Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat, 61663-61719 [2012-24161]
Download as PDF
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 196
October 10, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell,
Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status
for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy
Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61664
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AW92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for the
Alabama Pearlshell, Round
Ebonyshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and
Choctaw Bean, and Threatened
Species Status for the Tapered Pigtoe,
Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell,
and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and Designation of
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, determine endangered
species status for the Alabama
pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae),
round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata),
southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa
choctawensis), and threatened species
status for the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia
burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum), under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act);
and designate critical habitat for the
eight mussel species. The effect of this
regulation is to conserve these eight
mussel species and their habitat under
the Act.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
November 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final
economic analysis, and the coordinates
from which the maps were generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available on the Internet at https://
www.fws.gov/PanamaCity and https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, and at the
Panama City FieldOffice. Any
additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for
this critical habitat designation will also
be available at the Fish and Wildlife
Service Web site and Field Office set out
above, and may also be included in the
preamble and/or 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 U.S. Fish and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
Wildlife Service, Panama City Field
Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama
City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769–
0552; facsimile 850–763–2177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don
Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Panama City Field
Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama
City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769–
0552; facsimile 850–763–2177. 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 Alabama pearlshell
(Margaritifera marrianae), round
ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata),
southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa
choctawensis) as endangered species,
and the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia
burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum) as threatened species; and
(2) a final rule to designate critical
habitat for the eight species.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Endangered Species Act (Act), a
species or subspecies may warrant
protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We are listing these eight
mussels because they have disappeared
from portions of their historic ranges or
are very rare, and facing numerous
ongoing threats. The Alabama pearlshell
and southern kidneyshell no longer
occur in 50 percent or more of the
stream systems in which they were
historically found. The round
ebonyshell is extremely rare, and its
distribution is restricted to the main
channel of the Escambia-Conecuh River.
Choctaw bean populations in the
Escambia River drainage are fragmented,
and the species’ numbers are low
throughout its range. The narrow pigtoe,
fuzzy pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
tapered pigtoe still occur in much of
their known range but have disappeared
from many of the tributary and main
channel locations from which they were
historically known. All are facing a
variety of threats. However, habitat
degradation and loss as a result of
excessive sedimentation, bed
destabilization, poor water quality, and
environmental contaminants are
considered the most significant threats
to these eight mussels. We are also
designating critical habitat under the
Act. Critical habitat is designated on the
basis of the best scientific information
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
available after taking into consideration
the economic impact, impact on
national security, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. In total,
approximately 2,404 kilometers (km)
(1,494 miles (mi.)) of stream and river
channels in nine units in Bay, Escambia,
Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa,
Walton, and Washington Counties,
Florida; and Barbour, Bullock, Butler,
Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw,
Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry,
Houston, Monroe, and Pike Counties,
Alabama, are being designated.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, a species may be listed as an
endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its existence.
These eight mussel species are facing
threats due to three of these five factors
(A, D and E). The Act also requires that
the Service designate critical habitat at
the time of listing to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. We
have determined that the designation is
prudent and critical habitat is
determinable for each of the eight
species (see Critical Habitat section
below).
We prepared an economic analysis.
To ensure that we consider the
economic impacts, we prepared an
economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. We published an
announcement and solicited public
comments on the draft economic
analysis. The analysis found that the
estimated incremental economic cost of
this critical habitat designation to be
$1.70 million over a 20-year time frame.
The majority of the economic impacts
are associated with the transportation
sector, particularly consultation costs
associated with the replacement and
maintenance of bridges and roads.
We requested peer review of the
methods used in our proposed listing
and critical habitat designation. We
specifically requested that four
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise on freshwater
mussel conservation and biology, and
who are familiar with the eight species
and the three river basins in which they
occur, review the scientific information
and methods in the proposed rule. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions and
provided additional information,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final rule.
We sought public comment on the
designation. During the first comment
period, we received five comment
letters directly addressing the proposed
listing and critical habitat designation.
During the second comment period, we
received four comment letters
addressing the proposed listing and
critical habitat designation, and the
draft economic analysis.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final
rule only those topics directly relevant
to the listing and designation of critical
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). For more information on the
biology, ecology, and critical habitat of
these eight mussel species refer to the
proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2011 (76 FR
61482). Information on the associated
draft economic analysis for the
proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on March 27, 2012 (77
FR 18173).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Previous Federal Actions
On October 4, 2011, we published the
proposed rule to list and designate
critical habitat for these eight mussels
(76 FR 61482). Federal actions for these
species prior to October 4, 2011, are
outlined in the proposed rule.
Publication of the proposed rule opened
a 60-day comment period, which closed
on December 5, 2011. On March 27,
2012 (77 FR 18173), we reopened the
comment period for 30 days, from
March 27 through April 26, 2012, in
order to announce the availability of
and receive comments on a draft
economic analysis, and to extend the
comment period on the proposed listing
and critical habitat designation.
Introduction
North American freshwater mussel
fauna is the richest in the world and
historically numbered around 300
species (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6).
Freshwater mussels are in decline,
however, and in the past century have
become more imperiled than any other
group of organisms (Williams et al.
2008, p. 55; Natureserve 2011).
Approximately 66 percent of North
America’s freshwater mussel species are
considered vulnerable to extinction or
possibly extinct (Williams et al. 1993, p.
6). Within North America, the
southeastern United States is the hot
spot for mussel diversity. Seventy-five
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
percent of southeastern mussel species
are in varying degrees of rarity or
possibly extinct (Neves et al. 1997, pp.
47–51). The central reason for the
decline of freshwater mussels is the
modification and destruction of their
habitat, especially from sedimentation,
dams, and degraded water quality
(Neves et al. 1997, p. 60; Bogan 1998, p.
376). These eight mussels, like many
other southeastern mussel species, have
undergone reductions in total range and
population density.
These eight species are all freshwater
bivalve mussels of the families
Margaritiferidae and Unionidae. The
Alabama pearlshell is a member of the
family Margaritiferidae, while the round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe belong to the family Unionidae.
These mussels are endemic to (found
only in) portions of three Coastal Plain
rivers that drain south-central and
southeastern Alabama and northwestern
Florida: the Escambia (known as the
Escambia River in Florida and the
Conecuh River in Alabama), the Yellow,
and the Choctawhatchee. All three
rivers originate in Alabama and flow
across the Florida panhandle before
emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, and
are entirely contained within the East
Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic
Region. The Alabama pearlshell is also
known from three locations in the
Mobile River Basin; however, only one
of those is considered to be currently
occupied.
General Biology
Freshwater mussels generally live
embedded in the bottom of rivers,
streams, and other bodies of water. They
siphon water into their shells and across
four gills that are specialized for
respiration and food collection. Food
items include detritus (disintegrated
organic debris), algae, diatoms, and
bacteria (Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430–
431). Adults are filter feeders and
generally orient themselves on or near
the substrate surface to take in food and
oxygen from the water column.
Juveniles typically burrow completely
beneath the substrate surface and are
pedal (foot) feeders (bringing food
particles inside the shell for ingestion
that adhere to the foot while it is
extended outside the shell) until the
structures for filter feeding are more
fully developed (Yeager et al. 1994, pp.
200–221; Gatenby et al. 1996, p. 604).
Sexes in margaritiferid and unionid
mussels are usually separate. Males
release sperm into the water column,
which females take in through their
siphons during feeding and respiration.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61665
Fertilization takes place inside the shell.
The eggs are retained in the gills of the
female until they develop into mature
larvae called glochidia. The glochidia of
most freshwater mussel species,
including all eight species addressed in
this rule, have a parasitic stage during
which they must attach to the gills, fins,
or skin of a fish to transform into a
juvenile mussel. Depending on the
mussel species, females release
glochidia either separately, in masses
known as conglutinates, or in one large
mass known as a superconglutinate. The
duration of the parasitic stage varies by
mussel species, water temperature, and
perhaps host fish species. When the
transformation is complete, the juvenile
mussels drop from their fish host and
sink to the stream bottom where, given
suitable conditions, they grow and
mature into adults.
Survey Data
Recent distributions are based on
surveys conducted from 1995 to 2012.
Historical distributions are based on
collections made prior to 1995.
Historical distribution data from
museum records and surveys dated
between the late 1800s and 1994 are
sparse, and most of these species were
more than likely present throughout
their respective river basins. Knowledge
of historical and current distribution
and abundance data were summarized
from Butler 1989; Williams et al. 2000
(unpublished), Blalock-Herod et al.
2002, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005,
Pilarczyk et al. 2006, and Gangloff, and
Hartfield 2009. In addition, a status
survey was conducted in 2010–2012 by
M.M. Gangloff and the final report is in
preparation. These studies represent a
compilation of museum records and
recent status surveys conducted
between 1990 and 2007. We also used
various other sources to identify the
historical and current locations
occupied by these species. These
include surveys, reports, and field notes
prepared by biologists from the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Marion, AL; Geological
Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL;
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Gainesville, FL; U.S.
Geological Survey, Gainesville, FL;
Alabama Malacological Research Center,
Mobile, AL; Troy University, Troy, AL;
Appalachian State University, Boone,
NC; various private consulting groups;
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Daphne, AL, and Panama City, FL. In
addition, we obtained occurrence data
from the collection databases of the
Museum of Fluviatile Mollusks (MFM),
Athearn collection; Auburn University
Natural History Museum (AUNHM),
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61666
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Auburn, AL; and Florida Museum of
Natural History (FLMNH), Gainesville,
FL.
Assessing Status
Assessing the state of a freshwater
mussel population is challenging. We
looked at trends in distribution (range)
by comparing recent occurrence data to
historical data, and we examined recent
abundance (numbers). One difficulty of
investigating population trends over
time in these species is the lack of
historical collection data within the
drainages. Athearn (1964, p. 134) noted
the streams of western Florida were
inadequately sampled, particularly the
lower Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and the
lower Escambia Rivers. Blalock-Herod et
al. (2005, p. 2) stated that little
collecting effort had been expended in
the Choctawhatchee River drainage as
compared to other nearby river systems
like the Apalachicola and Mobile river
drainages. This paucity of historical
occurrence data may create the
appearance of an increase in the number
of localities that support a species or an
expanding range; however, this is likely
due to increased sampling efforts and to
better sampling methods, like the use of
SCUBA gear.
Another difficulty is the lack basic
information for some historical
collections, including specific locality,
total number of species or individuals
collected, or collection date. For these
reasons, the only accurate comparison
that can be made of so many different
sources of historical and recent
collection data is whether a particular
species was detected (present) or not
(absent) during the survey. When
examining occurrence data, we
considered sampled areas in close
proximity as the same sight. Generally,
areas sampled that are within 2 river km
(1.2 mi) (approximately) of each other
are considered the same site, and
sampled areas that are more than 2 km
apart are considered different sites.
Occurences are based on live animals
and shell material. The occurrence data
we examined using GIS mapping
software. A summary historical and
recent occurrence data, and current
abundance is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1—EIGHT MUSSEL OCCURRENCE AND ABUNDANCE BY RIVER DRAINAGE—OCCURRENCES ARE BASED ON LIVE AND
SHELL MATERIAL AND ABUNDANCE IS BASED ON LIVE INDIVIDUALS
Historical (pre-1995)
Current (1995–2012)
Historical
sites
currently
occupied
Species
Drainage
Margaritifera
marrianae Alabama pearlshell.
Alabama
3
3
0
0
0
Escambia
Escambia
12
3
12
2
4
2
9
11
28
8
Escambia
10
5
0
0
0
Yellow ....
Choct .....
Escambia
1
12
7
1
11
7
0
1
1
0
10
7
0
41
14
0
2.5
1.4
Yellow ....
Choct .....
Choct .....
4
11
23
3
10
22
2
3
13
4
37
53
15
143
361
3.0
3.9
6.0
Escambia
13
10
7
28
166
6.9
Yellow ....
Escambia
2
6
2
4
1
1
4
6
23
20
2.9
4
Yellow ....
Choct .....
Escambia
5
18
30
4
16
18
2
5
12
17
34
26
65
211
52
3.1
4.5
6.5
Yellow ....
Choct .....
4
18
4
15
1
8
1
59
1
587
1
9.9
Fusconaia rotulata
round ebonyshell.
Ptychobranchus
jonesi southern
kidneyshell.
Villosa
choctawensis
Choctaw bean.
Fusconaia burkei
tapered pigtoe.
Fusconaia
escambia narrow
pigtoe.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Hamiota australis
southern
sandshell.
Pleurobema
strodeanum fuzzy
pigtoe.
1 Includes
2 Average
Historical
sites resurveyed
Historical
sites
Total live
collected
Current
sites 1
Average
abundance 2
all currently occupied sites, both historic and new.
number of live individuals collected per site.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
0
3.14
1.1
0
General
assessment
Contracted range,
limited distribution, very low
numbers.
Limited distribution,
very low numbers.
Contracted range,
limited distribution, very low
numbers.
Fragmented populations
(Escambia), localized extirpations, low
numbers.
Limited distribution,
localized extirpations.
Localized extirpations, limited
distribution, low
numbers.
Localized extirpations.
Nearly extirpated
from Yellow
drainage, localized extirpations.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
We also considered each species’
relative abundance in comparison to
other mussel species with which they
co-occur. In addition, we relied on
various published documents whose
authors are considered experts on these
species. These publications either
described the status of these species or
assigned a conservation ranking, and
include Williams et al. 1993, Williams
and Butler 1994; Mirarchi et al. 2004,
Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, and Williams
et al. 2008.
Most of the eight species have
experienced a decline in populations
and numbers of individuals within
populations, but not all have
experienced a decline in range. Recent,
targeted surveys for the Alabama
pearlshell and southern kidneyshell
show a dramatic decline in historical
range. The Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, fuzzy pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and tapered pigtoe still occur in much
of their historical range; however, they
no longer occur at many locations at
which they were historically known,
and their numbers appear to be
declining. The round ebonyshell’s
current range is larger than its historical
range, but this is attributed to the use of
dive equipment in recent surveys that
allowed access to the species’ deep,
main channel habitat. Despite this range
extension, the species still has a very
limited distribution and is considered to
be extremely rare.
Taxonomy, Life History, and
Distribution
Alabama Pearlshell
The Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera
marrianae, Johnson 1983) is a mediumsized freshwater mussel known from a
few tributaries of the Alabama and
Escambia River drainages in southcentral Alabama (Johnson 1983, pp.
299–304; McGregor 2004, p. 40;
Williams et al. 2008, pp. 98–99). The
pearlshell is oblong and grows up to 95
millimeters (mm) (3.8 inches (in)) in
length. The outside of the shell
(periostracum) is smooth and shiny and
somewhat roughened along the
posterior slope. The inside of the shell
(nacre) is whitish or purplish and
moderately iridescent (refer to Johnson
1983 for a full description).
The Alabama pearlshell is one of five
North American species in the family
Margaritiferidae. The family is
represented by only two genera,
Margaritifera (Schumacher 1816) and
Cumberlandia (Ortmann 1912). In
Alabama, each genus is represented by
a single species—the spectaclecase
(Cumberlandia monodonta) occurs in
the Tennessee River Basin (Williams et
al. 2008, pp. 94–95), and the Alabama
pearlshell occurs in the Escambia and
Alabama river basins in south Alabama.
Prior to 1983, the Alabama pearlshell
was thought to be the same species as
the Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera
61667
hembeli Conrad 1838) (Simpson 1914;
Clench and Turner 1956), a species now
considered endemic to central
Louisiana.
The Alabama pearlshell typically
inhabits small headwater streams with
mixed sand and gravel substrates,
occasionally in sandy mud, with slow to
moderate current. Very little is known
about the life-history requirements of
this species. However, Shelton (1995, p.
5 unpub. report) suggests that the
Alabama pearlshell, as opposed to the
Louisiana pearlshell, which occurs in
large colonies, typically occurs in low
numbers. The Alabama pearlshell is also
believed to occur in male-female pairs.
Of the 68 Alabama pearlshell observed
by Shelton (1995, p. 5 unpub. report), 85
percent occurred in pairs. Males were
always located upstream of the females
and were typically not more than 1
meter (m) apart, and juveniles were
usually found just a few inches apart.
The species is believed to be a long-term
brooder, where gravid females have
been observed in December. The host
fish and other aspects of its life history
are currently unknown.
Historically, the Alabama pearlshell
occurred in portions of the Escambia
River drainage, and has also been
reported from two systems in the
Alabama River drainage. The Alabama
pearlshell’s known historical and
current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE ALABAMA PEARLSHELL
Drainage
County
Big Flat Creek ..............................
Brushy Creek ...............................
Limestone Creek ..........................
Amos Mill Creek ...........................
Autrey Creek ................................
Beaver Creek ...............................
Bottle Creek .................................
Brushy Creek ...............................
Burnt Corn Creek .........................
Horse Creek .................................
Hunter Creek ................................
Jordan Creek ................................
Little Cedar Creek ........................
Murder Creek ...............................
Otter Creek ...................................
Sandy Creek ................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Alabama ......................................
Alabama ......................................
Alabama ......................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Monroe ........................................
Monroe ........................................
Monroe ........................................
Conecuh, Escambia ....................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Crenshaw ....................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
The Amos Mill population,
discovered in 2010, represents a new
record, and possibly the only known
surviving population in the Sepulga
River drainage. The Burnt Corn and
Otter Creek populations reaffirm
historical records that had not been
reported in nearly 30 years. Two of the
Sandy Creek locations, discovered in
2011, are new populations. Since the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
late 1990s, more than 70 locations
within the Alabama River Basin were
surveyed for mollusks (McGregor et al.
1999, pp. 13–14; Powell and Ford 2010
pers. obs.; Buntin and Fobian 2011 pers.
comm.), 35 of which were located in the
Limestone and Big Flat Creek drainages,
and no live Alabama pearlshell were
reported. The last documented
occurrence in Big Flat Creek was a fresh
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Historical or current
Historical and
Historical.
Historical.
Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
dead individual collected in 1995
(Shelton 1999 in litt.), and the last
reported occurrence in the Limestone
Creek drainage was 1974, where
Williams (2009 pers. comm.) reported it
as common. Despite numerous visits,
the pearlshell has not been collected in
this system since 1974. A fresh dead
individual collected by Shelton in 1995,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61668
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
represents the most recent record from
the Big Flat Creek drainage.
Recent data suggest that, of the nine
remaining populations, the largest may
occur in Little Cedar and Otter Mill
creeks. In 2011, Fobian and Pritchett
reported new populations at two
locations in an unnamed tributary to
Sandy Creek. Although this is not the
first report from the Sandy Creek basin,
it is the first for the two unnamed
tributaries. In 2010, Buntin and Fobian
(2011 pers. comm.) reported 10 live
individuals from Otter Creek. This is the
first time since 1981 that the pearlshell
has been reported from this drainage.
Also in 2010, Powell and Ford reported
three live individuals, and several relic
shells, from Amos Mill Creek, in
Escambia County, AL. This is the first
report of the pearlshell from this
drainage, and county, and the first live
individual from the Sepulga River
system in nearly 50 years. Little Cedar
Creek supported good numbers of
Alabama pearlshell in the late 1990’s
(54 individuals reported in 1998).
However, during a qualitative search of
the same area in 2005, only two live
pearlshell were found (Powell 2005
pers. obs.), and in 2006, three live
pearlshells were observed (Johnson
2006 in litt.). Live Alabama pearlshell
have not been observed in Hunter Creek
since 1998, when eight live individuals
were reported (Shelton 1999 in litt.).
During two visits to the stream in 1999,
Shelton found no evidence of the
species (Shelton 1999 in litt.), and
reported high levels of sedimentation.
However, in 2005 the shells of three
fresh dead Alabama pearlshells were
reported from Hunter Creek, indicating
the persistence of the species in that
drainage (Powell, pers. obs. 2005).
Evidence suggests that much of the
rangewide decline of this species has
occurred within the past few decades.
Specific causes of the decline and
disappearance of the Alabama pearlshell
from historical stream localities are
unknown. However, they are likely
related to past and present land use
patterns. Many of the small streams
historically inhabited by the Alabama
pearlshell are impacted to various
degrees by nonpoint-source pollution.
Round Ebonyshell
The round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata, Wright 1899) is a mediumsized freshwater mussel endemic to the
Escambia River drainage in Alabama
and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p.
320). The round ebonyshell is round to
oval in shape and reaches about 70 mm
(2.8 in.) in length. The shell is thick and
the exterior is smooth and dark brown
to black in color. The shell interior is
white to silvery and iridescent
(Williams and Butler 1994, p. 61;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 319). The round
ebonyshell was originally described by
B.H. Wright in 1899 and placed in the
genus Unio. Simpson (1900) reexamined
the type specimen and assigned it to the
genus Obovaria. Based on shell
characters, Williams and Butler (1994,
p. 61) recognized it as clearly a species
of the genus Fusconaia, and its
placement in the genus is supported
genetically (Lydeard et al. 2000, p. 149).
Very little is known about the habitat
requirements or life history of the round
ebonyshell. It occurs in small to
medium rivers, typically in stable
substrates of sand, small gravel, or
sandy mud in slow to moderate current.
It is believed to be a short-term brooder,
and gravid females have been observed
in the spring and summer. The fish
host(s) for the round ebonyshell is
currently unknown (Williams et al.
2008, p. 320).
The round ebonyshell is known only
from the main channel of the EscambiaConecuh River and is the only mussel
species endemic to the drainage
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). Due to
recent survey data, its known range was
extended downstream the Escambia
River to Molino, Florida (Gangloff 2012
pers. comm.), and upstream in the
Conecuh River to just above the
Covington County line in Alabama
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). The round
ebonyshell’s known historical and
current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE ROUND EBONYSHELL
Drainage
County
Conecuh River .............................
Escambia River ............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia, Covington ..................
Escambia, Santa Rosa ...............
The round ebonyshell has a very
restricted distribution (Williams and
Butler 1994, p. 61), with its current
range (based on live individuals and
shell material) confined to
approximately 144 km (89 mi) of the
Escambia-Conecuh River main channel.
The round ebonyshell is also considered
to be extremely rare (Williams et al.
2008, p. 320). Researchers collected a
total of three live individuals during a
2006 dive survey (Shelton et al. 2007,
pp. 8–10 unpub. report), and 4 more
were collected during a dive survey in
2011 (Gangloff 2012 pers. comm). At
stations where the species was present
in the 2011 survey, 219 mussels were
collected for every 1 round ebonyshell.
Because its distribution is limited to the
main channel of one river, the round
ebonyshell is particularly vulnerable to
catastrophic events such as flood scour
and contaminant spills, and to activities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
that cause streambed destabilization like
gravel mining, dredging, and desnagging for navigation. Due to its
limited distribution and rarity,
McGregor (2004, p. 56) considered the
round ebonyshell vulnerable to
extinction, and classified it as a species
of highest conservation concern in
Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11)
considered the round ebonyshell as
endangered throughout its range.
Southern Kidneyshell
The southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi, van der Schalie
1934) is a medium-sized freshwater
mussel known from the Escambia and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in
Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow
River drainage in Alabama (Williams et
al. 2008, p. 624). The southern
kidneyshell is elliptical and reaches
about 72 mm (2.8 in.) in length. Its shell
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
State
AL
FL
Historical or current
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
is smooth and shiny, and greenish
yellow to dark brown or black in color,
sometimes with weak rays. The shell
interior is bluish white with some
iridescence (Williams and Butler 1994,
p. 126; Williams et al. 2008, p. 624). The
southern kidneyshell was described by
H. van der Schalie (1934) as Lampsilis
jonesi. Following the examination of
gills of gravid females, Fuller and
Bereza (1973, p. 53) determined it
belonged in the genus Ptychobranchus.
When gravid, the marsupial gills form
folds along the outer edge, a
characteristic unique to the genus
Ptychobranchus (Williams et al. 2008, p.
609).
Very little is known about the habitat
requirements or life history of the
southern kidneyshell. It is typically
found in medium creeks to small rivers
in firm sand substrates with slow to
moderate current (Williams et al. 2008,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pp. 625). A recent status survey in the
Choctawhatchee basin in Alabama
found its preferred habitat to be stable
substrates near bedrock outcroppings
(Gangloff and Hartfield 2009, p. 25). The
southern kidneyshell is believed to be a
long-term brooder, with females gravid
from autumn to the following spring or
summer. Preliminary reproductive
studies found that females release their
glochidia in small conglutinates that are
bulbous at one end and tapered at the
other (Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity
Center 2006, unpub. data). Host fish for
the southern kidneyshell are currently
unknown; however, darters serve as
primary glochidial hosts to other
members of the genus Ptychobranchus
(Luo 1993, p. 16; Haag and Warren
1997, p. 580).
61669
The southern kidneyshell is endemic
to the Escambia, Choctawhatchee, and
Yellow River drainages in Alabama and
Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 624),
but is currently known only from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The
southern kidneyshell’s known historical
and current occurrences, by water body
and county, are shown in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE SOUTHERN KIDNEYSHELL
Water body
Drainage
County
Burnt Corn Creek .........................
Jordan Creek ................................
Sepulga River ...............................
Conecuh River .............................
Patsaliga Creek ............................
Little Patsaliga Creek ...................
Hollis Creek ..................................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Sandy Creek ................................
Holmes Creek ..............................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Pea River .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Yellow ..........................................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Flat Creek .....................................
Whitewater Creek .........................
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
East Fork Choctawhatchee River
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Escambia .....................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Covington, Crenshaw ..................
Covington, Crenshaw ..................
Crenshaw ....................................
Covington ....................................
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Washington .................................
Geneva, Dale ..............................
Geneva, Coffee, Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Geneva ........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Dale, Barbour ..............................
Dale, Henry .................................
Since 1995, the southern kidneyshell
has been detected at only 10 locations
within the Choctawhatchee River
drainage. The species appears to have
been common historically (in 1964, H.
D. Athearn collected 98 individuals at
one site on the West Fork
Choctawhatchee), but it is currently
considered one of the most imperiled
species in the United States (BlalockHerod et al. 2005, p. 16; Williams et al.
2008, p. 625). In addition to a reduction
in range, its numbers are very low. A
2006–2007 status survey in the Alabama
portion of the Choctawhatchee basin
found the southern kidneyshell was
extremely rare. A total of 13 were
encountered alive, and the species
comprised less than 0.3 percent of the
total mussel assemblage (Gangloff and
Hartfield 2009, p. 249). It is classified as
a species of highest conservation
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
concern in Alabama by McGregor (2004,
p. 83), and considered threatened
throughout its range by Williams et al.
(1993, p. 14)
Choctaw Bean
The Choctaw bean (Villosa
choctawensis, Athearn 1964) is a small
freshwater mussel known from the
Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages of Alabama and Florida.
The oval shell of the Choctaw bean
reaches about 49 mm (2.0 in.) in length,
and is shiny and greenish-brown in
color, typically with thin green rays,
though the rays are often obscured in
darker individuals. The shell interior
color varies from bluish white to smoky
brown with some iridescence (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 100; Williams et al.
2008, p. 758). The sexes are dimorphic,
with females truncate or widely
State
Historical or current
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
AL
AL
AL
AL
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Historical.
rounded posteriorly, and sometimes
slightly more inflated (Athearn 1964, p.
137). The Choctaw bean was originally
described by H.D. Athearn in 1964.
Very little is known about the habitat
requirements or life history of the
Choctaw bean. It is found in medium
creeks to medium rivers in stable
substrates of silty sand to sandy clay
with moderate current. It is believed to
be a long-term brooder, with females
gravid from late summer or autumn to
the following summer. Its fish host is
currently unknown (Williams et al.
2008, p. 758).
The Choctaw bean is known from the
Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 758). The
Choctaw bean’s known historical and
current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 5 below.
TABLE 5—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE CHOCTAW BEAN
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Drainage
County
Escambia River ............................
Burnt Corn ....................................
Murder Creek ...............................
Pigeon Creek ...............................
Patsaliga Creek ............................
Little Patsaliga Creek ...................
Olustee Creek ..............................
Conecuh River .............................
Yellow River .................................
Five Runs Creek ..........................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Escambia, Santa Rosa ...............
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Butler ...........................................
Crenshaw ....................................
Crenshaw ....................................
Pike .............................................
Crenshaw, Pike ...........................
Okaloosa .....................................
Covington ....................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
State
FL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
AL
10OCR2
Historical or current
Historical and
Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Historical and
Historical and
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
61670
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE CHOCTAW BEAN—Continued
Water body
Drainage
County
Yellow River .................................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Holmes Creek ..............................
Bruce Creek .................................
Wrights Creek ..............................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Pea River .....................................
Limestone Creek ..........................
Flat Creek .....................................
Whitewater Creek .........................
Pea Creek ....................................
Big Sandy Creek ..........................
Claybank Creek ............................
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
Judy Creek ...................................
Pauls Creek ..................................
East Fork Choctawhatchee River
Yellow ..........................................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Covington ....................................
Walton, Washington, Holmes ......
Washington .................................
Walton .........................................
Holmes ........................................
Geneva, Dale ..............................
Geneva, Coffee, Pike, Barbour ...
Walton .........................................
Geneva ........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Barbour ........................................
Bullock .........................................
Dale .............................................
Dale, Barbour ..............................
Dale .............................................
Barbour ........................................
Henry, Barbour ............................
The Choctaw bean persists in most of
its historic range. However, it has
experienced localized extirpations and
its numbers are low, particularly in the
Escambia and Yellow river drainages. Of
7 historical sites known to support the
species within the Escambia River
drainage, 1 location currently supports
the species. Also, its numbers within
the drainage are very low; a total of 14
individuals have been collected since
1995. Within the Yellow River drainage,
the Choctaw bean is currently known
from 4 locations which yielded 15
individuals total. In the Choctawhatchee
River drainage, 3 of 10 historical sites
examined recently continue to support
the species. The Choctaw bean
continues to persist in most areas and is
currently known from a total of 37
locations throughout the drainage.
Heard (1975, p. 17) assessed the status
of the Choctaw bean in 1975 and stated
that it was formerly abundant in the
main channel of the Choctawhatchee
River in Florida, but has become quite
rare. McGregor (2004, p. 103)
considered the Choctaw bean vulnerable
to extinction due to its limited
distribution and habitat degradation,
and classified it as a species of high
conservation concern in Alabama.
Williams et al. (1993, p. 14) considered
the Choctaw bean as threatened
throughout its range.
Tapered Pigtoe
The tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei,
Walker 1922) is a small to mediumsized mussel endemic to the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 296). The elliptical to
subtriangular shell of the tapered pigtoe
reaches about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length,
and is sculptured with plications
(parallel ridges) that radiate from the
posterior ridge. In younger individuals,
the shell exterior is greenish brown to
yellowish brown in color, occasionally
with faint dark-green rays, and with
pronounced sculpture often covering
the entire shell; in older individuals, the
shell becomes dark brown to black with
age, and sculpture is often subtle. The
shell interior is bluish white (Williams
et al. 2008, p. 295). The tapered pigtoe
was described by B. Walker (in Ortmann
and Walker 1922) as Quincuncina
burkei, a new genus and species. In the
description, Ortmann noted the species
had gill features characteristic of the
genus Fusconaia; however, this was
dismissed based on the presence of
sculpture on the shell. Genetic analysis
by Lydeard et al. (2000, p. 149)
determined it to be a sister taxon to
State
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
FL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Historical or current
Historical
Historical
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical
Historical
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical
Current.
Current.
Historical
and Current.
and Current.
and Current.
and Current.
and Current.
and Current.
Fusconaia escambia. Based on soft
anatomy similarity, Williams et al.
(2008, p. 296) recognized burkei as
belonging to the genus Fusconaia.
Recent molecular studies by Campbell
and Lydeard (2012, p. 28) support the
distinctiveness of burkei as a species
and its assignment to the genus
Fusconaia.
The tapered pigtoe is found in
medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of sand, small gravel,
or sandy mud, with slow to moderate
current (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296).
The reproductive biology of the tapered
pigtoe was studied by White et al.
(2008). It is a short-term brooder, with
females gravid from mid-March to May.
The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) was found to serve as a host for
tapered pigtoe glochidia in the
preliminary host trial (White et al. 2008,
p. 122–123).
The tapered pigtoe is endemic to the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 296). Its historical and current
distribution includes several oxbow
lakes in Florida, some with a flowing
connection to the main channel. The
tapered pigtoe’s known historical and
current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 6 below.
TABLE 6—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE TAPERED PIGTOE
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Drainage
Pine Log Creek ............................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Crews Lake ..................................
Crawford Lake ..............................
Horseshoe Lake ...........................
Holmes Creek ..............................
Bruce Creek .................................
Sandy Creek ................................
Blue Creek ...................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
County
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
State
Washington, Bay .........................
Walton, Washington, Holmes ......
Washington .................................
Washington .................................
Washington .................................
Washington, Holmes, Jackson ....
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Holmes ........................................
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
10OCR2
Historical or current
Current.
Historical and Current.
Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
61671
TABLE 6—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE TAPERED PIGTOE—
Continued
Water body
Drainage
Wrights Creek ..............................
Tenmile Creek ..............................
West Pittman Creek .....................
East Pittman Creek ......................
Parrot Creek .................................
Limestone Creek ..........................
Eightmile Creek ............................
Flat Creek .....................................
Pea River .....................................
Big Creek (Whitewater Creek tributary).
Big Creek (Pea River tributary) ....
Pea Creek ....................................
Hurricane Creek ...........................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Little Choctawhatchee River ........
Panther Creek ..............................
Bear Creek ...................................
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
Judy Creek ...................................
Pauls Creek ..................................
County
State
Historical or current
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Geneva ........................................
Coffee, Dale, Pike, Barbour ........
Pike .............................................
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
AL
Current.
Historical.
Current.
Historical and
Current.
Historical and
Current.
Historical and
Historical and
Current.
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Barbour ........................................
Barbour ........................................
Geneva ........................................
Dale .............................................
Dale, Houston .............................
Houston .......................................
Houston .......................................
Dale, Barbour ..............................
Dale .............................................
Barbour ........................................
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Current.
Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Current.
Current.
The tapered pigtoe appears to be
absent from portions of its historic range
and found only in isolated locations
(Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, p. 17). The
species was not detected at 9 of the 22
historical sites examined during recent
status surveys. Most of those are in the
middle portion of the drainage in
Alabama, and the species appears to be
declining in this portion of its range.
The tapered pigtoe is currently known
from a total of 53 locations within the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The
species persists mainly in the lower
portions of the drainage and in isolated
locations in Alabama.
Due to its limited distribution, rarity,
and habitat degradation, Blalock-Herod
(2004, p. 105) considered the tapered
pigtoe vulnerable to extinction, and
classified it as a species of high
conservation concern in Alabama. The
tapered pigtoe is considered threatened
throughout its range by Williams et al.
(1993, p. 14).
Narrow Pigtoe
The narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia, Clench and Turner 1956) is a
small to medium-sized mussel known
from the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow
River drainage in Florida. The
subtriangular to squarish shaped shell of
the narrow pigtoe reaches about 75 mm
(3.0 in.) in length. The shell is
moderately thick and is usually reddish
brown to black in color. The shell
interior is white to salmon in color with
iridescence near the posterior margin
(Williams and Butler 1994, p. 77;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 316). The
narrow pigtoe was originally described
by W. J. Clench and R. D. Turner in
1956. Both molecular (Campbell and
Lydeard 2012, p. 28) and morphological
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 316) evidence
support the distinctiveness of escambia
as a species and its assignment to the
genus Fusconaia.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Little is known about the habitat
requirements or life history of the
narrow pigtoe. It is found in medium
creeks to medium rivers, in stable
substrates of sand, sand and gravel, or
silty sand, with slow to moderate
current. It is believed to be a short-term
brooder, with females gravid during
spring and summer. The host fish for
the narrow pigtoe is currently unknown
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 317). The
species is somewhat unusual in that it
tolerates a small reservoir environment
(Williams 2009 pers. comm.).
Reproducing narrow pigtoe populations
were found recently in some areas of
Point A Lake and Gantt Lake reservoirs.
The narrow pigtoe is endemic to the
Escambia River drainage in Alabama
and Florida, and to the Yellow River
drainage in Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 317). The narrow pigtoe’s
known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county,
are shown in Table 7 below.
TABLE 7—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE NARROW PIGTOE
Drainage
County
Escambia River ............................
Conecuh River .............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Burnt Corn Creek .........................
Murder Creek ...............................
Bottle Creek .................................
Panther Creek ..............................
Persimmon Creek ........................
Three Run Creek .........................
Patsaliga Creek ............................
Yellow River .................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Yellow ..........................................
Escambia, Santa Rosa ...............
Escambia, Covington, Crenshaw,
Pike.
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Butler ...........................................
Butler ...........................................
Butler ...........................................
Covington, Crenshaw ..................
Santa Rosa, Okaloosa ................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
State
Historical or current
FL
AL
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical and Current.
10OCR2
61672
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
The narrow pigtoe still occurs in
much of its historic range, but may be
extirpated from localized areas. In the
Escambia River drainage, the narrow
pigtoe occurs in nearly all of its
historical range and is currently known
from 28 locations. It was not detected at
3 out of 10 historical sites examined
recently in the drainage. The species is
rare in the Yellow River drainage; a total
of 23 individuals from 4 locations have
been collected since 1995.
McGregor (2004, p. 55) considered the
narrow pigtoe vulnerable to extinction
because of its limited distribution,
rarity, and susceptibility to habitat
degradation, and classified it as a
species of highest conservation concern
in Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11)
considered the narrow pigtoe threatened
throughout its range.
Southern Sandshell
The southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis, Simpson 1900) is a mediumsized freshwater mussel known from the
Escambia River drainage in Alabama,
and the Yellow and Choctawhatchee
River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 338). The
southern sandshell is elliptical in shape
and reaches about 83 mm (2.3 in.) in
length. Its shell is smooth and shiny,
and greenish in color in young
specimens, becoming dark greenish
brown to black with age, with many
variable green rays. The shell interior is
bluish white and iridescent. Sexual
dimorphism is present as a slight
inflation of the posterioventral shell
margin of females (Williams and Butler
1994, p. 97; Williams et al. 2008, p.
