boundaries are described
generally below. More precise
definitions are provided in the
Regulation Promulgation section at the
end of this rule.
We present brief descriptions of all
units and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
Altamaha spinymussel:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill,
Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff Davis Counties
Unit 1 includes 110 km (68.3 mi) of
the lower Ocmulgee River from the
confluence of House Creek with the
Ocmulgee River at Red Bluff Landing in
Ben Hill and Telfair Counties,
downstream to the Altamaha River (at
the confluence of the Oconee and
Ocmulgee Rivers, Jeff Davis and Telfair
Counties). Live Altamaha spinymussels
have been collected from 11 sites within
Unit 1, the uppermost near Red Bluff
(Thomas and Scott 1965, p. 67). Surveys
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62948
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
conducted since 1997 on the Ocmulgee
River have yielded 19 Altamaha
spinymussels from 7 sites (Cammack et
al. 2001, p. 11; O’Brien 2002, p. 2;
Dinkins 2004, pp. 1–1, 2–1). The entire
reach of the Ocmulgee River that
composes Unit 1 is occupied. This unit
contains all of the PCEs.
The Altamaha spinymussel and its
habitat may require special management
considerations or protection to address
changes in the existing flow regime due
to activities such as impoundment,
water diversion, or water withdrawal;
alteration of water chemistry or water
quality; and changes in streambed
material composition and quality from
activities that would release sediments
or nutrients into the water, such as
deadhead logging (instream log salvage),
construction projects, livestock grazing,
timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle
use.
Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River, Wheeler,
Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff Davis,
Appling, and Tatnall Counties
Unit 2 includes a total of 62.1 km
(38.6 mi) of the Altamaha River from the
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee
Rivers (Wheeler and Jeff Davis Counties)
downstream to the confluence of the
Altamaha and Ohoopee Rivers (Appling
and Tattnall Counties).
Unit 2A includes 31.4 km (19.5 mi) of
the Altamaha River from the confluence
of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers to
Route 1.
Unit 2B includes 30.7 km (19.1 mi) of
the Altamaha River from the upstream
boundary of Moody Forest to the
confluence of the Altamaha and
Ohoopee Rivers.
However, we are not including in this
critical habitat designation a stretch of
the Altamaha River from U.S. Route 1
downstream to the State-owned
property of Moody Forest (2.7 km (1.7
mi)), which includes Plant Hatch. This
area does not contain the PCEs
necessary for the Altamaha spinymussel
due to:
(1) Dredging for intake pipes at Plant
Hatch, which destabilizes the river
channel and banks, sandbar, slough, and
mid-channel-island habitats and
disrupts the movement of coarse-to-fine
sand substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment; and
(2) Thermal discharges from Plant
Hatch that reduce water quality.
In the upper Altamaha River, historic
surveys collected Altamaha
spinymussels from 15 sites, while recent
surveys have collected live Altamaha
spinymussels from only 2 sites; dead
shells have been collected from an
additional 14 sites (Sickel 1980; Keferl
1995, p. 3; Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
O’Brien 2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009,
pers. comm.). The entire reach of the
Altamaha River that composes Unit 2 is
occupied. This unit contains all of the
PCEs.
The Altamaha spinymussel and its
habitat may require special management
considerations or protection to address
changes in the existing flow regime due
to activities such as impoundment,
water diversion, or water withdrawal;
alteration of water chemistry or water
quality; and changes in streambed
material composition and quality from
activities that would release sediments
or nutrients into the water, such as
deadhead logging (instream log salvage),
construction projects, livestock grazing,
timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle
use.
Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River,
Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and Long
Counties
Unit 3 includes approximately 50.9
km (31.6 mi) of the Altamaha River from
the confluence with the Ohoopee
(Tattnall and Appling Counties)
downstream to U.S. Route 301 (Wayne
and Long Counties). Historic and recent
surveys of the middle Altamaha River
have yielded live Altamaha
spinymussels from 26 sites. Shell
material was found at an additional 13
sites (Keferl 1981, p. 14; Keferl 1995, p.
3; Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O’Brien
2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009, pers.
comm.). The entire reach of the
Altamaha River that composes Unit 3 is
occupied. This unit contains all of the
PCEs.
The Altamaha spinymussel and its
habitat may require special management
considerations or protection to address
changes in the existing flow regime due
to such activities as impoundment,
water diversion, or water withdrawal;
alteration of water chemistry or water
quality; and changes in streambed
material composition and quality from
activities that would release sediments
or nutrients into the water, such as
deadhead logging (instream log salvage),
construction projects, livestock grazing,
timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle
use.
Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River, Tattnall
County
Unit 4 includes the lower 14.4 km (9
mi) of the Ohoopee River, from 2.2 km
(1.3 mi) upstream of Tattnall County
Road 191, downstream to the
confluence of the Ohoopee and the
Altamaha River in Tattnall County,
Georgia.
The Altamaha spinymussel
historically occupied this stretch of the
Ohoopee River but has not been found
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
here since the mid-1990s (Stringfellow
and Gagnon 2001, pp. 1–2) and is
considered extirpated. Historic
collections were made from seven sites
(Keferl 1981, p. 14). Keferl (1981, p. 15)
considered the Ohoopee to contain
excellent habitat that would serve as a
refuge for declining mussel populations.
This stretch of the Ohoopee River
contains PCEs 1, 2, and 4 for the
Altamaha spinymussel, and continues
to support four species commonly
associated with the presence of the
Altamaha spinymussel: Elliptio
dariensis (75 percent of sites with E.
spinosa), E. hopetonensis (93 percent),
E. shepardiana (80 percent), and
Lampsilis dolabraeformis (90 percent).
Lampsilis splendida was found at 72
percent of sites (Wisniewski 2009, pers.
comm.). The Ohoopee does not meet
state water quality standards for
mercury, however, EPA will begin
revising needed load reductions in 2011
(EPA 2002b, p. 2).
Critical habitat units 1, 2, and 3 are
contiguous, making them very
vulnerable to a catastrophic event that
could eliminate all known occupied
habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel.
Therefore, we believe that the stream
segment within this unit is essential to
the conservation of the species because
reestablishing the Altamaha
spinymussel on a separate tributary
such as the Ohoopee River would
significantly reduce the impact of
stochastic threats to the species’
survival.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Decisions by the courts of
appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse
modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th
Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434,
442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain those physical or biological
features that relate to the ability of the
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
area to periodically support the species)
to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat
is designated, 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 the 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 (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. We
define ‘‘reasonable and prudent
alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
• Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
• Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
• Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
• Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the listed species or
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can
vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with
implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect
Altamaha spinymussel or its designated
critical habitat require section 7
consultation under the Act. Activities
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
requiring 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 us under section 10 of
the Act) or involving some other Federal
action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process. 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 permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and
Adverse Modification Standard
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following listing and
designation of critical habitat, the
Service applies an analytical framework
for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily
on the importance of the core area
population (middle mainstem
Altamaha) to the survival and recovery
of the species. The section 7(a)(2)
analysis is focused not only on these
populations but also on the habitat
conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually
expresses the survival and recovery
needs of the species in a qualitative
fashion without making distinctions
between what is necessary for survival
and what is necessary for recovery.
Generally, if a proposed Federal action
is incompatible with the viability of the
affected core area population, inclusive
of associated habitat conditions, a
jeopardy finding is considered to be
warranted, because of the relationship
of the core area population to the
survival and recovery of the species as
a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or would retain its current
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62949
ability for the PCEs to be functionally
established. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and,
therefore, should result in consultation
for the Altamaha spinymussel include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the
geomorphology of their stream and river
habitats. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, instream
excavation or dredging, impoundment,
channelization, and discharge of fill
materials. These activities could cause
aggradation or degradation of the
channel bed elevation or significant
bank erosion, result in entrainment or
burial of these mollusks, and cause
other direct or cumulative adverse
effects to these species and their life
cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter the existing flow regime. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, impoundment, water
diversion, water withdrawal, and
hydropower generation. These activities
could eliminate or reduce the habitat
necessary for growth and reproduction
of these mollusks.
(3) Actions that would significantly
alter water chemistry or water quality
(for example, temperature, pH,
contaminants, and excess nutrients).
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, hydropower discharges,
or the release of chemicals, biological
pollutants, or heated effluents into
surface water or connected groundwater
at a point source or by dispersed release
(nonpoint source). These activities
could alter water conditions that are
beyond the tolerances of these mollusks
and result in direct or cumulative
adverse effects to the species and their
life cycles.
(4) Actions that would significantly
alter stream bed material composition
and quality by increasing sediment
deposition or filamentous algal growth.
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, construction projects,
livestock grazing, timber harvest, offroad vehicle use, and other watershed
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62950
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments or nutrients into the water.
These activities could eliminate or
reduce habitats necessary for the growth
and reproduction of these mollusks by
causing excessive sedimentation and
burial of the species or their habitats, or
nutrient enrichment leading to
excessive filamentous algal growth.
Excessive filamentous algal growth can
cause reduced night-time dissolved
oxygen levels through respiration and
prevent mussel glochidia from settling
into stream sediments.
Exemptions and Exclusion
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Among other things,
each INRMP must, to the extent
appropriate and applicable, provide for
fish and wildlife management; fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement or
modification; wetland protection,
enhancement, and restoration where
necessary to support fish and wildlife;
and enforcement of applicable natural
resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands within the critical habitat
designation for this species. Therefore,
there are no specific lands that meet the
criteria for exemption from the
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate or revise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factors to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. For
example, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the
Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. We
also consider whether landowners have
developed any conservation plans for
the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion of lands from, critical habitat.
In addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider the economic impacts,
environmental impacts, and any social
impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
must identify the benefits of including
the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If, based on this
analysis, we determine that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we can exclude the area only
if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
In the proposed rule, we requested
information on why any area should or
should not be designated as critical
habitat as provided by section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including
whether the benefit of designation
would outweigh threats to the species
caused by designation such that the
designation of critical habitat is
prudent. In this instance, we have
examined all comments submitted with
respect to providing adequate protection
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and management for the Altamaha
spinymussel. None of the comments
provided sufficient information to
satisfy the criteria necessary for
exclusion from final critical habitat.
In preparing this final rule, we
determined that the lands within the
designation of critical habitat for the
Altamaha spinymussel are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense,
and there are no other known national
security impacts expected from the
designation; there are currently no
conservation partnerships for the
spinymussel; and the designation does
not include any tribal lands or trust
resources. Since the critical habitat
designation includes only aquatic areas
that are generally held in public trust,
involves no Tribal lands, and includes
no areas presently under special
management or protection provided by
a legally operative plan or agreement for
the conservation of this mussel, we
believe that, other than economics, there
are no other relevant impacts to evaluate
under section 4(b)(2).
Economic Analysis (EA)
We prepared an economic analysis
that is consistent with the ruling of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit in New Mexico Cattle
Growers Ass’n v. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (2001),
and that was available for public review
and comment during the comment
period for the proposed rule. The final
economic analysis is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
The final EA (Industrial Economics
2011) considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the
conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel, including costs associated
with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act,
and including those attributable to
designating critical habitat. It further
considers the economic effects of
protective measures taken as a result of
other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for the
Altamaha spinymussel in essential
habitat areas. The EA considers both
economic efficiency and distributional
effects. In the case of habitat
conservation, efficiency effects generally
reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’
associated with the commitment of
resources to comply with habitat
protection measures (for example, lost
economic opportunities associated with
restrictions on land use).
The final EA states that incremental
impacts stem primarily from
administrative costs of section 7
consultations, and are relatively small.
Present value incremental impacts of
spinymussel conservation are estimated
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
to be $37,100 total over the analysis
timeframe (2011 to 2040), applying a
seven percent discount rate. All of these
impacts stem from the administrative
cost of addressing adverse modification
of critical habitat during section 7
consultations. Because the region is
primarily rural, the Service and
contacted stakeholders do not anticipate
that designation of critical habitat for
the spinymussel will have substantial
impact on economic activity.
Accordingly, a small number of section
7 consultations are expected during the
analytic timeframe, most of which will
occur in habitat currently occupied by
the spinymussel.
The majority of the incremental
impacts are related to electric power
generation and transmission. Over the
30-year analytic timeframe, four
hydropower plants in the region will
renew their operating licenses and will,
therefore, conduct section 7
consultations with the Service. In
addition, this analysis assumes that the
Edwin I. Hatch nuclear power plant will
conduct informal section 7
consultations with the Service for
periodic dredging operations, and
regional utilities will conduct on
average one consultation per year for
construction and repair of electric
power lines. In comparison, the analysis
projects that relatively few section 7
consultations will be required for
transportation and recreation activities.
Based on the best available
information, including the prepared
economic analysis, we believe that all of
the four units are essential for the
conservation of the spinymussel.
Critical habitat aids in the conservation
specifically by protecting the primary
constituent elements on which the
spinymussel depends. It can also result
in benefits by providing information to
the public, local and State governments,
Federal agencies, and other entities
engaged in activities or long-range
planning in areas essential to the
conservation of the spinymussel.
Conservation of the Altamaha
spinymussel and essential features of its
habitats will require habitat
management, protection, and
restoration, which will be facilitated by
knowledge of habitat locations and the
physical or biological features of those
habitats. We conclude that these
benefits of inclusion outweigh the
above-described costs of designation for
all areas we are designating as critical
habitat in this rule.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
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, as amended,
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)(2) 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.
Federal activities that may affect the
Altamaha spinymussel include, but are
not limited to, the carrying out or the
issuance of permits for reservoir
construction, stream alterations,
discharges, wastewater facility
development, water withdrawal
projects, pesticide registration, mining,
and road and bridge construction. It has
been the experience of the Service,
however, that nearly all section 7
consultations have been resolved so that
species have been protected and the
project objectives have been met.
Listing the Altamaha spinymussel
initiates the development and
implementation of a rangewide recovery
plan for the species. This plan will bring
together Federal, State, and local agency
efforts for the conservation of this
species. Recovery plans establish a
framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts. The plans set
recovery priorities and estimate the
costs of the tasks necessary to
accomplish the priorities. They also
describe the site-specific actions
necessary to achieve conservation and
survival of each species.
Listing also will require us to review
any actions on Federal lands and
activities under Federal jurisdiction that
may affect the Altamaha spinymussel;
allow State plans to be developed under
section 6 of the Act; encourage scientific
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62951
investigations of efforts to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; and
promote habitat conservation plans on
non-Federal lands under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
The Act and its 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, capture,
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 also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any 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 set
forth 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 for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Under the Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Endangered Species Act
Section 9 Prohibitions, published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), we identify to the maximum
extent practicable those activities that
would or would not constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act if the
Altamaha spinymussel is listed. The
intent of this policy is to increase public
awareness as to the effects of this listing
on future and ongoing activities within
a species’ range. We believe, based on
the best available information that the
following actions will not result in a
violation of the provisions of section 9
of the Act, provided these actions are
carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements:
(1) Possession, delivery, or movement,
including interstate transport that does
not involve commercial activity, of
specimens of this species that were
legally acquired prior to the addition of
the Altamaha spinymussel to the
Federal List of Endangered or
Threatened Wildlife;
(2) Development and construction
activities designed and implemented
under State and local water quality
regulations and implemented using
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62952
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
approved best management practices;
and
(3) Any actions that may affect the
Altamaha spinymussel that are
authorized, funded, or carried out by a
Federal agency (such as bridge and
highway construction, pipeline
construction, hydropower licensing),
when the action is conducted in
accordance with the consultation
requirements for listed species under
section 7 of the Act.
Potential activities that we believe
will likely be considered a violation of
section 9 of the Act if this species
becomes listed, include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Unauthorized possession,
collecting, trapping, capturing, harming,
killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or
movement, including interstate and
foreign commerce, or attempting any of
these actions, with the Altamaha
spinymussel;
(2) Unlawful destruction or alteration
of their habitats (such as unpermitted
instream dredging, impoundment,
channelization, or discharge of fill
material) that impairs essential
behaviors, such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, or results in killing or
injuring the Altamaha spinymussel;
(3) Discharge or water withdrawal
permits that results in harm or death to
any individuals of this species or that
results in degradation of its occupied
habitat to an extent that essential
behaviors such as breeding, feeding, and
sheltering are impaired; and
(4) Unauthorized discharges or
dumping of toxic chemicals or other
pollutants into waters supporting the
Altamaha spinymussel that kills or
injures or otherwise impairs essential
life-sustaining requirements, such as
reproduction, food, or shelter.
Other activities not identified above
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
to determine if a violation of section 9
of the Act may be likely to result from
such activity. The Service does not
consider the description of future and
ongoing activities provided above to be
exhaustive; we provide them simply as
information to the public.
If you have questions regarding
whether specific activities will likely
violate the provisions of section 9 of the
Act, contact the Georgia Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
Requests for copies of regulations
regarding listed species and inquiries
about prohibitions and permits should
be addressed to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services
Division, 1875 Century Boulevard,
Atlanta, GA 30345 (phone 404–679–
7313; fax 404–679–7081).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant under Executive Order
12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the
rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the RFA to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Small entities include small
organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small
governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town
governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small
businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns
with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than
100 employees, retail and service
businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy
construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
whether potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we
consider the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this rule, as well as the types of project
modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the rule could
significantly affect a substantial number
of small entities, we consider the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil
and gas production, timber harvesting).
We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test
individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate.
However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’
or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’
Consequently, to assess whether a
‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is
affected by this designation, this
analysis considers the relative number
of small entities likely to be impacted in
an area. In some circumstances,
especially with critical habitat
designations of limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and
consider whether the total number of
small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities
potentially affected, we also consider
whether their activities have any
Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only
affects activities authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have
any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat
designation. In areas where a listed
species already occurs; e.g., the shortnosed sturgeon, Federal agencies
already are required to consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may
affect the sturgeon. Federal agencies
also must consult with us if their
activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore,
could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the
requirement to reinitiate consultation
for ongoing Federal activities (see
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard section).
In our final economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic
effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
related to the listing of the Altamaha
spinymussel and the proposed
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis is based on the estimated
impacts associated with the proposed
rulemaking as described in chapters 3
through 5 and appendix A of the
analysis and evaluates the potential for
economic impacts related to: (1) Power
generation and transmission; (2)
transportation; (3) other activities
(agriculture, recreation and forestry);
and (4) impacts to small entities and the
energy industry.
According to the final EA, impacts on
small entities due to this rule are
expected to be modest because the
incremental costs of the rule are
estimated to be administrative in nature.
The final EA evaluated the incremental
impacts of the critical habitat
designation for the Altamaha
spinymussel over the next 30 years,
which was determined to be the
appropriate period for analysis because
limited planning information is
available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 30year timeframe. Applying a seven
percent discount rate, electric power
generation and transmission is
estimated to incur the largest impact at
$26,700 over the next 30 years (2011–
2040), overall incremental impacts
associated with the designation are
estimated at $37,100 over the same time
period.
In summary, we considered whether
this designation will result in a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above reasoning and
currently available information, we
concluded that this rule will not result
in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, we are certifying that the
designation of critical habitat for the
spinymussel will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Pursuant to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ issued May 18,
2001, Federal agencies must prepare
and submit a ‘‘Statement of Energy
Effects’’ for all ‘‘significant energy
actions.’’ The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that all Federal
agencies ‘‘appropriately weigh and
consider the effects of the Federal
Government’s regulations on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has provided guidance for
implementing E.O. 13211 that outlines
nine outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a
significant adverse effect’’ when
compared without the regulatory action
under consideration. The economic
analysis finds that incremental impacts
of the designation of critical habitat are
the subject of the analysis under
Executive Order 13211. The potential
effects of this designation on power
production were considered in the
economic analysis. As described in
Chapter 4, estimated incremental
impacts to the energy industry as a
result of critical habitat designation for
the spinymussel are minor and
administrative in nature. Therefore, the
rule is not expected to affect the
production, distribution, or use of
energy, and none of the above criteria
are relevant to this analysis.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), the Service makes the following
findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local,
tribal governments, or the private sector
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments’’
with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a
condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also
excludes ‘‘a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates
to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and
tribal governments under entitlement
authority,’’ if the provision would
‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and
Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal
private sector mandate’’ includes a
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
62953
regulation that ‘‘would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private
sector, except (i) A condition of Federal
assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species, or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat under section 7.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply; nor would listing these
species or designating critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above on to State
governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the
Altamaha spinymussel only occurs in
navigable waters in which the river
bottom is owned by the State of Georgia.
However, the adjacent upland
properties are owned by private entities,
the State, or Federal partners (see Table
2). As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical
habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel in
a takings implications assessment. The
takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the Altamaha
spinymussel does not pose significant
takings implications.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), the rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required.
In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
62954
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
policy, we requested information from,
and coordinated development of this
critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in
Georgia. The critical habitat designation
may have some benefit to this
government in that the areas that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the PCEs of the
habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified.
While making this definition and
identification does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than waiting for case-by-case
section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule
does not unduly burden the judicial
system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
We are designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This final rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
PCEs within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of the Altamaha
spinymussel.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
regulations adopted under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Also, it is our position that, outside
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not
need to prepare environmental analyses
as defined by NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This
position was upheld by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v Babbitt, 48 F. 3d
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516
U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and the Department of
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied at the time of
listing that contain the features essential
for the conservation, and no tribal lands
that are unoccupied areas that are
essential for the conservation, of the
Altamaha spinymussel. Therefore, we
have not designated critical habitat for
the Altamaha spinymussel on Tribal
lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rulemaking is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor,
Georgia Ecological Services Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and
at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0107.
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is
the staff of the Georgia Ecological
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, 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. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding
‘‘Spinymussel, Altamaha’’ in
alphabetical order under CLAMS to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
*
*
62955
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
*
CLAMS
*
*
Spinymussel, Altamaha.
*
Scientific name
*
*
Elliptio spinosa ........
*
3. Amend § 17.95(f) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Altamaha spinymussel
(Elliptio spinosa)’’ after the entry for
‘‘Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema
hanleyianum)’’ to read as set forth
below:
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
*
(f) Clams and Snails.
*
*
*
*
*
Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio
spinosa).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis,
Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair,
Toombs, Wayne, and Wheeler Counties,
Georgia, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
(PCEs) of critical habitat for the
Altamaha spinymussel are the habitat
components that provide:
(i) Geomorphically stable river
channels and banks (channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation) with stable
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
*
U.S.A. (GA) .............
Jkt 226001
*
796
*
*
*
E
*
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Critical
habitat
*
sandbar, slough, and mid-channelisland habitats of coarse-to-fine sand
substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the
magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time)
necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species are found and to
maintain connectivity of rivers with the
floodplain, allowing the exchange of
nutrients and sediment for sand bar
maintenance, food availability, and
spawning habitat for native fishes.
(iii) Water quality necessary for
normal behavior, growth, and viability
of all life stages, including specifically
temperature (less than 32.6 °C (90.68 °)
with less than 2 °C (3.6 °F) daily
fluctuation), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen
content (daily average DO concentration
of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0
mg/l), an ammonia level not exceeding
1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L (normalized to
pH 8 and 25 °C (77 °F)), and other
chemical characteristics.
PO 00000
When listed
*
*
Entire .......................
*
■
§ 17.95
*
Status
Special
rules
*
*
17.95(f)
NA
*
(iv) The presence of fish hosts
(currently unknown) necessary for
recruitment of the Altamaha
spinymussel. The continued occurrence
of diverse native fish assemblages
currently occurring in the basin will
serve as an indication of host fish
presence until appropriate host fishes
can be identified for the Altamaha
spinymussel.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures existing on the
effective date of this rule and not
containing one or more of the PCEs,
such as buildings, bridges, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on
which such structures are located.
(4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps
were developed from USGS 7.5 minute
quadrangles, and critical habitat unit
upstream and downstream limits were
then identified by longitude and
latitude using decimal degrees.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for the Altamaha spinymussel
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
ER11OC11.000
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
62956
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
House Creek with the Ocmulgee at Red
Bluff Landing (longitude ¥83.18,
latitude 31.85), Ben Hill and Telfair
Counties, Georgia, downstream to
Altamaha River (longitude ¥82.54,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
latitude 31.96), at the confluence of the
Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers, Jeff Davis
and Telfair Counties, Georgia.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Ocmulgee
River) follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
ER11OC11.001
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(6) Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill,
Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff Davis Counties,
Georgia.
(i) Unit 1 includes the channel of the
Ocmulgee River from the confluence of
62957
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(7) Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River,
Wheeler, Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff
Davis, Appling, and Tattnall Counties,
Georgia.
(i) Unit 2 includes the channel of the
Altamaha River from the confluence of
the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
(longitude ¥82.54, latitude 31.96),
Wheeler and Jeff Davis Counties,
Georgia, downstream to the US 1
crossing (longitude ¥82.36, latitude
31.94), and from the western edge of
Moody Forest (longitude ¥82.33,
latitude 31.93) downstream to the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
confluence of the Altamaha and
Ohoopee Rivers (longitude ¥82.11,
latitude 31.90), Appling and Tattnall
Counties, Georgia.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Upper
Altamaha River) follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
ER11OC11.002
62958
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
confluence with the Ohoopee (longitude
¥82.11, latitude 31.90), Tattnall and
Appling Counties, Georgia, downstream
to U.S. Route 301 (longitude ¥81.84,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
latitude 31.67), Wayne and Long
Counties, Georgia.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Middle
Altamaha River) follows:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
ER11OC11.003
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(8) Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River,
Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and Long
Counties, Georgia.
(i) Unit 3 includes the channel of
Altamaha River, extending from the
62959
62960
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River,
Tattnall County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 4 includes the channel of the
Ohoopee River, starting 2.2 km (1.3 mi)
upstream of Tattnall County Road 191
(longitude ¥82.14, latitude 31.98),
Tattnall County, Georgia, downstream to
the confluence of the Ohoopee River
with the Altamaha River (longitude
*
Dated: September 23, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
*
*
*
¥82.11, latitude 31.90), Tattnall
County, Georgia.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4 (Lower
Ohoopee River) follows:
[FR Doc. 2011–25539 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:28 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM
11OCR2
ER11OC11.004
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62928-62960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25539]
[[Page 62927]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 196
October 11, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for
the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 62928]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107; 92210 1111 0000-B2]
RIN 1018-AV88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, list the Altamaha
spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa), a freshwater mussel endemic to the
Altamaha River drainage of southeastern Georgia, as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and
designate approximately 237.4 kilometers (km) (147.5 miles (mi)) of
mainstem river channel as critical habitat in Appling, Ben Hill,
Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne,
and Wheeler Counties, Georgia. This final rule will implement the
Federal protections provided by the Act.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis are available on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this
final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia
Ecological Services Office, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA
30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES above). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule
to list the Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) as endangered; and
(2) a final rule to designate critical habitat for this species.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for this species prior to October 6, 2010, are
outlined in our proposed rule (75 FR 61664), which was published on
that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment
period, which closed on December 6, 2010. We reopened the comment
period from May 12, 2011, through June 13, 2011, in order to announce
the availability of and receive comments on a draft economic analysis
(DEA), and to extend the comment period on the proposed listing and
designation (76 FR 27629).
Public Comments
We received comments from the public on the proposed listing action
and proposed critical habitat designation, and, in this rule, we
respond to these issues in a single comments section. Below, we present
the listing analysis first, followed by the analysis for designation of
critical habitat.
Background
Species Description
The Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) is a freshwater mussel
in the family Unionidae, endemic to (found only in) the Altamaha River
drainage of southeastern Georgia. The Altamaha River is formed by the
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee rivers and lies entirely within
the State of Georgia. The species was described by I. Lea in 1836 from
a site near the mouth of the Altamaha River in Darien, Georgia (Johnson
1970, p. 303).