337). The southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis) was originally described by C.
T. Simpson (1900) as Lampsilis
australis. Heard (1975), however,
designated it as a species of Villosa. It
was placed in the genus Hamiota by Roe
and Hartfield (2005, pp. 1–3), who
confirmed earlier published suggestions
by Fuller and Bereza (1973, p. 53) and
O’Brien and Brim Box (1999, pp. 135–
136) that this species and three others
of the genus Lampsilis represent a
distinct genus. This separation from
other Lampsilis is supported genetically
(Roe et al. 2001, p. 2230).
The southern sandshell is typically
found in small creeks and rivers in
stable substrates of sand or mixtures of
sand and fine gravel, with slow to
moderate current. It is a long-term
brooder, and females are gravid from
late summer or autumn to the following
spring (Williams et al. 2008, p. 338).
The southern sandshell is one of only
four species that produce a
superconglutinate to attract a host. The
superconglutinate mimics the shape,
coloration, and movement of a fish and
is produced by the female mussel to
hold all glochidia (larval mussels) from
one year’s reproductive effort (Haag et
al. 1995, p. 472). Although the fish host
for the southern sandshell has not been
identified, it likely uses predatory
sunfishes such as basses, like other
Hamiota species (Haag et al. 1995, p.
475; O’Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134;
Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p. 1885).
The southern sandshell is endemic to
the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama, and the Yellow and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in
Alabama and Florida (Blalock-Herod et
al. 2002, pp. 1882, 1884). The southern
sandshell’s known historical and
current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 8 below.
TABLE 8—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE SOUTHERN SANDSHELL
Drainage
County
Burnt corn creek ...........................
Murder Creek ...............................
Jordan Creek ................................
Sepulga River ...............................
Conecuh River .............................
Little Patsaliga Creek ...................
Patsaliga Creek ............................
Yellow River .................................
Shoal River ...................................
Pond Creek ..................................
Yellow River .................................
Five Runs Creek ..........................
Alligator Creek ..............................
Holmes Creek ..............................
Bruce Creek .................................
West Sandy Creek .......................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Tenmile Creek ..............................
Wrights Creek ..............................
Limestone Creek ..........................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Pea River .....................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Flat Creek .....................................
Eightmile Creek ............................
Natural Bridge Creek ...................
Corner Creek ................................
Whitewater Creek .........................
Pea Creek ....................................
Double Bridges Creek ..................
Little Choctawhatchee River ........
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
Sikes Creek ..................................
Pauls Creek ..................................
East Fork Choctawhatchee River
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Escambia, Conecuh ....................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Covington, Crenshaw, Pike .........
Crenshaw ....................................
Crenshaw ....................................
Okaloosa .....................................
Okaloosa, Walton ........................
Okaloosa .....................................
Covington ....................................
Covington ....................................
Washington .................................
Holmes, Jackson .........................
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Walton .........................................
Geneva, Dale ..............................
Geneva, Coffee, Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Geneva ........................................
Geneva, Walton ..........................
Geneva ........................................
Geneva ........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Barbour ........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Dale, Houston .............................
Barbour, Dale ..............................
Barbour ........................................
Barbour ........................................
Dale, Henry .................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
State
Historical or current
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
Historical and Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical.
Current and Historical.
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Current.
Current.
Historical and Current.
Historical.
Current.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
AL
AL, FL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Current.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical and Current.
10OCR2
61673
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
The southern sandshell persists in its
historic range; however, its range is
fragmented and numbers appear to be
declining (Williams et al. 2008, p. 338).
In the Escambia River drainage, the
species was detected at 1 of 4 historic
locations surveyed recently. Also, its
numbers are very low in the drainage;
a total of 20 individuals from 6 locations
have been collected in the Escambia
River drainage since 1995. Southern
sandshell numbers in the Yellow River
drainage are also fairly low, with 65
individuals collected recently at a total
of 17 locations. The species was not
detected at 2 of the 4 historic locations
examined recently in the drainage. In
the Choctawhatchee River drainage, the
number of historic locations that
currently support the species has
declined from 16 to 5, and it appears to
be extirpated from central portions of
the Choctawhatchee River main channel
and from some tributaries.
Sedimentation could be one factor
contributing to its decline. In order to
reproduce, the southern sandshell must
attract a sight-feeding fish to its
superconglutinate lure. Waters clouded
by silt and sediment would reduce the
chance of this interaction occurring
(Haag et al. 1995, p. 475).
The southern sandshell is classified as
a species of highest conservation
concern in Alabama by Blalock-Herod
(2004, p. 60), and considered threatened
throughout its range by Williams et al.
(1993, p. 11).
Fuzzy Pigtoe.
The fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum, Wright (1898) is a small to
medium-sized mussel known from the
Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 574). The fuzzy
pigtoe is oval to subtriangular and
reaches about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length.
Its shell surface is usually dark brown
to black in color. The shell interior is
bluish white, with slight iridescence
near the margin (Williams and Butler
1994, p. 90; Williams et al. 2008, p.
573). The fuzzy pigtoe was described by
B.H. Wright (1898) as Unio strodeanus.
Simpson (1900) reexamined the type
specimen and reassigned it to the genus
Pleurobema. Recent molecular data
support that strodeanum is distinct as a
species and belongs to the genus
Pleurobema (Campbell and Lydeard
2012, p. 29).
The fuzzy pigtoe is found in medium
creeks to medium rivers in stable
substrates of sand and silty sand with
slow to moderate current. The
reproductive biology of the fuzzy pigtoe
was studied by White et al. (2008, pp.
122–123). It is a short-term brooder,
with females gravid from mid-March to
May. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) was found to serve as a host for
fuzzy pigtoe glochidia in the
preliminary study trial.
The fuzzy pigtoe is endemic to the
Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 574). The fuzzy
pigtoe’s known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county,
are shown in Table 9 below.
TABLE 9—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE FUZZY PIGTOE
Drainage
County
Escambia River ............................
Conecuh River .............................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Burnt Corn Creek .........................
Murder Creek ...............................
Jordan Creek ................................
Sandy Creek ................................
Bottle Creek .................................
Sepulga River ...............................
Persimmon Creek ........................
Pigeon Creek ...............................
Patsaliga Creek ............................
Little Patsaliga Creek ...................
Mill Creek .....................................
Yellow River .................................
Yellow River .................................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Holmes Creek ..............................
Bruce Creek .................................
Sandy Creek ................................
Blue Creek ...................................
Wrights Creek ..............................
Tenmile Creek ..............................
West Pittman Creek .....................
East Pittman Creek ......................
Limestone Creek ..........................
Eightmile Creek ............................
Choctawhatchee River .................
Pea River .....................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Water body
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Escambia .....................................
Yellow ..........................................
Yellow ..........................................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Flat Creek .....................................
Whitewater Creek .........................
Walnut Creek ...............................
Pea Creek ....................................
Big Sandy Creek ..........................
Steep Head Creek .......................
Claybank Creek ............................
Hurricane Creek ...........................
Little Choctawhatchee River ........
Panther Creek ..............................
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Choctawhatchee
Escambia, Santa Rosa ...............
Escambia, Covington, Crenshaw,
Pike.
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Conecuh ......................................
Butler ...........................................
Covington, Butler .........................
Crenshaw ....................................
Crenshaw ....................................
Pike .............................................
Okaloosa .....................................
Covington ....................................
Walton, Washington, Holmes ......
Washington, Holmes, Jackson ....
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Holmes ........................................
Walton .........................................
Walton .........................................
Geneva, Dale ..............................
Geneva, Coffee, Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Geneva ........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Pike .............................................
Barbour ........................................
Bullock .........................................
Coffee ..........................................
Dale .............................................
Geneva ........................................
Dale, Houston .............................
Houston .......................................
Dale, Barbour ..............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
State
Historical or current
FL
AL
Historical and Current.
Historical and Current.
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Current.
Historical and
Historical and
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical.
Historical and
Historical and
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical and
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical.
Current.
Historical and
Historical and
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Historical.
Historical.
Historical and Current.
10OCR2
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current
Current.
Current.
Current.
Current.
61674
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 9—WATER BODIES WITH KNOWN HISTORICAL AND CURRENT OCCURRENCES OF THE FUZZY PIGTOE—Continued
Water body
Drainage
County
Judy Creek ...................................
Pauls Creek ..................................
Unnamed tributary to Lindsey
Creek.
East Fork Choctawhatchee River
East Fork Choctawhatchee River
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Dale .............................................
Barbour ........................................
Barbour ........................................
AL
AL
AL
Current.
Current.
Current.
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Choctawhatchee ..........................
Dale .............................................
Henry ...........................................
AL
AL
Current.
Historical and Current.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Within the Escambia River drainage,
the fuzzy pigtoe was detected at 15 of
the 21 historic locations surveyed since
1995; however, its status in the drainage
is difficult to assess as 9 historical sites
have not been surveyed since 1995, and
at least 3 other sites have vague
localities. The fuzzy pigtoe is
exceedingly rare in the Yellow River
drainage, where it is currently known
from 1 of 4 historic locations. A single
individual collected in 2010 in the main
channel in Florida is the only recent
record of the species in the drainage. Its
range in the Yellow River drainage has
declined, and the species may no longer
occur in the upper portion of the
drainage in Alabama. In the
Choctawhatchee River drainage, the
fuzzy pigtoe stills occurs in nearly all of
its historic range and is currently known
from a total of 50 locations; however,
the species has become extirpated in
localized areas. Fifteen of the 18 historic
locations in the drainage were surveyed
recently, and 8 continue to support
fuzzy pigtoe populations. At one site on
Limestone Creek, a once abundant
population may have disappeared—a
total of 42 live fuzzy pigtoes were
collected in 1988; the surveyor revisited
the site in 1993, and found only 1 live
and 4 dead specimens and noted that
the creek appeared to have more sand
and that mussels were not as abundant
(Butler 1988 and 1993 in litt.). No fuzzy
pigtoes were detected during a 2011 site
visit (Gangloff 2012 pers. com.).
The fuzzy pigtoe is considered
vulnerable to extinction because of its
limited distribution and dwindling
habitat by McGregor (2004, p. 101), who
classified it as a species of high
conservation concern in Alabama.
Williams et al. (1993, p. 11) considered
the fuzzy pigtoe a species of special
concern throughout its range.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat for the
eight mussels during two comment
periods. The first comment period
associated with the publication of the
proposed rule (76 FR 61482) opened on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
October 4, 2011, and closed on
December 5, 2011. We also requested
comments on the proposed listing and
critical habitat rule and the associated
draft economic analysis during a
comment period that opened March 27,
2012, and closed on April 26, 2012 (77
FR 18173). We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing, so none
were held. We also contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies
(including the States of Alabama and
Florida, 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 seven local newspapers.
During the first comment periods, we
received five comment letters directly
addressing the proposed listing and
critical habitat designation. During the
second comment period, we received
four comment letters addressing the
proposed listing and critical habitat
designation and the draft economic
analysis. All substantive information
provided during both comment periods
has either been incorporated directly
into this final determination or is
addressed below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we requested the expert
opinions of four knowledgeable
individuals with expertise on freshwater
mussel conservation and biology, and
with familiarity of the eight species and
the three river basins in which they
occur. We received written responses
from two of the four peer reviewers we
contacted.
We reviewed all comments received
from the two peer reviewers for
substantive and new information
regarding the proposal to list and
designate critical habitat for the eight
mussels. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our conclusions and
provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final listing and critical
habitat rule. One peer reviewer
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
State
Historical or current
provided several narrative comments,
and we addressed most of those below;
however, a few minor comments are
directly incorporated into this final rule.
Another peer reviewer submitted a
marked-up copy of the proposed rule,
noting errors and suggestions; we
adopted most of the suggested changes
and incorporated them directly into this
final rule. Peer reviewer comments are
addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into this final rule as
appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Much of the recent
status data utilized were obtained from
personal communications, unpublished
(i.e., non-peer-reviewed) reports or other
generally unavailable reports.
Accordingly, it is difficult to assess the
rigor of these studies or the Service’s
interpretation of their data. More
information, including sampling effort
and methods, mussel catch per unit
effort, numbers encountered relative to
other species, and specifics of study site
locations, is needed to better assess
changes in population status or
distributions.
Our response: We obtained much of
the status data, particularly the recent
survey data, from unpublished reports,
field notes, or emails. This information
is the best scientific data available to us
at this time. Although the unpublished
reports are not available through
journals, they are part of the
administrative record and can be
obtained through the Panama City Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section). We
agree that information on sampling
methods and effort, relative numbers,
locations, etc., is important; however,
the occurrence data are a compilation of
numerous surveys, and it is not
practical to report detailed information
related to each survey effort.
Documenting changes in status and
population trends over the period of
record is problematic because historic
collections often lack basic information
such as the specific locality, total
number of species or individuals
collected, or even collection date. The
only accurate comparison that can be
made of so many different sources of
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
historical and recent collection data is
whether a particular species was
detected (present) or not (absent) during
the survey.
(2) Comment: The assignment of
endangered or threatened species status
appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Three
species are clearly in serious decline
and warrant endangered status:
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
and southern kidneyshell. However, the
southern sandshell and Choctaw bean
appear to have among the largest extant
ranges of any species covered in the
proposed rule and remain extant in the
Choctawhatchee, Escambia, and Yellow
rivers drainages. This distinction needs
more quantitative or more detailed
biological justification.
Our response: In assessing the status
of these mussels, we analyzed each
species’ current distribution (range),
abundance (numbers), and population
trend. We also examined the magnitude
of the various threats to each of the
species. Section 3(6) 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 section 3(20) of the Act
defines 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.’’ At the
time the proposed rule published, we
had determined that the current status
of the southern sandshell and Choctaw
bean, combined with the threats they
are facing, made them in danger of
extinction throughout their range.
However, since the proposed rule was
published, additional surveys have
taken place, including a Service-funded
status survey, and we now have new
status and distribution information. In
this final rule, we updated the
occurrence information to reflect the
new data, and we reexamined the status
of each species. These new data include
locations of populations of the southern
sandshell in two new creek systems,
Murder and West Sandy creeks, and in
two historical creek systems, Burnt Corn
and Pond creeks. The new data also
showed that southern sandshell
abundance is higher than previously
known. Because the species is found in
numerous streams, we have determined
it is no longer in danger of extinction
throughout its range. However, the
species does still face the wide range of
threats explained in the ‘‘Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species’’ section
and is vulnerable to meeting the
definition of an endangered species if
these threats continue. Therefore, we are
revising the status of the southern
sandshell and are listing it as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
threatened species (see ‘‘Determination’’
section). On the other hand, new
information confirms that the Choctaw
bean’s range in the Escambia River
drainage has declined, and its
abundance rangewide is currently low.
It currently faces severe and imminent
threats in its aquatic habitats, and these
threats are compounded by its low
abundance. Based on this new
information, we therefore find that the
Choctaw bean continues to be in danger
of extinction throughout its limited
range and are listing it as an endangered
species as proposed (see
‘‘Determination’’ section).
(3) Comment: More clarification about
the number of historical sites (as well as
what constitutes a ‘site’) that have been
resurveyed for all of these taxa is
needed. The reviewer states that this
information is critical to assessing
declines, and is difficult to extract from
the rule as currently written.
Our response: We added Table 1 to
the final rule to consolidate information
on occurrence and abundance. We also
added a statement that we considered
sampling areas in close proximity to the
same site. Specifically, areas sampled
that are within 2 river km (1.2 mi)
(approximately) of each other are
considered the same site, whereas
sampled areas that are more than 2 km
apart are considered different sites.
(4) Comment: The boundaries of the
critical habitat units seem somewhat
arbitrary. The reviewer asserted that
separation of the basins into these units
artificially inflates perceived
fragmentation and discontinuities in the
system. Many of these units are at the
very least hydrologically and
physiochemically connected, and also
likely remain biologically connected to
a degree. Specifically, the peer reviewer
suggested that units GCM1, GCM2,
GCM3, and GCM4 should be considered
a single critical habitat unit, and GCM6
and GCM7 should likewise be merged
into a single critical habitat unit. The
peer reviewer asserted that this would
emphasize connectivity of these systems
and the importance of managing aquatic
populations at a watershed scale.
Another commenter agreed and
requested that the Service follow the
recommendation of the peer reviewer
and consolidate the six units into two
distinct units.
Our response: We carefully
considered how to delineate the
boundaries of the units. Our
consideration focused primarily on
connectivity and threats, and the spatial
distribution of the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of each species. The four
divisions in the Escambia drainage are
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61675
the result of the two mainstem dams on
the Conecuh River, creating units
GCM1, GCM2, GCM3, and GCM4. In the
Choctawhatchee drainage, GCM6 and
GCM7 are the result of the Elba dam on
the Pea River mainstem. Threats to units
downstream of the dams (GCM1 and
GCM6) can include altered water quality
(temperatures, dissolved oxygen),
fluctuations in flow regime, and bed
scour. Threats unique to the unit
encompassing the two reservoirs
(GCM2) are related to the operation of
the dams and include drawdowns.
Threats to the units upstream of the
dams (GCM 3, GCM 4 and GCM 7)
include the absence of anadromous fish
hosts. These dams are barriers to
upstream fish passage, and potentially
to mussel gene flow. For these reasons,
we believe these mainstem dams are
logical boundaries. Finally, the critical
habitat units do not infer recovery units.
We have not yet completed a recovery
plan for these species, but our recovery
strategy for the eight mussels will
undoubtedly involve managing and
protecting these river systems at the
watershed level.
(5) Comment: A reviewer suggested
we consider combining units AP2 and
GCM1.
Our response: We believe combining
units AP2 and GCM1 would be an
inaccurate representation of the
Alabama pearlshell’s range and habitat.
The Alabama pearlshell is a headwater
species and, as such, seldom co-occurs
with the other six species in the
drainage.
(6) Comment: Cumberlandia is found
throughout the Mississippi basin not
just the Tennessee drainage.
Our response: The context of the
Cumberlandia information was the
distribution of the genus in Alabama.
We revised the sentence to make this
more clear.
(7) Comment: Dredging,
channelization, and snag removal and
resulting streambed destabilization
should be listed as the foremost threats
to round pearlshell (reviewer meant
round ebonyshell). This taxon is
relatively drought tolerant as its core
populations appear to reside in deep
water habitats.
Our response: We agree and have
added these activities as threats to the
round ebonyshell.
(8) Comment: Characterization of
narrow pigtoe habitat is somewhat
vague and seems to imply that this
animal is a small to moderate-sized
stream specialist. The reviewer stated
that occupied habitats include reaches
of the lower Escambia and Yellow
rivers, and considers both fairly large
rivers.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61676
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Our response: We made minor
revisions to the description of narrow
pigtoe habitat to clarify. However, we
disagree that the lower Escambia and
Yellow rivers are large rivers, and we
follow the description by Williams et al.
(2008 p. 317) which classifies them as
medium-sized rivers. This species is
known from medium-sized creeks such
as Murder and Patsaliga creeks in
Alabama and medium-sized rivers such
as the lower Escambia and Yellow rivers
in Florida. We would describe nearby
river systems like the Mobile and
Apalachicola as ‘‘large.’’ The species
does not occur in these rivers.
(9) Comment: What is the status of the
proposed Little Choctawhatchee River
Reservoir?
Our response: The Little
Choctawhatchee project is a proposed
water supply reservoir project in Dale
and Houston Counties, Alabama. The
Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow
Rivers Watershed Management
Authority has applied for a section 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The project is in need of
funding, but it is anticipated that it will
move forward (Industrial Economics
2012, p. 4–11).
(10) Comment: One reviewer stated
that there may be some commercial
harvest of Alabama pearlshell, and
asked if the Service has encountered
any evidence for this claim.
Our response: We have no evidence
that Alabama pearlshell were or are
being harvested commercially.
(11) Comment: A peer reviewer
suggested we include additional
information in the document regarding
the Elba Dam and its impact on
downstream hydrology. The peer
reviewer stated that it is a run-of-river
structure and is, to his knowledge, not
managed for hydropower production.
The peer reviewer would like to see
more info about the height and
permeability of this and other dam
structures.
Our response: At the time the
proposed rule was published, we
mistakenly believed the Elba Dam was
not in operation. However, the dam is
currently operating, generating power
during peak periods and storing some
water. We have revised our discussion
of the dam’s operation, and added dam
height and fish passage information for
the structure. We likewise added dam
height and fish passage information for
the Gantt and Point A dams on the
Conecuh River.
(12) Comment: A peer reviewer
mentioned that they did not find any
mussels during a recent survey in the
Yellow River upstream from the U.S. 84
crossing or in Hollis Creek. At the time
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
of their survey, Hollis Creek was a
small, sandy, intermittent stream at its
confluence with the Yellow River and
was unlikely to support listed mussels.
Our response: The Yellow River at the
U.S. 84 crossing has a recent (1996)
collection of Choctaw bean, and this
portion of the river will remain as
critical habitat. The 5.5-km (3.5-mi)
segment of Hollis Creek was included as
critical habitat in unit GCM5 in the
proposed rule, but we have removed
this segment in this final rule based on
this new information, and adjusted the
final critical habitat lengths for Unit
GCM5 and the entire designation
accordingly.
(13) Comment: A peer reviewer asked
why Fort Rucker lands were not
included as critical habitat, and stated
that this reach seems to be an important
section that is likely to be disturbed by
Department of Defense activities, which
in turn could affect listed mussel
populations downstream in the
Choctawhatchee River.
Our response: Fort Rucker has
completed an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP)
that guides conservation activities on
the installation through 2014. Lands
within military installations are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act, provided they
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.’’ The INRMP specifically
addresses maintaining and improving
water quality through sedimentation
and erosion control, land management
practices, and improved treatment
facilities. Therefore, in the proposed
rule we determined that the streams on
Ft. Rucker were exempt from the
designation. In addition, the INRMP
will be updated to incorporate the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. We will work with Fort
Rucker’s Environmental and Natural
Resources Division to incorporate
conservation actions specific to these
species into the INRMP.
Comments From the States
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 of Florida regarding the proposal
to list and designate critical habitat for
the eight mussels are addressed below.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
No comments were received from the
State of Alabama.
(14) Comment: The Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission generally
concurred with our methods and
conclusions, and supports the listing
and the designation of critical habitat.
Our response: We appreciate the
support and look forward to continuing
to work with the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission to recovery these
mussels.
(15) Comment: One commenter
asserted that the listing of the eight
mussels and designation of critical
habitat in the Florida Panhandle Region
will increase costs and time spent on
Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) activities due to the need to
conduct mussel surveys, the need to
have formal section 7 consultation with
the Service, the need to hire specialized
consultants to conduct the survey and
perform the formal consultation, and the
mandated time requirements of a formal
section 7 consultation. The comment
states that, due to the significant
number of bridges needing replacement
and the limited funds available, these
increased costs and prolonged timelines
will have an economic burden and will
constitute a safety concern for the
public.
Our response: The economic analysis
includes data provided by FDOT on the
number of road and bridge construction
and maintenance projects likely to occur
over the next 20 years. The final
economic analysis (FEA) estimates a
total of 122 consultations over the next
20 years associated with road and bridge
construction and maintenance activities
within or affecting proposed critical
habitat in Florida. The total present
value incremental impact of
consultations on these projects is
$358,000 (an annualized impact of
$31,600). As described in section 3.2 of
the FEA, once the species are listed, the
Service may recommend mussel surveys
for proposed projects. However, these
surveys would be recommended
regardless of critical habitat due to the
presence of listed species, and are
therefore not quantified as a cost of the
designation. In general, designation of
critical habitat by itself does not
generate the need for formal section 7
consultation. Consultation is triggered
by activities that may affect the listed
species or its critical habitat. Because
each unit is already occupied by one or
more of the mussel species, consultation
would be required for activities with a
Federal nexus that may affect the
species regardless of the designation of
critical habitat. Transportation
planning, including planning for bridge
replacement projects, typically has a
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
timeline, from planning to construction,
of approximately 5 years. Informal and
formal section 7 consultation can take
place concurrent with other aspects of
environmental planning without adding
to the overall project timeline. There are
also alternatives to individual project
consultations, such as a programmatic
formal consultation for bridge
replacement projects, that could
expedite the consultation process while
reducing costs. The assessment of
potential impacts of a project on critical
habitat occurs at the same time as the
assessment of the potential for the
project to adversely affect a listed
species. Consequently, critical habitat
designation is not anticipated to
generate additional delays in project
schedules. Bridges that present an
imminent public safety hazard may
constitute an emergency, requiring
emergency consultation. The Service
has procedures for addressing
emergency consultations that provide
guidance to avoid and minimize effects
to species and their habitat while
allowing the emergency response to
proceed. In non-emergency situations,
when public safety is at risk, the
consultation can often be expedited to
address safety concerns.
(16) Comment: One comment states
that Florida’s Environmental Resource
Permitting (ERP) Program provides the
eight mussels with an additional level of
environmental protection that is not
offered in Alabama. The comment states
that ERP ensures heightened water
quality requirements and best
management practices. The comment
asserts that Florida should be excluded
from the requirements of critical habitat
designation due to the presence of
applicable State statutes, including ERP,
which applies to all activities on State,
county, city, or Federal properties.
Our response: In response to
information provided by the FDOT,
section 3.1.2 of the FEA includes a
description of the Florida ERP and the
baseline protections it provides the
eight mussels. The existence of this
program does not preclude section 7
consultation requirements for projects
with a Federal nexus. As such, the
existence of this program does not
change the estimated incremental
impacts of critical habitat designation in
Florida, which are limited to
administrative costs of consultation.
The heightened water quality protection
measures of Florida’s ERP provide
benefits to freshwater mussels and
support primary constituent element
(PCE) 4, water quality. However, this
measure alone cannot address all the
potential threats to these species and
their habitat from large-scale
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
61677
construction projects that can be
addressed under section 7 of the Act.
Threats may include direct injury and
loss of individuals, as well as effects to
other PCEs such as maintaining
geomorphically stable stream and river
channels (PCE 1), and stable substrates
(PCE 2). Therefore, we are not excluding
lands in the State of Florida.
Comments From Federal Agencies
(17) Comment: The U.S. Navy
expressed its interest and commitment
to work proactively with the Service to
address potential issues should these
species be listed under the Act. The
Navy also provided information on
properties within the watersheds of the
proposed critical habitat units AP2 and
GCM1, and these include Naval Air
Station (NAS) Whiting Field’s Navy
Outlying Landing Field (NOLF)
Evergreen (Alabama) and NOLF Pace
(Florida).
Our response: After receiving these
comments, the Service contacted the
Navy and requested updated GIS files to
better assess the locations of the NOLFs
relative to proposed critical habitat.
Once we had the detailed NOLF
boundaries, we determined that the
NOLF Pace does not have critical
habitat within the boundary of the
property, and that the NOLF Evergreen
does have critical habitat within its
boundary. NOLF Evergreen is situated
within the Murder Creek drainage and
includes an approximately 0.40-km
(0.25-mi) segment of Hunter Creek,
which is critical habitat in unit AP2 for
the Alabama pearlshell. We also
determined that the NAS Whiting Field
Complex INRMP specifically addresses
maintaining and improving water
quality, and will be updated to
incorporate the Alabama pearlshell.
Therefore, lands within this installation
are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act as described in the ‘‘Exemptions’’
section, and this final rule has been
changed accordingly.
This comment provides new
information on the administrative effort
required on the part of the NAS for
maintenance of its INRMP. Review and
updating of this INRMP occurs annually
and would therefore occur regardless of
critical habitat designation. However,
incremental administrative effort may
be required to consider the impact of
activities covered under the INRMP on
critical habitat. As discussed in section
4.1 of the DEA, the Service does not
anticipate the critical habitat
designation will generate
recommendations for conservation
efforts beyond those it would
recommend due to the listing of the
species. As a result, incremental
economic impacts of critical habitat
associated with consultation on the
Navy’s INRMP would be limited to
additional administrative effort. The
FEA is therefore revised to incorporate
additional administrative costs to Units
AP2 and GCM1 associated with the
annual formal consultation on the
NAS’s INRMP.
Public Comments
(18) Comment: Comments received
from several groups and individuals
support the listing of the eight mussels
and designation of critical habitat.
These include: The Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society, the
Choctawhatchee River Keeper, the
Center for Biological Diversity,
American Rivers, and two anonymous
commenters.
Our response: We appreciate the
support.
(19) Comment: Multiple comments
assert that the critical habitat
designation will generate benefits. One
comment suggests that critical habitat
could be a stimulus for getting local,
State, and Federal resources agencies to
cooperate to address threats such as
untreated active gully systems and to
expand work to reduce pollutant
transport from unpaved roads and
associated roadside water conveyances.
Another comment asserts that the
mussels contribute economic value
through denitrification of rivers,
reducing the need to treat the water. A
third comment similarly suggests that
the Service should consider the
economic benefits of the rule in terms
of water quality improvements that will
benefit downstream water users and
public health.
Our response: Section 2.3.3 of the
DEA describes that, ‘‘[U]nder Executive
Order 12866, OMB directs Federal
agencies to provide an assessment of
both the social costs and benefits of
proposed regulatory actions * * *
Rather than rely on economic measures,
the Service believes that the direct
benefits of the proposed rule are best
expressed in biological terms that can be
weighed against the expected cost
impacts on the rulemaking.’’ As
described in section 4.4 of the DEA, the
designation of critical habitat is not
anticipated to generate additional
conservation measures for the eight
mussels beyond those that will be
generated by their listing. Absent
changes in land management or
conservation measures for the eight
mussels, we do not expect any
incremental economic benefits,
including improved water quality and
associated benefits to human health and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61678
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
reduced cost of downstream water
treatment, to result specifically from
designation of critical habitat for the
eight mussels.
(20) Comment: One commenter
provided a recent publication of a
molecular study by Campbell and
Lydeard (2012) titled The genera of
Pleurobemini (Bivalvia: Unionidae:
Ambleminae). The study confirms the
taxonomy of Fusconaia burkei, F.
escambia, and Pleurobema strodeanum,
and it reassigns Fusconaia rotulata to
the new genus Reginaia.
Our response: We incorporated these
recent findings into this final
determination, except the reassignment
of Fusconaia rotulata to the new genus
Reginaia. It is the Service’s policy to
recognize a nomenclature change once it
has been vetted and generally accepted
by the scientific community. However,
because this finding was published in
2012, it has not had time to go through
this process. If the change is accepted,
we can revise the name in the future.
(21) Comment: One commenter agreed
with the Service’s inclusion of the
Alabama pearlshell and southern
kidneyshell on the Federal List of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife, but
states that the proposed critical habitat
should be extended to cover historically
known ranges. The currently proposed
critical habitat zones for the Alabama
pearlshell, AP1 and AP2, do not contain
any main stream channel that would
prevent population isolation. The
commenter recommended the Service
include those sections of the Escambia
River, Conecuh River, Cedar Creek, and
the entirety of Murder Creek in order to
connect Burnt Corn Creek, Murder
Creek, and the Sepulga River and allow
for a continuous stretch of critical
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell. The
commenter also stated that unit AP2
(commenter meant AP1) should be
extended to contain sections of the
Alabama River to allow the Alabama
pearlshell to increase its range and
numbers. Finally, the commenter
recommended extending the southern
kidneyshell’s proposed critical habitat
to include unit GCM5 in order to
include known historical ranges and
improve the species’ chance of recovery.
Our response: As described under
Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat, We reviewed available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas—outside
those currently occupied as well as
those occupied at the time of listing—
are necessary to ensure the conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
of the species. We are designating
critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing in 2012. We
also are designating specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, that
were historically occupied, but are
presently unoccupied, because we have
determined that such areas are essential
for the conservation of these species. We
have no data showing the Alabama
pearlshell occurred in any of the rivers
or creeks suggested for inclusion in the
comment. For this reason, and based on
the above criteria, we have no scientific
information to support the extension of
critical habitat in units AP1 and AP2
into the mainstem of these rivers at this
time.
The southern kidneyshell’s
occurrence in the Yellow River is based
on a single specimen collected in 1919,
from Hollis Creek in Covington County,
Alabama. The Hollis Creek segment was
re-surveyed in 2012, and the surveyor
noted the stream is small and
intermittent, and is unlikely to support
listed mussels (see comment 12); this
may indicate habitat degradation or
hydrology alteration or both since the
collection. At this time, we do not
believe that southern kidneyshell
critical habitat should include the
Yellow River drainage (including
GCM5) because it is not essential to the
conservation of the species and does not
contain the physical or biological
features needed to support the species.
(22) Comment: The proposed rule
contains considerable speculation as to
possible causes for reduced populations
of the eight mussel species. The Service
should rely instead on rigorous
scientific information about
relationships between factors
potentially affecting these species,
including the proposed water quality
criteria associated with primary
constituent elements, and actual
population responses.
Our response: The Service has
monitored the status of the eight
mussels since they first became
candidates for listing in 2004. Since that
time, the Service and the States have
funded numerous efforts to develop a
better understanding of the natural
history of these species. We have also
analyzed the threats to these species
using the best available science on
surrogate species. The natural histories
of these species are likely very similar
to other species in the family
Unionidae, and it is reasonable to
assume that similar threats will affect
these species in a similar manner. Each
threat is discussed in detail in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Species and is summarized in the
Determination sections. A threats matrix
detailing our best understanding of the
relative importance of these threats has
been developed and is in the
administrative record and available
upon request (see ADDRESSES above).
(23) Comment: When properly
implemented, forestry best management
practices protect water quality and
habitat for species associated with
riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats.
Implementation and compliance rates
for forestry best management practices
are high nationally and in the Southeast,
including in Alabama and Florida.
Our response: The Service agrees that
best management practices (BMPs) are
protective of water quality and mussel
habitat, and that industrial forestry
activities generally do a good job of
implementing BMPs. However, BMPs
are voluntary and, therefore, are not
always implemented. In addition, some
harvesting operations fail to use BMPs
adequately, and localized impacts can
and do occur. We consider sediment
from silvicultural activities to be one of
many potential sediment sources within
a watershed.
(24) Comment: Sustainable forestry
certification programs require
participants to meet or exceed forestry
best management practices and help
ensure high rates of implementation.
Our response: The Service agrees that
the sustainable forestry program is one
of the most effective programs to ensure
BMPs are properly implemented.
Nonetheless, because they are
voluntary, BMPs are not always
implemented (see our response to
Comment (23)) and some forestry
activities can contribute sediments into
stream systems.
(25) Comment: Suspended solids from
modern biological wastewater treatment
plants are often comprised largely of
organic matter, and such solids would
generally not be expected to contribute
significantly to sedimentation or
contaminated sediment.
Our response: The Service concurs
with this comment. We have no
information that suspended solids
discharged by wastewater treatment
plants, at permitted levels, are a threat
to the eight mussels at this time.
(26) Comment: 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,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
especially when compared with other
land uses.
Our response: We agree that one of
the primary sources of sedimentation in
these basins is legacy sediment;
however, we not aware of any studies
that have looked at the relative
contribution of historic and current
sediment sources. We agree that
silvicutural activities have a small and
short-lived impact on water quality
compared to other land uses; however,
we do not believe the activities have
small and short-lived impact to habitat
quality. As discussed under Factor A
under Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species, heavy sediment loads can
destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a
corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100), and
can lead to rapid changes in stream
channel position, channel shape, and
bed elevation (Brim Box and Mossa
1999, p. 102).
(27) Comment: Herbicides used in
forest management operation pose little
risk to fauna, and there is no evidence
that they endanger viability of aquatic
organisms.
Our response: We do not agree that
there is no evidence that herbicides
used in forest management endanger
viability of aquatic organisms. As
described under Factors A and D under
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species, numerous studies have
documented that certain pesticides are
lethal to mussels, particularly to the
highly sensitive early life stages. A
multitude of bioassay tests conducted
on several mussel species show that
freshwater mussels are more sensitive
than previously known to the pesticides
glyphosate and the surfactant MON
0818, ingredients in some pesticides
used in forestry management.
(28) Comment: Climate change
models do not provide information that
is appropriate for making management
decisions regarding these mussel
species.
Our response: We agree that it would
not be appropriate to use climate change
models, which are broad in scale, to
make management decisions regarding
the eight mussels. However, we must
consider evidence that climate change
could lead to increased frequency of
severe storms and droughts, which
could affect these eight mussels in the
future (see Factor E discussion, below).
Summary of Changes From Proposed
Rule
After consideration of the comments
we received during the public comment
periods (see above), we made changes to
the final listing rule. Many small,
nonsubstantive changes and corrections,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
not affecting the determination (e.g.,
updating the Background section in
response to comments, minor
clarifications) were made throughout
the document. Below is a summary list
of more substantive changes made to
this document.
(1) The total length of critical habitat
was revised to 2,404 km (1,494 mi.) due
to the removal of Hollis Creek, the
exemption of a small section of Hunter
Creek, and the accidental omission of
one segment (Corner Creek) in a
spreadsheet used to sum unit lengths for
the proposed rule. Corner Creek was
featured in the unit descriptions and
maps of the proposed rule, but was
inadvertently left out of the spreadsheet.
(2) The status of the southern
sandshell was revised to a threatened
species based on a peer reviewer’s
comment and new survey data.
(3) Unit AP2 was revised to remove a
0.4 km (0.25 mi) segment of Hunter
Creek in Covington County, Alabama.
This segment was determined to be
exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
because it receives management under
an approved INRMP created by the U.S.
Navy (see comment 17 and our
response).
(4) Table 1 was added to address peer
review comment 3.
(5) The Taxonomy, Life History, and
Distribution section was revised to
reflect additional threats to round
ebonyshell identified by a reviewer.
These additional threats include
dredging, channelization, and desnagging of trees and brush for
navigation.
(6) Information related to dam height
and fish passage for Point A, Gantt, and
Elba dams was added, and information
related to the operation of Elba dam on
the Pea River was revised.
In addition to these changes and
additions, several errors in the proposed
rule were corrected. These include:
(1) Renumbering of tables. The
proposed rule contained two Tables 1
and 2; the second tables 1 and 2 were
renumbered to Tables 10 and 11 in this
document.
(2) Adding 1 km (1 mi) to the length
of AP2. The length was recalculated and
revised to 96 km (155 mi).
(3) Removing a portion of GCM5.
Hollis Creek from its confluence with
the Yellow River upstream 5.5 km (3.5
mi) to County Road 42, Covington
County, Alabama, was erroneously
included as critical habitat in the
proposed rule, and we have removed it
from this final rule; the length of unit
GCM 5 was revised to 247 km (153 mi.).
(4) Adding 5 km (3.0 mi) to GCM6.
This corrects an accidental omission of
the Corner Creek segment length from
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61679
the total length of critical habitat in the
proposed rule. This happened due to its
omission from a spreadsheet used to
calculate the total length of units. The
Corner Creek segment was, however,
included in the critical habitat
description in the proposed rule. The
corrected length of the unit is 897 mi
(557 km).
(5) Correcting other small errors in
Table 10. Specifically, for southern
sandshell,in unit GCM1, we revisedthe
total length to 2,222 km (1,379 mi); for
southern kidneyshell, we changed unit
GCM5 to GCM6 and revised its total
length to 1,975 km (1,226 mi); and for
fuzzy pigtoe, we changed unit GCM2 to
GCM1 and revised its total length to
2,222 km (1,379 mi).
(6) Changing the term ‘‘protected’’ to
‘‘managed’’ in Table 11 to more
accurately define the various types of
public lands.
(7) Where appropriate, updating
occurrence information to incorporate
data from a status survey completed in
March of 2012.
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 listed as
an endangered or threatened species
due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The habitats of freshwater mussels are
vulnerable to habitat modification and
water quality degradation from a
number of activities associated with
modern civilization. The primary cause
of the decline of these eight mussels has
been the modification and destruction
of their stream and river habitat, with
sedimentation as the leading cause.
Their stream habitats are subject to
pollution and alteration from a variety
of sources including adjacent land use
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61680
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
activities, in-water activities, effluent
discharges, and impoundments.
Nonpoint-source pollution from land
surface runoff originates from virtually
all land use activities and includes
sediments, fertilizer, herbicide and
pesticide residues; animal wastes; septic
tank leakage and gray water discharge;
and oils and greases. Current activities
and land uses that can negatively affect
populations of these eight mussels
include unpaved road crossings,
improper silviculture and agriculture
practices, highway construction,
housing developments, pipeline
crossings, and cattle grazing. These
activities can result in physical
disturbance of stream substrates or the
riparian zone, excess sedimentation and
nutrification, decreased dissolved
oxygen concentration, increased acidity
and conductivity, and altered flow.
Limited range and low numbers make
these eight mussels vulnerable to land
use changes that would result in
increases in nonpoint-source pollution.
Sedimentation is one of the most
significant pollution problems for
aquatic organisms (Williams and Butler
1994, p. 55), and has been determined
to be a major factor in mussel declines
(Ellis 1936, pp. 39–40). Impacts
resulting from sediments have been
noted for many components of aquatic
communities. For example, sediments
have been shown to abrade or suffocate
periphyton (organisms attached to
underwater surfaces); affect respiration,
growth, reproductive success, and
behavior of aquatic insects and mussels;
and affect fish growth, survival, and
reproduction (Waters 1995, pp. 173–
175). Heavy sediment loads can destroy
mussel habitat, resulting in a
corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100).
Excessive sedimentation can lead to
rapid changes in stream channel
position, channel shape, and bed
elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p.
102). Sedimentation has also been
shown to impair the filter feeding ability
of mussels. When in high silt
environments, mussels may keep their
valves closed more often, resulting in
reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p.
30), and high amounts of suspended
sediments can dilute their food source
(Dennis 1984, p. 212). Increased
turbidity from suspended sediment can
reduce or eliminate juvenile mussel
recruitment (Negus 1966, p. 525; Brim
Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101–102).
Many mussel species use visual cues to
attract host fishes; such a reproductive
strategy depends on clear water. For
example, increased turbidity may
impact the southern sandshell life cycle
by reducing the chance that a sight-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
feeding host fish will encounter the
visual display of its superconglutinate
lure (Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; BlalockHerod et al. 2002, p. 1885). If the
superconglutinate is not encountered by
a host within a short time period, the
glochidia will become nonviable
(O’Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 133).
Also, evidence suggests that
conglutinates of the southern
kidneyshell, once released from the
female mussel, must adhere to hard
surfaces in order to be seen by its fish
host. If the surface becomes covered in
fine sediments, the conglutinate cannot
attach and is swept away (Hartfield and
Hartfield 1996, p. 373).
Biologists conducting mussel surveys
within the drainages have reported
observations of excessive sedimentation
in the streams and rivers of the three
basins. While searching for the Alabama
pearlshell in headwater streams of the
Escambia and Alabama drainages, D. N.
Shelton (1996, pp. 1–5 unpub. report)
reported many streams within the study
area had experienced heavy siltation,
and that all species of mollusks
appeared to be adversely affected. M. M.
Gangloff (Gangloff and Hartfield 2009,
p. 253) observed large amounts of sand
and silt in the mainstem Pea and
Choctawhatchee rivers during a 2006–
2007 survey, and considered this a
possible reason for the decline of
mussels in the drainage.
In 2009–2010, The Nature
Conservancy completed an inventory
and prioritization of impaired sites in
the Yellow River watershed in Alabama
and Florida (Herrington et al., 2010
unpub. report). The study identified and
quantified the impacts of unpaved road
crossings and streambank instability
and erosion within the river corridor
and riparian zone, to assess
impairments that could impact the five
species occurring in the drainage. A
total of 339 unpaved roads and
approximately 209 river miles of
mainstem and tributaries were assessed
using standardized methods. Out of
these, 409 sites ranked ‘‘High’’ or
‘‘Moderate’’ in risk of excessive
sedimentation according to the
Sediment Risk Index. Many of the
impaired sites (149) were located
upstream of known mussel locations. In
addition, habitat conditions were
characterized at 44 known mussel
locations; the sites were scored
numerically and rated as poor, fair,
good, or excellent. The majority of the
mussel sites were assessed to be either
fair or poor. Most of these locations
were within the vicinity of bridge
crossings and boat ramps and several,
particularly in the Shoal River in
Florida, were directly downstream of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
highly impaired unpaved road and river
corridor sites. In summary, the study
found the threat of sedimentation and
habitat degradation is high throughout
the Yellow River watershed with over
75 percent of sites assessed exhibiting
high or moderate risk, and the majority
of known mussel locations impaired.
Potential sediment sources within a
watershed include virtually any activity
that disturbs the land surface. Current
sources of sand, silt, and other sediment
accumulation in south-central Alabama
and western Florida stream channels
include unpaved road runoff,
agricultural lands, timber harvest,
livestock grazing, and construction and
other development activities (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 55; Bennett 2002, p.
5 and references therein; Hoehn 1998,
pp. 46–47 and references therein). The
Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow
Rivers Watershed Management Plan
(CPYRWMP) and the Conecuh–
Sepulga–Blackwater Rivers Watershed
Protection Plan (CSBRWPP) document
water quality impairments to the
Alabama portion of the watersheds.
Both plans identify elevated levels of
sediment as one of the primary causes
of impairment (CPYRWMP, p. 156;
CSBRWPP, p. 110). In the
Choctawhatchee and Yellow river
drainages, four out of the nine streams
in which sediment loads were
calculated by the Geological Survey of
Alabama had significant sediment
impairment (CPYRWMP, p. 157). In
Alabama, runoff from unpaved roads
and roadside gullies is considered the
main source of sediment transported
into the streams of the drainages
(Bennett 2002, p. 5 and references
therein; CPYRWMP, p. 145). Unpaved
roads are constructed primarily of sandy
materials and are easily eroded and
transported to stream corridors. In
addition, certain silvicultural and
agricultural activities cause erosion,
riparian buffer degradation, and
increased sedimentation. Uncontrolled
access to streams by cattle can result in
destruction of riparian vegetation, bank
degradation and erosion, and localized
sedimentation of stream habitats.
Land surface runoff also contributes
nutrients (for example, nitrogen and
phosphorus from fertilizers, sewage, and
animal manure) to rivers and streams,
causing them to become eutrophic.
Excessive nutrient input stimulates
excessive plant growth (algae,
periphyton attached algae, and nuisance
plants). This enhanced plant growth can
cause dense mats of filamentous algae
that can expose juvenile mussels to
entrainment or predation and be
detrimental to the survival of juvenile
mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
p. 373). Excessive plant growth can also
reduce dissolved oxygen in the water
when dead plant material decomposes.
In a review of the effects of
eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and
Muller (2001, 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 2001, pp.
330–333). Filamentous algae may also
displace certain species of fish, or
otherwise affect fish–mussel
interactions essential to recruitment (for
example, Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,
p. 373). Nutrient sources include
fertilizers applied to agricultural fields
and lawns, septic tanks, and municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.
Because of their sedentary
characteristics, mussels are extremely
vulnerable to toxic effluents (Sheehan et
al. 1989, pp. 139–140; Goudreau et al.
1993, pp. 216–227; Newton 2003, p.
2543). Descriptions of localized
mortality have been provided for
chemical spills and other discrete pointsource discharges; however, rangewide
decreases in mussel density and
diversity may result from the more
insidious effects of chronic, low-level
contamination (Newton 2003, p. 2543,
Newton et al. 2003, p. 2554). Freshwater
mussel experts often report chemical
contaminants as factors limiting to
unionids (Richter et al. 1997, pp. 1081–
1093). They note high sensitivity of
early life stages to contaminants such as
chlorine (Wang et al. 2007 pp. 2039–
2046), metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p.
542; Jacobson et al. 1993, pp. 879–883),
ammonia (Augspurger et al. 2003, pp.
2571–2574; Wang et al. 2007 pp. 2039–
2046), and pesticides (Bringolf et al.
2007a,b pp. 2089–2092, pp. 2096–2099).
Pesticide residues from agricultural,
residential, or silvicultural activities
enter streams mainly by surface runoff.
Agricultural crops locally grown within
the range of these mussels associated
with high pesticide use include cotton,
peanuts, corn, and soybeans. Chlorine,
metals, and ammonia are common
constituents in treated effluent from
municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment facilities. A total of 62
municipal and 39 industrial wastewater
treatment facilities are permitted in
Alabama and Florida to discharge
treated effluent into surface waters of
the three river drainages (FDEP 2010a;
ADEM 2010a).
States maintain water-use
classifications through issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits to
industries, municipalities, and others
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
that set maximum limits on certain
pollutants or pollutant parameters. The
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) has designated the
water use classification for most
portions of the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee Rivers as ‘‘Fish and
Wildlife’’ (F&W), and a few portions
(mostly lakes) as ‘‘Swimming’’ (S). The
F&W designation establishes minimum
water quality standards that are believed
to protect existing species and water
uses like fishing and recreation within
the designated area, while the S
classification establishes higher water
quality standards that are protective of
human contact with the water. The
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) classifies all three
river drainages as Class III waters. The
Class III designation establishes
minimum water quality standards that
are believed to protect species and uses
such as recreation. The Choctawhatchee
and Shoal Rivers are also designated as
Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by
the State of Florida. The designation
prevents the discharge of pollutants,
which would lower existing water
quality or significantly degrade the
OFW.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) requires States
to identify waters that do not fully
support their designated use
classification. These impaired water
bodies are placed on the State’s 303(d)
list, and a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) must be developed for the
pollutant of concern. A TMDL is an
estimate of the total load of pollutants
that a segment of water can receive
without exceeding applicable water
quality criteria. Alabama’s 303(d) list
identifies a total of 25 impaired stream
segments within the Escambia, Yellow,
and Choctawhatchee River basins that
either support populations of the eight
species or that flow into streams that
support them. The list identifies metals
(mercury and lead), organic enrichment,
pathogens, siltation, excess nutrients, or
unknown toxicity as reasons for
impairment (ADEM 2010b, pp. 4–8).
Various potential point and non-point
pollution sources are identified, such as
atmospheric deposition, pasture grazing,
feedlots, municipal, industrial, urban
runoff, agriculture, and land
development. Florida’s 303(d) list
identifies a total of 22 impaired stream
segments within the basins that either
support populations of seven of the
species (the Alabama pearlshell does
not occur in Florida) or that flow into
streams that support them. The list
identifies coliform bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen (nutrients), and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61681
mercury (in fish tissue) as reasons for
inclusion (FDEP 2010b, pp. 4–6).
While the negative effects of pointsource discharges on aquatic
communities in Alabama and Florida
have been reduced over time by
compliance with State and Federal
regulations pertaining to water quality,
there has been less success in dealing
with nonpoint-source pollution impacts.
Because these contaminant sources stem
from urban surface runoff, private
landowner activities (construction,
grazing, agriculture, silviculture), and
public construction works (bridge and
highway construction and
maintenance), they are often more
difficult to regulate.
These mussels require stable stream
and river habitats and activities that
cause channel instability can negatively
impact their populations. Activities
such sand and gravel mining, the
removal of large woody material, offroad vehicles use, and land use changes
are known to cause channel
destabilization. Activities that
destabilize stream beds and channels
can result in drastic alterations to
stream geomorphology and
consequently to the stream’s ecosystem.
Instream gravel mining has been
implicated in the destruction of mussel
populations (Stansbery 1970, p. 10;
Hartfield 1993, pp. 138–139). Instream
sand and gravel mining can cause severe
bank erosion, channel widening,
destruction of riparian habitats, and
other geomorphic changes (Kanehl and
Lyons 1992, pp. 26–27; Brown et al.
1998, pp. 987–992), including head cuts
that can extend considerable distances
upstream from the mines (Hartfield
1993, pp. 138–139) and substrate
disturbance and siltation impacts that
can be realized for considerable
distances downstream (Stansbery 1970,
p. 10). Poorly located or inadequately
designed mines in the flood plain can
have similar effects and result in
alterations to streams channels (Mossa
and Coley, 2004, p. 2). For example, a
mined area along Big Escambia Creek
near Century, Florida resulted in the
formation of a new channel through the
mines, causing excessive sedimentation
in downstream areas. A large restoration
project was required to put the stream
back into its natural channel. Numerous
mining operations occur along a gravel
vein in the upper Escambia and
Choctawhatchee river drainages in
Florida and Alabama (Metcalf 2012
pers. com).
Operations that remove large woody
material from channels, either for
navigation and maintenance
(desnagging) or for the recovery of precut submerged timber (deadhead
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61682
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
logging), have the potential to affect
mussel communities by creating
unstable substrates (Watters 1999, p.
269). These types of permitted activities
are common in areas where these
mussels occur. The removal of large logs
may result in changes to sedimentation
patterns and stream morphology, the
erosion of banks and bars, and the
consequent loss of habitat structure and
species diversity (Watters 1999, p. 268;
Cathey et al. unpub. report, p. 1).
Low flow conditions provide access to
stream margins and channels for offroad vehicles. The practice of driving
off-road vehicles within stream
channels has been observed in the
upper Conecuh and Choctawhatchee
river drainages (Metcalf 2012 pers.
com). These vehicles may destabilize
stream banks, increase sedimentation
rates, and may also directly crush
mussels (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001,
p. 3).
Land use activities such as land
clearing and development can cause
channel instability by accelerating
stormwater runoff into streams.
Increased runoff rates can result in bank
erosion and bed scour (Brim Box and
Mossa 1999, p. 103), and can lead to
channel incision (Booth 1990, p. 407;
Doyle et al. 2000, p. 157, 175). These
flow regime changes can significantly
and rapidly alter the morphology of the
stream channel, and can eventually lead
to degradation throughout the
watershed as sediments eroded in the
upper portions are deposited in the
lower reaches (Doyle et al. 2000, pp.
156, 175).
The damming of rivers has been a
major factor contributing to the demise
of freshwater mussels (Bogan 1993, p.
604). Dams eliminate or reduce river
flow within impounded areas, trap silts
and cause sediment deposition, alter
water temperature and dissolved oxygen
levels, change downstream water flow
and quality, affect normal flood
patterns, and block upstream and
downstream movement of mussels and
their host fishes (Bogan 1993, p. 604;
Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp. 915–917;
Watters 1999, pp. 261–264; McAllister
et al. 2000, p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005,
pp. 20–21). Downstream of dams,
mollusk declines are associated with
changes and fluctuation in flow regime,
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels, water temperatures, and
changes in resident fish assemblages
(Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al.
1997, pp. 63–64; Watters 1999, pp. 261–
264; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20–21).
Because rivers are linear systems, these
alterations can cause mussel declines
for many miles downstream of the dam
(Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p. 916).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
Three significant mainstem
impoundments are situated within the
three drainages, all in Alabama.
Constructed in 1923 for hydroelectric
power generation, Point A Lake and
Gantt Lake dams are located on the
mainstem of the Conecuh River in
Covington County, Alabama. The
downstream dam, Point A, is 41 ft. high,
and Gantt dam is 35 ft. high. Combined,
these two dams impound approximately
3,400 acres at normal pool. Both
impoundments have limited storage
capacity and are operated as modified
run-of-river projects with daily peaking.
For example, when inflows to Gantt are
greater than 1,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs), the outflow matches the inflow at
Point A. However, during the summer
months, when inflows can fall below
1,500 cfs, a portion of the inflow may
be stored and released when power
generation is in high demand.
Regardless of the inflow, Point A dam
has a minimum continuous discharge
requirement of 500 cfs and a
requirement to meet a dissolved oxygen
level of no less than 4.0 milligram per
liter (mg/l).
The Elba dam on the Pea River
mainstem near Elba, Alabama, was
constructed in 1903 for power
generation. The dam generates power
during peak periods and stores some
water, but does not have a reservoir,
only a widened channel which is
roughly one and a half to two times
wider upstream of the dam than
downstream. The 29 ft. high structure is
a barrier to to upstream fish migration
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 34). Channel
scour (deepening of the streambed as a
result of erosion) is occurring
downstream of the Elba Dam (Williams
2010 pers. comm.).
All three dams are barriers to
upstream fish migration and to the
movement of potential mussel host
species. The Service (2003 pp. 13392–3)
noted that Point A Dam and Elba Dam
prevent threatened Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)
movement farther upstream at all flow
conditions. By blocking fish movement,
the dams may prevent gene exchange
between upstream and downstream
mussel populations. Gulf sturgeon have
been shown to serve as a primary host
for mussel larvae (Fritts et al., in
review), although we do not know if
they serve as a host for any of these
eight species. The three dams currently
separate populations of southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. In addition, two smaller
impoundments are located on tributary
streams. Lake Frank Jackson is situated
on Lightwood Knot Creek, a tributary to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the Yellow River in Covington County,
Alabama; Lake Tholocco, on Claybank
Creek, is a tributary to the
Choctawhatchee River in Dale County,
Alabama. Waters released from these
two shallow impoundments can have
extremely elevated temperatures in
summer, which alters the normal
temperature cycle downstream
(Williams et al. 2000 unpub. data).
The potential exists for more dams to
be constructed within the three
drainages, and at least four additional
impoundments are proposed. These
include proposed impoundments on
Murder Creek and Big Escambia Creek
in the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama, the Yellow River mainstem in
Florida, and the Little Choctawhatchee
River in Alabama. These proposed
projects have implications for
populations of all eight species. Given
projected population increases and the
need for municipal water supply, other
proposals for impoundment
construction are expected in the future.
In summary, the loss and degradation
of habitat from various forms of
pollution, stream bed destabilization,
and impoundments are a threat to the
continued existence of these eight
species. Degradation from
sedimentation and contaminants is a
threat to the habitat and water quality
necessary to support these species
throughout their entire ranges.
Sedimentation can cause mortality by
suffocation; impair the ability to feed,
respire, and reproduce; and destabilize
substrate. Contaminants associated with
municipal and industrial effluents
(metals, ammonia, chlorine) and with
agriculture and silviculture (pesticides)
are lethal to mussels, particularly to the
highly sensitive early life stages. These
mussels require stabile stream and river
channels, and quickly disappear from
areas destabilized by gravel mining, the
removal of large woody material, offroad vehicle use, and increased surface
runoff. The effects of impoundments are
more subtle, but can cause severe
alternations to mussel habitat both
upstream and downstream of the dam,
and can impair dispersal and breeding
ability. While recent surveys for these
species have documented several new
populations, they have also documented
a decline in (and the loss of) many of
the known populations due to human
impact. Therefore, we have determined
that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat and range is a
threat with severe impact to the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw
bean, and is a threat with moderate
impact to the tapered pigtoe, narrow
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. This threat is current and is
projected to continue and increase into
the future with additional
anthropogenic pressures.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
None of the eight mussels are
commercially valuable species, and the
streams and rivers that they inhabit are
not subject to harvesting activities for
commercial mussel species. Although
the eight species have been taken for
scientific and private collections in the
past, collecting is not considered a
factor in the decline of these species.
Such activity may increase as their
rarity becomes known; however, we
have no specific information indicating
that overcollection is currently a threat.
Therefore, we find that overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes is not a threat
to the eight mussels at this time.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
C. Disease or Predation
Diseases of freshwater mussels are
poorly known, and we have no specific
information indicating that disease
poses a threat to populations of these
eight species. Juvenile and adult
mussels are prey items for some
invertebrate predators and parasites (for
example, nematodes and mites), and
provide prey for a few vertebrate species
(for example, raccoons, muskrats, otters,
and turtles) (Hart and Fuller 1974, pp.
225–240). However, we have no
evidence of any specific declines in
these species due to predation.
Therefore, diseases and predation of
freshwater mussels remain largely
unstudied and are not considered a
threat to the eight mussels at this time.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
There is no information on the
sensitivity of the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy
pigtoe to aquatic pollutants. Current
State and Federal regulations regarding
pollutants are designed to be protective
of aquatic organisms; however,
freshwater mussels may be more
susceptible to some pollutants than test
organisms commonly used in bioassay
tests. A multitude of bioassay tests
conducted on 16 mussel species
(summarized by Augspurger et al. 2007,
pp. 2025–2028) show that freshwater
mussels are more sensitive than
previously known to some chemical
contaminants including chlorine,
ammonia, copper, the pesticides
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
chlorothalonil and glyphosate, and the
surfactant MON 0818. For example,
several recent studies have
demonstrated that U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 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).
Ammonia is an important aquatic
pollutant because of its relatively high
toxicity and common occurrence in
riverine systems. This has application to
the expected sources of these chemicals
in the environment. Significant sources
of nutrient enrichment leading to
elevated ammonia include industrial
wastewater, municipal wastewater
treatment plant effluents, and urban and
agricultural runoff (chemical fertilizers
and animal wastes) (Augspurger et al.
2007, p. 2026). Elevated copper in
surface waters can result from natural
runoff sources, but is more often
associated with a private or municipal
wastewater effluent. Pesticide residues
enter streams from agricultural,
residential, or silvicultural runoff.
Environmental chlorine concentrations
will most often be associated with a
point source discharge such as a
municipal wastewater treatment facility.
As indicated in the Factor A
discussion above, sedimentation is
considered the most significant threat to
these eight species. Best management
practices (BMPs) for sediment and
erosion control are often recommended
or required for construction projects;
however, compliance, monitoring, and
enforcement of these recommendations
are often poorly implemented. Although
unpaved roads likely contribute the
majority of sediment to the streams and
rivers in the basins, other sources
including forestry, row crops, and
construction contribute to the total
sediment load.
States are required under the Clean
Water Act to establish a TMDL for the
pollutants of concern that the water
body can receive without exceeding the
applicable standard (see discussion
under Factor A). However, the Federal
Clean Water Act is not fully utilized in
the protection of these river systems.
For example, of the 51 impaired water
bodies identified within the drainages,
less than one-fourth currently have
approved TMDLs (ADEM 2010c, pp. 3–
6; FDEP 2010b, pp. 4–6).
In summary, some regulatory
mechanisms exist that protect aquatic
species; however, these regulations are
not effective at protecting mussels and
their habitats from sedimentation and
contaminants. Pollution from non-point
sources is the greatest threat to these
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61683
eight mussels (see Factor A discussion);
however, this type of pollution is
difficult to regulate and not effectively
controlled by State and Federal water
quality regulations. Therefore, we find
current existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to protect the eight
mussels throughout their ranges. This
threat is current and is projected to
continue into the future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Random Catastrophic Events
The Gulf coastal region is prone to
extreme hydrologic events. Extended
droughts result from persistent highpressure systems, which inhibit
moisture from the Gulf of Mexico from
reaching the region (Jeffcoat et al. 1991,
p. 163–170). Warm, humid air from the
Gulf of Mexico can produce strong
frontal systems and tropical storms
resulting in heavy rainfall and extensive
flooding (Jeffcoat et al. 1991, p. 163–
170). Although floods and droughts are
a natural part of the hydrologic
processes that occur in these river
systems, these events may contribute to
the further decline of mussel
populations suffering the effects of other
threats.
During high flows, flood scour can
dislodge mussels where they may be
injured, buried, or swept into unsuitable
habitats, or mussels may be stranded
and perish when flood waters recede
(Vannote and Minshall 1982, p. 4105;
Tucker 1996, p. 435; Hastie et al. 2001,
pp. 107–115; Peterson et al. 2011,
unpaginated). Heavy spring rains in
2009 resulted in severe flooding in the
basins that destroyed numerous stream
crossings.
During drought, stream channels may
become disconnected pools where
mussels are exposed to higher water
temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen
levels, and predators, or channels may
become dewatered entirely. Johnson et
al. (2001, p. 6) monitored mussel
responses during a severe drought in
2000 in tributaries of the Lower Flint
River in Georgia, and found that most
mortality occurred when dissolved
oxygen levels dropped below 5 mg/L.
Furthermore, increased human demand
and competition for surface and ground
water resources for irrigation and
consumption during drought can cause
drastic reductions in stream flows and
alterations to hydrology (Golladay et al.
2004, p. 504; Golladay et al. 2007
unpaginated). Extended droughts
occurred in the Southeast during 1998
to 2002, and again in 2006 to 2008. The
effects of these recent droughts on these
eight mussels are unknown; however,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61684
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
substantial declines in mussel diversity
and abundance as a direct result of
drought have been documented in
southeastern streams (for example,
Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 494–503; Haag
and Warren 2008, p. 1165). The
Alabama pearlshell is particularly at
risk during drought as its headwater
stream habitats are vulnerable to
dewatering. Shelton (1995, p. 4 unpub.
report) reported one of the most
common causes of mortality in the
species is due to stranding by extreme
low water.
There is a growing concern that
climate change may lead to increased
frequency of severe storms and droughts
(McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074;
Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Cook et al.
2004, p. 1015). Specific effects of
climate change to mussels, their habitat,
and their fish hosts could include
changes in stream temperature regimes,
the timing and levels of precipitation
causing more frequent and severe floods
and droughts, and alien species
introductions. Increases in temperature
and reductions in flow may also lower
dissolved oxygen levels in interstitial
habitats, which can be lethal to
juveniles (Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp.
131–133). Effects to mussel populations
from these environmental changes could
include reduced abundance and
biomass, altered species composition,
and host fish considerations (Galbraith
et al. 2010, pp. 1180–1182). The present
conservation status, complex life
histories, and specific habitat
requirements of freshwater mussels
suggest that they may be quite sensitive
to climate change (Hastie et al. 2003, p.
45).
The linear nature of their habitat,
reduced range, and small population
sizes make these eight mussels
vulnerable to contaminant spills. Spills
as a result of transportation accidents
are a constant, potential threat as
numerous highways and railroads cross
the stream channels of the basins. Also,
more than 400 oil wells are located
within Conecuh and Escambia Counties,
Alabama. In Conecuh County, most of
these wells are concentrated in the
Cedar Creek drainage, which supports at
least two populations of the Alabama
pearlshell. These wells are subject to
periodic spills either directly at the well
site or associated with the transport of
the oil. For example, on February 5,
2010, an oil spill occurred in the
headwaters of Feagin Creek. Feagin
Creek is located between two known
pearlshell locations, Little Cedar and
Amos Mill creeks. The resulting spill
discharged more than 150 gallons of oil
into Feagin Creek. Although there were
no known populations of the pearlshell
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
in Feagin Creek, this type of spill could
have easily occurred in one of the
adjacent watersheds that supports the
pearlshell. Since 2000, there have been
13 spills reported in Conecuh, 36 in
Escambia, and 33 in Covington
Counties, Alabama.
Reduced Genetic Diversity
Population fragmentation and
isolation prohibits the natural
interchange of genetic material among
populations. Low numbers of
individuals within the isolated
populations have greater susceptibility
to deleterious genetic effects, including
inbreeding depression and loss of
genetic variation (Lynch 1996, pp. 493–
494). Small, isolated populations,
therefore, are more susceptible to
environmental pressures, including
habitat degradation and stochastic
events, and thus are the most
susceptible to extinction (Primack 2008,
pp. 151–153). It is unknown if any of
the eight mussel species are currently
experiencing a loss of genetic diversity.
However, surviving populations of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
and southern kidneyshell do have
highly restricted or reduced ranges,
fragmented habitats, and extremely
small population sizes.
Host Fish Considerations
As mentioned in the General Biology
section above, all of these eight species
require a fish host in order to complete
their life cycle. Therefore, these mussels
would be adversely affected by the loss
or reduction of fish species essential to
their parasitic glochidial stage. The
blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), a
common and abundant fish species, was
found to serve as a glochidial host for
the tapered pigtoe and fuzzy pigtoe
(White et al. 2008, p. 123). The specific
hosts for the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and
southern sandshell and have not been
identified; however, other species of the
same genera are known to parasitize
cyprinids (minnows), centrarchids
(sunfish), and percids (darters) (Haag
and Warren 1997, pp. 580–581, 583;
Keller and Ruessler 1997, p. 405;
O’Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134;
Haag et al. 1999, p. 150; Haag and
Warren 2003, pp. 81–82; Luo 1993, p.
16).
Nonindigenous Species
The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)
has been introduced to the drainages
and may be adversely affecting these
eight mussels through direct
competition for space and resources.
The Asian clam was first detected in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
eastern Gulf drainages in the early
1960s, and is presently widespread
throughout the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages (Heard
1975, p. 2). The invasion of the Asian
clam in these and in other eastern Gulf
drainages has been accompanied by
drastic declines in populations of native
mussels (see observations by Heard
1975, p. 2; and Shelton 1995, p. 4
unpub. report). However, it is difficult
to say whether the Asian clam
competitively excluded the native
mussels, or if it was simply tolerant of
whatever caused the mussels to
disappear. The Asian clam may pose a
direct threat to native mussels,
particularly as juveniles, as a competitor
for resources such as food, nutrients,
and space (Neves and Widlak 1987, p.
6). Dense populations of Asian clams
may ingest large numbers of unionid
sperm, glochidia, and newly
metamorphosed juveniles, and may
actively disturb sediments, reducing
habitable space for juvenile native
mussels, or displacing them
downstream (Strayer 1999, p. 82; Yeager
et al. 2000, pp. 255–256).
The flathead catfish (Pylodictis
olivaris) has been introduced to the
drainages and may be adversely
impacting native fish populations. The
flathead catfish is a large predator native
to the central United States, and since
its introduction outside its native range,
it has altered the composition of native
fish populations through predation
(Boschung and Mayden 2004, p. 350).
Diet and selectivity studies of
introduced flathead catfish in coastal
North Carolina river systems show it
feeds primarily on other fish species
(Guier et al. 1984, pp. 617–620; Pine et
al. 2005, p. 909). The flathead catfish is
now well-established in the Escambia,
Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River
drainages, and its numbers appear to be
growing (Strickland 2010 pers. comm.).
Biologists working in the Florida
portions of these drainages have
observed a correlation between the
increase in flathead catfish numbers and
a decrease in numbers of other native
fish species, particularly of bullhead
catfish (Ameiurus sp.) and redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus) (Strickland
2010 pers. comm.). Although we do not
know the specific fish hosts for six of
the mussel species, the loss or reduction
of native fishes in general could affect
their ability to recruit.
In summary, a variety of natural or
manmade factors currently are a threat
to these eight mussels. Stochastic events
such as droughts and floods have
occurred in these three river drainages
in the past, and climate change may
increase the frequency and intensity of
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
similar events in the future. The
withdrawal of surface and ground
waters during drought can cause further
drastic flow reductions and alterations
that may cause declines in mussel
abundance and distribution.
Contaminant spills have also occurred
in these drainages and currently are a
threat, particularly in the Alabama
portion of the Escambia River drainage,
where there are numerous oil wells. It
is not known if these species are
currently experiencing a loss of genetic
viability; however, their restricted or
reduced ranges, fragmented habitats,
and small population sizes increases the
risks and consequences of inbreeding
depression and loss of genetic variation.
Introduced species, such as the Asian
clam, may adversely impact these
mussels through direct competition for
space and resources. Another
introduced species, the flathead catfish,
may consume host fishes, thereby
affecting mussel recruitment. Therefore,
we have determined that other natural
or manmade factors, specifically threats
from flooding, drought, and
contaminant spills, are severe threats to
the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and
Choctaw bean, and they are moderate
threats to the tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. These threats are currently
impacting these species and are
projected to continue or increase in the
future. We have determined that threats
from the Asian clam have moderate
impacts to the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean,
and these threats have low impacts to
the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and
fuzzy pigtoe. We have determined that
reduced genetic diversity, the absence
or reduction of fish hosts, and the
presence of flathead catfish have the
potential to adversely impact the eight
mussels. However, we do not know the
intensity of these threats at this time.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. Section 3(6)
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
section 3(20) of the Act defines a
threatened species as ‘‘any species
which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ As
described in detail above, these eight
species are currently at risk throughout
all of their respective ranges 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 their
continued existence (Factor E).
Specifically, these factors include
excessive sedimentation, municipal and
industrial effluents, pesticides,
excessive nutrients, impoundment of
stream channels, recurring drought and
flooding, contaminant spills, and the
introduced Asian clam. In addition,
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate some of the
threats affecting these mussels and their
habitats. Based on the best available
science, these threats are currently
impacting these species and are
projected to continue and potentially
worsen in the future. These eight
mussels are also at increased threat due
to the loss of genetic viability and the
reduction or absence of fish hosts
(described under Factor E); however,
these threats are not currently known to
be imminent.
Species with small ranges, few
populations, and small or declining
population sizes, are the most
vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008,
p. 137). The effects of certain factors,
particularly habitat degradation and
loss, catastrophic events, and
introduced species, increase in
magnitude when population size is
´
small (Soule 1980, pp. 33, 71; Primack
2008, pp. 133–135, 152). The impact of
habitat degradation, catastrophic events,
and introduced species are more severe
to the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and
Choctaw bean than the other four
species, which have few or isolated
populations coupled with low numbers
of individuals and limited or reduced
ranges. Nonetheless, the tapered pigtoe,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell and
fuzzy pigtoe, which still occur in much
of their historical ranges have been
eliminated from historic streams and
main channel locations and have
declining numbers of individuals. When
combining the effects of historical,
current, and future habitat loss and
degradation; historical and ongoing
drought; and the exacerbating effects of
small and declining population sizes
and curtailed ranges, the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean are in
danger of extinction throughout all of
their ranges, and the tapered pigtoe,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61685
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell and
fuzzy pigtoe are likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of their ranges. In
addition, any factor (i.e., habitat loss or
natural and manmade factors) that
results in a further decline in habitat or
individuals may be problematic for the
long-term recovery of these species.
Therefore, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we are listing the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
and Choctaw bean as endangered
species throughout all of their ranges,
and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe as
threatened species throughout all of
their ranges. In the proposed rule we
examined all available information on
the eight species to determine if any
significant portions of their ranges may
warrant a different status. However,
because of their limited and curtailed
ranges, and uniformity of the threats
throughout them, we find there are no
significant portions of any of the
species’ ranges that warrant a different
determination of status.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals.
The Act encourages cooperation with
the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures
required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed wildlife are discussed
in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
and are further discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61686
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan identifies site-specific
management actions that set a trigger for
review of the five factors that control
whether a species remains endangered
or may be downlisted or delisted, and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprised of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernment
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Panama City
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribal,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once these species are listed, funding
for recovery actions will be available
from a variety of sources, including
Federal budgets, State programs, and
cost share grants for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community,
and nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, under to section 6 of the Act,
the States of Alabama and Florida will
be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of
these eight mussel species. Information
on our grant programs that are available
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
to aid species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new
information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information
you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into formal
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include: The management of and any
other landscape-altering activities on
Federal lands administered by the
Department of Defense and U.S. Forest
Service; issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act permits by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; licensing of
hydroelectric dams, and construction
and management of gas pipeline and
power line rights-of-way approved by
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; construction and
maintenance of roads or highways
funded by the Federal Highway
Administration; and land management
practices administered by the
Department of Agriculture.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt
any of these), import, 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. Under the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378),
it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for
threatened wildlife. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify, to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
planned and ongoing activities within
the range of species proposed for listing.
The following activities could
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act.
(2) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete with or prey upon these
eight mussel species, such as the zebra
mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and the
black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus).
(3) The unauthorized release of
biological control agents that attack any
life stage of these species.