This species reaches a shell length of approximately 11.0
centimeters (cm) (4.3 inches (in)). The shell is subrhomboidal or
subtriangular in outline and moderately inflated. As the name implies,
the shells of these animals are adorned with one to five prominent
spines. These spines may be straight or crooked, reach lengths from 1.0
to 2.5 cm (0.39 to 0.98 in), and are arranged in a single row that is
somewhat parallel to the posterior ridge. In young specimens, the
outside layer or covering of the shell (periostracum) is greenish-
yellow with faint greenish rays, but as the animals get older, they
typically become a deep brown, although some raying may still be
evident in older individuals. The interior layer of the shell (nacre)
is pink or purplish (Johnson 1970, p. 303).
Life History and Habitat
Adult freshwater mussels are filter-feeders, siphoning
phytoplankton, diatoms, and other microorganisms from the water column.
For the first several months, juvenile mussels employ pedal (foot)
feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus from the sediment
(Yeager 1994, pp. 217-221; Cope et al. 2008, p. 457).
Although the life history of the Altamaha spinymussel has not been
studied, the life histories of other mussels in the Elliptio genus have
been. Internal fertilization results in the female brooding the larvae
(glochidia), which when mature are released. To ensure survival,
glochidia must come into contact with a specific host fish or fishes to
develop into juvenile mussels. Other mussels in the genus Elliptio are
broadcast releasers, which may release conglutinates that resemble
insect larvae. This reproductive strategy depends on clear water during
the time of the year when mussels release their glochidia (Hartfield
and Hartfield 1996, p. 375). The Altamaha spinymussel is thought to
reproduce in late spring and release glochidia by May or June (Johnson
2004, p. 2; Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). The host fish of the Altamaha
spinymussel is currently unknown. Furthermore, juvenile age classes of
other mussels are commonly found during surveys; however, no
spinymussel recruitment has been evident in surveys conducted since
1990 (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2008, pers. comm.). Research
to develop a better understanding of the natural history and the
reasons for a lack of recruitment in the species is continuing.
This spinymussel is known only from Georgia in Glynn, Ben Hill,
McIntosh, Telfair, Tattnall, Long, Montgomery, Toombs, Wheeler,
Appling, Jeff Davis, Coffee, and Wayne Counties. This spinymussel is
considered a ``big river'' species; is associated with stable, coarse-
to-fine sandy sediments of sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel islands;
and appears to be restricted to swiftly flowing water (Sickel 1980, p.
12). Johnson (1970, p. 303) reported Altamaha spinymussels buried
approximately 5.1 to 10.2 cm (2.0 to 4.0 in) below the substrate
surface.
Species Distribution and Status
The historical range of the Altamaha spinymussel was restricted to
the Coastal Plain portion of the Altamaha River and the lower portions
of its three major tributaries, the Ohoopee, Ocmulgee, and Oconee
Rivers (Johnson 1970, p. 303; Keferl 2001, pers. comm.). Large-scale,
targeted surveys for the mussel have been conducted since the 1960s
(Keferl 1993, p. 299). Recent surveys have revealed a dramatic decline
in recruitment, the number of populations, and number of individuals
within populations throughout the species' historic range (Stringfellow
and Gagnon 2001, pp. 1-2; Keferl 1995, pp.
[[Page 62929]]
3-6; Keferl 2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.).
Ohoopee River
In a survey of the Ohoopee River, Keferl (1981, pp. 12-14) found at
least 30 live specimens of the Altamaha spinymussel at seven of eight
collection sites, in thinly scattered beds, in the lower 8 kilometers
(km) (5 miles (mi)) of the river. Spinymussels were not found higher in
the watershed, presumably because there are insufficient flows to
support this species. By the early 1990s, however, only two live
specimens were found at the same sites (Keferl 1995, pp. 3-6; Keferl
2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.). Stringfellow and
Gagnon (2001, pp. 1-2) resurveyed these sites using techniques similar
to those used by Keferl (1981, p. 12), but did not find any live
Altamaha spinymussels in the Ohoopee River. Therefore, the species is
currently either extirpated from the Ohoopee River or present in such
low numbers that it is undetectable.
Ocmulgee River
The Altamaha spinymussel is known from the Ocmulgee River from its
confluence with the Oconee River upstream to Red Bluff in Ben Hill
County (approximately 110 km/68.3 mi). Early collecting efforts in the
Ocmulgee River near Lumber City yielded many live Altamaha
spinymussels. In 1962, Athearn made a single collection of 40 live
spinymussels downstream of U.S. Highway 341 near Lumber City (Johnson
et al. 2008, Athearn database). Researchers collected 19 and 21 live
individuals, respectively, during two surveys at Red Bluff (Thomas and
Scott 1965, p. 67). In 1986, Stansbery collected 11 live individuals at
the U.S. Highway 441 Bridge near Jacksonville, Georgia (Wisniewski
2006, pers. comm.).
The lower Ocmulgee River was surveyed by Keferl in the mid 1990s,
during 2000-2001 (Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O'Brien 2002, p. 2), and
in 2004 (Dinkins 2004, pp. 1-1 and 2-1). Over 90 sites have been
surveyed since 1993, many of which were repeatedly surveyed, resulting
in a total of 19 live Altamaha spinymussels detected at 10 sites,
distributed from Jacksonville downstream to the Oconee River
confluence.
Oconee River
There are few historical records of Altamaha spinymussels from the
Oconee River. Athearn collected 18 spinymussels, including 5 juveniles,
at a site in Montgomery County near Glenwood in the late 1960s (Johnson
et al. 2008, Athearn database). The species has not been collected
there since and is probably extirpated from the Oconee River system
(Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). In 1995, as part of a dam relicensing
study, 41 sites between Lake Sinclair and Dublin were surveyed (EA
Engineering 1995, pp. 1-1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2, and 4-3). One hundred forty-
four hours of search time yielded 118 live mussels, but no Altamaha
spinymussels. Compared to the other portions of its range, the Oconee
River has not been extensively surveyed, in part because the entire
mussel fauna of this river appears to be sparse.
Altamaha River
Most surveys for Altamaha spinymussels have been conducted in the
Altamaha River. Although methodological differences preclude accurate
comparison of mussel abundances over time, there is evidence that
higher abundances of Altamaha spinymussels occurred in the Altamaha
River historically. Early surveys at the U.S. Route 301 crossing
documented 20 individuals in 1963, 7 in 1965, and 43 in 1970. Sickel
sampled seven sites downstream of the U.S. Route 1 bridge in 1967.
Sixty spinymussels were collected in one 500-square meters (m\2\)
(5382-square feet (ft\2\)) site, and an additional 21 spinymussels were
collected in a 400-m\2\ (4306-ft\2\) (Sickel 1980, p. 11; Wisniewski
2006, pers. comm.) site. One site had five live spinymussels, two sites
had one each, and two sites had no Altamaha spinymussels.
From 1993 to 1996, Keferl surveyed 164 sites on the mainstem of the
Altamaha River between the Ocmulgee-Oconee River confluence and the
Interstate 95 crossing near the river's mouth (approximately 189 km/117
mi.). A total of 63 live Altamaha spinymussels were collected from 18
of these sites, located between the Oconee River and U.S. Route 301
(116 km/72 mi); however, no Altamaha spinymussels were collected below
U.S. Route 301 (73 km/45 mi), suggesting absence or extreme rarity in
the reach between U.S. Route 301 and the river's mouth (approximately
73 km (45 mi)). In addition, 10 of these sites were clustered within a
4-km (2-mi) reach upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing near Jesup;
the remaining eight sites were isolated by long distances of habitat
with no or sub-detectable numbers of live spinymussels.
O'Brien (2002, pp. 3-4) surveyed 30 sites on the Altamaha River
from the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers downstream to
U.S. Route 301 during 2001, including the 18 known Altamaha spinymussel
sites, reported by Keferl, within the reach. She collected a total of
six live individuals from five different sites and freshly dead shells
from two additional sites.
In 2003 and 2004, researchers surveyed 25 sites to collect
specimens for host-fish trials (Albanese 2005, pers. comm.). Live
Altamaha spinymussels were detected at only four sites. Five of the
seven sites documented by O'Brien and all four sites documented during
the host-fish surveys were clustered within a short reach (15 km/24 mi)
of the Altamaha River just upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing near
Jesup, Georgia.
To summarize, researchers were able to find 60 Altamaha
spinymussels at a single site on the Altamaha River in 1967; in
contrast, the largest number of Altamaha spinymussels observed from a
single site on the Altamaha River during the 1990s or 2000s was nine
(Albanese 2005, pers. comm.).
Summary of Basin-Wide Population Estimates
In 1994, researchers spent 128 search-hours throughout the Altamaha
Basin to find 41 spinymussels (Keferl 1995, p. 3). From 1997 through
2006, researchers searched 233 sites throughout the basin to document
34 spinymussels in more than 550 hours of searching (Wisniewski 2006,
pers. comm.); from 2007 to 2009, only 23 spinymussels were found from
more than 110 sites (Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). In summary, the
Altamaha spinymussel is considered extirpated from two rivers in its
historical range, the Ohoopee (15 km (9 mi)) and Oconee Rivers (45 km
(28 mi)), as well as the lower 73 km (45 mi) of the Altamaha River
(Table 1). Since 1997, despite extensive survey efforts made by several
different researchers, only 57 spinymussels have been observed from 7
sites in the Ocmulgee (110 km (68 mi)) and 15 sites in the upper
Altamaha (116 km (72 mi)) combined, and while individual spinymussels
have been found scattered throughout this stretch of river, most of
these sites have been clustered in the 10 km (6 mi) immediately north
of the U.S. Route 301 crossing.
[[Page 62930]]
Table 1--Decline in Range of the Altamaha Spinymussel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
River reach Historically occupied Current habitat historical
(linear km/mi) range lost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohoopee................................ 15 km/9 mi............... Not seen since 1997........... 4
Oconee................................. 45 km/28 mi.............. Not seen since 1968........... 12.5
Ocmulgee............................... 110 km/68.3 mi........... Widely scattered.............. 0
Upper Altamaha......................... 116 km/72 mi............. Widely scattered individuals.. 0
Lower Altamaha......................... 73 km/45 mi.............. Not seen since 1970........... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 359 km/222 mi............ 226 km/140 mi................. 36.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR)'s database,
which included many of the surveys mentioned above, Wisniewski et al.
(2005, p. 2) conducted a test for a temporal change in sites occupied
in the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers between the early 1990s and the
early 2000s. Live Altamaha spinymussels were detected at 24 of 241
sites (10 percent) sampled before 2000 and at 14 of 120 sites (12
percent) sampled after 2000. Although the percentage of sites occupied
is not indicative of a decline, an analysis of 39 sites sampled during
both time periods, of which the spinymussel was initially present in 13
of the 39 sites, indicated that the spinymussel was lost from
significantly more sites (11 sites) than it colonized (3 sites) between
the early 1990s and early 2000s (Wisniewski et al. 2005, p. 2). This
test is imprecise because the failure to detect Altamaha spinymussels
when present could result in both false colonizations (species missed
during early surveys but detected in recent survey) and false
extirpations (species detected during early survey but missed during
recent survey). Thus, although the exact number of extirpations and
colonizations between the two time periods may not be accurate, the
much higher number of extirpations is suggestive of a decline over this
time period.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
During the open comment periods for the proposed rule (75 FR 61664)
and draft economic analysis, we requested that all interested parties
submit comments or information concerning the proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. We
contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies (including the
State of Georgia, from whom we directly requested comments), county
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment. Articles concerning the
proposed rule and inviting public comment were published by the
Associated Press, The Brunswick News and the Florida Times Union. An
article was also published by the Center for Biological Diversity.
During the comment periods, we received a total of 79 comments. We
received comments supporting the listing of the Altamaha spinymussel
from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Resources
Division, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, three environmental groups,
and 70 individuals including 9 letters and 65 postcards. We received
two requests for an extension of the open comment period and notified
requestors that the comment period would reopen for the Notice of
Availability of the Draft Economic Analysis, published on May 12, 2011.
We received no requests for, and therefore did not hold, a public
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we requested the opinions of
four knowledgeable individuals with expertise on freshwater mollusks,
the Altamaha River Basin, and conservation biology principles. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that the designation is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input
of appropriate experts and specialists. We received written responses
from three of the peer reviewers.
Peer reviewers stated that: (1) The proposal included a thorough
and accurate review of the available scientific and commercial data on
this mussel and its habitats; (2) the best available scientific data
documented substantial declines in its abundance and distribution; and
(3) the data supported the proposed listing as endangered with the
designation of approximately 237.4 km (147.5 mi) of critical habitat.
Two peer reviewers provided additional details and correction about the
life history of the spinymussel, one of these reviewers also provided
specific recommendations for the primary constituent elements (PCEs).
The information provided by the reviewers has been incorporated into
the appropriate sections of this final rule or is addressed in the
comments below.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new
data regarding the spinymussel, its critical habitat, and the draft
economic analysis. Written comments received during the comment periods
are addressed in the following summary. For readers' convenience, we
have combined similar comments into single comments and responses.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Water quality standards set by the State of Georgia
are based on water quality criteria established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for protection of aquatic life,
not humans. Mussels are not currently represented in datasets used by
EPA for derivation of water quality criteria. If adopted, the proposed
criteria for ammonia will be the first to include mussel sensitivity
data. Therefore, the statement that many of the standards may not be
protective of mussels is accurate.
Our response: We agree, and have incorporated this information into
the Physical or Biological Features Section to reflect this comment.
Also see Comment 4 below.
(2) Comment: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations of 33.1 mg/L
appear unusually high for a river segment with no dams. It seems
appropriate to exclude this value as described by reporting the 10th
and 90th percentiles for DO.
Our response: After reviewing the data, we found three data points
to be exceptionally high. All three were taken from the same timeframe
with the same device, which suggests that the device may not have been
calibrated correctly. These three data points have been thrown out, and
the concentration range has been recalculated to 0.42-
[[Page 62931]]
20.3 mg/l. The benefit of using the 10th and 90th percentiles is that
it allows us to exclude the outliers from the data that may be due to
device errors.
(3) Comment: Populations of several fish species, particularly
anadromous fishes (e.g. striped bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic and
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum), American
shad (Alossa sapidissima), and other herrings), have declined
substantially in recent decades. Host trials for spinymussels with 10
species of fish from six families (Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae,
Ictaluridae, Moronidae, Acipenseridae, Catostomidae) have been
conducted. Unfortunately, none of these trials have produced juvenile
spinymussels.
Our response: We agree. One of the largest gaps in knowledge of
this species is host fish information. Presence of suitable host fish
in the basin is critical for survival of this species. Evaluation of
habitat suitability for the spinymussel would be greatly enhanced with
knowledge of the host fish occurrence and distribution; suitable
habitat must also be present for the host fish(es). Though all 85 fish
species native to the Altamaha Basin are still present, populations of
several fish species have declined substantially compared to historic
numbers. Host fish have been identified for other members of the genus
Elliptio, and these species should provide a starting point for the
spinymussel. Identification of suitable host fish is also critical for
development of a propagation program. Laboratory culture of juveniles
would allow for a potential population augmentation program and/or
could be used to produce organisms for toxicity testing purposes. The
Service has incorporated this information into the Physical or
Biological Features Section to reflect this comment.
(4) Comment: EPA has recently (2009) proposed to revise the chronic
water quality value for ammonia (at pH 8 and 25 C) from 1.2 mg/L to
0.26 mg/L. This value is calculated to protect 95% of aquatic species.
Because ammonia toxicity data have not been generated for the Altamaha
spinymussel it is prudent for the Service to consider a lower PCE value
for ammonia such as 0.22 mg N/L as indicated in the proposal.
Our response: We agree. We believe the value chosen for the PCE for
ammonia is well supported, which is why it is being adopted by EPA
(Newton et al. 2003, p. 2556 and Wang et al. 2007, pp. 2041-2043).
(5) Comment: The commenter recommends adding criteria for copper,
nickel, and pyrene. Copper toxicity to early life stages of unionids
has been reported as low as 6.8 ug/L in a 96-hr test at a water
hardness of 177 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007, p. 2043). Hardness buffers
metal toxicity by reducing bioavailability of metal ions. Hardness
values are much lower (20-40 mg/L) in the Altamaha, thus toxicity would
be expected at even lower copper concentrations. Chronic criteria
should be substantially lower than this acute value.
Nickel toxicity has been reported for juvenile unionids at 190 ug/L
in a 96-hr test with soft water (hardness <50 mg/L). Acute and chronic
nickel criteria should be lower than 190 ug/L (no citation provided).
Pyrene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) that may be
associated with pulp and paper mills among other industrial and urban
sources. This PAH is toxic to unionid glochidia (24 h LC50) at 2.63 ug/
L in the presence of UV light (no citation provided). Chronic criteria
for persistent, bioaccumulative compounds like PAHs should be
substantially lower than acute toxicity values.
Our response: The Service routinely consults with other federal
agencies regarding the effects of their actions, and uses the best
science available. Given the complex and unique conditions inherent in
individual consultations, as well as at different times of year and
areas of the river, we believe it would not be prudent to set standards
for these compounds at this time because temperature, life stage, and
other unknowns may have substantial impact on their toxicity (e.g.,
temperature and copper interaction). Where surrogate science was
available and appropriate to establish general guidelines for water
quality, it was applied in this manner. However, we do not have
sufficient data to develop water quality criteria for copper, nickel,
and pyrene at the level of specificity suggested by the commenter.
Comments From the State
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate
critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel are addressed below.
Because the comments of one peer reviewer (a State of Georgia
employee) were adopted by the State, we are including them in our
response to State comments. The State supports the designation of
critical habitat for the occupied reaches of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee
rivers as proposed, including the exclusion of the Altamaha River
between U.S. Route 1 and the upper property boundary of Moody Forest
Natural Area from proposed critical habitat. Georgia concurs with the
Service that the designation of critical habitat in only the currently
occupied reaches of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers would not
adequately conserve the Altamaha spinymussel because this range is
connected in a linear pattern that could be destroyed by a single event
in the Ocmulgee, flowing downstream into the Altamaha. Therefore, the
proposed designation of critical habitat in at least one additional
tributary that historically harbored the Altamaha spinymussel is
necessary to conserve the species.
(6) Comment: One item that appears to be poorly supported is the
considerable discussion found within the Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species regarding contaminants in sediments of the Oconee River as
primary threats. In the proposed rule the Service included extensive
text on heavy metal toxicity due to kaolin mining/processing as a
threat to unionids in the Oconee River Basin. The Service should also
include extensive text regarding the presence and operations of Lake
Sinclair.