(4) Unauthorized modification of the
channel or water flow of any stream or
water body in which these species are
known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Panama City Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
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 obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in critical habitat if they
contain physical or biological features
(1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2)
which may require special management
considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical
and biological features within an area,
we focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands,
water quality, tide, soil type) that are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements
are the specific elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a
species’ life-history processes, are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently
occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the
critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by a species only when a designation
limited to its range 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61687
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
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary sources of information
include the articles in peer-reviewed
journals, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other
unpublished materials, or experts’
opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity because the
interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and
current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and
habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for
biodiversity (Hannah and Lovejoy 2005,
p.4). Current climate change predictions
for terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air
temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying (Field et al.
1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p.
12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). 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).
We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may
affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61688
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the
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 and biological
features (PBFs) essential to the
conservation of the species, and 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, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential for Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe from studies
of these species’ habitat, ecology, and
life history as described in the Critical
Habitat section of the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on October 4, 2011
(76 FR 61482), and in the information
presented below.
We have determined that Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
sandshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe require the
following physical or biological
features:
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe are all historically associated
with the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee river drainages in
Alabama and Florida. The Alabama
pearlshell is also known from three
locations in the Mobile River Basin;
however, only one of those is
considered to be currently occupied.
The eight mussels are found embedded
in stable substrates composed mainly of
fine to coarse sand, with occasional
patches of clay or gravel (Williams et al.
2008, pp. 32–34), and within areas of
sufficient current velocities to remove
finer sediments. These habitats are
formed and maintained by water
quantity, channel slope, and normal
sediment input to the system. Changes
in one or more of these parameters can
result in channel degradation or channel
aggradation, with serious effects to
mussels. The decline of the mussel
fauna of these eastern Gulf Coastal Plain
drainages is not well understood, but is
primarily associated with the loss of
habitats and channel instability due to
excessive sedimentation (Williams and
Butler 1994, p. 55). Sedimentation has
been determined to be a major factor in
habitat destruction, resulting in
corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102).
Stable stream bottom substrates not only
provide space for populations of these
eight mussel species, but also provide
cover and shelter and sites for breeding,
reproduction, and growth of offspring.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify stream channel
stability to be a physical or biological
feature for the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
Food
Freshwater mussels, such as these
eight species, filter algae, detritus, and
bacteria from the water column
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 67). 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). Food availability and quality are
affected by habitat stability, floodplain
connectivity, water flow, and water
quality. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify adequate
food availability and quality to be a
physical or biological feature for these
species.
Water
The Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe are riverine species that depend
upon adequate water flow.
Continuously flowing water is a habitat
feature associated with all of the eight
species. Flowing water maintains the
stream bottom habitats where these
species are found, transports food items
to the sedentary juvenile and adult life
stages, transports sperm to the adult
females, provides oxygen for
respiration, and removes wastes.
Populations of the narrow pigtoe were
recently discovered in Gantt and Point
A Lakes (Williams et al. 2008, p. 317),
manmade reservoirs on the Conecuh
River mainstem in Alabama. We
attribute the occurrence of the species in
these impoundments to the relatively
small size of the reservoirs, and to the
operational regime of the dams. As
mentioned under Factor A, both
impoundments have limited storage
capacity and are operated as modified
run-of-river projects with daily peaking.
Therefore, most of the time, the outflow
matches the inflow. Also, some areas in
the reservoirs are narrow and riverine,
for instance the area around Dunns
Bridge on Gantt Lake. Here, narrow
pigtoe were found in relatively high
numbers in firm, stable sand substrates
with little or no silt accumulation
(Williams 2009, pers. comm.; Pursifull
2006, pers. obs.). Although the natural
state of the river’s hydrological flow
regime is modified, it does retain the
features necessary to maintain the
benthic habitats where the species are
found. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify flowing
water to be a physical or biological
feature for these eight mussel 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 eight species
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 each of the eight 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
watershed size, geology, geography, and
differences in human population
densities and land uses. In general, each
of the species survives in areas where
the magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of water flow are adequate to
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
maintain stable 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 relatively
unpolluted water and sediments).
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify adequate water flow
and water quality (as defined below) to
be a physical or biological feature for
the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
We currently believe that most
numeric standards for pollutants and
water quality parameters (for example,
dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy metals)
that have been adopted by the States
under the Clean Water Act represent
levels that are essential to the
conservation of each of these eight
mussels. However, some States’
standards may not adequately protect
mollusks, or are not being appropriately
measured, monitored, or achieved in
some reaches (see Factors A and D
above). The Service is currently in
consultation with the EPA to evaluate
the protectiveness of criteria approved
in EPA’s water quality standards for
threatened and endangered species and
their critical habitats as described in the
memorandum of agreement that our
agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201,
February 22, 2001). 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 sediments, nutrients, and
pesticides), point-source discharges
from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities (for
example, excessive amounts of
ammonia, chlorine, and metals), and
random spills or unregulated discharge
events. This could be particularly
harmful during drought conditions
when flows are depressed and
pollutants are more concentrated.
Therefore, adequate water quality is
essential for normal behavior, growth,
and viability during all life stages of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
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). Thus, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
presence of the appropriate host fishes
to complete the reproductive life cycle
is essential to the conservation of these
eight mussels. The blacktail shiner was
found to serve as a host for the fuzzy
pigtoe and tapered pigtoe in a
preliminary study trial (White et al.
2008, p. 123). This minnow species
occurs in a variety of habitats in
drainages throughout the coastal plain
(Mettee et al. 1996, pp. 174–175). The
specific host fish(es) for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, and southern sandshell are not
currently known; however, other
species of the same genera are known to
parasitize cyprinids (minnows),
centrarchids (sunfish), and percids
(darters) (Haag and Warren 2003, pp.
81–82; Haag and Warren 1997, pp. 580–
581, 583; Keller and Ruessler 1997, p.
405; O’Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134;
Haag et al. 1999, p. 150). Therefore,
based on the information above, we
identify the presence of the appropriate
host fishes to complete the reproductive
life cycle to be a physical or biological
feature for these eight mussel species.
Juvenile mussels require stable
bottom habitats for growth and survival.
Excessive sediments or dense 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, p. 373). Geomorphic
instability can result in the loss of
habitats and juvenile mussels due to
scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993,
p. 138). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify stable
bottom substrate with low to moderate
amounts of filamentous algae growth to
be a physical or biological feature for
the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Eight Mussels
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of these
eight mussel species in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the
features’ primary constituent elements
(PCEs). Primary constituent elements
are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that
provide for a species’ life-history
processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61689
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we have determined that the
primary constituent elements specific to
the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe are:
(1) Geomorphically stable stream and
river channels and banks (channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation).
(2) Stable substrates of sand or
mixtures of sand with clay or gravel
with low to moderate amounts of fine
sediment and attached filamentous
algae.
(3) A hydrologic flow regime
(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 habitat
maintenance, food availability, and
spawning habitat for native fishes.
(4) Water quality, including
temperature (not greater than 32 ßC), pH
(between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not
less than 5.0 mg/L), hardness, turbidity,
and other chemical characteristics
necessary for normal behavior, growth,
and viability of all life stages.
(5) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse
assemblages of native fish species will
serve as a potential indication of host
fish presence until appropriate host
fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy
pigtoe and tapered pigtoe, the presence
of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta)
will serve as a potential indication of
fish host presence.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by these
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to their
conservation and that may require
special management considerations or
protections. None of the portions of the
critical habitat units for these species
below has been designated as critical
habitat for other mussel species that are
already listed under the Act. None of
the areas is presently under special
management or protection provided by
a legally operative management plan or
agreement for the conservation of these
species.
Many of the threats to the eight
mussels and their habitat are pervasive
and common in all of the nine units that
we are designating as critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61690
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(see below). These include the potential
of significant changes in stream bed
material composition and quality by
activities such as construction projects,
livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and
other watershed and floodplain
disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water; the potential of
significant alteration of water chemistry
or water quality; the potential of
anthropogenic activities such as
channelization, impoundment, and
channel excavation that could cause
aggradation or degradation of the
channel bed elevation or significant
bank erosion; and the potential of
significant changes in the existing flow
regime due to such activities as
impoundment, water diversion, or water
withdrawal. Because the areas we are
designating as critical habitat below are
facing these threats, they require special
management consideration and
protection.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we used the best scientific and
commercial data available to designate
critical habitat. We reviewed available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas—outside
those currently occupied (that is those
occupied at the time of listing)—are
necessary to ensure the conservation of
the species. We are designating critical
habitat in areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing (2012). We also are designating
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing, that were historically
occupied but are presently unoccupied,
because we have determined that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of these species.
We began our analysis by considering
historical and current ranges of each of
the eight species. Sources of this
information include research published
in peer-reviewed articles and books,
agency reports, museum collections,
and surveys by biologists (see
Background section). We then identified
the specific areas that are occupied by
each of the eight mussels and that
contain one or more of the physical or
biological features. We defined
occupied habitat as those stream reaches
known to be currently occupied by any
of the eight species. To identify the
currently occupied stream reaches, we
used survey data collected from 1995 to
2012. Several surveys were conducted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
in the basins between the years of 1995
to 2012 (Shelton 1995 unpub. report;
Shelton 1999 in litt.; Blalock-Herod et
al. 2005; Pilarczyk et al. 2006; Shelton
et al. 2007 unpub. report; Gangloff and
Hartfield 2009; Gangloff 2010–12,
unpub. data). These surveys were used
to assess the current conservation status
of the species, and extended their
known ranges. For this reason, we
considered the year 1995 to be the
demarcation between historical and
current records. To identify historically
occupied stream reaches, we used
survey data between the late 1800s and
1994. Therefore, if a species was known
to occur in an area prior to 1995, but
was not collected in the same area since
then, the stream reach is considered
historically occupied.
We then evaluated occupied stream
reaches to delineate the probable
upstream and downstream extent of
each species’ distribution. Known
occurrences for some mussel species are
extremely localized, and rare mussels
can be difficult to locate. In addition,
creek and river habitats are highly
dependent upon upstream and
downstream channel habitat conditions
for their maintenance. Therefore, where
more than one occurrence record of a
particular species was found within a
stream reach, we considered the entire
reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied
habitat.
We then considered whether this
essential area was adequate for the
conservation of each of the eight
species. Small, isolated, aquatic
populations are subject to chance
catastrophic events and to changes in
human activities and land use practices
that may result in their elimination.
Larger, more contiguous populations
can reduce the threat of extinction due
to habitat fragmentation and isolation.
For these reasons, we believe that
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell
and southern kidneyshell requires
expanding their ranges into currently
unoccupied portions of their historical
habitat. Given that threats to these two
species are compounded by their
limited distribution and isolation, it is
unlikely that currently occupied habitat
is adequate for their conservation. The
range of each has been severely
curtailed, their occupied habitats are
limited and isolated, and population
sizes are small. For example, the
Alabama pearlshell is no longer
believed to occur in the Limestone
Creek system (Monroe County), several
tributaries in the Murder Creek system,
or in the Patsaliga Creek drainage. The
southern kidneyshell once occurred in
all three river basins, but is currently
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
known only from the Choctawhatchee
basin. While occupied units provide
habitat for current populations, these
species are at high risk of extirpation
and extinction from stochastic events,
whether periodic natural events or
potential human-induced events (see
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species). The inclusion of essential
unoccupied areas will provide habitat
for population reintroduction and will
decrease the risk of extinction. Based on
the best scientific data available, areas
not currently occupied by the Alabama
pearlshell and southern kidneyshell are
essential for their conservation, with
one exception. We eliminated from
consideration the Yellow River drainage
as critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell. Its occurrence in the
Yellow River is based on a 1919
collection of one specimen from Hollis
Creek in Covington County, Alabama.
However, we believe this single,
historical collection is not sufficient to
support the conclusion that any
portions of the Yellow River drainage
are essential to the conservation of the
southern kidneyshell at this time.
Otherwise, all of the stream habitat
areas designated as critical habitat that
are currently not known to be occupied
contain sufficient physical or biological
features (e.g., geomorphically stable
channels, perennial water flows,
adequate water quality, and appropriate
benthic substrates) to support lifehistory functions of the mussels. The
stream reaches also lack major
anthropogenic disturbance, and have
potential for reoccupation by the species
through future reintroduction efforts.
Based on the above factors, all
unoccupied stream reaches included in
the designations for the Alabama
pearlshell and southern kidneyshell are
essential to their conservation.
Following the identification of
occupied and unoccupied stream
reaches, the next step was to delineate
the probable upstream and downstream
extent of each species’ distribution. We
used USGS 1:100,000 digital stream
maps to delineate the boundaries of
critical habitat units according to the
criteria explained below. The upstream
boundary of a unit in a stream is the
first perennial, named tributary
confluence; a road-crossing bridge; or a
permanent barrier to fish passage (such
as a dam) above the upstream-most
current occurrence record. Many of the
Alabama pearlshell survey sites are
located near watershed headwaters. In
these areas, the upstream boundary of a
unit is the point where the stream and
its tributaries are no longer perennially
flowing streams. The confluence of a
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tributary typically marks a significant
change in the size of the stream and is
a logical and recognizable upstream
terminus. When a named tributary was
not available, a road-crossing bridge was
used to mark the boundary. Likewise, a
dam or other barrier to fish passage
marks the upstream extent to which
mussels may disperse via their fish
hosts. The downstream boundary of a
unit in a stream is the confluence of a
named tributary, the upstream extent of
tidal influence, or the upstream extent
of an impoundment, below the
downstream-most occurrence record. In
the unit descriptions, distances between
landmarks marking the upstream or
downstream extent of a stream segment
are given in kilometers (km) and
equivalent miles (mi), as measured
tracing the course of the stream, not
straight-line distance. Distances less
than 10 km (6.2 mi) are rounded to the
nearest half number, and distances of 10
km (6.2 mi) and greater are rounded to
the nearest whole number.
Because mussels are naturally
restricted by certain physical conditions
within a stream or river reach (i.e., flow,
substrate), they may be unevenly
distributed within these habitat units.
Uncertainty on upstream and
downstream distributional limits of
some populations may have resulted in
small areas of occupied habitat
excluded from, or areas of unoccupied
habitat included in, the designation. We
recognize that both historical and recent
collection records upon which we relied
are incomplete, and that there may be
river segments or small tributaries not
included in this designation that harbor
small, limited populations of one or
more of the eight species considered in
this designation, or that others may
become suitable in the future. The
exclusion of such areas does not
diminish their potential individual or
cumulative importance to the
conservation of these species. However,
with proper management, each of the
nine critical habitat units are capable of
supporting one or more of these mussel
species, and will serve as source
populations for artificial reintroduction
into designated stream units, as well as
assisted or natural migration into
adjacent undesignated streams within
each basin. The habitat areas contained
within the units described below
constitute our best evaluation of areas
needed for the conservation of these
species at this time. Critical habitat may
be revised for any or all of these species
should new information become
available.
Using the criteria above, we
delineated a total of nine critical habitat
units—two units (AP1, AP2) for the
Alabama pearlshell, and seven Gulf
Coast mussels units (GCM1 through
GCM7) for one or more of the other
seven mussel species. We depicted the
Alabama pearlshell units separately as
this species tends to inhabit headwater
stream environments and seldom cooccurs with the other seven species,
although some critical habitat in the
downstream portions of Unit AP2
overlaps with the upstream portions of
Unit GCM1 in the Escambia River
drainage. The round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe often cooccur within the same stream segments,
so most of the GCM critical habitat units
are designated for more than one
species. Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and
Gantt Lake Reservoirs is the only
exception, which is designated for the
narrow pigtoe only.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries within this final rule, we
made every effort to avoid including
developed areas because such lands lack
physical or biological features for these
eight mussel species. The areas
designated as critical habitat listed
below include only stream channels
within the ordinary high-water line and
do not do not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts,
runways, dams, roads, and other paved
areas) and the land on which they are
located, with the exception of the
impoundments created by Point A and
Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not
the actual dam structures). The scale of
the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not
reflect the exclusion of such developed
61691
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands
will not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific action would affect
the physical or biological featues in the
adjacent critical habitat.
Units are designated based on
sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to
support life-history processes of these
eight mussel species. Some units
contain all of the identified elements of
physical or biological features and
support multiple life-history processes.
Some segments contain only some
elements of the physical or biological
features necessary to support each
species’ particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We
include more detailed information on
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, on our
Internet sites https://www.fws.gov/
PanamaCity, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see
ADDRESSES above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating nine units as
critical habitat for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The critical
habitat areas described below constitute
our best assessment at this time of areas
that meet the definition of critical
habitat. The occupancy and stream
length of designated critical habitat
units by species is shown in Table 10.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
TABLE 10—OCCUPANCY AND STREAM LENGTH OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY SPECIES
Currently
occupied?
Unit
Total stream
length
kilometers (miles)
Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)
AP1: Big Flat Creek ...............................................................................................................................
AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River .................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes ............................
Partially 1 ....................
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
92 (57)
155 (96)
61692
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 10—OCCUPANCY AND STREAM LENGTH OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY SPECIES—Continued
Currently
occupied?
Unit
Total ................................................................................................................................................
Total stream
length
kilometers (miles)
....................................
247 (153)
Yes ............................
558 (347)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
558 (347)
149 (92)
137 (85)
247 (153)
897 (557)
234 (145)
....................................
2,222 (1,379)
Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Patsaliga Creek .........................................................................................................................
Upper Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River ...........................................................................
Upper Pea River .......................................................................................................................
No ..............................
No ..............................
No ..............................
Yes ............................
Yes ............................
558 (347)
149 (92)
137 (85)
897 (557)
234 (145)
Total ................................................................................................................................................
....................................
1,975 (1,226)
Round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata)
GCM1: Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis)
GCM1:
GCM3:
GCM4:
GCM5:
GCM6:
GCM7:
Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Patsaliga Creek .........................................................................................................................
Upper Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Yellow River ..............................................................................................................................
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River ...........................................................................
Upper Pea River .......................................................................................................................
Total ................................................................................................................................................
Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi)
GCM1:
GCM3:
GCM4:
GCM6:
GCM7:
Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis)
GCM1:
GCM3:
GCM4:
GCM5:
GCM6:
GCM7:
Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Patsaliga Creek .........................................................................................................................
Upper Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Yellow River ..............................................................................................................................
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River ...........................................................................
Upper Pea River .......................................................................................................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
558 (347)
149 (92)
137 (85)
247 (153)
897 (557)
234 (145)
....................................
2,222 (1,397)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River ...........................................................................
GCM7: Upper Pea River .......................................................................................................................
Yes ............................
Yes ............................
897 (557)
234 (145)
Total ................................................................................................................................................
....................................
1,131 (702)
Total ................................................................................................................................................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei)
Narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)
GCM1:
GCM2:
GCM3:
GCM4:
GCM5:
Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs .................................................................................
Patsaliga Creek .........................................................................................................................
Upper Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Yellow River ..............................................................................................................................
Total ................................................................................................................................................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
558 (347)
21 (13)
149 (92)
137 (85)
247 (153)
....................................
1,112 (690)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum)
GCM1:
GCM3:
GCM4:
GCM5:
GCM6:
GCM7:
Lower Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Patsaliga Creek .........................................................................................................................
Upper Escambia River ..............................................................................................................
Yellow River ..............................................................................................................................
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River ...........................................................................
Upper Pea River .......................................................................................................................
Total ................................................................................................................................................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
558 (347)
149 (92)
137 (85)
247 (153)
897 (557)
234 (145)
....................................
2,222 (1,379)
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 17 km (11 mi) of Murder Creek mainstem are unoccupied.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
The designated critical habitat
includes the creek and river channels
within the ordinary high-water line
only. For this purpose, we have applied
the definition found at 33 CFR 329.11,
and consider the ordinary high-water
line on nontidal rivers to be 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.
States were granted ownership of
lands beneath navigable waters up to
the ordinary high-water line upon
achieving Statehood (Pollard v. Hagan,
44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior
sovereigns or the States may have made
grants to private parties that included
lands below the ordinary high-water
mark of some navigable waters that are
included in this rule. Most, if not all,
lands beneath the navigable waters
included in this final rule are owned by
61693
the States of Alabama and Florida. The
lands beneath most nonnavigable waters
included in this final rule are in private
ownership. Riparian lands along the
waters are either in private ownership,
or are owned by county, State, or
Federal entities. Lands under county,
State, and Federal ownership consist of
managed conservation areas and
Department of Defense lands, and are
considered to have some level of
protection. The approximate length of
each habitat unit and land ownership is
shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS, LOCATION, APPROXIMATE STREAM LENGTH, AND OWNERSHIP OF RIPARIAN LANDS
Unit
Location
Total Length
km (mi)
Private
km (mi)*
Private/
Managed
km (mi)*
AP1 .........
AP2 .........
Big Flat Creek, AL ..................................
Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and
Sepulga River, AL.
Lower Escambia River, AL, FL ...............
Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs, AL.
Patsaliga Creek, AL ................................
Upper Escambia River, AL .....................
Yellow River, AL, FL ...............................
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea
River, AL, FL.
Upper Pea River, AL ...............................
92 (57)
155 (96)
92 (57)
155 (96)
0
0
558 (347)
21 (13)
482 (299)
21 (13)
18 (11)
0
59 (36)
0
149
137
247
897
149
130
98
718
0
7 (4)
68 (42)
61 (38)
0
0
81 (50)
119 (74)
GCM1 .....
GCM2 .....
GCM3
GCM4
GCM5
GCM6
.....
.....
.....
.....
GCM7 .....
234 (145)
.................................................................
(92)
(81)
(61)
(446)
228 (142)
¥85 (53)
Overlap between units AP2 and GCM1
Total
(92)
(85)
(153)
(557)
0
0
0
1,987 (1,235)
5 (3)
0
¥85 (53)
2,404 (1,494)
Managed
km (mi)*
0
153 (95)
263 (164)
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
* Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private); private on one bank and county, state or federal on the
other (Private/Managed); and county, state, or federal ownership on both banks (Managed).
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for each
species, below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage,
Alabama
Unit AP1 encompasses 92 km (57 mi)
of the Big Flat Creek drainage, in
Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL. The
unit is within the Mobile River basin. It
includes the mainstem of Big Flat Creek
from State Route 41 upstream 56 km (35
mi), Monroe County, AL; Flat Creek
from its confluence with Big Flat Creek
upstream 20 km (12 mi), Monroe
County, AL; and Dailey Creek from its
confluence with Flat Creek upstream 17
km (11 mi), Wilcox County, AL.
Unit AP1 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the Alabama pearlshell. Based
on collection records, the species was
last collected in the Big Flat Creek
system in 1995, when Shelton (1995, p.
3 unpub. report) documented a fresh
dead individual. Although it is likely
that the Alabama pearlshell has always
been rare in Big Flat Creek, the unit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
currently supports healthy populations
of several other native mussel species,
indicating the presence of essential
physical or biological features, and
contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. A diverse
fish fauna, including potential fish
host(s) for the Alabama pearlshell, are
known from the Big Flat Creek drainage,
indicating the potential presence of PCE
5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and
its habitat may require special
management of the physical or
biological features including
maintaining natural stream flows and
protecting water quality from excessive
point- and non-point-source pollution.
For example, runoff from agricultural
and industrial sites can alter water
quality through added nutrients and
sediment. Runoff from unpaved roads
can also add sediments, and poorly
designed road culverts can degrade
habitats and limit distribution of the
species. Some culverts can isolate
pearlshell populations by acting as a
barrier for dispersion and movement of
host fish(es).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder
Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages,
Alabama
Unit AP2 encompasses 155 km (96
mi) of the Burnt Corn Creek, Murder
Creek, and Sepulga River drainages
within the Escambia River drainage in
Escambia and Conecuh Counties, AL. It
includes the mainstem of Burnt Corn
Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek upstream 66 km (41 mi), Conecuh
County, AL; the mainstem of Murder
Creek from its confluence with Jordan
Creek upstream 17 km (11 mi) to the
confluence of Otter Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Jordan Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek upstream
12 km (7 mi), Conecuh County, AL;
Otter Creek from its confluence with
Murder Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi),
Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek
from its confluence with Murder Creek
upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the NOLF
Evergreen northern boundary, Conecuh
County, AL; Hunter Creek from the
NOLF Evergreen southern boundary
upstream 3.0 km (1.9 mi), Conecuh
County, AL; Sandy Creek from County
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61694
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Road 29 upstream 5 km (3.5 mi) to
Hagood Road; two unnamed tributaries
to Sandy Creek—one from its
confluence with Sandy Creek upstream
8.5 km (5.0 mi) to Hagood Road, and the
other from its confluence with the
previous unnamed tributary 2.5 km (1.5
mi) upstream to Hagood Road, Conecuh
County, AL; Little Cedar Creek from
County Road 6 upstream 8 km (5 mi),
Conecuh County, AL; Amos Mill Creek
from its confluence with the Sepulga
River upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia
and Conecuh Counties, AL; Polly Creek
from its confluence with Amos Mill
Creek upstream 3 km (2 mi), Conecuh
County, AL; and Bottle Creek from its
confluence with the Sepulga River
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL.
Unit AP2 is mostly within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (2012) for the Alabama
pearlshell. The Alabama pearlshell
currently occurs in Jordan, Hunter,
Otter, Sandy, Little Cedar, Bottle, and
Amos Mill creek drainages. Although it
historically occurred in the mainstem of
Murder Creek, it has not been collected
there since 1991. Therefore, this short
reach of Murder Creek is considered
unoccupied by the Alabama pearlshell,
but essential to the conservation of the
species. This unoccupied reach retains
the physical or biological features of a
natural stream channel and supports
other native mussel species. It has
potential for reoccupation by the
pearlshell, particularly if threats can be
identified and mitigated.
The unit currently supports healthy
populations of several other native
mussel species, indicating the elements
of essential physical or biological
features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and
4. In addition, other mussel species,
requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with
the pearlshell. A diverse fish fauna,
including potential fish host(s) for the
Alabama pearlshell, are known from
these drainages, indicating the potential
presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and
its habitat that may require special
management of the physical or
biological featues include alteration and
maintenance of natural stream flows
(including the construction of
impoundments), and protecting water
quality from excessive point- and nonpoint-source pollution.
Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River
Drainage, Florida and Alabama
Unit GCM1 encompasses 558 km (347
mi) of the lower Escambia River
mainstem and 12 tributary streams in
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, FL,
and Escambia, Covington, Conecuh, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
Butler Counties, AL. The unit consists
of the main channel of the EscambiaConecuh River from the confluence of
Spanish Mill Creek, Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties, FL, upstream 204 km
(127 mi) to the Point A Lake dam,
Covington County, AL; Murder Creek
from its confluence with the Conecuh
River, Escambia County, AL, upstream
62 km (38 mi) to the confluence of Cane
Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Burnt Corn
Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek, Escambia County, AL, upstream
59 km (37 mi) to County Road 20,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from
its confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate
65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill Creek
from its confluence with Murder Creek
upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to the
confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream
5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River
from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the
confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from
its confluence with the Sepulga River
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence
with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the
confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its
confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route
106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon Creek
from its confluence with the Sepulga
River, Conecuh and Covington Counties,
upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the
confluence of Three Run Creek, Butler
County, AL; and Three Run Creek from
its confluence with Pigeon Creek
upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the
confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
Unit GCM1 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell
is not currently known to occur in the
unit; however, this portion of the
Escambia River system is within the
species’ historical range, and we
consider it essential to the southern
kidneyshell’s conservation due to the
need to re-establish the species within
other portions of its historical range in
order to reduce threats from stochastic
events. The unit currently supports
populations of round ebonyshell,
Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe, indicating
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1,
2, 3, and 4. In addition, other mussel
species, requiring similar PCEs, cooccur with these five species. A diverse
fish fauna, including potential fish
host(s) for the fuzzy pigtoe, are known
from the Escambia River drainage,
indicating the potential presence of PCE
5.
Threats to the five species and their
habitat that may require special
management of the physical or
biological features include the potential
of significant changes in the existing
flow regime and water quality due to
two upstream impoundments. As
discussed in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, mollusk declines
downstream of dams are associated with
changes and fluctuation in flow regime,
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels and altered water
temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages. These alterations can
cause mussel declines for many miles
downstream of the dam.
Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt
Lake Reservoirs, Alabama
Unit GCM2 encompasses 21 km (13
mi) of the Point A Lake and Gantt Lake
reservoir system in Covington County,
AL. Both lakes are impoundments on
the Conecuh River main channel in the
Escambia River drainage. The unit
extends from Point A Lake dam,
Covington County upstream 21 km (13
mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw County
line in Alabama.
Unit GCM2 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the narrow pigtoe. As
mentioned in discussion of essential
physical or biological features for the
narrow pigtoe, we attribute its
occurrence in these two impoundments
to the small size of the reservoirs and to
the operational regime of the dams. This
allows for water movement through the
system, and prevents silt accumulation
in some areas. The largest narrow pigtoe
population occurs in the middle reach
of Gantt Lake, where the reservoir
narrows and becomes somewhat
riverine. Although the natural state of
the river’s hydrological flow regime is
modified, it does retain the presence of
the physical or biological features
necessary to maintain the benthic
habitats where the species are found.
The persistence of the narrow pigtoe
within these reservoirs indicates the
presence of an appropriate fish host.
Although its fish host(s) is unknown,
other mussels of the genus Fusconaia
are known to use cyprinid minnows,
fish that occupy a variety of habitats
including large, flowing rivers, and
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
lakes and reservoirs (Mettee et al. 1996,
p. 128). The unit currently supports
narrow pigtoe populations, indicating
the elements of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1,
3, 4, and 5. We consider the habitat in
this unit essential to the conservation of
the narrow pigtoe as it possesses the
largest known population. The fuzzy
pigtoe is known historically from this
stretch of the Conecuh River (one
specimen was collected in 1915).
However, the collection was made prior
to construction of the reservoirs in 1923,
and it is not presently known to occur
in this now-impounded section of the
river.
Threats to the narrow pigtoe and its
habitat that may require special
management of the physical or
biological features include the potential
of significant changes in water levels
due to periodic drawdowns of the
reservoirs for maintenance to the dams.
Within the two reservoirs, mussels
occur in shallow areas near the shore,
where they are susceptible to exposure
when water levels are lowered. A
drawdown of Point A Lake in 2005, and
Gantt Lake in 2006, exposed and killed
a substantial number of mussels
(Johnson 2006 in litt.). During the Gantt
drawdown, 142 individuals of narrow
pigtoe were relocated after being
stranded in dewatered areas near the
shoreline (Garner 2009 pers. comm.;
Pursifull 2006, pers. obs.).
Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek Drainage,
Alabama
Unit GCM3 encompasses 149 km (92
mi) of Patsaliga Creek and two tributary
streams in Covington, Crenshaw, and
Pike Counties, AL, within the Escambia
River basin. The unit consists of the
Patsaliga Creek mainstem from its
confluence with Point A Lake at County
Road 59, Covington County, AL,
upstream 108 km (67 mi) to Crenshaw
County Road 66-Pike County Road 1
(the creek is the county boundary), AL;
Little Patsaliga Creek from its
confluence with Patsaliga Creek
upstream 28 km (17 mi) to Mary Daniel
Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and
Olustee Creek from its confluence with
Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi)
to County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM3 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not
currently known to occur in the unit;
however, this portion of the Patsaliga
Creek system is within the species’
historic range. We consider it essential
to the conservation of the southern
kidneyshell due to the need to re-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
establish the species within other
portions of its historic range in order to
reduce threats from stochastic events.
The unit does currently support
populations of Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe, indicating the presence of
essential physical or biological features,
and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In
addition, other mussel species,
requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with
these four species. A diverse fish fauna,
including a potential fish host for the
fuzzy pigtoe, are known from the
Patsaliga Creek drainage, indicating the
potential presence of PCE 5.
Prior to construction of the Point A
Lake and Gantt Lake dams in 1923,
Patsaliga Creek drained directly to the
Conecuh River main channel. It now
empties into Point A Lake and is
effectively isolated from the main
channel by the dams. The dams are
barriers to upstream fish movement,
particularly to anadromous fishes.
Therefore, a potential threat that may
require special management of the
physical or biological features includes
the absence of fish hosts.
Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River
Drainage, Alabama
Unit GCM4 encompasses 137 km (85
mi) of the Conecuh River mainstem and
two tributary streams in Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock Counties,
AL, within the Escambia River drainage.
The unit consists of the Conecuh River
from its confluence with Gantt Lake
reservoir at the Covington-Crenshaw
County line upstream 126 km (78 mi) to
County Road 8, Bullock County, AL;
Beeman Creek from its confluence with
the Conecuh River upstream 6.5 km (4
mi) to the confluence of Mill Creek, Pike
County, AL; and Mill Creek from its
confluence with Beeman Creek,
upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County Road
13, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM4 is is within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (2012) Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not
currently known to occur in the unit;
however, this portion of the Conecuh
River is within the species’ historic
range, and we consider it to be essential
to the conservation of the southern
kidneyshell due to the need to reestablish the species within other
portions of its historic range in order to
reduce threats from stochastic events.
The unit does currently support
populations of Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe, indicating the presence of
essential physical or biological features,
and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61695
addition, other mussel species requiring
similar PCEs co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna, including
a potential fish host for the fuzzy pigtoe,
are known from the upper Escambia
River drainage, indicating the potential
presence of PCE 5.
The Point A Lake and Gantt Lake
dams on the Conecuh River mainstem
are barriers to upstream fish movement,
particularly to anadromous fishes.
Therefore, a potential threat that may
require special management of the
physical or biological features includes
the absence of fish hosts.
Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage,
Florida and Alabama
Unit GCM5 encompasses 247 km (153
mi) of the Yellow River mainstem, the
Shoal River mainstem, and three
tributary streams in Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, FL, and
Covington County, AL. The unit
consists of the Yellow River from the
confluence of Weaver River (a tributary
located 0.9 km (0.6 mi), downstream of
State Route 87), Santa Rosa County, FL,
upstream 157 km (97 mi) to County
Road 42, Covington County, AL; the
Shoal River from its confluence with the
Yellow River, Okaloosa County, FL,
upstream 51 km (32 mi) to the
confluence of Mossy Head Branch,
Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its
confluence with Shoal River, Okaloosa
County, FL, upstream 24 km (15 mi) to
the confluence of Fleming Creek,
Walton County, FL; and Five Runs
Creek from its confluence with the
Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi)
to County Road 31, Covington County,
AL.
Unit GCM5 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell was
known from the Yellow River drainage;
however, its occurrence in the basin is
based on the collection of one specimen
in 1919 from Hollis Creek in Alabama.
We believe this single, historical record
is not sufficient to consider this unit as
essential to the conservation of the
southern kidneyshell. Therefore, we are
not designating Unit GCM5 as critical
habitat for the southern kidneyshell at
this time. The unit does currently
support populations of Choctaw bean,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of
essential physical or biological features,
and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In
addition, other mussel species,
requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with
these four species. A diverse fish fauna
are known from the Yellow River
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61696
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
drainage, indicating the potential
presence of PCE 5.
Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and
Lower Pea River Drainages, Florida and
Alabama
Unit GCM6 encompasses 897 km (557
mi) of the Choctawhatchee River
mainstem, the lower Pea River
mainstem, and 29 tributary streams in
Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and
Jackson Counties, FL, and Geneva,
Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and
Barbour Counties, AL. The unit consists
of the Choctawhatchee River from the
confluence of Pine Log Creek, Walton
County, FL, upstream 200 km (125 mi)
to the point the river splits into the West
Fork Choctawhatchee and East Fork
Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour County,
AL; Pine Log Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River, Walton
County, upstream 19 km (12 mi) to the
confluence of Ditch Branch, Washington
and Bay Counties, FL; an unnamed
channel forming Cowford Island from
its downstream confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2
mi) to its upstream confluence with the
river, Washington County, FL; Crews
Lake from its western terminus 1.5 km
(1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is
a relic channel southwest of Cowford
Island, and is disconnected from the
Cowford Island channel, except during
high flows); Holmes Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Washington County, FL,
upstream 98 km (61 mi) to County Road
4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator Creek
from its confluence with Holmes Creek
upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road
166, Washington County, FL; Bruce
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 25 km
(16 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Walton County, FL; Sandy
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Walton County,
FL, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of West Sandy Creek,
Holmes and Walton County, FL; Blue
Creek from its confluence with Sandy
Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to the
confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes
County, FL; West Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream
5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the confluence of an
unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL;
Wrights Creek from its confluence with
the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes
County, FL, upstream 43 km (27 mi) to
County Road 4, Geneva County, AL;
Tenmile Creek from its confluence with
Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi)
to the confluence of Rice Machine
Branch, Holmes County, FL; West
Pittman Creek from its confluence with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6.5
km (4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes
County, FL; East Pittman Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County
Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4
mi) to Tommy Lane, Holmes County,
FL; the Pea River from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva
County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to
the Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL;
Limestone Creek from its confluence
with the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5
mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream
17 km (10 mi) to the confluence of
Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL;
Eightmile Creek from its confluence
with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL,
upstream 15 km (9 mi) to the confluence
of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream
of County Road 181), Walton County,
FL; Corner Creek from its confluence
with Eightmile Creek upstream 5 km (3
mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its
confluence with Eightmile Creek
Geneva County, AL, upstream, 4 km (2.5
mi) to the Covington-Geneva County
line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46
km (29 mi) to the confluence of Blanket
Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County,
AL, upstream 22 km (14 mi) to the Fort
Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank
Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary,
upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road
36, Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek
from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream
4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road 156,
Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek
from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km
(8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee
River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and
Houston Counties upstream 20 km (13
mi) to the confluence of Newton Creek,
Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with the Little
Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5 km
(2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill
Branch, Houston County, AL; Bear
Creek from its confluence with the Little
Choctawhatchee River, upstream 5.5 km
(3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner
Street), Houston County, AL; West Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km
(33 mi) to the fork of Paul’s Creek and
Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL;
Judy Creek from its confluence with
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
upstream 17 km (11 mi) to County Road
13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from
its confluence with West Fork
Choctawhatchee River, Dale County,
AL, upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State
Route 10, Barbour County, AL; Paul’s
Creek from its confluence with West
Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream 7
km (4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of
County Road 20, Barbour County, AL;
Lindsey Creek from its confluence with
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to the
confluence of an unnamed tributary,
Barbour County, AL; an unnamed
tributary to Lindsey Creek from its
confluence with Lindsey Creek
upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0 mile
upstream of County Road 53, Barbour
County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km
(44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
Unit GCM6 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit
currently supports populations of the
five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features,
and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In
addition, other mussel species,
requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with
these five species. A diverse fish fauna
is known from the Choctawhatchee
River, including a potential fish host for
the fuzzy pigtoe and tapered pigtoe,
indicating the potential presence of PCE
5.