Our response: The effects of contaminants in sediment in the Oconee
River and the entire Altamaha Basin are not well understood. However,
it is clear that contaminants in sediment are a threat to mussel fauna
in the Southeast and are, therefore, a potential threat to the
spinymussel that must be evaluated in the Threats Assessment (Cope
2008, pp. 452-459). Currently there are no data to describe the
sensitivity of the spinymussel to environmental stressors such as
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and contaminants, but tolerances to
stressors can be inferred from other mussel species. The effects of
these stressors on mussel fauna are often interconnected. Standardized
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) guidelines are
currently available for toxicity tests with early life stages
(glochidia and juveniles) of freshwater mussels. As a result, toxicity
and thermal tolerance data are being generated for a growing number of
unionid species. The Service considers contaminants in sediment a
potential threat to the spinymussel throughout its range. The nearest
reservoir is approximately 120 km (75 miles) from the historic range of
the spinymussel and approximately 165 km (103 mi.) from occupied
habitat, thus, the effects of hypolimnetic discharges are not
considered a threat to the Altamaha spinymussel (also see Comment 7 and
[[Page 62932]]
Factor E. Other Natural and Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence).
(7) Comment: The Oconee River downstream of Lake Sinclair was
generalized as having sparse mussel populations. The proposal strongly
suggests that this is a result of contaminants but does not allude to
any effects due to the presence of a major dam and hydroelectric
generation facility located at Lake Sinclair. Numerous published
studies have recognized reservoirs and hydroelectric generation
facilities as one of the leading reasons for declines and extinctions
of unionids throughout North America.
Our response: The Oconee River downstream of Lake Sinclair to U.S.
Route 280 is poorly surveyed for mussels. Available surveys had
described the mussel fauna as depauperate (EA Engineering 1995, pp. 1-
1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2, and 4-3). Typically, habitats immediately downstream
of dams are unsuitable for unionids due to the highly erosive nature of
the substrates during channel forming events (e.g., spring floods),
which scour substrates and deposit those benthic organisms occupying
these habitats elsewhere. Additionally, eroding substrates are often
deposited upon downstream habitats where unionids occur and thus impede
their mobility and their ability to siphon or reproduce. Generally, the
effects of reservoir operations on river channels are greatest closest
to dams and gradually decline as rivers flow downstream. This effect is
observed in the Oconee River, which has a deeply entrenched channel
near Dublin, Georgia, upstream of the historic range of the
spinymussel. Conversely, the Oconee River downstream of U.S. Route 280
near Mt. Vernon (within the historic range of the spinymussel), has a
wider, less entrenched channel with good floodplain connectivity,
gentle bank slope, and riparian buffers. Mussel fauna diversity greatly
increases in the lower portion of the Oconee, suggesting that the
habitat is not degraded by dam operations. While the dam at Lake
Sinclair certainly has a profound effect on the ecology of the Oconee
River, it is 75 miles from the historic range of the spinymussel and,
therefore, was not considered a threat (see Factor E. Other Natural and
Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
(8) Comment: The inclusion of the Lower Oconee River as critical
habitat would more adequately conserve the Altamaha spinymussel than
the inclusion of the Ohoopee River, as the Oconee River is a much
larger watershed and would be less vulnerable to dewatering during
periods of extreme drought, which will likely become more frequent in
the future. The Oconee River from U.S. 280 in Mt. Vernon downstream to
its confluence with the Altamaha River should be designated as an
unoccupied stream reach proposed for critical habitat.
Our response: 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 critical habitat area is unimportant or
may not be required for recovery of the species. The Service agrees
that it is essential for the conservation of the species that one of
the unoccupied tributaries to the Altamaha be included as critical
habitat to avoid a linear distribution that might be vulnerable to a
single catastrophic event. The Service has determined that only one of
the unoccupied rivers is essential. In deciding which of the two rivers
to include as critical habitat we looked at all historic records of
spinymussel. In the Oconee River, the only record of spinymussels was
from a single collection in 1968. The spinymussel has not been seen in
the Oconee from any other locations or at any other time and is now
considered extirpated from this river. Conversely, spinymussels have
been found from multiple locations over several decades in the Ohoopee
and were found as recently as 1997. Keferl referred to the Ohoopee as a
possible refugia for the species endemic to the Altamaha, including the
spinymussel (Keferl 1981, p. 15). Furthermore, the Oconee has many
human-induced threats that are not well understood, including: Kaolin
mining, agriculture, and municipal water treatment. The Ohoopee has
fewer inputs of point source pollution within this basin; however, this
river is impacted by municipal water treatment, drought, and, during
low flows, vehicle traffic in the river bed. Drought is a natural event
which mussel species have evolved to survive. Vehicle traffic in the
river bed could be more easily managed than the potential threats to
the Oconee, which may need extensive study to be understood. In
determining which river would best serve to protect the spinymussel,
the Service chose the Ohoopee because it was known to be inhabited by
the spinymussel more recently, it was considered high-quality habitat
(habitat that includes multiple PCEs), and manmade impacts should be
easier to manage.
(9) Comment: The continued declines of the Altamaha spinymussel are
likely exacerbated by density-dependence in which too few individuals
exist to adequately repopulate the basin at observable levels.
Our response: We agree, and consider this to be the most serious
threat faced by this mussel (for further explanation see Factor E.
Other Natural and Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
and Determination).
Public Comments
(10) Comment: In the proposed rule, the Service has not adequately
considered the cost to other Federal agencies and how the listing might
impact civil works programs such as dredging for commercial navigation
or ecosystem restoration on the Altamaha, Oconee, and Ocmulgee Rivers.
Our response: The Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(b)
prohibit us from considering the possible economic impacts associated
with listing a species. However, we do take into consideration economic
impacts associated with designating critical habitat in accordance with
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Under section 7 of the Act, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) will need to consult with us for activities
that may affect the Altamaha spinymussel or its critical habitat. We
have broadly defined activities that may affect, destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat below (see Application of the ``Adverse
Modification'' Standard, below), and will work with the Corps to ensure
that the best available information is used when they consult with us.
Our final economic analysis (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2011, pp. ES-2,
ES-3, ES-4) found that there would be only marginal incremental
administrative costs associated with this critical habitat designation.
Incremental administrative costs are costs that would occur only as a
result of the critical habitat designation, which are above and beyond
costs associated with listing the species (i.e., baseline costs). The
economic analysis projects approximately $37,100 of total incremental
impacts (over the next 30 years (2011-2040)) using a seven percent
discount rate), as the result of critical habitat designation for the
Altamaha spinymussel.
In order to estimate the cost of consultation the Service contacted
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to see how many
consultations they conduct for the shortnose sturgeon
[[Page 62933]]
in the Altamaha River. NMFS biologists informed us that they average
less than one formal consultation on the Altamaha annually and would
estimate that they would conduct three formal consultations annually if
critical habitat were designated for this species (Bolden 2011, pers.
comm.). Because a listed species already occurs in these rivers, the
Altamaha spinymussel listing and critical habitat designation would not
be likely to prompt a large increase in the need for consultation or
the associated costs to the Corps.
(11) Comment: The proposal contains considerable speculation as to
the possible causes for reduced populations of the Altamaha spinymussel
but provides no substantive detail or analysis concerning the relative
importance of factors contributing to the supposed primary stressors,
sedimentation and contaminants.
Our response: The Service has monitored the decline of the
spinymussel since it first became a candidate species in 1984. Since
that time the Service and the State have funded numerous efforts to
develop a better understanding of the natural history of this species.
Unfortunately, the low numbers of this species have made it difficult
to study; therefore, we have analyzed the threats to this species using
the best available science on surrogate species. The natural history of
this species is likely very similar to other species in the family
Unionidae, and it is reasonable to assume that similar threats will
affect this species in a similar manner. Each threat is discussed in
detail in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and is
summarized in the Determination sections. A Threats Matrix detailing
our best understanding of the relative importance has been developed
and has been provided to the commenter. A copy of the Threats Matrix is
on file and available upon request. We have also clarified the relative
importance of specific threats, as needed, within the Threats Analysis
of this rule.
(12) Comment: The proposed rule misrepresents the (EPA's) Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and the impaired waters
identification process and erroneously suggests that the current
regulatory process is inadequate and will not afford protection to the
spinymussel. The proposed rule implies or states directly that current
regulatory water quality management tools are inadequate to protect
existing spinymussel populations.
Our response: The completion of and compliance with a TMDL removes
a stream from the 303(d) list (list of impaired waterbodies). However,
as stated, the stream is then placed on the 305(b) list of impaired
streams with a completed TMDL whether or not water quality conditions
improve. Furthermore, several waterbodies have been removed from the
303(d) list upon completion of a TMDL, only to return to the 303(d)
list due to additional violations. This indicates that while the TMDL
program can improve water quality in streams, it does not prevent water
quality violations from occurring, which could have a deleterious
effect on the Altamaha spinymussel.
(13) Comment: The proposed rule provides little or no justification
for the water quality metrics (primary constituent elements, or PCEs)
that are suggested as ``necessary for normal behavior, growth, and
viability at all life stages.''
Our response: In developing the parameters for the water quality
PCE, we used the best available information to create specific
guidelines (considering mussel life stage and interactions with
variables such as temperature) including temperature, dissolved oxygen,
ammonia, pH, and cadmium. How we derived these criteria is explained
below. Conversely, there are many possible toxicity issues for which we
do not believe there is sufficient information to develop water quality
standards that would be protective of the spinymussel at this time (see
also response to Comment 5).
Temperature PCE
We believe that the maximum temperature and the maximum daily
temperature fluctuation criteria identified in PCE 3 are supported by
the best available data generated from direct temperature measurements
of the Altamaha River, as well as comparisons to three temperature
gauge stations on the Savannah River, which is similar in size,
hydrology, and proximity (Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.). Therefore, a
maximum temperature of 32.6 [deg]C with no more than a 2 [deg]C daily
fluctuation appears justified. See the Physical or Biological Features
discussion to see how these were derived.
Dissolved Oxygen PCE
Comments suggesting that dissolved oxygen in bottom layers of
critical habitat may be lower than the PCE are not appropriate because
spinymussels are found in the mainstem river in areas of moving water
that does not stratify. Therefore, the water should be well-mixed and
dissolved oxygen should be consistent throughout the water column.
Ammonia PCE
For ammonia, 1.5 mg N/L is the criteria maximum concentration (CMC)
and 0.22 mg N/L is the criteria continuous concentration (CCC). A
review of mussel ammonia literature indicates that at least some
juvenile mussels are sensitive to ammonia at concentrations as low as
0.093 mg NH3/L in 10-d assays (Newton et al. 2003, p. 2556) and 0.37 mg
N/L in 28-d tests (Wang et al. 2007, pp. 2041-2043). EPA did not
include all mussel toxicity test data in derivation of the proposed
criteria (2009) because some tests did not use `standardized' methods
(Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). The Service considered all available
mussel ammonia toxicity data in deriving PCEs. The Service arrived at
the ammonia PCE values as a compromise between the mussel toxicity
literature and the proposed EPA criteria. There are no ammonia toxicity
data available for spinymussel, therefore, we believe this to be the
most valid approach for establishing a standard.
pH PCE
The Service attempted to determine the `central range' of pH values
in the Altamaha River by generating the 10th and 90th percentiles (the
point at which 10% and 90%, respectively, of the observed values fell)
of pH. Because the causes of the decline of the spinymussel remain
unidentified, and no data are available regarding the optimal pH for
this species, it is reasonable to designate a PCE for critical habitat
that does not include the extremes of any water quality parameter
(Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). Critical habitat must be supportive of
the species, and it is reasonable to assume that extremes of any
parameter could be detrimental to this species. Critical habitat PCEs
should incorporate the most stable habitats.
Cadmium PCE
Mussel toxicity to cadmium (Cd) is reported to occur at
concentrations as low as 16 [micro]g/L in 96-h tests with juveniles
(Wang et al. 2010, pp. 2056-2057). The Cd criteria for Georgia are 1
[micro]g/L (CMC) and 0.15 [micro]g/L (CCC). However, the commenter
suggests that the Cd concentrations required to cause toxicity are 2000
to 13,000 times greater than GA water quality criteria (1 ug/L). The Cd
concentration that caused acute toxicity with juvenile mussels is only
16 times higher than the Georgia Cd criteria. Therefore, it is not
prudent to assume that Cd is not a significant contributor to decline
in spinymussel populations. Early life stages are
[[Page 62934]]
generally more sensitive than adults; therefore, PCEs were established
based on a survey of all published mussel early-life-stage toxicity
data since 1992.
Comment (14): Climate change models do not provide information that
is appropriate for making management decisions regarding the Altamaha
spinymussel.
Our response: The Service agrees that it would not be appropriate
to use climate change models to make management decisions regarding the
Altamaha spinymussel. However, the Service acknowledges that climate
change could alter the severity of storms and droughts, which could
affect spinymussels in the future (See Factor E. Other Natural and Man
Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence, also see the
discussion under Critical Habitat, Background).
Comment (15): The Service should consider that factors unrelated to
habitat, such as invasive species, may be the most important limiting
factor for the Altamaha spinymussel.
Our response: While invasive species may be affecting the Altamaha
spinymussel (either directly or indirectly), there is little, if any,
information to support that invasive species are the most important
limiting factor affecting the Altamaha spinymussel or other mussels
native to the Altamaha or Atlantic Slope of Georgia. The flathead
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) was likely introduced into the Altamaha
River during the 1970s or 1980s, and populations began to greatly
increase during the 1990s. Flathead catfish may predate the host fish
for the Altamaha spinymussel and other native unionids (see discussion
under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence). However, despite the introduction of this
piscivorous (fish eating) fish, most fish and mollusk species known
from the Altamaha Basin as well as the remainder of the Atlantic Slope
of Georgia, where the flathead catfish has been introduced, appear to
be extant and relatively abundant. Similar trends occur in the nearby
Flint River Basin where the flathead catfish has been introduced.
Despite the introduction of this species and the highly altered nature
of the Flint River, mussel species composition is similar to those
experienced prior to the introduction of the flathead catfish
(Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.).
The competition between the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and
native unionids has been examined, but results have been contradictory.
Yeager et al. (2000, pp. 256-258) suggested that high densities of
Asian clam may negatively influence unionid recruitment. However,
Vaughn and Spooner (unpublished data, p. 5) indicated that Asian clam
densities were generally lower when populations of native unionids were
dense, but increased with declining populations of native unionids.
Gardner et al. (1976, pp. 122-124) hypothesized that the decline in
bivalve populations in the Altamaha River co-occurred with the invasion
of Corbicula; they also admit that ``a combination of factors probably
was responsible for the success of Corbicula and the decline of other
bivalves in the Altamaha River.'' It is likely that the apparent
declines in the densities of Altamaha spinymussels are a result of a
variety of factors, some of which may be attributed to invasive
species. The extent to which they are adversely affected by flathead
catfish and Asian clam is currently unknown.
Comment (16): The Service should recognize that suspended solids
from biological wastewater treatment plants are often comprised largely
of organic matter and that such solids would not be expected to
contribute to sedimentation.
Our response: The Service concurs with this comment; we have no
information that suspended solids are a threat to the spinymussel at
this time.
Comment (17): Sediment issues in the southeastern United States are
complicated by a legacy of poor agricultural practices during the 1800s
and early 1900s, which raises questions about sources of sediment
problems and the relative magnitudes of different sediment sources
today. Silvicultural activities generally have only a small, short-
lived impact on water quality, especially when compared with other land
uses.
Our response: We agree that the primary source of sedimentation is
legacy sediment and that silvicutural activities have a small and
short-lived impact on water quality (see Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range). Legacy sediment migrating through the floodplains of the
Altamaha Basin is likely one of the most severe threats to the
spinymussel. As an example, in Murder Creek, a tributary of the Oconee
River, over 1.6 m (5.3 ft) of legacy sediment was observed (Jackson et
al. 2005, p. 1). Much of the eroded sediment was believed to remain in
valley storage or in transport as bedload in Georgia's Piedmont streams
(Jackson et al. 2005, p. 3). Based upon estimates of inputs from
various sources and exports via total suspended solids and bedload,
sediment exports were greater than sediment inputs. It is assumed that
the remainder of the sediment came from excavation and mobilization of
stored valley sediments, principally through lateral migration of
stream channels and bank erosion (Jackson et al. 2005, pg 10). Legacy
sediment is an ongoing threat as it moves downstream covering suitable
habitat.
Comment (18): The Service should consider that implementation rates
for forestry best management practices are high nationally and in
Georgia, including the Altamaha River Basin.
Our response: We agree that the rates of implementation for
forestry BMPs are high and consider sediment from silvicultural
activities to be a small and short-lived impact.
Comment (19): When properly implemented, forestry BMPs protect
water quality and habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. BMPs are
critical in mitigating water quality degradation from silviculture, and
when appropriately implemented and maintained, are very effective in
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution. Because of the overwhelming
body of research related to BMPs and their effectiveness for protecting
water quality and aquatic habitat, it is not surprising that the
Service has recognized in previous regulatory proposals that BMPs are
an important component of conservation strategies for freshwater
mussels.
Our Response: The Service agrees that BMPs are protective of water
quality and mussel habitat, and that industrial forestry activities
generally do a good job of implementing BMPs. However, some harvesting
operations fail to use BMPs adequately, and localized impacts can and
do occur.
Comment (20): The Georgia Forestry Commission's BMP education and
monitoring programs are effective at encouraging implementation of
forestry BMPs and provide ``reasonable assurance'' that forestry BMPs
are implemented effectively in Georgia.
Our response: We generally agree with this comment, particularly on
industrial forests. However, there are individual exceptions, with
compliance reported by the Georgia Forestry Commission at around 95
percent.
Comment (21): Sustainable forestry certification programs require
participants to meet or exceed forestry BMPs and help ensure high rates
of BMP implementation.
Our response: The Service agrees that the sustainable forestry
program is one of the most effective programs to ensure BMPs are
properly implemented.
Comment (22): Preliminary sampling of direct tributaries in
forested watersheds within the Altamaha River
[[Page 62935]]
Basin suggests that mussel communities are diverse and abundant. The
role of lakes in supporting the mussel community within the basin is
not known, but could be significant and should be explored further.
Our response: We believe that floodplain lakes within the Altamaha
Basin are of little importance to the Altamaha spinymussel as they do
not have habitat to sustain the species. Dinkins (2007, p. 4) provides
support for this by stating, ``species typically found in the river
where the substrate has a dominant sand matrix and/or slight to
moderate current during normal flow conditions (e.g., Elliptio spinosa,
Lampsilis dolabraeformis) were not present in Cogden Lake.'' Cogden
Lake is a floodplain lake in the Basin. The Altamaha spinymussel is
typically found in association with protected areas around sand bars,
in medium to coarse hard-packed sand, with rather swift current near
gently sloping, soft banks with its distribution greatly restricted to
these habitats (Meador 2009 p. 52, Sickel 1980, pp. 10-11; Wisniewski
2008, p. 2). In general, floodplain lakes within the Altamaha River
Basin exhibit habitats that are not conducive to the survival of the
Altamaha spinymussel as these habitats typically have little or no flow
and silty or muddy substrates.