Not included in this unit are two
oxbow lakes now disconnected from the
Choctawhatchee River main channel in
Washington County, Florida. Horseshoe
Lake has a record of southern
kidneyshell from 1932, and Crawford
Lake has records of Choctaw bean and
tapered pigtoe from 1934. It is possible
these oxbow lakes had some connection
to the main channel when the
collections were made over 75 years
ago. The three species are not currently
known to occur in Horseshoe or
Crawford lakes, and we do not consider
them essential to the conservation of the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, or
tapered pigtoe.
Threats to the five species and their
habitat that may require special
management of the physical or
biological features include the potential
of significant changes in the existing
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
flow regime and water quality due to the
Elba Dam on the Pea River mainstem.
As discussed in Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, mollusk declines
downstream of dams are associated with
changes and fluctuation in flow regime,
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels and altered water
temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages. These alterations can
cause mussel declines for many miles
downstream of the dam.
Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River Drainage,
Alabama
Unit GCM7 encompasses 234 km (145
mi) of the upper Pea River mainstem
and six tributary streams in Coffee, Dale,
Pike, Barbour, and Bullock Counties,
AL. This unit is within the
Choctawhatchee River basin and
includes the stream segments upstream
of the Elba Dam. The unit consists of the
Pea River from the Elba Dam, Coffee
County, upstream 123 km (76 mi) to
State Route 239, Bullock and Barbour
Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its
confluence with the Pea River, Coffee
County upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the
confluence of Walnut Creek, Pike
County, AL; Walnut Creek from its
confluence with Whitewater Creek
upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road
26, Pike County, AL; Big Creek (Coffee
County) from its confluence with
Whitewater Creek, Coffee County,
upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of Smart Branch, Pike
County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County)
from its confluence with the Pea River
upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence
of Sand Creek, Barbour County, AL; Pea
Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to the
confluence of Hurricane Creek, Barbour
County, AL; and Big Sandy Creek from
its confluence with the Pea River
upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road
14, Bullock County, AL.
Unit GCM7 is within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing
(2012) for the southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit
currently supports populations of the
five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features,
and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In
addition, other mussel species,
requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with
these five species. A diverse fish fauna
is known from the upper Pea River,
including potential fish host(s) for the
fuzzy pigtoe and tapered pigtoe,
indicating the potential presence
of PCE 5.
The Elba Dam on the Pea River
mainstem is a barrier to upstream fish
movement, particularly to anadromous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
fishes. Therefore, a potential threat that
may require special management of the
physical or biological feature includes
the absence of potential host fishes.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeal have invalidated our
regulatory 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, 245 F.3d
434, 442 (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 continue to serve
its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a
permit from the Service under section
10 of the Act) or that involve some other
Federal action (such as funding from the
Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration, or the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency). Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, tribal, local, or private
lands that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61697
As a result of section 7 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, or 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 and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
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 sometimes may need to
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.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61698
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Application of the ‘‘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. 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 Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe. As discussed
above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs and provide
for the conservation of these species.
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 these eight mussel species include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly
alter channel geomorphology. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge
construction, mining, dredging,
desnagging, and destruction of riparian
vegetation. These activities may lead to
changes in water flows and levels that
would degrade or eliminate the mussels
or their fish host and/or their habitats.
These actions can also lead to increased
sedimentation and degradation in water
quality to levels that are beyond the
tolerances of the mussels or their fish
host.
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter the existing flow regime. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to impoundment, water
diversion, water withdrawal, water
draw-down, and hydropower
generation. These activities could
eliminate or reduce the habitat
necessary for growth and reproduction
of these mussels.
(3) Actions that would significantly
alter water chemistry, quality, or
temperature. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, release
of chemicals, biological pollutants, or
heated effluents into the surface water
or connected groundwater at a point
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
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.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the proposed
critical habitat designation for southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe to determine if they meet the
criteria for exemption from critical
habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
The following areas are Department of
Defense lands with completed, Serviceapproved INRMPs within the proposed
critical habitat designation.
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. Each INRMP
includes:
• An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
• A statement of goals and priorities;
• A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
• A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
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–
Fort Rucker
The U.S. Army-operated Fort Rucker
Aviation Center, located in Daleville,
Alabama, owns lands that include
portions of the proposed critical habitat
designation (specifically unit GCM6,
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea
River Drainage). Portions of Claybank
and Steep Head creeks are on lands
within the Fort Rucker military
reservation. Fort Rucker has completed
an INRMP (US Army 2009) that guides
conservation activities on the
installation through 2014. The INRMP
specifically addresses maintaining and
improving water quality through
reduction in sedimentation and erosion
control, land management practices, and
improved treatment facilities. (US Army
2009, pp. 82–83, 90, 128–129). In
addition, the INRMP will be updated to
incorporate the southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the Fort Rucker INRMP and
that conservation efforts identified in
the INRMP will provide a benefit to the
species occurring in habitats within or
downstream of the Fort Rucker military
reservation. Therefore, lands within this
installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)
source or by dispersed release (nonpoint source). These activities could
alter water conditions to levels that are
beyond the tolerances of the mussels or
their fish host and result in direct or
cumulative adverse affects to these
individuals 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, and
other watershed 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 mussels by
causing excessive sedimentation and
burial of the species or their habitats, or
nutrification leading to excessive
filamentous algal growth. Excessive
filamentous algal growth can cause
reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen
levels through respiration, and prevent
juvenile mussels from settling into
stream sediments.
Exemptions
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
of the Act. We are not including
approximately 25 km (16 mi) of stream
habitat in this critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
NAS Whiting Field Complex
The U.S. Navy owns lands that
include portions of the proposed critical
habitat designation in unit AP2. A
segment of Hunter Creek is on lands
within the boundaries of Naval Air
Station (NAS) Whiting Field’s Navy
Outlying Field (NOLF) Evergreen
located in Conecuh County, Alabama.
The NAS Whiting Field Complex has
completed an INRMP (Department of
the Navy 2006) that guides conservation
activities on the installation through
2016. The INRMP specifically addresses
improving water quality through
vegetative buffers, stormwater and
pesticide management, erosion control,
and land management practices
(Department of the Navy 2006, pp. 5.4–
5.6, 5.15–5.26). In addition, the INRMP
will be updated to incorporate the
Alabama pearlshell.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the NAS Whiting Field
INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a
benefit to the Alabama pearlshell
occurring in habitats within or adjacent
to NOLF Evergreen. Therefore, lands
within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 0.4 km (0.25
mi) of stream habitat in this final critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Other Department of Defense Lands
Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), located in
Niceville, Florida, owns the lands
adjacent to the critical habitat
designation (specifically unit GCM5,
Yellow River Drainage). The lower
portions of the Shoal and Yellow rivers
form the northwestern boundary of the
military reservation. However, no
portions of stream or river channels
designated as critical habitat occur
within the boundary of the military
reservation, and therefore Eglin AFB
lands are not exempted. These reaches
are also currently designated critical
habitat for the threatened Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) (68 FR
13370, March 19, 2033).
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
revisions to 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 statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national
security, or any other relevant impacts.
In considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors
(77 FR 18173). The draft analysis, dated
March 5, 2012, was made available for
public review March 27, 2012, through
April 26, 2012 (77 FR 18173). Following
the close of the comment period, a final
analysis (FEA) (dated May 24, 2012) of
the potential economic effects of the
designation was developed taking into
consideration the public comments and
any new information (Industrial
Economics 2012).
The intent of the economic analysis is
to quantify the economic impacts of all
potential conservation efforts for the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe; some of
these costs will likely be incurred
regardless of whether we designate
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61699
critical habitat (baseline). The economic
impact of the critical habitat designation
is analyzed by comparing scenarios both
‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without
critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical
habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, considering protections
already in place for the species (e.g.,
under the Federal listing and other
Federal, State, and local regulations).
The baseline, therefore, represents the
costs incurred regardless of whether
critical habitat is designated. The ‘‘with
critical habitat’’ scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated
specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The
incremental conservation efforts and
associated impacts are those not
expected to occur absent the designation
of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are
those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and
beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we consider in the final
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis looks at baseline impacts
incurred from the listing of the species,
and forecasts both baseline and
incremental impacts likely to occur with
the designation of critical habitat. For a
further description of analysis methods,
see the ‘‘Framework for the Analysis’’
section of the FEA.
The FEA also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government
agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost
economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial
development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on
water management and transportation
projects, Federal lands, small entities,
and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to
assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a
particular group or economic sector.
Finally, the FEA looks at costs that will
be incurred once listed, and considers
those costs that may occur in the 20
years following the designation of
critical habitat, which was determined
to be the appropriate period for analysis
because limited planning information
was available for most activities to
forecast activity levels for projects
beyond a 20-year timeframe. The final
economic analysis quantifies economic
impacts of conservation efforts for these
eight species associated with the
following categories of activity: (1)
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61700
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impoundments, dams, and diversions;
(2) dredging, channelization, and
instream mining; (3) transportation and
utilities; (4) residential and commercial
development; (5) timber management,
agriculture, and grazing; and (6) oil
wells/drilling.
The FEA states that the present value
of total incremental cost of critical
habitat designation is estimated to be
$1.70 million over the analysis
timeframe (2012 to 2031), applying a 7
percent discount rate or $147,000
annually. 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, with little
planned economic activity, the Service
and contacted stakeholders do not
anticipate that designation of critical
habitat for these mussels will have
substantial impact on economic activity.
The majority of the incremental impacts
(67 percent) are related to road and
bridge construction and maintenance
projects. Specifically, over the 30-year
timeframe of the FEA, the Alabama
Department of Transportation (ADOT)
and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) expect 208 road
and bridge maintenance and resurfacing
projects will occur in the region, and
ADOT and FDOT will, therefore,
conduct section 7 consultations with the
Service when roadways cross streams
designated as critical habitat. In
Alabama, data were not available to
determine the number of road crossings
in critical habitat, and this likely results
in an overestimate of impacts to
transportation projects in Alabama.
Our economic analysis did not
identify any disproportionate costs that
are likely to result from the designation.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exerting his discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation of critical
habitat for these eight species based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the final economic analysis
with supporting documents may be
obtained by contacting the Panama City
Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
final rule, we have exempted from the
designation of critical habitat those
Department of Defense lands with
completed INRMPs determined to
provide a benefit to the Alabama
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
pearlshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. We have
also determined that the remaining
lands within the designation of critical
habitat for the species are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense,
and, therefore, we anticipate no impact
on national security. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising his discretion
to exclude any areas from this final
designation based on impacts on
national security.
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 must
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. SBREFA amended RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration (SBA), 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 (13 CFR 121.201). 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
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if 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.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
or other management plans for the area,
or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
any tribal issues, and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe, and the final
designation does not include any tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate
no impact on tribal lands, partnerships,
or HCPs from this critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, the Secretary
is not exercising his discretion to
exclude any areas from this final
designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
To determine if the designation of
critical habitat for the eight mussel
species will affect a substantial number
of small entities, we consider the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., governments (counties),
development, and dredging). 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 the species
is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may
affect the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy
pigtoe. 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
critical habitat designation, we
evaluated the potential economic effects
on small entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the
listing of the eight mussels and the
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis is based on the estimated
impacts associated with the rulemaking
as described in Chapters 2 through 4
and Appendix A of the analysis and
evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to: (1) Impoundments,
dams, and diversions; (2) dredging,
channelization, and in-stream mining;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(3) transportation and utilities; (4)
residential and commercial
development; (5) timber management,
agriculture, and grazing; and (6) oil
wells/drilling.
According to the final economic
analysis, 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 economic analysis
evaluated the incremental impacts of
designating critical habitat for these
eight mussels over the next 20 years
(2012–2031), 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 20year timeframe. This analysis estimates
that 7 small governments, 20 small
development-related entitities, and 4
small dredging-related entities are likely
to incur administrative costs as third
parties associated with section 7
consultation. Applying a 7 percent
discount rate, incremental impacts
associated with the designation are
estimated to represent less than 1
percent of the annual revenues each
small entity.
In summary, we considered whether
this designation would 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
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe 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
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211;
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’) on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements
of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided
guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a
significant adverse effect’’ when
compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. The
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61701
economic analysis finds that none of
these criteria are relevant to this
analysis. Thus, based on information in
the economic analysis, energy-related
impacts associated with the 8 mussels
conservation activities within critical
habitat are not expected. As such, the
designation of critical habitat is not
expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) 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, or
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; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children 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 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
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61702
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal 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 critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it would not
produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or greater in any year; that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Small governments will be affected
only to the extent that any programs
having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that
their actions will not adversely affect
the critical habitat. The final economic
analysis concludes incremental impacts
may occur due to administrative costs of
section 7 consultations for activities
related to impoundments and dams,
development, and dredging projects;
however, these are not expected to
significantly affect small government
entities. Consequently, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
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 Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe in a takings implications
assessment. As discussed above, the
designation of critical habitat affects
only Federal actions. Although private
parties that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
The majority of the designation occurs
in navigable waterways whose stream
bottoms are owned by the States of
Alabama and Florida. Impacts of this
designation could occur on non-Federal
riparian lands adjacent to the designated
streams where there is Federal
involvement (e.g., Federal funding or
permitting) subject to section 7 of the
Act, or where a decision on a proposed
action on federally owned land could
affect economic activity on adjoining
non-Federal land. However, in general,
we believe that the takings implications
associated with this critical habitat
designation will be insignificant. The
takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for these eight mussels
does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A
federalism impact summary statement is
not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this
critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in
Alabama and Florida. We received
comments from Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission and
have addressed them in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations
section of this rule. The designation of
critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place
and, therefore, has little incremental
impact on State and local governments
and their activities. The designation
may have some benefit to these
governments in that the areas that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined,
and the elements of the features of the
habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified.
This information does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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) will 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 Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in 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 elements of physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of these species.
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,
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
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61703
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under 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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the 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
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no
Tribal lands occupied at the time of
listing (2012) that contain the features
essential for the conservation, and no
unoccupied Tribal lands that are
essential for the conservation, of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. Therefore,
none of the designated critical habitat
for these species is on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Panama City Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Species
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
*
CLAMS
Scientific name
*
*
*
Authors
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Panama
City Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
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 entries
for ‘‘Bean, Choctaw,’’ ‘‘Ebonyshell,
round,’’ ‘‘Kidneyshell, southern,’’
‘‘Pearlshell, Alabama’’, ‘‘Pigtoe, fuzzy’’,
‘‘Pigtoe, narrow’’, ‘‘Pigtoe, tapered’’, and
‘‘Sandshell, southern’’ in alphabetical
order under ‘‘CLAMS’’ to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
Status
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
*
Bean, Choctaw ........
*
Villosa choctawensis
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
NA ...........................
*
E
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Ebonyshell, round ...
*
Fusconaia rotulata ..
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
*
NA ........................... E
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Kidneyshell, southern.
*
Ptychobranchus
jonesi.
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
*
NA ........................... E
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Pearlshell, Alabama
*
Margaritifera
marrianae.
*
U.S.A. (AL) ..............
*
NA ...........................
*
E
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Pigtoe, fuzzy ............
*
Pleurobema
strodeanum.
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
NA ...........................
*
T
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Pigtoe, narrow .........
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Special
rules
*
Fusconaia escambia
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
NA ...........................
*
T
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Pigtoe, tapered ........
*
Fusconaia burkei .....
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
NA ...........................
*
T
*
808
17.95(f)
*
Sandshell, southern
*
Hamiota australis ....
*
U.S.A. (AL, FL) .......
*
NA ...........................
*
T
*
808
17.95(f)
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
*
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
61704
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by
adding an entry for eight mussel species
in four northeastern Gulf of Mexico
drainages, immediately before the entry
for ‘‘Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema
hanleyianum)’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
*
(f) Clams and Snails.
*
*
*
*
*
Eight mussel species in four northeast
Gulf of Mexico drainages: the Choctaw
bean (Villosa choctawensis), round
ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata),
southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
jonesi), Alabama pearlshell
(Margaritifera marrianae), fuzzy pigtoe
(Pleurobema strodeanum), narrow
pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), tapered
pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), and southern
sandshell (Hamiota australis).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for the following counties:
(i) Alabama. Barbour, Bullock, Butler,
Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw,
Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry,
Houston, Monroe, and Pike Counties.
(ii) Florida. Bay, Escambia, Holmes,
Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton,
and Washington Counties.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe consist of five components:
(i) Geomorphically stable stream and
river channels and banks (channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(ii) Stable substrates of sand or
mixtures of sand with clay or gravel
with low to moderate amounts of fine
sediment and attached filamentous
algae.
(iii) A hydrologic flow regime
(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 habitat
maintenance, food availability, and
spawning habitat for native fishes.
(iv) Water quality, including
temperature (not greater than 32 °C), pH
(between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not
less than 5.0 milligrams per liter),
hardness, turbidity, and other chemical
characteristics necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages.
(v) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse
assemblages of native fish species will
serve as a potential indication of host
fish presence until appropriate host
fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy
pigtoe and tapered pigtoe, the presence
of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta)
will serve as a potential indication of
fish host presence.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, dams, roads, and
other paved areas) and the land on
which they are located existing within
the legal boundaries on November 9,
2012, with the exception of the
impoundments created by Point A and
Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not
the actual dam structures).
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
with USGS National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD) GIS data. The 1:100,000
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
river reach (route) files were used to
calculate river kilometers and miles.
ESRIs ArcGIS 9.3.1 software was used to
determine longitude and latitude
coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units
was Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM), NAD 83, Zone 16 North. The
following data sources were referenced
to identify features (like roads and
streams) used to delineate the upstream
and downstream extents of critical
habitat units: NHD data, Washington
County USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory, 1999 Florida Department of
Transportation Roads Characteristics
Inventory (RCI) dataset, U.S. Census
Bureau 2000 TIGER line waterbody
data, ESRIs World Street Map Service,
Florida Department of Transportation
General Highway Maps, DeLorme Atlas
and Gazetteers, and USGS 7.5 minute
topographic maps. The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available
to the public at the Service’s internet
site, https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity,
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index maps follow (Map 1 for the
Alabama pearlshell, and Map 2 for the
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe):
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61705
ER10OC12.000
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage,
Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL. This
unit is critical habitat for the Alabama
pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of
Big Flat Creek from State Route 41
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
upstream 56 kilometers (km) (35 miles
(mi)), Monroe County, AL; Flat Creek
from its confluence with Big Flat Creek
upstream 20 km (12 mi), Monroe
County, AL; and Dailey Creek from its
confluence Flat Creek upstream 17 km
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(11 mi), Monroe and Wilcox Counties,
AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek
Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt Corn
Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River
drainages, follows:
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.001
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61706
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
(7) Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek,
Murder Creek, and Sepulga River.
Drainages, Escambia and Conecuh
Counties, AL. This unit is critical
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of
Burnt Corn Creek from its confluence
with Murder Creek upstream 66 km (41
mi), Conecuh County, AL; the mainstem
of Murder Creek from its confluence
with Jordan Creek upstream 17 km (11
mi) to the confluence of Otter Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from
its confluence with Murder Creek
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
upstream 12 km (7 mi), Conecuh
County, AL; Otter Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 9 km (5.5 mi), Conecuh
County, AL; Hunter Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek upstream
4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the Navy Outlying
Field (NOLF) Evergreen northern
boundary, Conecuh County, AL; Hunter
Creek from the NOLF Evergreen
southern boundary upstream 3.0 km (1.9
mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek
from County Road 29 upstream 5 km
(3.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; two
unnamed tributaries to Sandy Creek—
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61707
one from its confluence with Sandy
Creek upstream 8.5 km (5.0 mi) to just
above Hagood Road, and the other from
it confluence with the previous
unnamed tributary upstream 2.5 km (1.5
mi) to just above Hagood Road; Little
Cedar Creek from County Road 6
upstream 8 km (5 mi), Conecuh County,
AL; Amos Mill Creek from its
confluence with the Sepulga River
upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia and
Conecuh Counties, AL; Polly Creek from
its confluence with Amos Mill Creek
upstream 3 km (2 mi), Conecuh County,
AL; and Bottle Creek from its
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.002
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
61708
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
confluence with the Sepulga River
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek
Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt Corn
Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River
Drainages is provided at paragraph
(6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River
Drainage in Escambia and Santa Rosa
counties, FL, and Escambia, Covington,
Conecuh, and Butler Counties, AL. This
unit is critical habitat for the round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the EscambiaConecuh River mainstem from the
confluence of Spanish Mill Creek
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, FL,
upstream 204 km (127 mi) to the Point
A Lake dam, Covington County, AL;
Murder Creek from its confluence with
the Conecuh River, Escambia County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
AL, upstream 62 km (38 mi) to the
confluence of Cane Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Burnt Corn Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek,
Escambia County, AL, upstream 59 km
(37 mi) to County Road 20, Conecuh
County, AL; Jordan Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate
65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill Creek
from its confluence with Murder Creek
upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to the
confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream
5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River
from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the
confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from
its confluence with the Sepulga River
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence
with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the
confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its
confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route
106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon Creek
from its confluence with the Sepulga
River, Conecuh and Covington Counties,
upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the
confluence of Three Run Creek, Butler
County, AL; and Three Run Creek from
its confluence with Pigeon Creek
upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the
confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM1, Lower
Escambia River, follows (to preserve
detail, the map is divided into south
and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61709
ER10OC12.003
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(9) Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and
Gantt Lake Reservoirs in Covington
County, AL. This unit is critical habitat
for the narrow pigtoe.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit extends from Point A
Dam, Covington County, upstream 21
km (13 mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw
County line, AL.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) Map of Unit GCM2, Point A Lake
and Gantt Lake Reservoirs, follows:
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.004
61710
(10) Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek
Drainage in Covington, Crenshaw, and
Pike Counties, AL. The Patsaliga Creek
drainage is within the Escambia River
basin. This unit is critical habitat for the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes Patsaliga Creek
from its confluence with Point A Lake
at County Road 59, Covington County,
AL, upstream 108 km (67 mi) to
Crenshaw County Road 66-Pike County
Road 1, AL; Little Patsaliga Creek from
its confluence with Patsaliga Creek
upstream 28 km (17 mi) to Mary Daniel
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61711
Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and
Olustee Creek from its confluence with
Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi)
to County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM3, Patsaliga
Creek Drainage follows:
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.005
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(11) Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia
River Drainage in Covington, Crenshaw,
Pike, and Bullock Counties, AL. This
unit is critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes the Conecuh
River from its confluence with Gantt
Lake reservoir at the CovingtonCrenshaw County line upstream 126 km
(78 mi) to County Road 8, Bullock
County, AL; Beeman Creek from its
confluence with the Conecuh River
upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
confluence of Mill Creek, Pike County,
AL; and Mill Creek from its confluence
with Beeman Creek, upstream 4.5 km (3
mi) to County Road 13, Pike County,
AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM 4, Upper
Escambia River Drainage, follows:
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.006
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61712
(12) Unit GCM5: Yellow River
Drainage in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and
Walton Counties, FL, and Covington
County, AL. This unit is critical habitat
for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Yellow River
mainstem from the confluence of
Weaver River (a distributary located 0.9
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
km (0.6 mi), downstream of State Route
87), Santa Rosa County, FL, upstream
157 km (97 mi) to County Road 42,
Covington County, AL; the Shoal River
mainstem from its confluence with the
Yellow River upstream 51 km (32 mi) to
the confluence of Mossy Head Branch,
Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its
confluence with the Shoal River
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61713
upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton
County, FL; and Five Runs Creek from
its confluence with the Yellow River
upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to County Road
31, Covington County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM5, Yellow River
Drainage, follows:
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.007
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
(13) Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee
River and Lower Pea River Drainages in
Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and
Jackson Counties, FL, and Geneva,
Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and
Barbour Counties, AL. This unit is
critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) The unit includes the
Choctawhatchee River mainstem from
the confluence of Pine Log Creek,
Walton County, FL, upstream 200 km
(125 mi) to the point the river splits into
the West Fork Choctawhatchee and East
Fork Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour
County, AL; Pine Log Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Walton County, upstream 19 km
(12 mi) to Ditch Branch, Washington
and Bay Counties, FL; an unnamed
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
channel forming Cowford Island from
its downstream confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2
mi) to its upstream confluence with the
river, Washington County, FL; Crews
Lake from its western terminus 1.5 km
(1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is
a relic channel southwest of Cowford
Island, and is disconnected from the
Cowford Island channel, except during
high flows); Holmes Creek from its
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.008
61714
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Washington County, FL,
upstream 98 km (61 mi) to County Road
4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator Creek
from its confluence with Holmes Creek
upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road
166, Washington County, FL; Bruce
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 25 km
(16 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Walton County, FL; Sandy
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, upstream 30 km
(18 mi) to the confluence of West Sandy
Creek, Holmes and Walton Counties, FL;
Blue Creek from its confluence with
Sandy Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to
the confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes
County, FL; West Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream
5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the confluence of an
unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL;
Wrights Creek from its confluence with
the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes
County, FL, upstream 43 km (27 mi) to
County Road 4, Geneva County, AL;
Tenmile Creek from its confluence with
Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi)
to the confluence of Rice Machine
Branch, Holmes County, FL; West
Pittman Creek from its confluence with
the Choctawhatchee River, upstream 6.5
km (4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes
County, FL; East Pittman Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County
Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4
mi) to Tommy Lane, Holmes County,
FL; the Pea River from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva
County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to
the Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL;
Limestone Creek from its confluence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
with the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5
mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream
17 km (10 mi) to the confluence of
Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL;
Eightmile Creek from its confluence
with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL,
upstream 15 km (9 mi) to the confluence
of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream
of County Road 181), Walton County,
FL; Corner Creek from its confluence
with Eightmile Creek, upstream 5 km (3
mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its
confluence with Eightmile Creek,
Geneva County, AL, upstream 4 km (2.5
mi) to the Covington-Geneva County
line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46
km (29 mi) to the confluence of Blanket
Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank
Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County,
AL, upstream 22 km (14 mi) to the Fort
Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank
Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary,
upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road
36, Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek
from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream
4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road 156,
Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek
from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km
(8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee
River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and
Houston Counties, upstream 20 km (13
mi) to the confluence of Newton Creek,
Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with Little
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61715
Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5 km
(2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill
Branch, Houston County, AL; Bear
Creek from its confluence with the Little
Choctawhatchee River, upstream 5.5 km
(3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner
Street), Houston County, AL; West Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km
(33 mi) to the fork of Pauls Creek and
Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL;
Judy Creek from its confluence with
West Fork Choctawhatchee River
upstream 17 km (11 mi) to County Road
13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from
its confluence with West Fork
Choctawhatchee River Dale County, AL,
upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State Route
10, Barbour County, AL; Pauls Creek
from its confluence with West Fork
Choctawhatchee River upstream 7 km
(4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of County
Road 20, Barbour County, AL; Lindsey
Creek from its confluence with West
Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream 14
km (8.5 mi) to the confluence of an
unnamed tributary, Barbour County, AL;
an unnamed tributary to Lindsey Creek
from its confluence with Lindsey Creek
upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0 mile
upstream of County Road 53, Barbour
County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River, Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km
(44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM6,
Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea
River Drainages, follows (to preserve
detail, the map is divided into south,
central, and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.009
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61716
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
61717
ER10OC12.010
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(14) Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River
Drainage in Coffee, Dale, Pike, Barbour,
and Bullock Counties, AL. The Pea
River drainage is within the
Choctawhatchee River Basin. This unit
is critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Pea River
mainstem from the Elba Dam, Coffee
County, upstream 123 km (76 mi) to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
State Route 239, Bullock and Barbour
Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its
confluence with the Pea River, Coffee
County, upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the
confluence of Walnut Creek, Pike
County, AL; Walnut Creek from its
confluence with Whitewater Creek
upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road
26, Pike County, AL; Big Creek (Coffee
County) from its confluence with
Whitewater Creek, Coffee County,
upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
confluence of Smart Branch, Pike
County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County)
from its confluence with the Pea River
upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence
of Sand Creek, Barbour County, AL; Pea
Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to the
confluence of Hurricane Creek, Barbour
County, AL; and Big Sandy Creek from
its confluence with the Pea River
upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road
14, Bullock County, AL.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.011
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
61718
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
61719
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 20, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2012–24161 Filed 10–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Oct 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC12.012
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(ii) Map of Unit GCM7, Upper Pea
River Drainage, follows:
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61663-61719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24161]
[[Page 61663]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 196
October 10, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell,
Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status
for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy
Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61664]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AW92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell,
Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status
for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy
Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered
species status for the Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae),
round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), and
threatened species status for the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei),
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act); and designate
critical habitat for the eight mussel species. The effect of this
regulation is to conserve these eight mussel species and their habitat
under the Act.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final economic analysis, and the
coordinates from which the maps were generated are included in the
administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are
available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity and https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, and at the
Panama City FieldOffice. Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office,
1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 850-769-0552;
facsimile 850-763-2177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue,
Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 850-769-0552; facsimile 850-763-2177.
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 Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), round
ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis) as endangered species,
and the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), and fuzzy pigtoe
(Pleurobema strodeanum) as threatened species; and (2) a final rule to
designate critical habitat for the eight species.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species or subspecies may warrant protection through listing
if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We are listing these eight mussels
because they have disappeared from portions of their historic ranges or
are very rare, and facing numerous ongoing threats. The Alabama
pearlshell and southern kidneyshell no longer occur in 50 percent or
more of the stream systems in which they were historically found. The
round ebonyshell is extremely rare, and its distribution is restricted
to the main channel of the Escambia-Conecuh River. Choctaw bean
populations in the Escambia River drainage are fragmented, and the
species' numbers are low throughout its range. The narrow pigtoe, fuzzy
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and tapered pigtoe still occur in much of
their known range but have disappeared from many of the tributary and
main channel locations from which they were historically known. All are
facing a variety of threats. However, habitat degradation and loss as a
result of excessive sedimentation, bed destabilization, poor water
quality, and environmental contaminants are considered the most
significant threats to these eight mussels. We are also designating
critical habitat under the Act. Critical habitat is designated on the
basis of the best scientific information available after taking into
consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In total, approximately 2,404 kilometers (km) (1,494 miles
(mi.)) of stream and river channels in nine units in Bay, Escambia,
Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties,
Florida; and Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington,
Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, and Pike
Counties, Alabama, are being designated.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be listed as
an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A)
The present destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its existence. These eight mussel species are facing threats
due to three of these five factors (A, D and E). The Act also requires
that the Service designate critical habitat at the time of listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that
the designation is prudent and critical habitat is determinable for
each of the eight species (see Critical Habitat section below).
We prepared an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider the
economic impacts, we prepared an economic analysis of the designation
of critical habitat. We published an announcement and solicited public
comments on the draft economic analysis. The analysis found that the
estimated incremental economic cost of this critical habitat
designation to be $1.70 million over a 20-year time frame. The majority
of the economic impacts are associated with the transportation sector,
particularly consultation costs associated with the replacement and
maintenance of bridges and roads.
We requested peer review of the methods used in our proposed
listing and critical habitat designation. We specifically requested
that four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on
freshwater mussel conservation and biology, and who are familiar with
the eight species and the three river basins in which they occur,
review the scientific information and methods in the proposed rule. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and
provided additional information,
[[Page 61665]]
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.
We sought public comment on the designation. During the first
comment period, we received five comment letters directly addressing
the proposed listing and critical habitat designation. During the
second comment period, we received four comment letters addressing the
proposed listing and critical habitat designation, and the draft
economic analysis.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the listing and designation of critical habitat
for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more
information on the biology, ecology, and critical habitat of these
eight mussel species refer to the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61482). Information on the
associated draft economic analysis for the proposed rule was published
in the Federal Register on March 27, 2012 (77 FR 18173).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 4, 2011, we published the proposed rule to list and
designate critical habitat for these eight mussels (76 FR 61482).
Federal actions for these species prior to October 4, 2011, are
outlined in the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule opened
a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 5, 2011. On March 27,
2012 (77 FR 18173), we reopened the comment period for 30 days, from
March 27 through April 26, 2012, in order to announce the availability
of and receive comments on a draft economic analysis, and to extend the
comment period on the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation.
Introduction
North American freshwater mussel fauna is the richest in the world
and historically numbered around 300 species (Williams et al. 1993, p.
6). Freshwater mussels are in decline, however, and in the past century
have become more imperiled than any other group of organisms (Williams
et al. 2008, p. 55; Natureserve 2011). Approximately 66 percent of
North America's freshwater mussel species are considered vulnerable to
extinction or possibly extinct (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6). Within
North America, the southeastern United States is the hot spot for
mussel diversity. Seventy-five percent of southeastern mussel species
are in varying degrees of rarity or possibly extinct (Neves et al.
1997, pp. 47-51). The central reason for the decline of freshwater
mussels is the modification and destruction of their habitat,
especially from sedimentation, dams, and degraded water quality (Neves
et al. 1997, p. 60; Bogan 1998, p. 376). These eight mussels, like many
other southeastern mussel species, have undergone reductions in total
range and population density.
These eight species are all freshwater bivalve mussels of the
families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae. The Alabama pearlshell is a
member of the family Margaritiferidae, while the round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe belong to the family Unionidae.
These mussels are endemic to (found only in) portions of three Coastal
Plain rivers that drain south-central and southeastern Alabama and
northwestern Florida: the Escambia (known as the Escambia River in
Florida and the Conecuh River in Alabama), the Yellow, and the
Choctawhatchee. All three rivers originate in Alabama and flow across
the Florida panhandle before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, and are
entirely contained within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic
Region. The Alabama pearlshell is also known from three locations in
the Mobile River Basin; however, only one of those is considered to be
currently occupied.
General Biology
Freshwater mussels generally live embedded in the bottom of rivers,
streams, and other bodies of water. They siphon water into their shells
and across four gills that are specialized for respiration and food
collection. Food items include detritus (disintegrated organic debris),
algae, diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430-431). Adults
are filter feeders and generally orient themselves on or near the
substrate surface to take in food and oxygen from the water column.
Juveniles typically burrow completely beneath the substrate surface and
are pedal (foot) feeders (bringing food particles inside the shell for
ingestion that adhere to the foot while it is extended outside the
shell) until the structures for filter feeding are more fully developed
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 200-221; Gatenby et al. 1996, p. 604).
Sexes in margaritiferid and unionid mussels are usually separate.
Males release sperm into the water column, which females take in
through their siphons during feeding and respiration. Fertilization
takes place inside the shell. The eggs are retained in the gills of the
female until they develop into mature larvae called glochidia. The
glochidia of most freshwater mussel species, including all eight
species addressed in this rule, have a parasitic stage during which
they must attach to the gills, fins, or skin of a fish to transform
into a juvenile mussel. Depending on the mussel species, females
release glochidia either separately, in masses known as conglutinates,
or in one large mass known as a superconglutinate. The duration of the
parasitic stage varies by mussel species, water temperature, and
perhaps host fish species. When the transformation is complete, the
juvenile mussels drop from their fish host and sink to the stream
bottom where, given suitable conditions, they grow and mature into
adults.
Survey Data
Recent distributions are based on surveys conducted from 1995 to
2012. Historical distributions are based on collections made prior to
1995. Historical distribution data from museum records and surveys
dated between the late 1800s and 1994 are sparse, and most of these
species were more than likely present throughout their respective river
basins. Knowledge of historical and current distribution and abundance
data were summarized from Butler 1989; Williams et al. 2000
(unpublished), Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005,
Pilarczyk et al. 2006, and Gangloff, and Hartfield 2009. In addition, a
status survey was conducted in 2010-2012 by M.M. Gangloff and the final
report is in preparation. These studies represent a compilation of
museum records and recent status surveys conducted between 1990 and
2007. We also used various other sources to identify the historical and
current locations occupied by these species. These include surveys,
reports, and field notes prepared by biologists from the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marion, AL;
Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL; Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL; U.S. Geological Survey,
Gainesville, FL; Alabama Malacological Research Center, Mobile, AL;
Troy University, Troy, AL; Appalachian State University, Boone, NC;
various private consulting groups; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Daphne, AL, and Panama City, FL. In addition, we obtained
occurrence data from the collection databases of the Museum of
Fluviatile Mollusks (MFM), Athearn collection; Auburn University
Natural History Museum (AUNHM),
[[Page 61666]]
Auburn, AL; and Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), Gainesville,
FL.
Assessing Status
Assessing the state of a freshwater mussel population is
challenging. We looked at trends in distribution (range) by comparing
recent occurrence data to historical data, and we examined recent
abundance (numbers). One difficulty of investigating population trends
over time in these species is the lack of historical collection data
within the drainages. Athearn (1964, p. 134) noted the streams of
western Florida were inadequately sampled, particularly the lower
Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and the lower Escambia Rivers. Blalock-Herod et
al. (2005, p. 2) stated that little collecting effort had been expended
in the Choctawhatchee River drainage as compared to other nearby river
systems like the Apalachicola and Mobile river drainages. This paucity
of historical occurrence data may create the appearance of an increase
in the number of localities that support a species or an expanding
range; however, this is likely due to increased sampling efforts and to
better sampling methods, like the use of SCUBA gear.