In conclusion, there is not sufficient evidence to support the
existence of potential populations of the Altamaha spinymussel in these
floodplain lakes or tributaries.
Comment (23): The summary paragraph within Factor A, The present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range, is over-reaching and contains speculative language. Inferences
that enforcement of laws and regulations may be subverted to economic
interests and citing pending investigations by nongovernmental
environmental groups (such as Riverkeepers) should not be relied on as
the best scientific information available and are highly speculative
regarding impacts to mussels and their habitat.
Our response: The Service considers the best scientific and
commercial information available when making listing decisions, and
Riverkeepers have provided extensive and detailed field notes
concerning water quality violations. Few of these notes were considered
sufficient enough to include in this rule; however, the Altamaha
Riverkeeper has successfully brought three cases to court (Altamaha
Riverkeeper v. Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300-042 (S.D. Ga) (Order on
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001); Altamaha
Riverkeeper v. City of Lumber City, CV-300-043 (S.D. Ga); Altamaha
Riverkeepers v City of Cochran, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D. Ga. 2001))
regarding water quality standard violations (see Factor A discussion
below for more detail). We consider these court findings to be relevant
information related to enforcement of laws and regulations within the
watershed.
Comment (24): Two comments supported additional critical habitat
including the entire historic range of the spinymussel, as well as,
associated dry lands and wetlands.
Our response: We believe the occupied and unoccupied areas we are
designating as critical habitat adequately represent the geographical
areas essential for the conservation of the species. See our response
to Comment 8.
Comment (25): Why was the area around Plant Hatch excluded from
Critical Habitat designation?
Our response: We did not include the section of the Altamaha River
between US Route 1 and the upper property boundary of Moody Forest
Natural Area from proposed critical habitat because it does not contain
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. Dredging operations and thermal stress in the vicinity of
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant have altered the habitat quality so that
the PCEs are not present in this river reach. Habitat within this reach
is generally unstable, consisting of coarse, mobile sand.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five
listing factors are: (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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Bogan (1993, pp. 599-600 and 603-605) linked the decline and
extinction of bivalves to a wide variety of threats including
siltation, industrial pollution, municipal effluents, modification of
stream channels, impoundments, pesticides, heavy metals, invasive
species, and the loss of host fish. The Altamaha spinymussel lives
within a large river drainage exposed to a variety of landscape uses.
Habitat and water quality for the Altamaha spinymussel face degradation
from a number of sources. Primary among these are threats from
sedimentation and contaminants within the streams that the spinymussel
inhabits.
Sickel (1980, p. 12) characterized the habitat of the Altamaha
spinymussel as coarse-to-fine-grain sandbars, and suggested that this
may make the Altamaha spinymussel susceptible to adverse effects from
sediment (siltation). Sediments deposited on the stable sandbars
required by the Altamaha spinymussel could make sandbars unstable,
result in suffocation, or simply change the texture of the substrate,
making them unsuitable for the species. Sedimentation, including
siltation from surface runoff, has been implicated as a factor in water
quality impairment in the United States and has contributed to the
decline of mussel populations in streams throughout the country (Ellis
1936, pp. 39-41; Coon et al. 1977, p. 284; Marking and Bills 1979, pp.
209-210; Wilber 1983, pp. 25-57; Dennis 1984, pp. 207-212; Aldridge et
al. 1987, pp. 25-26; Schuster et al. 1989, p. 84; Wolcott and Neves
1991, pp. 1-6; Houp 1993, p. 96; Bogan 1993, pp. 603-605; Waters 1995,
pp. 53-77; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1084).
Specific impacts on mussels from sediments include reduced feeding
and respiratory efficiency, disrupted metabolic processes, reduced
growth rates, increased substrata instability, and the physical
smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-41; Stansbery 1970, p. 10;
Markings and Bills 1979, pp. 209-210; Kat 1982, p. 124; Aldridge et al.
1987, pp. 25-26; Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 375; Brim Box and
Mossa 1999, pp. 99-102; TNC 2004, p. 4; Cope 2008, pp. 452-459). Many
southeastern streams have increased turbidity levels due to siltation
(van der Schalie 1938, p. 56). Since turbidity is a limiting factor
that impedes the ability of sight-feeding fishes to forage (Burkhead
and Jenkins 1991, pp. 324-325), turbidity within the Altamaha River
Basin during the times that Altamaha spinymussels
[[Page 62936]]
attempt to reproduce may reduce the ability of the host fish to find
glochidia, and may contribute to the decline of the spinymussel by
reducing its efficiency at infecting the fish hosts necessary for
reproduction. In addition, sediment can eliminate or reduce the
recruitment of juvenile mussels (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101-102),
interfere with feeding activity (Dennis 1984, pp. 207-212), and act as
a vector in delivering contaminants to streams (Salomons et al. 1987,
p. 28).
From 1700 to 1970, agricultural practices in the Southern Piedmont
physiographic province resulted in extreme soil erosion, removing more
than 17.8 cm (7 in.) of soil across the landscape (Trimble 1974, p. 1).
The Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers all drain through the Piedmont
and were directly affected by this erosion and resulting sedimentation.
In 1938, van der Schalie (p. 56) reported the Altamaha River as being
yellow in color, due to the large amount of suspended silt originating
from intensive farming and road construction occurring in the
headwaters. The sediment from these practices moved into stream
channels and valleys, covering most of the original bottomlands
(Trimble 1974, p. 26) and is now referred to as legacy sediment
(Jackson et al. 2005, pg. 3). As a result, stream profiles have been
dramatically altered with unstable sediment deposits being dissected
and streams being incised with entrained sediment migrating downstream
to be deposited in stream channels and floodplains (Trimble 1974, pp.
116-121; Jackson et al. 2005, pg 1). The GDNR, Environmental Protection
Division (EPD 2007, p. iii) reported to EPA that approximately 75
percent of the average sediment load in the Altamaha River Basin
resulted from row crops and that it contributed an average sediment
load of 1 ton per acre per year. The EPD concluded that this sediment
is probably a legacy of past land use. The mobilization of legacy
sediments, principally through lateral migration of stream channels and
bank erosion is an ongoing threat as it moves downstream covering
suitable habitat (Jackson et al. 2005, p. 10). Large -scale sediment
movement and deposition may result in increased embeddedness, which
would generally decrease habitat quality (Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.).
The degree to which rocks (gravel, cobble, and boulders) and snags are
covered or sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of the stream bottom is a
measure of embeddedness, and is a parameter evaluated in the riffles
and runs of streams (also see Our Response to Comment 17). Although it
is the historical, anthropogenic land use that created the legacy
sediment, the volume of legacy sediment still migrating through the
Altamaha River Basin is a significant threat to the spinymussel.
Studies of the fish populations in the Altamaha River Basin were
conducted in 2000 by the GDNR Wildlife Resources Division (WRD). The
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index of Well-Being (IWB)
rate fish populations as being in Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or in
Very Poor condition, and were applied by the WRD to identify impaired
fish populations in the Altamaha River. Stream segments with fish
populations rated as Poor or Very Poor were listed as Biota Impacted. A
lack of fish habitat due to stream sedimentation was generally the
cause of a low IBI score.
Five Mile Creek (14.5 km/9 mi), Bullard Creek (12.8 km/8 mi), and
Jacks Creek (14.5 km/9 mi) were rated as ``Very Poor'' and placed on
the State of Georgia's 303(d) list of impaired waters due to a
significant impact on fish (EPD 2007a, pp. 1-2). These three streams
eventually feed into the mainstem of the Altamaha River via larger
channels. As sediment moves through the basin, habitat is periodically
buried. WRD recommends that there be no net increase in sediment
delivered to the impaired stream segments so that these streams will
recover over time (EPD 2007a, p. 26). Agriculture and roads were
identified as the major sources of sediment with silviculture, mining
sites, grazing, and urban development also contributing nonpoint
sources of sediment (EPD 2007a, p. 9). Agriculture, including row
crops, poultry farms, and pastures, constitute 15.5 percent of the land
cover in the Piedmont and 32.7 percent of the land cover in the Coastal
Plain (GDNR 2005, pp. 97, 132).
In addition to agriculture, there are numerous sources of sediment
within the Altamaha River Basin, including silviculture, unpaved roads,
kaolin mines, and construction sites. A threat assessment conducted by
TNC (2004, p. 9) listed sediment from urban, industrial, and nonpoint
sources (NPSs) as a threat to the spinymussel. The EPD (2007, p. v)
reported that, while historical row crop-based land use contributes the
majority of sediment in the Altamaha River (75 percent), that among
other sources, approximately 17.3 percent of the total sediment load is
from roads; 4.3 percent from grasses and wetlands; 1.5 percent from
urban lands; and 1.0 percent from quarries, strip mines, and gravel
pits. In addition, estimates of the contribution from construction
could not be obtained, but could represent a comparatively high
sediment load on a per -acre basis (EPD 2007, p. v).
Industrial forest management is practiced on approximately 8,000
hectares (40,000 acres) or 33 percent of the floodplain of the Altamaha
River (TNC 1997, p. 19). Typical forest management regimes in the
Altamaha River Basin use timber harvest methods and conduct other
activities that result in ground disturbances. These ground
disturbances can result in transport of sediment to streams during and
after precipitation events. In addition, forest management operations
often require miles of unpaved roads to extract timber and to provide
access for management activities. The majority of se