Another difficulty is the lack basic information for some
historical collections, including specific locality, total number of
species or individuals collected, or collection date. For these
reasons, the only accurate comparison that can be made of so many
different sources of historical and recent collection data is whether a
particular species was detected (present) or not (absent) during the
survey. When examining occurrence data, we considered sampled areas in
close proximity as the same sight. Generally, areas sampled that are
within 2 river km (1.2 mi) (approximately) of each other are considered
the same site, and sampled areas that are more than 2 km apart are
considered different sites. Occurences are based on live animals and
shell material. The occurrence data we examined using GIS mapping
software. A summary historical and recent occurrence data, and current
abundance is presented in Table 1.
Table 1--Eight Mussel Occurrence and Abundance by River Drainage--Occurrences Are Based on Live and Shell Material and Abundance Is Based on Live
Individuals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical (pre-1995) Current (1995-2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical
Species Drainage Historical Historical sites Current Total live Average General assessment
sites sites re- currently sites \1\ collected abundance
surveyed occupied \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaritifera marrianae Alabama Alabama.......... 3 3 0 0 0 0 Contracted range,
pearlshell. limited
distribution, very
low numbers.
Escambia......... 12 12 4 9 28 3.14
Fusconaia rotulata round Escambia......... 3 2 2 11 8 1.1 Limited
ebonyshell. distribution, very
low numbers.
Ptychobranchus jonesi southern Escambia......... 10 5 0 0 0 0 Contracted range,
kidneyshell. limited
distribution, very
low numbers.
Yellow........... 1 1 0 0 0 0
Choct............ 12 11 1 10 41 2.5
Villosa choctawensis Choctaw bean Escambia......... 7 7 1 7 14 1.4 Fragmented
populations
(Escambia),
localized
extirpations, low
numbers.
Yellow........... 4 3 2 4 15 3.0
Choct............ 11 10 3 37 143 3.9
Fusconaia burkei tapered pigtoe.. Choct............ 23 22 13 53 361 6.0 Limited
distribution,
localized
extirpations.
Fusconaia escambia narrow pigtoe. Escambia......... 13 10 7 28 166 6.9 Localized
extirpations,
limited
distribution, low
numbers.
Yellow........... 2 2 1 4 23 2.9
Hamiota australis southern Escambia......... 6 4 1 6 20 4 Localized
sandshell. extirpations.
Yellow........... 5 4 2 17 65 3.1
Choct............ 18 16 5 34 211 4.5
Pleurobema strodeanum fuzzy Escambia......... 30 18 12 26 52 6.5 Nearly extirpated
pigtoe. from Yellow
drainage,
localized
extirpations.
Yellow........... 4 4 1 1 1 1
Choct............ 18 15 8 59 587 9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes all currently occupied sites, both historic and new.
\2\ Average number of live individuals collected per site.
[[Page 61667]]
We also considered each species' relative abundance in comparison
to other mussel species with which they co-occur. In addition, we
relied on various published documents whose authors are considered
experts on these species. These publications either described the
status of these species or assigned a conservation ranking, and include
Williams et al. 1993, Williams and Butler 1994; Mirarchi et al. 2004,
Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, and Williams et al. 2008.
Most of the eight species have experienced a decline in populations
and numbers of individuals within populations, but not all have
experienced a decline in range. Recent, targeted surveys for the
Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell show a dramatic decline in
historical range. The Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, fuzzy pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and tapered pigtoe still occur in much of their
historical range; however, they no longer occur at many locations at
which they were historically known, and their numbers appear to be
declining. The round ebonyshell's current range is larger than its
historical range, but this is attributed to the use of dive equipment
in recent surveys that allowed access to the species' deep, main
channel habitat. Despite this range extension, the species still has a
very limited distribution and is considered to be extremely rare.
Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution
Alabama Pearlshell
The Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae, Johnson 1983) is a
medium-sized freshwater mussel known from a few tributaries of the
Alabama and Escambia River drainages in south-central Alabama (Johnson
1983, pp. 299-304; McGregor 2004, p. 40; Williams et al. 2008, pp. 98-
99). The pearlshell is oblong and grows up to 95 millimeters (mm) (3.8
inches (in)) in length. The outside of the shell (periostracum) is
smooth and shiny and somewhat roughened along the posterior slope. The
inside of the shell (nacre) is whitish or purplish and moderately
iridescent (refer to Johnson 1983 for a full description).
The Alabama pearlshell is one of five North American species in the
family Margaritiferidae. The family is represented by only two genera,
Margaritifera (Schumacher 1816) and Cumberlandia (Ortmann 1912). In
Alabama, each genus is represented by a single species--the
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) occurs in the Tennessee River
Basin (Williams et al. 2008, pp. 94-95), and the Alabama pearlshell
occurs in the Escambia and Alabama river basins in south Alabama. Prior
to 1983, the Alabama pearlshell was thought to be the same species as
the Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli Conrad 1838) (Simpson
1914; Clench and Turner 1956), a species now considered endemic to
central Louisiana.
The Alabama pearlshell typically inhabits small headwater streams
with mixed sand and gravel substrates, occasionally in sandy mud, with
slow to moderate current. Very little is known about the life-history
requirements of this species. However, Shelton (1995, p. 5 unpub.
report) suggests that the Alabama pearlshell, as opposed to the
Louisiana pearlshell, which occurs in large colonies, typically occurs
in low numbers. The Alabama pearlshell is also believed to occur in
male-female pairs. Of the 68 Alabama pearlshell observed by Shelton
(1995, p. 5 unpub. report), 85 percent occurred in pairs. Males were
always located upstream of the females and were typically not more than
1 meter (m) apart, and juveniles were usually found just a few inches
apart. The species is believed to be a long-term brooder, where gravid
females have been observed in December. The host fish and other aspects
of its life history are currently unknown.
Historically, the Alabama pearlshell occurred in portions of the
Escambia River drainage, and has also been reported from two systems in
the Alabama River drainage. The Alabama pearlshell's known historical
and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 2
below.
Table 2--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Alabama Pearlshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Flat Creek............... Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical and Current.
Brushy Creek................. Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical.
Limestone Creek.............. Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical.
Amos Mill Creek.............. Escambia........ Conecuh, AL Current.
Escambia.
Autrey Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Beaver Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Brushy Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Horse Creek.................. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Hunter Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Little Cedar Creek........... Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Otter Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amos Mill population, discovered in 2010, represents a new
record, and possibly the only known surviving population in the Sepulga
River drainage. The Burnt Corn and Otter Creek populations reaffirm
historical records that had not been reported in nearly 30 years. Two
of the Sandy Creek locations, discovered in 2011, are new populations.
Since the late 1990s, more than 70 locations within the Alabama River
Basin were surveyed for mollusks (McGregor et al. 1999, pp. 13-14;
Powell and Ford 2010 pers. obs.; Buntin and Fobian 2011 pers. comm.),
35 of which were located in the Limestone and Big Flat Creek drainages,
and no live Alabama pearlshell were reported. The last documented
occurrence in Big Flat Creek was a fresh dead individual collected in
1995 (Shelton 1999 in litt.), and the last reported occurrence in the
Limestone Creek drainage was 1974, where Williams (2009 pers. comm.)
reported it as common. Despite numerous visits, the pearlshell has not
been collected in this system since 1974. A fresh dead individual
collected by Shelton in 1995,
[[Page 61668]]
represents the most recent record from the Big Flat Creek drainage.
Recent data suggest that, of the nine remaining populations, the
largest may occur in Little Cedar and Otter Mill creeks. In 2011,
Fobian and Pritchett reported new populations at two locations in an
unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek. Although this is not the first report
from the Sandy Creek basin, it is the first for the two unnamed
tributaries. In 2010, Buntin and Fobian (2011 pers. comm.) reported 10
live individuals from Otter Creek. This is the first time since 1981
that the pearlshell has been reported from this drainage. Also in 2010,
Powell and Ford reported three live individuals, and several relic
shells, from Amos Mill Creek, in Escambia County, AL. This is the first
report of the pearlshell from this drainage, and county, and the first
live individual from the Sepulga River system in nearly 50 years.
Little Cedar Creek supported good numbers of Alabama pearlshell in the
late 1990's (54 individuals reported in 1998). However, during a
qualitative search of the same area in 2005, only two live pearlshell
were found (Powell 2005 pers. obs.), and in 2006, three live
pearlshells were observed (Johnson 2006 in litt.). Live Alabama
pearlshell have not been observed in Hunter Creek since 1998, when
eight live individuals were reported (Shelton 1999 in litt.). During
two visits to the stream in 1999, Shelton found no evidence of the
species (Shelton 1999 in litt.), and reported high levels of
sedimentation. However, in 2005 the shells of three fresh dead Alabama
pearlshells were reported from Hunter Creek, indicating the persistence
of the species in that drainage (Powell, pers. obs. 2005).
Evidence suggests that much of the rangewide decline of this
species has occurred within the past few decades. Specific causes of
the decline and disappearance of the Alabama pearlshell from historical
stream localities are unknown. However, they are likely related to past
and present land use patterns. Many of the small streams historically
inhabited by the Alabama pearlshell are impacted to various degrees by
nonpoint-source pollution.
Round Ebonyshell
The round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata, Wright 1899) is a medium-
sized freshwater mussel endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). The round
ebonyshell is round to oval in shape and reaches about 70 mm (2.8 in.)
in length. The shell is thick and the exterior is smooth and dark brown
to black in color. The shell interior is white to silvery and
iridescent (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 61; Williams et al. 2008, p.
319). The round ebonyshell was originally described by B.H. Wright in
1899 and placed in the genus Unio. Simpson (1900) reexamined the type
specimen and assigned it to the genus Obovaria. Based on shell
characters, Williams and Butler (1994, p. 61) recognized it as clearly
a species of the genus Fusconaia, and its placement in the genus is
supported genetically (Lydeard et al. 2000, p. 149).
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the round ebonyshell. It occurs in small to medium rivers, typically
in stable substrates of sand, small gravel, or sandy mud in slow to
moderate current. It is believed to be a short-term brooder, and gravid
females have been observed in the spring and summer. The fish host(s)
for the round ebonyshell is currently unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p.
320).
The round ebonyshell is known only from the main channel of the
Escambia-Conecuh River and is the only mussel species endemic to the
drainage (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). Due to recent survey data, its
known range was extended downstream the Escambia River to Molino,
Florida (Gangloff 2012 pers. comm.), and upstream in the Conecuh River
to just above the Covington County line in Alabama (Williams et al.
2008, p. 320). The round ebonyshell's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Round Ebonyshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington.
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The round ebonyshell has a very restricted distribution (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 61), with its current range (based on live
individuals and shell material) confined to approximately 144 km (89
mi) of the Escambia-Conecuh River main channel. The round ebonyshell is
also considered to be extremely rare (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320).
Researchers collected a total of three live individuals during a 2006
dive survey (Shelton et al. 2007, pp. 8-10 unpub. report), and 4 more
were collected during a dive survey in 2011 (Gangloff 2012 pers. comm).
At stations where the species was present in the 2011 survey, 219
mussels were collected for every 1 round ebonyshell. Because its
distribution is limited to the main channel of one river, the round
ebonyshell is particularly vulnerable to catastrophic events such as
flood scour and contaminant spills, and to activities that cause
streambed destabilization like gravel mining, dredging, and de-snagging
for navigation. Due to its limited distribution and rarity, McGregor
(2004, p. 56) considered the round ebonyshell vulnerable to extinction,
and classified it as a species of highest conservation concern in
Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11) considered the round ebonyshell
as endangered throughout its range.
Southern Kidneyshell
The southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi, van der Schalie
1934) is a medium-sized freshwater mussel known from the Escambia and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow
River drainage in Alabama (Williams et al. 2008, p. 624). The southern
kidneyshell is elliptical and reaches about 72 mm (2.8 in.) in length.
Its shell is smooth and shiny, and greenish yellow to dark brown or
black in color, sometimes with weak rays. The shell interior is bluish
white with some iridescence (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 126; Williams
et al. 2008, p. 624). The southern kidneyshell was described by H. van
der Schalie (1934) as Lampsilis jonesi. Following the examination of
gills of gravid females, Fuller and Bereza (1973, p. 53) determined it
belonged in the genus Ptychobranchus. When gravid, the marsupial gills
form folds along the outer edge, a characteristic unique to the genus
Ptychobranchus (Williams et al. 2008, p. 609).
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the southern kidneyshell. It is typically found in medium creeks to
small rivers in firm sand substrates with slow to moderate current
(Williams et al. 2008,
[[Page 61669]]
pp. 625). A recent status survey in the Choctawhatchee basin in Alabama
found its preferred habitat to be stable substrates near bedrock
outcroppings (Gangloff and Hartfield 2009, p. 25). The southern
kidneyshell is believed to be a long-term brooder, with females gravid
from autumn to the following spring or summer. Preliminary reproductive
studies found that females release their glochidia in small
conglutinates that are bulbous at one end and tapered at the other
(Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center 2006, unpub. data). Host fish for
the southern kidneyshell are currently unknown; however, darters serve
as primary glochidial hosts to other members of the genus
Ptychobranchus (Luo 1993, p. 16; Haag and Warren 1997, p. 580).
The southern kidneyshell is endemic to the Escambia,
Choctawhatchee, and Yellow River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 624), but is currently known only from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The southern kidneyshell's known
historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown
in Table 4 below.
Table 4--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Kidneyshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Escambia........ AL Historical.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical.
Crenshaw.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical.
Crenshaw.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Hollis Creek................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Henry..... AL Historical.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1995, the southern kidneyshell has been detected at only 10
locations within the Choctawhatchee River drainage. The species appears
to have been common historically (in 1964, H. D. Athearn collected 98
individuals at one site on the West Fork Choctawhatchee), but it is
currently considered one of the most imperiled species in the United
States (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, p. 16; Williams et al. 2008, p.
625). In addition to a reduction in range, its numbers are very low. A
2006-2007 status survey in the Alabama portion of the Choctawhatchee
basin found the southern kidneyshell was extremely rare. A total of 13
were encountered alive, and the species comprised less than 0.3 percent
of the total mussel assemblage (Gangloff and Hartfield 2009, p. 249).
It is classified as a species of highest conservation concern in
Alabama by McGregor (2004, p. 83), and considered threatened throughout
its range by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14)
Choctaw Bean
The Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis, Athearn 1964) is a small
freshwater mussel known from the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages of Alabama and Florida. The oval shell of the Choctaw
bean reaches about 49 mm (2.0 in.) in length, and is shiny and
greenish-brown in color, typically with thin green rays, though the
rays are often obscured in darker individuals. The shell interior color
varies from bluish white to smoky brown with some iridescence (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 100; Williams et al. 2008, p. 758). The sexes are
dimorphic, with females truncate or widely rounded posteriorly, and
sometimes slightly more inflated (Athearn 1964, p. 137). The Choctaw
bean was originally described by H.D. Athearn in 1964.
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the Choctaw bean. It is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of silty sand to sandy clay with moderate current. It
is believed to be a long-term brooder, with females gravid from late
summer or autumn to the following summer. Its fish host is currently
unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p. 758).
The Choctaw bean is known from the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 758). The Choctaw bean's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Choctaw Bean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Burnt Corn................... Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Pigeon Creek................. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Olustee Creek................ Escambia........ Pike............ AL Current.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Crenshaw, Pike.. AL Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Five Runs Creek.............. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
[[Page 61670]]
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current.
Washington,
Holmes.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Pike, Barbour.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Big Sandy Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Bullock......... AL Current.
Claybank Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Henry, Barbour.. AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Choctaw bean persists in most of its historic range. However,
it has experienced localized extirpations and its numbers are low,
particularly in the Escambia and Yellow river drainages. Of 7
historical sites known to support the species within the Escambia River
drainage, 1 location currently supports the species. Also, its numbers
within the drainage are very low; a total of 14 individuals have been
collected since 1995. Within the Yellow River drainage, the Choctaw
bean is currently known from 4 locations which yielded 15 individuals
total. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, 3 of 10 historical sites
examined recently continue to support the species. The Choctaw bean
continues to persist in most areas and is currently known from a total
of 37 locations throughout the drainage.
Heard (1975, p. 17) assessed the status of the Choctaw bean in 1975
and stated that it was formerly abundant in the main channel of the
Choctawhatchee River in Florida, but has become quite rare. McGregor
(2004, p. 103) considered the Choctaw bean vulnerable to extinction due
to its limited distribution and habitat degradation, and classified it
as a species of high conservation concern in Alabama. Williams et al.
(1993, p. 14) considered the Choctaw bean as threatened throughout its
range.
Tapered Pigtoe
The tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei, Walker 1922) is a small to
medium-sized mussel endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). The elliptical to
subtriangular shell of the tapered pigtoe reaches about 75 mm (3.0 in.)
in length, and is sculptured with plications (parallel ridges) that
radiate from the posterior ridge. In younger individuals, the shell
exterior is greenish brown to yellowish brown in color, occasionally
with faint dark-green rays, and with pronounced sculpture often
covering the entire shell; in older individuals, the shell becomes dark
brown to black with age, and sculpture is often subtle. The shell
interior is bluish white (Williams et al. 2008, p. 295). The tapered
pigtoe was described by B. Walker (in Ortmann and Walker 1922) as
Quincuncina burkei, a new genus and species. In the description,
Ortmann noted the species had gill features characteristic of the genus
Fusconaia; however, this was dismissed based on the presence of
sculpture on the shell. Genetic analysis by Lydeard et al. (2000, p.
149) determined it to be a sister taxon to Fusconaia escambia. Based on
soft anatomy similarity, Williams et al. (2008, p. 296) recognized
burkei as belonging to the genus Fusconaia. Recent molecular studies by
Campbell and Lydeard (2012, p. 28) support the distinctiveness of
burkei as a species and its assignment to the genus Fusconaia.
The tapered pigtoe is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of sand, small gravel, or sandy mud, with slow to
moderate current (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). The reproductive
biology of the tapered pigtoe was studied by White et al. (2008). It is
a short-term brooder, with females gravid from mid-March to May. The
blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta) was found to serve as a host for
tapered pigtoe glochidia in the preliminary host trial (White et al.
2008, p. 122-123).
The tapered pigtoe is endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage
in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). Its historical
and current distribution includes several oxbow lakes in Florida, some
with a flowing connection to the main channel. The tapered pigtoe's
known historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are
shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Tapered Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Log Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Washington, Bay. FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current.
Washington,
Holmes.
Crews Lake................... Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Crawford Lake................ Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Horseshoe Lake............... Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington, FL Historical and Current.
Holmes, Jackson.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Blue Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
[[Page 61671]]
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical.
West Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
East Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Parrot Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical and Current.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Coffee, Dale, AL Historical and Current.
Pike, Barbour.
Big Creek (Whitewater Creek Choctawhatchee.. Pike............ AL Current.
tributary).
Big Creek (Pea River Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
tributary).
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Hurricane Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Historical.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
Bear Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tapered pigtoe appears to be absent from portions of its
historic range and found only in isolated locations (Blalock-Herod et
al. 2005, p. 17). The species was not detected at 9 of the 22
historical sites examined during recent status surveys. Most of those
are in the middle portion of the drainage in Alabama, and the species
appears to be declining in this portion of its range. The tapered
pigtoe is currently known from a total of 53 locations within the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The species persists mainly in the lower
portions of the drainage and in isolated locations in Alabama.
Due to its limited distribution, rarity, and habitat degradation,
Blalock-Herod (2004, p. 105) considered the tapered pigtoe vulnerable
to extinction, and classified it as a species of high conservation
concern in Alabama. The tapered pigtoe is considered threatened
throughout its range by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14).
Narrow Pigtoe
The narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia, Clench and Turner 1956) is a
small to medium-sized mussel known from the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow River drainage in Florida. The
subtriangular to squarish shaped shell of the narrow pigtoe reaches
about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length. The shell is moderately thick and is
usually reddish brown to black in color. The shell interior is white to
salmon in color with iridescence near the posterior margin (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 77; Williams et al. 2008, p. 316). The narrow
pigtoe was originally described by W. J. Clench and R. D. Turner in
1956. Both molecular (Campbell and Lydeard 2012, p. 28) and
morphological (Williams et al. 2008, p. 316) evidence support the
distinctiveness of escambia as a species and its assignment to the
genus Fusconaia.
Little is known about the habitat requirements or life history of
the narrow pigtoe. It is found in medium creeks to medium rivers, in
stable substrates of sand, sand and gravel, or silty sand, with slow to
moderate current. It is believed to be a short-term brooder, with
females gravid during spring and summer. The host fish for the narrow
pigtoe is currently unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p. 317). The species
is somewhat unusual in that it tolerates a small reservoir environment
(Williams 2009 pers. comm.). Reproducing narrow pigtoe populations were
found recently in some areas of Point A Lake and Gantt Lake reservoirs.
The narrow pigtoe is endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida, and to the Yellow River drainage in Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 317). The narrow pigtoe's known historical
and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 7
below.
Table 7--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Narrow Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Historical.
Persimmon Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Three Run Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Covington, AL Current.
Crenshaw.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Santa Rosa, FL Historical and Current.
Okaloosa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61672]]
The narrow pigtoe still occurs in much of its historic range, but
may be extirpated from localized areas. In the Escambia River drainage,
the narrow pigtoe occurs in nearly all of its historical range and is
currently known from 28 locations. It was not detected at 3 out of 10
historical sites examined recently in the drainage. The species is rare
in the Yellow River drainage; a total of 23 individuals from 4
locations have been collected since 1995.
McGregor (2004, p. 55) considered the narrow pigtoe vulnerable to
extinction because of its limited distribution, rarity, and
susceptibility to habitat degradation, and classified it as a species
of highest conservation concern in Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p.
11) considered the narrow pigtoe threatened throughout its range.
Southern Sandshell
The southern sandshell (Hamiota australis, Simpson 1900) is a
medium-sized freshwater mussel known from the Escambia River drainage
in Alabama, and the Yellow and Choctawhatchee River drainages in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 338). The southern
sandshell is elliptical in shape and reaches about 83 mm (2.3 in.) in
length. Its shell is smooth and shiny, and greenish in color in young
specimens, becoming dark greenish brown to black with age, with many
variable green rays. The shell interior is bluish white and iridescent.
Sexual dimorphism is present as a slight inflation of the
posterioventral shell margin of females (Williams and Butler 1994, p.
97; Williams et al. 2008, p. 337). The southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis) was originally described by C. T. Simpson (1900) as
Lampsilis australis. Heard (1975), however, designated it as a species
of Villosa. It was placed in the genus Hamiota by Roe and Hartfield
(2005, pp. 1-3), who confirmed earlier published suggestions by Fuller
and Bereza (1973, p. 53) and O'Brien and Brim Box (1999, pp. 135-136)
that this species and three others of the genus Lampsilis represent a
distinct genus. This separation from other Lampsilis is supported
genetically (Roe et al. 2001, p. 2230).
The southern sandshell is typically found in small creeks and
rivers in stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand and fine
gravel, with slow to moderate current. It is a long-term brooder, and
females are gravid from late summer or autumn to the following spring
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 338). The southern sandshell is one of only
four species that produce a superconglutinate to attract a host. The
superconglutinate mimics the shape, coloration, and movement of a fish
and is produced by the female mussel to hold all glochidia (larval
mussels) from one year's reproductive effort (Haag et al. 1995, p.
472). Although the fish host for the southern sandshell has not been
identified, it likely uses predatory sunfishes such as basses, like
other Hamiota species (Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; O'Brien and Brim Box
1999, p. 134; Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p. 1885).
The southern sandshell is endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama, and the Yellow and Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama
and Florida (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, pp. 1882, 1884). The southern
sandshell's known historical and current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Sandshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt corn creek............. Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Conecuh.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Covington, AL Current and Historical.
Crenshaw, Pike.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Current.
Shoal River.................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa, Walton FL Current.
Pond Creek................... Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Five Runs Creek.............. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Alligator Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Holmes, Jackson. FL Historical.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
West Sandy Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Walton.. AL, FL Current.
Natural Bridge Creek......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Corner Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Historical.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Historical and Current.
Double Bridges Creek......... Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Barbour, Dale... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Sikes Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Henry..... AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
[[Page 61673]]
The southern sandshell persists in its historic range; however, its
range is fragmented and numbers appear to be declining (Williams et al.
2008, p. 338). In the Escambia River drainage, the species was detected
at 1 of 4 historic locations surveyed recently. Also, its numbers are
very low in the drainage; a total of 20 individuals from 6 locations
have been collected in the Escambia River drainage since 1995. Southern
sandshell numbers in the Yellow River drainage are also fairly low,
with 65 individuals collected recently at a total of 17 locations. The
species was not detected at 2 of the 4 historic locations examined
recently in the drainage. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, the
number of historic locations that currently support the species has
declined from 16 to 5, and it appears to be extirpated from central
portions of the Choctawhatchee River main channel and from some
tributaries. Sedimentation could be one factor contributing to its
decline. In order to reproduce, the southern sandshell must attract a
sight-feeding fish to its superconglutinate lure. Waters clouded by
silt and sediment would reduce the chance of this interaction occurring
(Haag et al. 1995, p. 475).
The southern sandshell is classified as a species of highest
conservation concern in Alabama by Blalock-Herod (2004, p. 60), and
considered threatened throughout its range by Williams et al. (1993, p.
11).
Fuzzy Pigtoe.
The fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum, Wright (1898) is a small
to medium-sized mussel known from the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 574). The fuzzy pigtoe is oval to subtriangular and reaches
about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length. Its shell surface is usually dark
brown to black in color. The shell interior is bluish white, with
slight iridescence near the margin (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 90;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 573). The fuzzy pigtoe was described by B.H.
Wright (1898) as Unio strodeanus. Simpson (1900) reexamined the type
specimen and reassigned it to the genus Pleurobema. Recent molecular
data support that strodeanum is distinct as a species and belongs to
the genus Pleurobema (Campbell and Lydeard 2012, p. 29).
The fuzzy pigtoe is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of sand and silty sand with slow to moderate current.
The reproductive biology of the fuzzy pigtoe was studied by White et
al. (2008, pp. 122-123). It is a short-term brooder, with females
gravid from mid-March to May. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta)
was found to serve as a host for fuzzy pigtoe glochidia in the
preliminary study trial.
The fuzzy pigtoe is endemic to the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 574). The fuzzy pigtoe's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Fuzzy Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Persimmon Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Pigeon Creek................. Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical and Current.
Butler.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Mill Creek................... Escambia........ Pike............ AL Historical.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current
Washington,
Holmes.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington, FL Historical and Current.
Holmes, Jackson.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Blue Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
West Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
East Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Walnut Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Pike............ AL Current.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Big Sandy Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Bullock......... AL Current.
Steep Head Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Claybank Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Hurricane Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
[[Page 61674]]
Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Unnamed tributary to Lindsey Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Creek.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
River.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Henry........... AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Escambia River drainage, the fuzzy pigtoe was detected
at 15 of the 21 historic locations surveyed since 1995; however, its
status in the drainage is difficult to assess as 9 historical sites
have not been surveyed since 1995, and at least 3 other sites have
vague localities. The fuzzy pigtoe is exceedingly rare in the Yellow
River drainage, where it is currently known from 1 of 4 historic
locations. A single individual collected in 2010 in the main channel in
Florida is the only recent record of the species in the drainage. Its
range in the Yellow River drainage has declined, and the species may no
longer occur in the upper portion of the drainage in Alabama. In the
Choctawhatchee River drainage, the fuzzy pigtoe stills occurs in nearly
all of its historic range and is currently known from a total of 50
locations; however, the species has become extirpated in localized
areas. Fifteen of the 18 historic locations in the drainage were
surveyed recently, and 8 continue to support fuzzy pigtoe populations.
At one site on Limestone Creek, a once abundant population may have
disappeared--a total of 42 live fuzzy pigtoes were collected in 1988;
the surveyor revisited the site in 1993, and found only 1 live and 4
dead specimens and noted that the creek appeared to have more sand and
that mussels were not as abundant (Butler 1988 and 1993 in litt.). No
fuzzy pigtoes were detected during a 2011 site visit (Gangloff 2012
pers. com.).
The fuzzy pigtoe is considered vulnerable to extinction because of
its limited distribution and dwindling habitat by McGregor (2004, p.
101), who classified it as a species of high conservation concern in
Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11) considered the fuzzy pigtoe a
species of special concern throughout its range.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat for the eight mussels
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with
the publication of the proposed rule (76 FR 61482) opened on October 4,
2011, and closed on December 5, 2011. We also requested comments on the
proposed listing and critical habitat rule and the associated draft
economic analysis during a comment period that opened March 27, 2012,
and closed on April 26, 2012 (77 FR 18173). We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing, so none were held. We also contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies (including the States of Alabama
and Florida, 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 seven local
newspapers.
During the first comment periods, we received five comment letters
directly addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation. During the second comment period, we received four comment
letters addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation and the draft economic analysis. All substantive
information provided during both comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we requested the expert opinions of four knowledgeable
individuals with expertise on freshwater mussel conservation and
biology, and with familiarity of the eight species and the three river
basins in which they occur. We received written responses from two of
the four peer reviewers we contacted.
We reviewed all comments received from the two peer reviewers for
substantive and new information regarding the proposal to list and
designate critical habitat for the eight mussels. The peer reviewers
generally concurred with our conclusions and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final
listing and critical habitat rule. One peer reviewer provided several
narrative comments, and we addressed most of those below; however, a
few minor comments are directly incorporated into this final rule.
Another peer reviewer submitted a marked-up copy of the proposed rule,
noting errors and suggestions; we adopted most of the suggested changes
and incorporated them directly into this final rule. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
this final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Much of the recent status data utilized were obtained
from personal communications, unpublished (i.e., non-peer-reviewed)
reports or other generally unavailable reports. Accordingly, it is
difficult to assess the rigor of these studies or the Service's
interpretation of their data. More information, including sampling
effort and methods, mussel catch per unit effort, numbers encountered
relative to other species, and specifics of study site locations, is
needed to better assess changes in population status or distributions.
Our response: We obtained much of the status data, particularly the
recent survey data, from unpublished reports, field notes, or emails.
This information is the best scientific data available to us at this
time. Although the unpublished reports are not available through
journals, they are part of the administrative record and can be
obtained through the Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
We agree that information on sampling methods and effort, relative
numbers, locations, etc., is important; however, the occurrence data
are a compilation of numerous surveys, and it is not practical to
report detailed information related to each survey effort. Documenting
changes in status and population trends over the period of record is
problematic because historic collections often lack basic information
such as the specific locality, total number of species or individuals
collected, or even collection date. The only accurate comparison that
can be made of so many different sources of
[[Page 61675]]
historical and recent collection data is whether a particular species
was detected (present) or not (absent) during the survey.
(2) Comment: The assignment of endangered or threatened species
status appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Three species are clearly in
serious decline and warrant endangered status: Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, and southern kidneyshell. However, the southern
sandshell and Choctaw bean appear to have among the largest extant
ranges of any species covered in the proposed rule and remain extant in
the Choctawhatchee, Escambia, and Yellow rivers drainages. This
distinction needs more quantitative or more detailed biological
justification.
Our response: In assessing the status of these mussels, we analyzed
each species' current distribution (range), abundance (numbers), and
population trend. We also examined the magnitude of the various threats
to each of the species. Section 3(6) 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 section 3(20) of the
Act defines 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.'' At the time the proposed
rule published, we had determined that the current status of the
southern sandshell and Choctaw bean, combined with the threats they are
facing, made them in danger of extinction throughout their range.
However, since the proposed rule was published, additional surveys have
taken place, including a Service-funded status survey, and we now have
new status and distribution information. In this final rule, we updated
the occurrence information to reflect the new data, and we reexamined
the status of each species. These new data include locations of
populations of the southern sandshell in two new creek systems, Murder
and West Sandy creeks, and in two historical creek systems, Burnt Corn
and Pond creeks. The new data also showed that southern sandshell
abundance is higher than previously known. Because the species is found
in numerous streams, we have determined it is no longer in danger of
extinction throughout its range. However, the species does still face
the wide range of threats explained in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section and is vulnerable to meeting the
definition of an endangered species if these threats continue.
Therefore, we are revising the status of the southern sandshell and are
listing it as a threatened species (see ``Determination'' section). On
the other hand, new information confirms that the Choctaw bean's range
in the Escambia River drainage has declined, and its abundance
rangewide is currently low. It currently faces severe and imminent
threats in its aquatic habitats, and these threats are compounded by
its low abundance. Based on this new information, we therefore find
that the Choctaw bean continues to be in danger of extinction
throughout its limited range and are listing it as an endangered
species as proposed (see ``Determination'' section).
(3) Comment: More clarification about the number of historical
sites (as well as what constitutes a `site') that have been resurveyed
for all of these taxa is needed. The reviewer states that this
information is critical to assessing declines, and is difficult to
extract from the rule as currently written.
Our response: We added Table 1 to the final rule to consolidate
information on occurrence and abundance. We also added a statement that
we considered sampling areas in close proximity to the same site.
Specifically, areas sampled that are within 2 river km (1.2 mi)
(approximately) of each other are considered the same site, whereas
sampled areas that are more than 2 km apart are considered different
sites.
(4) Comment: The boundaries of the critical habitat units seem
somewhat arbitrary. The reviewer asserted that separation of the basins
into these units artificially inflates perceived fragmentation and
discontinuities in the system. Many of these units are at the very
least hydrologically and physiochemically connected, and also likely
remain biologically connected to a degree. Specifically, the peer
reviewer suggested that units GCM1, GCM2, GCM3, and GCM4 should be
considered a single critical habitat unit, and GCM6 and GCM7 should
likewise be merged into a single critical habitat unit. The peer
reviewer asserted that this would emphasize connectivity of these
systems and the importance of managing aquatic populations at a
watershed scale. Another commenter agreed and requested that the
Service follow the recommendation of the peer reviewer and consolidate
the six units into two distinct units.
Our response: We carefully considered how to delineate the
boundaries of the units. Our consideration focused primarily on
connectivity and threats, and the spatial distribution of the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of each species.
The four divisions in the Escambia drainage are the result of the two
mainstem dams on the Conecuh River, creating units GCM1, GCM2, GCM3,
and GCM4. In the Choctawhatchee drainage, GCM6 and GCM7 are the result
of the Elba dam on the Pea River mainstem. Threats to units downstream
of the dams (GCM1 and GCM6) can include altered water quality
(temperatures, dissolved oxygen), fluctuations in flow regime, and bed
scour. Threats unique to the unit encompassing the two reservoirs
(GCM2) are related to the operation of the dams and include drawdowns.
Threats to the units upstream of the dams (GCM 3, GCM 4 and GCM 7)
include the absence of anadromous fish hosts. These dams are barriers
to upstream fish passage, and potentially to mussel gene flow. For
these reasons, we believe these mainstem dams are logical boundaries.
Finally, the critical habitat units do not infer recovery units. We
have not yet completed a recovery plan for these species, but our
recovery strategy for the eight mussels will undoubtedly involve
managing and protecting these river systems at the watershed level.
(5) Comment: A reviewer suggested we consider combining units AP2
and GCM1.
Our response: We believe combining units AP2 and GCM1 would be an
inaccurate representation of the Alabama pearlshell's range and
habitat. The Alabama pearlshell is a headwater species and, as such,
seldom co-occurs with the other six species in the drainage.
(6) Comment: Cumberlandia is found throughout the Mississippi basin
not just the Tennessee drainage.
Our response: The context of the Cumberlandia information was the
distribution of the genus in Alabama. We revised the sentence to make
this more clear.
(7) Comment: Dredging, channelization, and snag removal and
resulting streambed destabilization should be listed as the foremost
threats to round pearlshell (reviewer meant round ebonyshell). This
taxon is relatively drought tolerant as its core populations appear to
reside in deep water habitats.
Our response: We agree and have added these activities as threats
to the round ebonyshell.
(8) Comment: Characterization of narrow pigtoe habitat is somewhat
vague and seems to imply that this animal is a small to moderate-sized
stream specialist. The reviewer stated that occupied habitats include
reaches of the lower Escambia and Yellow rivers, and considers both
fairly large rivers.
[[Page 61676]]
Our response: We made minor revisions to the description of narrow
pigtoe habitat to clarify. However, we disagree that the lower Escambia
and Yellow rivers are large rivers, and we follow the description by
Williams et al. (2008 p. 317) which classifies them as medium-sized
rivers. This species is known from medium-sized creeks such as Murder
and Patsaliga creeks in Alabama and medium-sized rivers such as the
lower Escambia and Yellow rivers in Florida. We would describe nearby
river systems like the Mobile and Apalachicola as ``large.'' The
species does not occur in these rivers.
(9) Comment: What is the status of the proposed Little
Choctawhatchee River Reservoir?
Our response: The Little Choctawhatchee project is a proposed water
supply reservoir project in Dale and Houston Counties, Alabama. The
Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed Management Authority
has applied for a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The project is in need of funding, but it is anticipated
that it will move forward (Industrial Economics 2012, p. 4-11).
(10) Comment: One reviewer stated that there may be some commercial
harvest of Alabama pearlshell, and asked if the Service has encountered
any evidence for this claim.
Our response: We have no evidence that Alabama pearlshell were or
are being harvested commercially.
(11) Comment: A peer reviewer suggested we include additional
information in the document regarding the Elba Dam and its impact on
downstream hydrology. The peer reviewer stated that it is a run-of-
river structure and is, to his knowledge, not managed for hydropower
production. The peer reviewer would like to see more info about the
height and permeability of this and other dam structures.
Our response: At the time the proposed rule was published, we
mistakenly believed the Elba Dam was not in operation. However, the dam
is currently operating, generating power during peak periods and
storing some water. We have revised our discussion of the dam's
operation, and added dam height and fish passage information for the
structure. We likewise added dam height and fish passage information
for the Gantt and Point A dams on the Conecuh River.
(12) Comment: A peer reviewer mentioned that they did not find any
mussels during a recent survey in the Yellow River upstream from the
U.S. 84 crossing or in Hollis Creek. At the time of their survey,
Hollis Creek was a small, sandy, intermittent stream at its confluence
with the Yellow River and was unlikely to support listed mussels.
Our response: The Yellow River at the U.S. 84 crossing has a recent
(1996) collection of Choctaw bean, and this portion of the river will
remain as critical habitat. The 5.5-km (3.5-mi) segment of Hollis Creek
was included as critical habitat in unit GCM5 in the proposed rule, but
we have removed this segment in this final rule based on this new
information, and adjusted the final critical habitat lengths for Unit
GCM5 and the entire designation accordingly.
(13) Comment: A peer reviewer asked why Fort Rucker lands were not
included as critical habitat, and stated that this reach seems to be an
important section that is likely to be disturbed by Department of
Defense activities, which in turn could affect listed mussel
populations downstream in the Choctawhatchee River.
Our response: Fort Rucker has completed an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP) that guides conservation activities
on the installation through 2014. Lands within military installations
are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, provided they 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.'' The INRMP specifically addresses
maintaining and improving water quality through sedimentation and
erosion control, land management practices, and improved treatment
facilities. Therefore, in the proposed rule we determined that the
streams on Ft. Rucker were exempt from the designation. In addition,
the INRMP will be updated to incorporate the southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. We
will work with Fort Rucker's Environmental and Natural Resources
Division to incorporate conservation actions specific to these species
into the INRMP.
Comments From the States
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 of Florida regarding the proposal to
list and designate critical habitat for the eight mussels are addressed
below. No comments were received from the State of Alabama.
(14) Comment: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and supports the listing
and the designation of critical habitat.
Our response: We appreciate the support and look forward to
continuing to work with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to
recovery these mussels.
(15) Comment: One commenter asserted that the listing of the eight
mussels and designation of critical habitat in the Florida Panhandle
Region will increase costs and time spent on Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) activities due to the need to conduct mussel
surveys, the need to have formal section 7 consultation with the
Service, the need to hire specialized consultants to conduct the survey
and perform the formal consultation, and the mandated time requirements
of a formal section 7 consultation. The comment states that, due to the
significant number of bridges needing replacement and the limited funds
available, these increased costs and prolonged timelines will have an
economic burden and will constitute a safety concern for the public.
Our response: The economic analysis includes data provided by FDOT
on the number of road and bridge construction and maintenance projects
likely to occur over the next 20 years. The final economic analysis
(FEA) estimates a total of 122 consultations over the next 20 years
associated with road and bridge construction and maintenance activities
within or affecting proposed critical habitat in Florida. The total
present value incremental impact of consultations on these projects is
$358,000 (an annualized impact of $31,600). As described in section 3.2
of the FEA, once the species are listed, the Service may recommend
mussel surveys for proposed projects. However, these surveys would be
recommended regardless of critical habitat due to the presence of
listed species, and are therefore not quantified as a cost of the
designation. In general, designation of critical habitat by itself does
not generate the need for formal section 7 consultation. Consultation
is triggered by activities that may affect the listed species or its
critical habitat. Because each unit is already occupied by one or more
of the mussel species, consultation would be required for activities
with a Federal nexus that may affect the species regardless of the
designation of critical habitat. Transportation planning, including
planning for bridge replacement projects, typically has a
[[Page 61677]]
timeline, from planning to construction, of approximately 5 years.
Informal and formal section 7 consultation can take place concurrent
with other aspects of environmental planning without adding to the
overall project timeline. There are also alternatives to individual
project consultations, such as a programmatic formal consultation for
bridge replacement projects, that could expedite the consultation
process while reducing costs. The assessment of potential impacts of a
project on critical habitat occurs at the same time as the assessment
of the potential for the project to adversely affect a listed species.
Consequently, critical habitat designation is not anticipated to
generate additional delays in project schedules. Bridges that present
an imminent public safety hazard may constitute an emergency, requiring
emergency consultation. The Service has procedures for addressing
emergency consultations that provide guidance to avoid and minimize
effects to species and their habitat while allowing the emergency
response to proceed. In non-emergency situations, when public safety is
at risk, the consultation can often be expedited to address safety
concerns.
(16) Comment: One comment states that Florida's Environmental
Resource Permitting (ERP) Program provides the eight mussels with an
additional level of environmental protection that is not offered in
Alabama. The comment states that ERP ensures heightened water quality
requirements and best management practices. The comment asserts that
Florida should be excluded from the requirements of critical habitat
designation due to the presence of applicable State statutes, including
ERP, which applies to all activities on State, county, city, or Federal
properties.
Our response: In response to information provided by the FDOT,
section 3.1.2 of the FEA includes a description of the Florida ERP and
the baseline protections it provides the eight mussels. The existence
of this program does not preclude section 7 consultation requirements
for projects with a Federal nexus. As such, the existence of this
program does not change the estimated incremental impacts of critical
habitat designation in Florida, which are limited to administrative
costs of consultation. The heightened water quality protection measures
of Florida's ERP provide benefits to freshwater mussels and support
primary constituent element (PCE) 4, water quality. However, this
measure alone cannot address all the potential threats to these species
and their habitat from large-scale construction projects that can be
addressed under section 7 of the Act. Threats may include direct injury
and loss of individuals, as well as effects to other PCEs such as
maintaining geomorphically stable stream and river channels (PCE 1),
and stable substrates (PCE 2). Therefore, we are not excluding lands in
the State of Florida.
Comments From Federal Agencies
(17) Comment: The U.S. Navy expressed its interest and commitment
to work proactively with the Service to address potential issues should
these species be listed under the Act. The Navy also provided
information on properties within the watersheds of the proposed
critical habitat units AP2 and GCM1, and these include Naval Air
Station (NAS) Whiting Field's Navy Outlying Landing Field (NOLF)
Evergreen (Alabama) and NOLF Pace (Florida).
Our response: After receiving these comments, the Service contacted
the Navy and requested updated GIS files to better assess the locations
of the NOLFs relative to proposed critical habitat. Once we had the
detailed NOLF boundaries, we determined that the NOLF Pace does not
have critical habitat within the boundary of the property, and that the
NOLF Evergreen does have critical habitat within its boundary. NOLF
Evergreen is situated within the Murder Creek drainage and includes an
approximately 0.40-km (0.25-mi) segment of Hunter Creek, which is
critical habitat in unit AP2 for the Alabama pearlshell. We also
determined that the NAS Whiting Field Complex INRMP specifically
addresses maintaining and improving water quality, and will be updated
to incorporate the Alabama pearlshell. Therefore, lands within this
installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section
4(a)(3) of the Act as described in the ``Exemptions'' section, and this
final rule has been changed accordingly.
This comment provides new information on the administrative effort
required on the part of the NAS for maintenance of its INRMP. Review
and updating of this INRMP occurs annually and would therefore occur
regardless of critical habitat designation. However, incremental
administrative effort may be required to consider the impact of
activities covered under the INRMP on critical habitat. As discussed in
section 4.1 of the DEA, the Service does not anticipate the critical
habitat designation will generate recommendations for conservation
efforts beyond those it would recommend due to the listing of the
species. As a result, incremental economic impacts of critical habitat
associated with consultation on the Navy's INRMP would be limited to
additional administrative effort. The FEA is therefore revised to
incorporate additional administrative costs to Units AP2 and GCM1
associated with the annual formal consultation on the NAS's INRMP.
Public Comments
(18) Comment: Comments received from several groups and individuals
support the listing of the eight mussels and designation of critical
habitat. These include: The Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society,
the Choctawhatchee River Keeper, the Center for Biological Diversity,
American Rivers, and two anonymous commenters.
Our response: We appreciate the support.
(19) Comment: Multiple comments assert that the critical habitat
designation will generate benefits. One comment suggests that critical
habitat could be a stimulus for getting local, State, and Federal
resources agencies to cooperate to address threats such as untreated
active gully systems and to expand work to reduce pollutant transport
from unpaved roads and associated roadside water conveyances. Another
comment asserts that the mussels contribute economic value through
denitrification of rivers, reducing the need to treat the water. A
third comment similarly suggests that the Service should consider the
economic benefits of the rule in terms of water quality improvements
that will benefit downstream water users and public health.
Our response: Section 2.3.3 of the DEA describes that, ``[U]nder
Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to provide an
assessment of both the social costs and benefits of proposed regulatory
actions * * * Rather than rely on economic measures, the Service
believes that the direct benefits of the proposed rule are best
expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the expected
cost impacts on the rulemaking.'' As described in section 4.4 of the
DEA, the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to generate
additional conservation measures for the eight mussels beyond those
that will be generated by their listing. Absent changes in land
management or conservation measures for the eight mussels, we do not
expect any incremental economic benefits, including improved water
quality and associated benefits to human health and
[[Page 61678]]
reduced cost of downstream water treatment, to result specifically from
designation of critical habitat for the eight mussels.
(20) Comment: One commenter provided a recent publication of a
molecular study by Campbell and Lydeard (2012) titled The genera of
Pleurobemini (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Ambleminae). The study confirms the
taxonomy of Fusconaia burkei, F. escambia, and Pleurobema strodeanum,
and it reassigns Fusconaia rotulata to the new genus Reginaia.
Our response: We incorporated these recent findings into this final
determination, except the reassignment of Fusconaia rotulata to the new
genus Reginaia. It is the Service's policy to recognize a nomenclature
change once it has been vetted and generally accepted by the scientific
community. However, because this finding was published in 2012, it has
not had time to go through this process. If the change is accepted, we
can revise the name in the future.
(21) Comment: One commenter agreed with the Service's inclusion of
the Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell on the Federal List of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife, but states that the proposed
critical habitat should be extended to cover historically known ranges.
The currently proposed critical habitat zones for the Alabama
pearlshell, AP1 and AP2, do not contain any main stream channel that
would prevent population isolation. The commenter recommended the
Service include those sections of the Escambia River, Conecuh River,
Cedar Creek, and the entirety of Murder Creek in order to connect Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and the Sepulga River and allow for a
continuous stretch of critical habitat for the Alabama pearlshell. The
commenter also stated that unit AP2 (commenter meant AP1) should be
extended to contain sections of the Alabama River to allow the Alabama
pearlshell to increase its range and numbers. Finally, the commenter
recommended extending the southern kidneyshell's proposed critical
habitat to include unit GCM5 in order to include known historical
ranges and improve the species' chance of recovery.
Our response: As described under Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat, We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing in 2012. We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of
these species. We have no data showing the Alabama pearlshell occurred
in any of the rivers or creeks suggested for inclusion in the comment.
For this reason, and based on the above criteria, we have no scientific
information to support the extension of critical habitat in units AP1
and AP2 into the mainstem of these rivers at this time.
The southern kidneyshell's occurrence in the Yellow River is based
on a single specimen collected in 1919, from Hollis Creek in Covington
County, Alabama. The Hollis Creek segment was re-surveyed in 2012, and
the surveyor noted the stream is small and intermittent, and is
unlikely to support listed mussels (see comment 12); this may indicate
habitat degradation or hydrology alteration or both since the
collection. At this time, we do not believe that southern kidneyshell
critical habitat should include the Yellow River drainage (including
GCM5) because it is not essential to the conservation of the species
and does not contain the physical or biological features needed to
support the species.
(22) Comment: The proposed rule contains considerable speculation
as to possible causes for reduced populations of the eight mussel
species. The Service should rely instead on rigorous scientific
information about relationships between factors potentially affecting
these species, including the proposed water quality criteria associated
with primary constituent elements, and actual population responses.
Our response: The Service has monitored the status of the eight
mussels since they first became candidates for listing in 2004. Since
that time, the Service and the States have funded numerous efforts to
develop a better understanding of the natural history of these species.
We have also analyzed the threats to these species using the best
available science on surrogate species. The natural histories of these
species are likely very similar to other species in the family
Unionidae, and it is reasonable to assume that similar threats will
affect these 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 of these threats has
been developed and is in the administrative record and available upon
request (see ADDRESSES above).
(23) Comment: When properly implemented, forestry best management
practices protect water quality and habitat for species associated with
riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats. Implementation and compliance
rates for forestry best management practices are high nationally and in
the Southeast, including in Alabama and Florida.
Our response: The Service agrees that best management practices
(BMPs) are protective of water quality and mussel habitat, and that
industrial forestry activities generally do a good job of implementing
BMPs. However, BMPs are voluntary and, therefore, are not always
implemented. In addition, some harvesting operations fail to use BMPs
adequately, and localized impacts can and do occur. We consider
sediment from silvicultural activities to be one of many potential
sediment sources within a watershed.
(24) Comment: Sustainable forestry certification programs require
participants to meet or exceed forestry best management practices and
help ensure high rates of implementation.
Our response: The Service agrees that the sustainable forestry
program is one of the most effective programs to ensure BMPs are
properly implemented. Nonetheless, because they are voluntary, BMPs are
not always implemented (see our response to Comment (23)) and some
forestry activities can contribute sediments into stream systems.
(25) Comment: Suspended solids from modern biological wastewater
treatment plants are often comprised largely of organic matter, and
such solids would generally not be expected to contribute significantly
to sedimentation or contaminated sediment.
Our response: The Service concurs with this comment. We have no
information that suspended solids discharged by wastewater treatment
plants, at permitted levels, are a threat to the eight mussels at this
time.
(26) Comment: 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,
[[Page 61679]]
especially when compared with other land uses.
Our response: We agree that one of the primary sources of
sedimentation in these basins is legacy sediment; however, we not aware
of any studies that have looked at the relative contribution of
historic and current sediment sources. We agree that silvicutural
activities have a small and short-lived impact on water quality
compared to other land uses; however, we do not believe the activities
have small and short-lived impact to habitat quality. As discussed
under Factor A under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, heavy
sediment loads can destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a corresponding
shift in mussel fauna (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100), and can lead
to rapid changes in stream channel position, channel shape, and bed
elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102).
(27) Comment: Herbicides used in forest management operation pose
little risk to fauna, and there is no evidence that they endanger
viability of aquatic organisms.
Our response: We do not agree that there is no evidence that
herbicides used in forest management endanger viability of aquatic
organisms. As described under Factors A and D under Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, numerous studies have documented that certain
pesticides are lethal to mussels, particularly to the highly sensitive
early life stages. A multitude of bioassay tests conducted on several
mussel species show that freshwater mussels are more sensitive than
previously known to the pesticides glyphosate and the surfactant MON
0818, ingredients in some pesticides used in forestry management.
(28) Comment: Climate change models do not provide information that
is appropriate for making management decisions regarding these mussel
species.
Our response: We agree that it would not be appropriate to use
climate change models, which are broad in scale, to make management
decisions regarding the eight mussels. However, we must consider
evidence that climate change could lead to increased frequency of
severe storms and droughts, which could affect these eight mussels in
the future (see Factor E discussion, below).
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
After consideration of the comments we received during the public
comment periods (see above), we made changes to the final listing rule.
Many small, nonsubstantive changes and corrections, not affecting the
determination (e.g., updating the Background section in response to
comments, minor clarifications) were made throughout the document.
Below is a summary list of more substantive changes made to this
document.
(1) The total length of critical habitat was revised to 2,404 km
(1,494 mi.) due to the removal of Hollis Creek, the exemption of a
small section of Hunter Creek, and the accidental omission of one
segment (Corner Creek) in a spreadsheet used to sum unit lengths for
the proposed rule. Corner Creek was featured in the unit descriptions
and maps of the proposed rule, but was inadvertently left out of the
spreadsheet.
(2) The status of the southern sandshell was revised to a
threatened species based on a peer reviewer's comment and new survey
data.
(3) Unit AP2 was revised to remove a 0.4 km (0.25 mi) segment of
Hunter Creek in Covington County, Alabama. This segment was determined
to be exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because it receives
management under an approved INRMP created by the U.S. Navy (see
comment 17 and our response).
(4) Table 1 was added to address peer review comment 3.
(5) The Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution section was
revised to reflect additional threats to round ebonyshell identified by
a reviewer. These additional threats include dredging, channelization,
and de-snagging of trees and brush for navigation.
(6) Information related to dam height and fish passage for Point A,
Gantt, and Elba dams was added, and information related to the
operation of Elba dam on the Pea River was revised.
In addition to these changes and additions, several errors in the
proposed rule were corrected. These include:
(1) Renumbering of tables. The proposed rule contained two Tables 1
and 2; the second tables 1 and 2 were renumbered to Tables 10 and 11 in
this document.
(2) Adding 1 km (1 mi) to the length of AP2. The length was
recalculated and revised to 96 km (155 mi).
(3) Removing a portion of GCM5. Hollis Creek from its confluence
with the Yellow River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42,
Covington County, Alabama, was erroneously included as critical habitat
in the proposed rule, and we have removed it from this final rule; the
length of unit GCM 5 was revised to 247 km (153 mi.).
(4) Adding 5 km (3.0 mi) to GCM6. This corrects an accidental
omission of the Corner Creek segment length from the total length of
critical habitat in the proposed rule. This happened due to its
omission from a spreadsheet used to calculate the total length of
units. The Corner Creek segment was, however, included in the critical
habitat description in the proposed rule. The corrected length of the
unit is 897 mi (557 km).
(5) Correcting other small errors in Table 10. Specifically, for
southern sandshell,in unit GCM1, we revisedthe total length to 2,222 km
(1,379 mi); for southern kidneyshell, we changed unit GCM5 to GCM6 and
revised its total length to 1,975 km (1,226 mi); and for fuzzy pigtoe,
we changed unit GCM2 to GCM1 and revised its total length to 2,222 km
(1,379 mi).
(6) Changing the term ``protected'' to ``managed'' in Table 11 to
more accurately define the various types of public lands.
(7) Where appropriate, updating occurrence information to
incorporate data from a status survey completed in March of 2012.
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
listed as an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The habitats of freshwater mussels are vulnerable to habitat
modification and water quality degradation from a number of activities
associated with modern civilization. The primary cause of the decline
of these eight mussels has been the modification and destruction of
their stream and river habitat, with sedimentation as the leading
cause. Their stream habitats are subject to pollution and alteration
from a variety of sources including adjacent land use
[[Page 61680]]
activities, in-water activities, effluent discharges, and impoundments.
Nonpoint-source pollution from land surface runoff originates from
virtually all land use activities and includes sediments, fertilizer,
herbicide and pesticide residues; animal wastes; septic tank leakage
and gray water discharge; and oils and greases. Current activities and
land uses that can negatively affect populations of these eight mussels
include unpaved road crossings, improper silviculture and agriculture
practices, highway construction, housing developments, pipeline
crossings, and cattle grazing. These activities can result in physical
disturbance of stream substrates or the riparian zone, excess
sedimentation and nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen
concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and altered flow.
Limited range and low numbers make these eight mussels vulnerable to
land use changes that would result in increases in nonpoint-source
pollution.
Sedimentation is one of the most significant pollution problems for
aquatic organisms (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 55), and has been
determined to be a major factor in mussel declines (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-
40). Impacts resulting from sediments have been noted for many
components of aquatic communities. For example, sediments have been
shown to abrade or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to
underwater surfaces); affect respiration, growth, reproductive success,
and behavior of aquatic insects and mussels; and affect fish growth,
survival, and reproduction (Waters 1995, pp. 173-175). Heavy sediment
loads can destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a corresponding shift in
mussel fauna (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100). Excessive sedimentation
can lead to rapid changes in stream channel position, channel shape,
and bed elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Sedimentation has
also been shown to impair the filter feeding ability of mussels. When
in high silt environments, mussels may keep their valves closed more
often, resulting in reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p. 30), and
high amounts of suspended sediments can dilute their food source
(Dennis 1984, p. 212). Increased turbidity from suspended sediment can
reduce or eliminate juvenile mussel recruitment (Negus 1966, p. 525;
Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101-102). Many mussel species use visual
cues to attract host fishes; such a reproductive strategy depends on
clear water. For example, increased turbidity may impact the southern
sandshell life cycle by reducing the chance that a sight-feeding host
fish will encounter the visual display of its superconglutinate lure
(Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p. 1885). If the
superconglutinate is not encountered by a host within a short time
period, the glochidia will become nonviable (O'Brien and Brim Box 1999,
p. 133). Also, evidence suggests that conglutinates of the southern
kidneyshell, once released from the female mussel, must adhere to hard
surfaces in order to be seen by its fish host. If the surface becomes
covered in fine sediments, the conglutinate cannot attach and is swept
away (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 373).
Biologists conducting mussel surveys within the drainages have
reported observations of excessive sedimentation in the streams and
rivers of the three basins. While searching for the Alabama pearlshell
in headwater streams of the Escambia and Alabama drainages, D. N.
Shelton (1996, pp. 1-5 unpub. report) reported many streams within the
study area had experienced heavy siltation, and that all species of
mollusks appeared to be adversely affected. M. M. Gangloff (Gangloff
and Hartfield 2009, p. 253) observed large amounts of sand and silt in
the mainstem Pea and Choctawhatchee rivers during a 2006-2007 survey,
and considered this a possible reason for the decline of mussels in the
drainage.
In 2009-2010, The Nature Conservancy completed an inventory and
prioritization of impaired sites in the Yellow River watershed in
Alabama and Florida (Herrington et al., 2010 unpub. report). The study
identified and quantified the impacts of unpaved road crossings and
streambank instability and erosion within the river corridor and
riparian zone, to assess impairments that could impact the five species
occurring in the drainage. A total of 339 unpaved roads and
approximately 209 river miles of mainstem and tributaries were assessed
using standardized methods. Out of these, 409 sites ranked ``High'' or
``Moderate'' in risk of excessive sedimentation according to the
Sediment Risk Index. Many of the impaired sites (149) were located
upstream of known mussel locations. In addition, habitat conditions
were characterized at 44 known mussel locations; the sites were scored
numerically and rated as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The majority
of the mussel sites were assessed to be either fair or poor. Most of
these locations were within the vicinity of bridge crossings and boat
ramps and several, particularly in the Shoal River in Florida, were
directly downstream of highly impaired unpaved road and river corridor
sites. In summary, the study found the threat of sedimentation and
habitat degradation is high throughout the Yellow River watershed with
over 75 percent of sites assessed exhibiting high or moderate risk, and
the majority of known mussel locations impaired.
Potential sediment sources within a watershed include virtually any
activity that disturbs the land surface. Current sources of sand, silt,
and other sediment accumulation in south-central Alabama and western
Florida stream channels include unpaved road runoff, agricultural
lands, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and construction and other
development activities (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 55; Bennett 2002,
p. 5 and references therein; Hoehn 1998, pp. 46-47 and references
therein). The Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed
Management Plan (CPYRWMP) and the Conecuh-Sepulga-Blackwater Rivers
Watershed Protection Plan (CSBRWPP) document water quality impairments
to the Alabama portion of the watersheds. Both plans identify elevated
levels of sediment as one of the primary causes of impairment (CPYRWMP,
p. 156; CSBRWPP, p. 110). In the Choctawhatchee and Yellow river
drainages, four out of the nine streams in which sediment loads were
calculated by the Geological Survey of Alabama had significant sediment
impairment (CPYRWMP, p. 157). In Alabama, runoff from unpaved roads and
roadside gullies is considered the main source of sediment transported
into the streams of the drainages (Bennett 2002, p. 5 and references
therein; CPYRWMP, p. 145). Unpaved roads are constructed primarily of
sandy materials and are easily eroded and transported to stream
corridors. In addition, certain silvicultural and agricultural
activities cause erosion, riparian buffer degradation, and increased
sedimentation. Uncontrolled access to streams by cattle can result in
destruction of riparian vegetation, bank degradation and erosion, and
localized sedimentation of stream habitats.
Land surface runoff also contributes nutrients (for example,
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, sewage, and animal manure) to
rivers and streams, causing them to become eutrophic. Excessive
nutrient input stimulates excessive plant growth (algae, periphyton
attached algae, and nuisance plants). This enhanced plant growth can
cause dense mats of filamentous algae that can expose juvenile mussels
to entrainment or predation and be detrimental to the survival of
juvenile mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,
[[Page 61681]]
p. 373). Excessive plant growth can also reduce dissolved oxygen in the
water when dead plant material decomposes. In a review of the effects
of eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and Muller (2001, 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 2001, pp. 330-333). Filamentous algae may also
displace certain species of fish, or otherwise affect fish-mussel
interactions essential to recruitment (for example, Hartfield and
Hartfield 1996, p. 373). Nutrient sources include fertilizers applied
to agricultural fields and lawns, septic tanks, and municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.
Because of their sedentary characteristics, mussels are extremely
vulnerable to toxic effluents (Sheehan et al. 1989, pp. 139-140;
Goudreau et al. 1993, pp. 216-227; Newton 2003, p. 2543). Descriptions
of localized mortality have been provided for chemical spills and other
discrete point-source discharges; however, rangewide decreases in
mussel density and diversity may result from the more insidious effects
of chronic, low-level contamination (Newton 2003, p. 2543, Newton et
al. 2003, p. 2554). Freshwater mussel experts often report chemical
contaminants as factors limiting to unionids (Richter et al. 1997, pp.
1081-1093). They note high sensitivity of early life stages to
contaminants such as chlorine (Wang et al. 2007 pp. 2039-2046), metals
(Keller and Zam 1991, p. 542; Jacobson et al. 1993, pp. 879-883),
ammonia (Augspurger et al. 2003, pp. 2571-2574; Wang et al. 2007 pp.
2039-2046), and pesticides (Bringolf et al. 2007a,b pp. 2089-2092, pp.
2096-2099). Pesticide residues from agricultural, residential, or
silvicultural activities enter streams mainly by surface runoff.
Agricultural crops locally grown within the range of these mussels
associated with high pesticide use include cotton, peanuts, corn, and
soybeans. Chlorine, metals, and ammonia are common constituents in
treated effluent from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities. A total of 62 municipal and 39 industrial wastewater
treatment facilities are permitted in Alabama and Florida to discharge
treated effluent into surface waters of the three river drainages (FDEP
2010a; ADEM 2010a).
States maintain water-use classifications through issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to
industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum limits on
certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) has designated the water use
classification for most portions of the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee Rivers as ``Fish and Wildlife'' (F&W), and a few
portions (mostly lakes) as ``Swimming'' (S). The F&W designation
establishes minimum water quality standards that are believed to
protect existing species and water uses like fishing and recreation
within the designated area, while the S classification establishes
higher water quality standards that are protective of human contact
with the water. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) classifies all three river drainages as Class III waters. The
Class III designation establishes minimum water quality standards that
are believed to protect species and uses such as recreation. The
Choctawhatchee and Shoal Rivers are also designated as Outstanding
Florida Waters (OFW) by the State of Florida. The designation prevents
the discharge of pollutants, which would lower existing water quality
or significantly degrade the OFW.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
requires States to identify waters that do not fully support their
designated use classification. These impaired water bodies are placed
on the State's 303(d) list, and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must
be developed for the pollutant of concern. A TMDL is an estimate of the
total load of pollutants that a segment of water can receive without
exceeding applicable water quality criteria. Alabama's 303(d) list
identifies a total of 25 impaired stream segments within the Escambia,
Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River basins that either support populations
of the eight species or that flow into streams that support them. The
list identifies metals (mercury and lead), organic enrichment,
pathogens, siltation, excess nutrients, or unknown toxicity as reasons
for impairment (ADEM 2010b, pp. 4-8). Various potential point and non-
point pollution sources are identified, such as atmospheric deposition,
pasture grazing, feedlots, municipal, industrial, urban runoff,
agriculture, and land development. Florida's 303(d) list identifies a
total of 22 impaired stream segments within the basins that either
support populations of seven of the species (the Alabama pearlshell
does not occur in Florida) or that flow into streams that support them.
The list identifies coliform bacteria, low dissolved oxygen
(nutrients), and mercury (in fish tissue) as reasons for inclusion
(FDEP 2010b, pp. 4-6).
While the negative effects of point-source discharges on aquatic
communities in Alabama and Florida have been reduced over time by
compliance with State and Federal regulations pertaining to water
quality, there has been less success in dealing with nonpoint-source
pollution impacts. Because these contaminant sources stem from urban
surface runoff, private landowner activities (construction, grazing,
agriculture, silviculture), and public construction works (bridge and
highway construction and maintenance), they are often more difficult to
regulate.
These mussels require stable stream and river habitats and
activities that cause channel instability can negatively impact their
populations. Activities such sand and gravel mining, the removal of
large woody material, off-road vehicles use, and land use changes are
known to cause channel destabilization. Activities that destabilize
stream beds and channels can result in drastic alterations to stream
geomorphology and consequently to the stream's ecosystem.
Instream gravel mining has been implicated in the destruction of
mussel populations (Stansbery 1970, p. 10; Hartfield 1993, pp. 138-
139). Instream sand and gravel mining can cause severe bank erosion,
channel widening, destruction of riparian habitats, and other
geomorphic changes (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, pp. 26-27; Brown et al.
1998, pp. 987-992), including head cuts that can extend considerable
distances upstream from the mines (Hartfield 1993, pp. 138-139) and
substrate disturbance and siltation impacts that can be realized for
considerable distances downstream (Stansbery 1970, p. 10). Poorly
located or inadequately designed mines in the flood plain can have
similar effects and result in alterations to streams channels (Mossa
and Coley, 2004, p. 2). For example, a mined area along Big Escambia
Creek near Century, Florida resulted in the formation of a new channel
through the mines, causing excessive sedimentation in downstream areas.
A large restoration project was required to put the stream back into
its natural channel. Numerous mining operations occur along a gravel
vein in the upper Escambia and Choctawhatchee river drainages in
Florida and Alabama (Metcalf 2012 pers. com).
Operations that remove large woody material from channels, either
for navigation and maintenance (desnagging) or for the recovery of pre-
cut submerged timber (deadhead
[[Page 61682]]
logging), have the potential to affect mussel communities by creating
unstable substrates (Watters 1999, p. 269). These types of permitted
activities are common in areas where these mussels occur. The removal
of large logs may result in changes to sedimentation patterns and
stream morphology, the erosion of banks and bars, and the consequent
loss of habitat structure and species diversity (Watters 1999, p. 268;
Cathey et al. unpub. report, p. 1).
Low flow conditions provide access to stream margins and channels
for off-road vehicles. The practice of driving off-road vehicles within
stream channels has been observed in the upper Conecuh and
Choctawhatchee river drainages (Metcalf 2012 pers. com). These vehicles
may destabilize stream banks, increase sedimentation rates, and may
also directly crush mussels (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 3).
Land use activities such as land clearing and development can cause
channel instability by accelerating stormwater runoff into streams.
Increased runoff rates can result in bank erosion and bed scour (Brim
Box and Mossa 1999, p. 103), and can lead to channel incision (Booth
1990, p. 407; Doyle et al. 2000, p. 157, 175). These flow regime
changes can significantly and rapidly alter the morphology of the
stream channel, and can eventually lead to degradation throughout the
watershed as sediments eroded in the upper portions are deposited in
the lower reaches (Doyle et al. 2000, pp. 156, 175).
The damming of rivers has been a major factor contributing to the
demise of freshwater mussels (Bogan 1993, p. 604). Dams eliminate or
reduce river flow within impounded areas, trap silts and cause sediment
deposition, alter water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, change
downstream water flow and quality, affect normal flood patterns, and
block upstream and downstream movement of mussels and their host fishes
(Bogan 1993, p. 604; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp. 915-917; Watters 1999,
pp. 261-264; McAllister et al. 2000, p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp.
20-21). Downstream of dams, mollusk declines are associated with
changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced
dissolved oxygen levels, water temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages (Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al. 1997, pp.
63-64; Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20-21).
Because rivers are linear systems, these alterations can cause mussel
declines for many miles downstream of the dam (Vaughn and Taylor 1999,
p. 916).
Three significant mainstem impoundments are situated within the
three drainages, all in Alabama. Constructed in 1923 for hydroelectric
power generation, Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams are located on the
mainstem of the Conecuh River in Covington County, Alabama. The
downstream dam, Point A, is 41 ft. high, and Gantt dam is 35 ft. high.
Combined, these two dams impound approximately 3,400 acres at normal
pool. Both impoundments have limited storage capacity and are operated
as modified run-of-river projects with daily peaking. For example, when
inflows to Gantt are greater than 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs),
the outflow matches the inflow at Point A. However, during the summer
months, when inflows can fall below 1,500 cfs, a portion of the inflow
may be stored and released when power generation is in high demand.
Regardless of the inflow, Point A dam has a minimum continuous
discharge requirement of 500 cfs and a requirement to meet a dissolved
oxygen level of no less than 4.0 milligram per liter (mg/l).
The Elba dam on the Pea River mainstem near Elba, Alabama, was
constructed in 1903 for power generation. The dam generates power
during peak periods and stores some water, but does not have a
reservoir, only a widened channel which is roughly one and a half to
two times wider upstream of the dam than downstream. The 29 ft. high
structure is a barrier to to upstream fish migration (Williams et al.
2008, p. 34). Channel scour (deepening of the streambed as a result of
erosion) is occurring downstream of the Elba Dam (Williams 2010 pers.
comm.).
All three dams are barriers to upstream fish migration and to the
movement of potential mussel host species. The Service (2003 pp. 13392-
3) noted that Point A Dam and Elba Dam prevent threatened Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) movement farther upstream at all flow
conditions. By blocking fish movement, the dams may prevent gene
exchange between upstream and downstream mussel populations. Gulf
sturgeon have been shown to serve as a primary host for mussel larvae
(Fritts et al., in review), although we do not know if they serve as a
host for any of these eight species. The three dams currently separate
populations of southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. In addition, two smaller
impoundments are located on tributary streams. Lake Frank Jackson is
situated on Lightwood Knot Creek, a tributary to the Yellow River in
Covington County, Alabama; Lake Tholocco, on Claybank Creek, is a
tributary to the Choctawhatchee River in Dale County, Alabama. Waters
released from these two shallow impoundments can have extremely
elevated temperatures in summer, which alters the normal temperature
cycle downstream (Williams et al. 2000 unpub. data).
The potential exists for more dams to be constructed within the
three drainages, and at least four additional impoundments are
proposed. These include proposed impoundments on Murder Creek and Big
Escambia Creek in the Escambia River drainage in Alabama, the Yellow
River mainstem in Florida, and the Little Choctawhatchee River in
Alabama. These proposed projects have implications for populations of
all eight species. Given projected population increases and the need
for municipal water supply, other proposals for impoundment
construction are expected in the future.
In summary, the loss and degradation of habitat from various forms
of pollution, stream bed destabilization, and impoundments are a threat
to the continued existence of these eight species. Degradation from
sedimentation and contaminants is a threat to the habitat and water
quality necessary to support these species throughout their entire
ranges. Sedimentation can cause mortality by suffocation; impair the
ability to feed, respire, and reproduce; and destabilize substrate.
Contaminants associated with municipal and industrial effluents
(metals, ammonia, chlorine) and with agriculture and silviculture
(pesticides) are lethal to mussels, particularly to the highly
sensitive early life stages. These mussels require stabile stream and
river channels, and quickly disappear from areas destabilized by gravel
mining, the removal of large woody material, off-road vehicle use, and
increased surface runoff. The effects of impoundments are more subtle,
but can cause severe alternations to mussel habitat both upstream and
downstream of the dam, and can impair dispersal and breeding ability.
While recent surveys for these species have documented several new
populations, they have also documented a decline in (and the loss of)
many of the known populations due to human impact. Therefore, we have
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat and range is a threat with severe impact to the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw
bean, and is a threat with moderate impact to the tapered pigtoe,
narrow
[[Page 61683]]
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. This threat is current
and is projected to continue and increase into the future with
additional anthropogenic pressures.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
None of the eight mussels are commercially valuable species, and
the streams and rivers that they inhabit are not subject to harvesting
activities for commercial mussel species. Although the eight species
have been taken for scientific and private collections in the past,
collecting is not considered a factor in the decline of these species.
Such activity may increase as their rarity becomes known; however, we
have no specific information indicating that overcollection is
currently a threat. Therefore, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the eight mussels at this time.
C. Disease or Predation
Diseases of freshwater mussels are poorly known, and we have no
specific information indicating that disease poses a threat to
populations of these eight species. Juvenile and adult mussels are prey
items for some invertebrate predators and parasites (for example,
nematodes and mites), and provide prey for a few vertebrate species
(for example, raccoons, muskrats, otters, and turtles) (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 225-240). However, we have no evidence of any specific
declines in these species due to predation. Therefore, diseases and
predation of freshwater mussels remain largely unstudied and are not
considered a threat to the eight mussels at this time.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There is no information on the sensitivity of the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe to
aquatic pollutants. Current State and Federal regulations regarding
pollutants are designed to be protective of aquatic organisms; however,
freshwater mussels may be more susceptible to some pollutants than test
organisms commonly used in bioassay tests. A multitude of bioassay
tests conducted on 16 mussel species (summarized by Augspurger et al.
2007, pp. 2025-2028) show that freshwater mussels are more sensitive
than previously known to some chemical contaminants including chlorine,
ammonia, copper, the pesticides chlorothalonil and glyphosate, and the
surfactant MON 0818. For example, several recent studies have
demonstrated that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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).
Ammonia is an important aquatic pollutant because of its relatively
high toxicity and common occurrence in riverine systems. This has
application to the expected sources of these chemicals in the
environment. Significant sources of nutrient enrichment leading to
elevated ammonia include industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater
treatment plant effluents, and urban and agricultural runoff (chemical
fertilizers and animal wastes) (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2026).
Elevated copper in surface waters can result from natural runoff
sources, but is more often associated with a private or municipal
wastewater effluent. Pesticide residues enter streams from
agricultural, residential, or silvicultural runoff. Environmental
chlorine concentrations will most often be associated with a point
source discharge such as a municipal wastewater treatment facility.
As indicated in the Factor A discussion above, sedimentation is
considered the most significant threat to these eight species. Best
management practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control are often
recommended or required for construction projects; however, compliance,
monitoring, and enforcement of these recommendations are often poorly
implemented. Although unpaved roads likely contribute the majority of
sediment to the streams and rivers in the basins, other sources
including forestry, row crops, and construction contribute to the total
sediment load.
States are required under the Clean Water Act to establish a TMDL
for the pollutants of concern that the water body can receive without
exceeding the applicable standard (see discussion under Factor A).
However, the Federal Clean Water Act is not fully utilized in the
protection of these river systems. For example, of the 51 impaired
water bodies identified within the drainages, less than one-fourth
currently have approved TMDLs (ADEM 2010c, pp. 3-6; FDEP 2010b, pp. 4-
6).
In summary, some regulatory mechanisms exist that protect aquatic
species; however, these regulations are not effective at protecting
mussels and their habitats from sedimentation and contaminants.
Pollution from non-point sources is the greatest threat to these eight
mussels (see Factor A discussion); however, this type of pollution is
difficult to regulate and not effectively controlled by State and
Federal water quality regulations. Therefore, we find current existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the eight mussels
throughout their ranges. This threat is current and is projected to
continue into the future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Random Catastrophic Events
The Gulf coastal region is prone to extreme hydrologic events.
Extended droughts result from persistent high-pressure systems, which
inhibit moisture from the Gulf of Mexico from reaching the region
(Jeffcoat et al. 1991, p. 163-170). Warm, humid air from the Gulf of
Mexico can produce strong frontal systems and tropical storms resulting
in heavy rainfall and extensive flooding (Jeffcoat et al. 1991, p. 163-
170). Although floods and droughts are a natural part of the hydrologic
processes that occur in these river systems, these events may
contribute to the further decline of mussel populations suffering the
effects of other threats.
During high flows, flood scour can dislodge mussels where they may
be injured, buried, or swept into unsuitable habitats, or mussels may
be stranded and perish when flood waters recede (Vannote and Minshall
1982, p. 4105; Tucker 1996, p. 435; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 107-115;
Peterson et al. 2011, unpaginated). Heavy spring rains in 2009 resulted
in severe flooding in the basins that destroyed numerous stream
crossings.
During drought, stream channels may become disconnected pools where
mussels are exposed to higher water temperatures, lower dissolved
oxygen levels, and predators, or channels may become dewatered
entirely. Johnson et al. (2001, p. 6) monitored mussel responses during
a severe drought in 2000 in tributaries of the Lower Flint River in
Georgia, and found that most mortality occurred when dissolved oxygen
levels dropped below 5 mg/L. Furthermore, increased human demand and
competition for surface and ground water resources for irrigation and
consumption during drought can cause drastic reductions in stream flows
and alterations to hydrology (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Golladay et
al. 2007 unpaginated). Extended droughts occurred in the Southeast
during 1998 to 2002, and again in 2006 to 2008. The effects of these
recent droughts on these eight mussels are unknown; however,
[[Page 61684]]
substantial declines in mussel diversity and abundance as a direct
result of drought have been documented in southeastern streams (for
example, Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 494-503; Haag and Warren 2008, p.
1165). The Alabama pearlshell is particularly at risk during drought as
its headwater stream habitats are vulnerable to dewatering. Shelton
(1995, p. 4 unpub. report) reported one of the most common causes of
mortality in the species is due to stranding by extreme low water.
There is a growing concern that climate change may lead to
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Cook et al. 2004, p.
1015). Specific effects of climate change to mussels, their habitat,
and their fish hosts could include changes in stream temperature
regimes, the timing and levels of precipitation causing more frequent
and severe floods and droughts, and alien species introductions.
Increases in temperature and reductions in flow may also lower
dissolved oxygen levels in interstitial habitats, which can be lethal
to juveniles (Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 131-133). Effects to mussel
populations from these environmental changes could include reduced
abundance and biomass, altered species composition, and host fish
considerations (Galbraith et al. 2010, pp. 1180-1182). The present
conservation status, complex life histories, and specific habitat
requirements of freshwater mussels suggest that they may be quite
sensitive to climate change (Hastie et al. 2003, p. 45).
The linear nature of their habitat, reduced range, and small
population sizes make these eight mussels vulnerable to contaminant
spills. Spills as a result of transportation accidents are a constant,
potential threat as numerous highways and railroads cross the stream
channels of the basins. Also, more than 400 oil wells are located
within Conecuh and Escambia Counties, Alabama. In Conecuh County, most
of these wells are concentrated in the Cedar Creek drainage, which
supports at least two populations of the Alabama pearlshell. These
wells are subject to periodic spills either directly at the well site
or associated with the transport of the oil. For example, on February
5, 2010, an oil spill occurred in the headwaters of Feagin Creek.
Feagin Creek is located between two known pearlshell locations, Little
Cedar and Amos Mill creeks. The resulting spill discharged more than
150 gallons of oil into Feagin Creek. Although there were no known
populations of the pearlshell in Feagin Creek, this type of spill could
have easily occurred in one of the adjacent watersheds that supports
the pearlshell. Since 2000, there have been 13 spills reported in
Conecuh, 36 in Escambia, and 33 in Covington Counties, Alabama.
Reduced Genetic Diversity
Population fragmentation and isolation prohibits the natural
interchange of genetic material among populations. Low numbers of
individuals within the isolated populations have greater susceptibility
to deleterious genetic effects, including inbreeding depression and
loss of genetic variation (Lynch 1996, pp. 493-494). Small, isolated
populations, therefore, are more susceptible to environmental
pressures, including habitat degradation and stochastic events, and
thus are the most susceptible to extinction (Primack 2008, pp. 151-
153). It is unknown if any of the eight mussel species are currently
experiencing a loss of genetic diversity. However, surviving
populations of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, and southern
kidneyshell do have highly restricted or reduced ranges, fragmented
habitats, and extremely small population sizes.
Host Fish Considerations
As mentioned in the General Biology section above, all of these
eight species require a fish host in order to complete their life
cycle. Therefore, these mussels would be adversely affected by the loss
or reduction of fish species essential to their parasitic glochidial
stage. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), a common and abundant
fish species, was found to serve as a glochidial host for the tapered
pigtoe and fuzzy pigtoe (White et al. 2008, p. 123). The specific hosts
for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and southern sandshell and have not been
identified; however, other species of the same genera are known to
parasitize cyprinids (minnows), centrarchids (sunfish), and percids
(darters) (Haag and Warren 1997, pp. 580-581, 583; Keller and Ruessler
1997, p. 405; O'Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134; Haag et al. 1999, p.
150; Haag and Warren 2003, pp. 81-82; Luo 1993, p. 16).
Nonindigenous Species
The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been introduced to the
drainages and may be adversely affecting these eight mussels through
direct competition for space and resources. The Asian clam was first
detected in eastern Gulf drainages in the early 1960s, and is presently
widespread throughout the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River
drainages (Heard 1975, p. 2). The invasion of the Asian clam in these
and in other eastern Gulf drainages has been accompanied by drastic
declines in populations of native mussels (see observations by Heard
1975, p. 2; and Shelton 1995, p. 4 unpub. report). However, it is
difficult to say whether the Asian clam competitively excluded the
native mussels, or if it was simply tolerant of whatever caused the
mussels to disappear. The Asian clam may pose a direct threat to native
mussels, particularly as juveniles, as a competitor for resources such
as food, nutrients, and space (Neves and Widlak 1987, p. 6). Dense
populations of Asian clams may ingest large numbers of unionid sperm,
glochidia, and newly metamorphosed juveniles, and may actively disturb
sediments, reducing habitable space for juvenile native mussels, or
displacing them downstream (Strayer 1999, p. 82; Yeager et al. 2000,
pp. 255-256).
The flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) has been introduced to
the drainages and may be adversely impacting native fish populations.
The flathead catfish is a large predator native to the central United
States, and since its introduction outside its native range, it has
altered the composition of native fish populations through predation
(Boschung and Mayden 2004, p. 350). Diet and selectivity studies of
introduced flathead catfish in coastal North Carolina river systems
show it feeds primarily on other fish species (Guier et al. 1984, pp.
617-620; Pine et al. 2005, p. 909). The flathead catfish is now well-
established in the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River
drainages, and its numbers appear to be growing (Strickland 2010 pers.
comm.). Biologists working in the Florida portions of these drainages
have observed a correlation between the increase in flathead catfish
numbers and a decrease in numbers of other native fish species,
particularly of bullhead catfish (Ameiurus sp.) and redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus) (Strickland 2010 pers. comm.). Although we do not
know the specific fish hosts for six of the mussel species, the loss or
reduction of native fishes in general could affect their ability to
recruit.
In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors currently are a
threat to these eight mussels. Stochastic events such as droughts and
floods have occurred in these three river drainages in the past, and
climate change may increase the frequency and intensity of
[[Page 61685]]
similar events in the future. The withdrawal of surface and ground
waters during drought can cause further drastic flow reductions and
alterations that may cause declines in mussel abundance and
distribution. Contaminant spills have also occurred in these drainages
and currently are a threat, particularly in the Alabama portion of the
Escambia River drainage, where there are numerous oil wells. It is not
known if these species are currently experiencing a loss of genetic
viability; however, their restricted or reduced ranges, fragmented
habitats, and small population sizes increases the risks and
consequences of inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variation.
Introduced species, such as the Asian clam, may adversely impact these
mussels through direct competition for space and resources. Another
introduced species, the flathead catfish, may consume host fishes,
thereby affecting mussel recruitment. Therefore, we have determined
that other natural or manmade factors, specifically threats from
flooding, drought, and contaminant spills, are severe threats to the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw
bean, and they are moderate threats to the tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. These threats are
currently impacting these species and are projected to continue or
increase in the future. We have determined that threats from the Asian
clam have moderate impacts to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean, and these
threats have low impacts to the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and
fuzzy pigtoe. We have determined that reduced genetic diversity, the
absence or reduction of fish hosts, and the presence of flathead
catfish have the potential to adversely impact the eight mussels.
However, we do not know the intensity of these threats at this time.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. Section 3(6) 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 section 3(20) of the Act
defines 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, these
eight species are currently at risk throughout all of their respective
ranges 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 their continued
existence (Factor E). Specifically, these factors include excessive
sedimentation, municipal and industrial effluents, pesticides,
excessive nutrients, impoundment of stream channels, recurring drought
and flooding, contaminant spills, and the introduced Asian clam. In
addition, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate
some of the threats affecting these mussels and their habitats. Based
on the best available science, these threats are currently impacting
these species and are projected to continue and potentially worsen in
the future. These eight mussels are also at increased threat due to the
loss of genetic viability and the reduction or absence of fish hosts
(described under Factor E); however, these threats are not currently
known to be imminent.
Species with small ranges, few populations, and small or declining
population sizes, are the most vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008,
p. 137). The effects of certain factors, particularly habitat
degradation and loss, catastrophic events, and introduced species,
increase in magnitude when population size is small (Soul[eacute] 1980,
pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133-135, 152). The impact of habitat
degradation, catastrophic events, and introduced species are more
severe to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean than the other four species, which have
few or isolated populations coupled with low numbers of individuals and
limited or reduced ranges. Nonetheless, the tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell and fuzzy pigtoe, which still occur in much
of their historical ranges have been eliminated from historic streams
and main channel locations and have declining numbers of individuals.
When combining the effects of historical, current, and future habitat
loss and degradation; historical and ongoing drought; and the
exacerbating effects of small and declining population sizes and
curtailed ranges, the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean are in danger of extinction throughout
all of their ranges, and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell and fuzzy pigtoe are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges. In addition, any
factor (i.e., habitat loss or natural and manmade factors) that results
in a further decline in habitat or individuals may be problematic for
the long-term recovery of these species.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean as endangered species throughout
all of their ranges, and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe as threatened species throughout all of
their ranges. In the proposed rule we examined all available
information on the eight species to determine if any significant
portions of their ranges may warrant a different status. However,
because of their limited and curtailed ranges, and uniformity of the
threats throughout them, we find there are no significant portions of
any of the species' ranges that warrant a different determination of
status.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed wildlife are
discussed in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation and are further
discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
[[Page 61686]]
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
under to section 6 of the Act, the States of Alabama and Florida will
be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of these eight mussel species.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include: The management of and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense
and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; licensing of hydroelectric
dams, and construction and management of gas pipeline and power line
rights-of-way approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
construction and maintenance of roads or highways funded by the Federal
Highway Administration; and land management practices administered by
the Department of Agriculture.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, 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, 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.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for threatened wildlife.
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on planned and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon these eight mussel species, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) and the black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus).
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of these species.
(4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any
stream or water body in which these species are known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Panama City
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 61687]]
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the 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 obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in critical habitat if they contain physical
or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of
the species and (2) which may require special management considerations
or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify,
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those physical and biological
features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Primary constituent elements are the specific elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes,
are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range 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 should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary sources of information include the
articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and
Lovejoy 2005, p.4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial
areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). 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).
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
[[Page 61688]]
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
the 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 and biological features
(PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species, and 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, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe from studies of these species' habitat, ecology, and life
history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed
rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61482), and in the information presented below.
We have determined that Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe require the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe are all historically associated with the Escambia, Yellow,
and Choctawhatchee river drainages in Alabama and Florida. The Alabama
pearlshell is also known from three locations in the Mobile River
Basin; however, only one of those is considered to be currently
occupied. The eight mussels are found embedded in stable substrates
composed mainly of fine to coarse sand, with occasional patches of clay
or gravel (Williams et al. 2008, pp. 32-34), and within areas of
sufficient current velocities to remove finer sediments. These habitats
are formed and maintained by water quantity, channel slope, and normal
sediment input to the system. Changes in one or more of these
parameters can result in channel degradation or channel aggradation,
with serious effects to mussels. The decline of the mussel fauna of
these eastern Gulf Coastal Plain drainages is not well understood, but
is primarily associated with the loss of habitats and channel
instability due to excessive sedimentation (Williams and Butler 1994,
p. 55). Sedimentation has been determined to be a major factor in
habitat destruction, resulting in corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Stable stream bottom substrates not
only provide space for populations of these eight mussel species, but
also provide cover and shelter and sites for breeding, reproduction,
and growth of offspring. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify stream channel stability to be a physical or biological
feature for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
Food
Freshwater mussels, such as these eight species, filter algae,
detritus, and bacteria from the water column (Williams et al. 2008, p.
67). 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). Food availability and quality are
affected by habitat stability, floodplain connectivity, water flow, and
water quality. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
adequate food availability and quality to be a physical or biological
feature for these species.
Water
The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe are riverine species that depend upon adequate water flow.
Continuously flowing water is a habitat feature associated with all of
the eight species. Flowing water maintains the stream bottom habitats
where these species are found, transports food items to the sedentary
juvenile and adult life stages, transports sperm to the adult females,
provides oxygen for respiration, and removes wastes. Populations of the
narrow pigtoe were recently discovered in Gantt and Point A Lakes
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 317), manmade reservoirs on the Conecuh River
mainstem in Alabama. We attribute the occurrence of the species in
these impoundments to the relatively small size of the reservoirs, and
to the operational regime of the dams. As mentioned under Factor A,
both impoundments have limited storage capacity and are operated as
modified run-of-river projects with daily peaking. Therefore, most of
the time, the outflow matches the inflow. Also, some areas in the
reservoirs are narrow and riverine, for instance the area around Dunns
Bridge on Gantt Lake. Here, narrow pigtoe were found in relatively high
numbers in firm, stable sand substrates with little or no silt
accumulation (Williams 2009, pers. comm.; Pursifull 2006, pers. obs.).
Although the natural state of the river's hydrological flow regime is
modified, it does retain the features necessary to maintain the benthic
habitats where the species are found. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify flowing water to be a physical or
biological feature for these eight mussel 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 eight
species 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
each of the eight 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 watershed size, geology, geography, and differences in human
population densities and land uses. In general, each of the species
survives in areas where the magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of water flow are adequate to
[[Page 61689]]
maintain stable 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 relatively unpolluted water and sediments). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify adequate water flow and water quality
(as defined below) to be a physical or biological feature for the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
We currently believe that most numeric standards for pollutants and
water quality parameters (for example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy
metals) that have been adopted by the States under the Clean Water Act
represent levels that are essential to the conservation of each of
these eight mussels. However, some States' standards may not adequately
protect mollusks, or are not being appropriately measured, monitored,
or achieved in some reaches (see Factors A and D above). The Service is
currently in consultation with the EPA to evaluate the protectiveness
of criteria approved in EPA's water quality standards for threatened
and endangered species and their critical habitats as described in the
memorandum of agreement that our agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201,
February 22, 2001). Other factors that can potentially alter water
quality are droughts and periods of low flow, non-point-source runoff
from adjacent land surfaces (for example, excessive amounts of
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides), point-source discharges from
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities (for example,
excessive amounts of ammonia, chlorine, and metals), and random spills
or unregulated discharge events. This could be particularly harmful
during drought conditions when flows are depressed and pollutants are
more concentrated. Therefore, adequate water quality is essential for
normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life stages of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
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).
Thus, the presence of the appropriate host fishes to complete the
reproductive life cycle is essential to the conservation of these eight
mussels. The blacktail shiner was found to serve as a host for the
fuzzy pigtoe and tapered pigtoe in a preliminary study trial (White et
al. 2008, p. 123). This minnow species occurs in a variety of habitats
in drainages throughout the coastal plain (Mettee et al. 1996, pp. 174-
175). The specific host fish(es) for the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and
southern sandshell are not currently known; however, other species of
the same genera are known to parasitize cyprinids (minnows),
centrarchids (sunfish), and percids (darters) (Haag and Warren 2003,
pp. 81-82; Haag and Warren 1997, pp. 580-581, 583; Keller and Ruessler
1997, p. 405; O'Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134; Haag et al. 1999, p.
150). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the
presence of the appropriate host fishes to complete the reproductive
life cycle to be a physical or biological feature for these eight
mussel species.
Juvenile mussels require stable bottom habitats for growth and
survival. Excessive sediments or dense 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, p.
373). Geomorphic instability can result in the loss of habitats and
juvenile mussels due to scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993, p.
138). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify stable
bottom substrate with low to moderate amounts of filamentous algae
growth to be a physical or biological feature for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Eight Mussels
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of these eight mussel species in areas occupied at the
time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements
(PCEs). Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we have determined that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe are:
(1) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation).
(2) Stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand with clay or
gravel with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(3) A hydrologic flow regime (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 habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning
habitat for native fishes.
(4) Water quality, including temperature (not greater than 32
[ordm]C), pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
mg/L), hardness, turbidity, and other chemical characteristics
necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages.
(5) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse assemblages of native fish
species will serve as a potential indication of host fish presence
until appropriate host fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, the presence of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) will serve as a potential indication of fish host presence.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by these species at the
time of listing contain features that are essential to their
conservation and that may require special management considerations or
protections. None of the portions of the critical habitat units for
these species below has been designated as critical habitat for other
mussel species that are already listed under the Act. None of the areas
is presently under special management or protection provided by a
legally operative management plan or agreement for the conservation of
these species.
Many of the threats to the eight mussels and their habitat are
pervasive and common in all of the nine units that we are designating
as critical habitat
[[Page 61690]]
(see below). These include the potential of significant changes in
stream bed material composition and quality by activities such as
construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and other
watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water; the potential of significant alteration of
water chemistry or water quality; the potential of anthropogenic
activities such as channelization, impoundment, and channel excavation
that could cause aggradation or degradation of the channel bed
elevation or significant bank erosion; and the potential of significant
changes in the existing flow regime due to such activities as
impoundment, water diversion, or water withdrawal. Because the areas we
are designating as critical habitat below are facing these threats,
they require special management consideration and protection.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied (that is
those occupied at the time of listing)--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing (2012). We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, that
were historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of
these species.
We began our analysis by considering historical and current ranges
of each of the eight species. Sources of this information include
research published in peer-reviewed articles and books, agency reports,
museum collections, and surveys by biologists (see Background section).
We then identified the specific areas that are occupied by each of the
eight mussels and that contain one or more of the physical or
biological features. We defined occupied habitat as those stream
reaches known to be currently occupied by any of the eight species. To
identify the currently occupied stream reaches, we used survey data
collected from 1995 to 2012. Several surveys were conducted in the
basins between the years of 1995 to 2012 (Shelton 1995 unpub. report;
Shelton 1999 in litt.; Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; Pilarczyk et al.
2006; Shelton et al. 2007 unpub. report; Gangloff and Hartfield 2009;
Gangloff 2010-12, unpub. data). These surveys were used to assess the
current conservation status of the species, and extended their known
ranges. For this reason, we considered the year 1995 to be the
demarcation between historical and current records. To identify
historically occupied stream reaches, we used survey data between the
late 1800s and 1994. Therefore, if a species was known to occur in an
area prior to 1995, but was not collected in the same area since then,
the stream reach is considered historically occupied.
We then evaluated occupied stream reaches to delineate the probable
upstream and downstream extent of each species' distribution. Known
occurrences for some mussel species are extremely localized, and rare
mussels can be difficult to locate. In addition, creek and river
habitats are highly dependent upon upstream and downstream channel
habitat conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, where more than
one occurrence record of a particular species was found within a stream
reach, we considered the entire reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied habitat.
We then considered whether this essential area was adequate for the
conservation of each of the eight species. Small, isolated, aquatic
populations are subject to chance catastrophic events and to changes in
human activities and land use practices that may result in their
elimination. Larger, more contiguous populations can reduce the threat
of extinction due to habitat fragmentation and isolation. For these
reasons, we believe that conservation of the Alabama pearlshell and
southern kidneyshell requires expanding their ranges into currently
unoccupied portions of their historical habitat. Given that threats to
these two species are compounded by their limited distribution and
isolation, it is unlikely that currently occupied habitat is adequate
for their conservation. The range of each has been severely curtailed,
their occupied habitats are limited and isolated, and population sizes
are small. For example, the Alabama pearlshell is no longer believed to
occur in the Limestone Creek system (Monroe County), several
tributaries in the Murder Creek system, or in the Patsaliga Creek
drainage. The southern kidneyshell once occurred in all three river
basins, but is currently known only from the Choctawhatchee basin.
While occupied units provide habitat for current populations, these
species are at high risk of extirpation and extinction from stochastic
events, whether periodic natural events or potential human-induced
events (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The inclusion of
essential unoccupied areas will provide habitat for population
reintroduction and will decrease the risk of extinction. Based on the
best scientific data available, areas not currently occupied by the
Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell are essential for their
conservation, with one exception. We eliminated from consideration the
Yellow River drainage as critical habitat for the southern kidneyshell.
Its occurrence in the Yellow River is based on a 1919 collection of one
specimen from Hollis Creek in Covington County, Alabama. However, we
believe this single, historical collection is not sufficient to support
the conclusion that any portions of the Yellow River drainage are
essential to the conservation of the southern kidneyshell at this time.
Otherwise, all of the stream habitat areas designated as critical
habitat that are currently not known to be occupied contain sufficient
physical or biological features (e.g., geomorphically stable channels,
perennial water flows, adequate water quality, and appropriate benthic
substrates) to support life-history functions of the mussels. The
stream reaches also lack major anthropogenic disturbance, and have
potential for reoccupation by the species through future reintroduction
efforts. Based on the above factors, all unoccupied stream reaches
included in the designations for the Alabama pearlshell and southern
kidneyshell are essential to their conservation.
Following the identification of occupied and unoccupied stream
reaches, the next step was to delineate the probable upstream and
downstream extent of each species' distribution. We used USGS 1:100,000
digital stream maps to delineate the boundaries of critical habitat
units according to the criteria explained below. The upstream boundary
of a unit in a stream is the first perennial, named tributary
confluence; a road-crossing bridge; or a permanent barrier to fish
passage (such as a dam) above the upstream-most current occurrence
record. Many of the Alabama pearlshell survey sites are located near
watershed headwaters. In these areas, the upstream boundary of a unit
is the point where the stream and its tributaries are no longer
perennially flowing streams. The confluence of a
[[Page 61691]]
tributary typically marks a significant change in the size of the
stream and is a logical and recognizable upstream terminus. When a
named tributary was not available, a road-crossing bridge was used to
mark the boundary. Likewise, a dam or other barrier to fish passage
marks the upstream extent to which mussels may disperse via their fish
hosts. The downstream boundary of a unit in a stream is the confluence
of a named tributary, the upstream extent of tidal influence, or the
upstream extent of an impoundment, below the downstream-most occurrence
record. In the unit descriptions, distances between landmarks marking
the upstream or downstream extent of a stream segment are given in
kilometers (km) and equivalent miles (mi), as measured tracing the
course of the stream, not straight-line distance. Distances less than
10 km (6.2 mi) are rounded to the nearest half number, and distances of
10 km (6.2 mi) and greater are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Because mussels are naturally restricted by certain physical
conditions within a stream or river reach (i.e., flow, substrate), they
may be unevenly distributed within these habitat units. Uncertainty on
upstream and downstream distributional limits of some populations may
have resulted in small areas of occupied habitat excluded from, or
areas of unoccupied habitat included in, the designation. We recognize
that both historical and recent collection records upon which we relied
are incomplete, and that there may be river segments or small
tributaries not included in this designation that harbor small, limited
populations of one or more of the eight species considered in this
designation, or that others may become suitable in the future. The
exclusion of such areas does not diminish their potential individual or
cumulative importance to the conservation of these species. However,
with proper management, each of the nine critical habitat units are
capable of supporting one or more of these mussel species, and will
serve as source populations for artificial reintroduction into
designated stream units, as well as assisted or natural migration into
adjacent undesignated streams within each basin. The habitat areas
contained within the units described below constitute our best
evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of these species at
this time. Critical habitat may be revised for any or all of these
species should new information become available.
Using the criteria above, we delineated a total of nine critical
habitat units--two units (AP1, AP2) for the Alabama pearlshell, and
seven Gulf Coast mussels units (GCM1 through GCM7) for one or more of
the other seven mussel species. We depicted the Alabama pearlshell
units separately as this species tends to inhabit headwater stream
environments and seldom co-occurs with the other seven species,
although some critical habitat in the downstream portions of Unit AP2
overlaps with the upstream portions of Unit GCM1 in the Escambia River
drainage. The round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe
often co-occur within the same stream segments, so most of the GCM
critical habitat units are designated for more than one species. Unit
GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs is the only exception,
which is designated for the narrow pigtoe only.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas because
such lands lack physical or biological features for these eight mussel
species. The areas designated as critical habitat listed below include
only stream channels within the ordinary high-water line and do not do
not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways,
dams, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are
located, with the exception of the impoundments created by Point A and
Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not the actual dam structures). The
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological featues in the adjacent critical
habitat.
Units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to support life-history processes of
these eight mussel species. Some units contain all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some segments contain only some elements of the
physical or biological features necessary to support each species'
particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, on our Internet
sites https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see ADDRESSES above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating nine units as critical habitat for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. The occupancy and stream length of designated critical habitat
units by species is shown in Table 10.
Table 10--Occupancy and Stream Length of Designated Critical Habitat Units by Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total stream
length
Unit Currently occupied? kilometers
(miles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1: Big Flat Creek............................ Yes......................................... 92 (57)
AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Partially \1\............................... 155 (96)
Sepulga River.
------------------
[[Page 61692]]
Total...................................... ............................................ 247 (153)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,379)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... No.......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... No.......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... No.......................................... 137 (85)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,975 (1,226)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,397)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,131 (702)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs... Yes......................................... 21 (13)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,112 (690)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,379)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ 17 km (11 mi) of Murder Creek mainstem are unoccupied.
[[Page 61693]]
The designated critical habitat includes the creek and river
channels within the ordinary high-water line only. For this purpose, we
have applied the definition found at 33 CFR 329.11, and consider the
ordinary high-water line on nontidal rivers to be 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.
States were granted ownership of lands beneath navigable waters up
to the ordinary high-water line upon achieving Statehood (Pollard v.
Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior sovereigns or the States may
have made grants to private parties that included lands below the
ordinary high-water mark of some navigable waters that are included in
this rule. Most, if not all, lands beneath the navigable waters
included in this final rule are owned by the States of Alabama and
Florida. The lands beneath most nonnavigable waters included in this
final rule are in private ownership. Riparian lands along the waters
are either in private ownership, or are owned by county, State, or
Federal entities. Lands under county, State, and Federal ownership
consist of managed conservation areas and Department of Defense lands,
and are considered to have some level of protection. The approximate
length of each habitat unit and land ownership is shown in Table 11.
Table 11--Critical Habitat Units, Location, Approximate Stream Length, and Ownership of Riparian Lands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Length km Private/ Managed
Unit Location (mi) Private km (mi)* km (mi)* Managed km (mi)*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1..................................... Big Flat Creek, AL............. 92 (57) 92 (57) 0 0
AP2..................................... Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, 155 (96) 155 (96) 0 0
and Sepulga River, AL.
GCM1.................................... Lower Escambia River, AL, FL... 558 (347) 482 (299) 18 (11) 59 (36)
GCM2.................................... Point A Lake and Gantt Lake 21 (13) 21 (13) 0 0
Reservoirs, AL.
GCM3.................................... Patsaliga Creek, AL............ 149 (92) 149 (92) 0 0
GCM4.................................... Upper Escambia River, AL....... 137 (85) 130 (81) 7 (4) 0
GCM5.................................... Yellow River, AL, FL........... 247 (153) 98 (61) 68 (42) 81 (50)
GCM6.................................... Choctawhatchee River and Lower 897 (557) 718 (446) 61 (38) 119 (74)
Pea River, AL, FL.
GCM7.................................... Upper Pea River, AL............ 234 (145) 228 (142) 0 5 (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlap between units AP2 and GCM1 -85 (53) -85 (53) 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ............................... 2,404 (1,494) 1,987 (1,235) 153 (95) 263 (164)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
* Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private); private on one bank and county, state or federal on the other
(Private/Managed); and county, state, or federal ownership on both banks (Managed).
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for each species, below.
Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage, Alabama
Unit AP1 encompasses 92 km (57 mi) of the Big Flat Creek drainage,
in Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL. The unit is within the Mobile River
basin. It includes the mainstem of Big Flat Creek from State Route 41
upstream 56 km (35 mi), Monroe County, AL; Flat Creek from its
confluence with Big Flat Creek upstream 20 km (12 mi), Monroe County,
AL; and Dailey Creek from its confluence with Flat Creek upstream 17 km
(11 mi), Wilcox County, AL.
Unit AP1 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Alabama pearlshell. Based on collection records,
the species was last collected in the Big Flat Creek system in 1995,
when Shelton (1995, p. 3 unpub. report) documented a fresh dead
individual. Although it is likely that the Alabama pearlshell has
always been rare in Big Flat Creek, the unit currently supports healthy
populations of several other native mussel species, indicating the
presence of essential physical or biological features, and contains
PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. A diverse fish fauna, including potential fish
host(s) for the Alabama pearlshell, are known from the Big Flat Creek
drainage, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and its habitat may require
special management of the physical or biological features including
maintaining natural stream flows and protecting water quality from
excessive point- and non-point-source pollution. For example, runoff
from agricultural and industrial sites can alter water quality through
added nutrients and sediment. Runoff from unpaved roads can also add
sediments, and poorly designed road culverts can degrade habitats and
limit distribution of the species. Some culverts can isolate pearlshell
populations by acting as a barrier for dispersion and movement of host
fish(es).
Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages,
Alabama
Unit AP2 encompasses 155 km (96 mi) of the Burnt Corn Creek, Murder
Creek, and Sepulga River drainages within the Escambia River drainage
in Escambia and Conecuh Counties, AL. It includes the mainstem of Burnt
Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 66 km (41
mi), Conecuh County, AL; the mainstem of Murder Creek from its
confluence with Jordan Creek upstream 17 km (11 mi) to the confluence
of Otter Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence
with Murder Creek upstream 12 km (7 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Otter
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi),
Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek
upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the NOLF Evergreen northern boundary,
Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek from the NOLF Evergreen southern
boundary upstream 3.0 km (1.9 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from
County
[[Page 61694]]
Road 29 upstream 5 km (3.5 mi) to Hagood Road; two unnamed tributaries
to Sandy Creek--one from its confluence with Sandy Creek upstream 8.5
km (5.0 mi) to Hagood Road, and the other from its confluence with the
previous unnamed tributary 2.5 km (1.5 mi) upstream to Hagood Road,
Conecuh County, AL; Little Cedar Creek from County Road 6 upstream 8 km
(5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Amos Mill Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia and Conecuh Counties,
AL; Polly Creek from its confluence with Amos Mill Creek upstream 3 km
(2 mi), Conecuh County, AL; and Bottle Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh
County, AL.
Unit AP2 is mostly within the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing (2012) for the Alabama pearlshell. The Alabama
pearlshell currently occurs in Jordan, Hunter, Otter, Sandy, Little
Cedar, Bottle, and Amos Mill creek drainages. Although it historically
occurred in the mainstem of Murder Creek, it has not been collected
there since 1991. Therefore, this short reach of Murder Creek is
considered unoccupied by the Alabama pearlshell, but essential to the
conservation of the species. This unoccupied reach retains the physical
or biological features of a natural stream channel and supports other
native mussel species. It has potential for reoccupation by the
pearlshell, particularly if threats can be identified and mitigated.
The unit currently supports healthy populations of several other
native mussel species, indicating the elements of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with the
pearlshell. A diverse fish fauna, including potential fish host(s) for
the Alabama pearlshell, are known from these drainages, indicating the
potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and its habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological featues include
alteration and maintenance of natural stream flows (including the
construction of impoundments), and protecting water quality from
excessive point- and non-point-source pollution.
Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River Drainage, Florida and Alabama
Unit GCM1 encompasses 558 km (347 mi) of the lower Escambia River
mainstem and 12 tributary streams in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties,
FL, and Escambia, Covington, Conecuh, and Butler Counties, AL. The unit
consists of the main channel of the Escambia-Conecuh River from the
confluence of Spanish Mill Creek, Escambia and Santa Rosa counties, FL,
upstream 204 km (127 mi) to the Point A Lake dam, Covington County, AL;
Murder Creek from its confluence with the Conecuh River, Escambia
County, AL, upstream 62 km (38 mi) to the confluence of Cane Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Burnt Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek, Escambia County, AL, upstream 59 km (37 mi) to County Road 20,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate 65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to
the confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga
River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route 106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon
Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh and Covington
Counties, upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the confluence of Three Run Creek,
Butler County, AL; and Three Run Creek from its confluence with Pigeon
Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
Unit GCM1 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern
kidneyshell is not currently known to occur in the unit; however, this
portion of the Escambia River system is within the species' historical
range, and we consider it essential to the southern kidneyshell's
conservation due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events. The unit currently supports populations of round
ebonyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or biological
features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, other mussel
species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these five species. A
diverse fish fauna, including potential fish host(s) for the fuzzy
pigtoe, are known from the Escambia River drainage, indicating the
potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the five species and their habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in the existing flow regime and water
quality due to two upstream impoundments. As discussed in Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species, mollusk declines downstream of dams are
associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and
erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and altered water
temperatures, and changes in resident fish assemblages. These
alterations can cause mussel declines for many miles downstream of the
dam.
Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs, Alabama
Unit GCM2 encompasses 21 km (13 mi) of the Point A Lake and Gantt
Lake reservoir system in Covington County, AL. Both lakes are
impoundments on the Conecuh River main channel in the Escambia River
drainage. The unit extends from Point A Lake dam, Covington County
upstream 21 km (13 mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw County line in
Alabama.
Unit GCM2 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the narrow pigtoe. As mentioned in discussion of
essential physical or biological features for the narrow pigtoe, we
attribute its occurrence in these two impoundments to the small size of
the reservoirs and to the operational regime of the dams. This allows
for water movement through the system, and prevents silt accumulation
in some areas. The largest narrow pigtoe population occurs in the
middle reach of Gantt Lake, where the reservoir narrows and becomes
somewhat riverine. Although the natural state of the river's
hydrological flow regime is modified, it does retain the presence of
the physical or biological features necessary to maintain the benthic
habitats where the species are found. The persistence of the narrow
pigtoe within these reservoirs indicates the presence of an appropriate
fish host. Although its fish host(s) is unknown, other mussels of the
genus Fusconaia are known to use cyprinid minnows, fish that occupy a
variety of habitats including large, flowing rivers, and
[[Page 61695]]
lakes and reservoirs (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 128). The unit currently
supports narrow pigtoe populations, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 3, 4,
and 5. We consider the habitat in this unit essential to the
conservation of the narrow pigtoe as it possesses the largest known
population. The fuzzy pigtoe is known historically from this stretch of
the Conecuh River (one specimen was collected in 1915). However, the
collection was made prior to construction of the reservoirs in 1923,
and it is not presently known to occur in this now-impounded section of
the river.
Threats to the narrow pigtoe and its habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in water levels due to periodic
drawdowns of the reservoirs for maintenance to the dams. Within the two
reservoirs, mussels occur in shallow areas near the shore, where they
are susceptible to exposure when water levels are lowered. A drawdown
of Point A Lake in 2005, and Gantt Lake in 2006, exposed and killed a
substantial number of mussels (Johnson 2006 in litt.). During the Gantt
drawdown, 142 individuals of narrow pigtoe were relocated after being
stranded in dewatered areas near the shoreline (Garner 2009 pers.
comm.; Pursifull 2006, pers. obs.).
Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek Drainage, Alabama
Unit GCM3 encompasses 149 km (92 mi) of Patsaliga Creek and two
tributary streams in Covington, Crenshaw, and Pike Counties, AL, within
the Escambia River basin. The unit consists of the Patsaliga Creek
mainstem from its confluence with Point A Lake at County Road 59,
Covington County, AL, upstream 108 km (67 mi) to Crenshaw County Road
66-Pike County Road 1 (the creek is the county boundary), AL; Little
Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 28 km
(17 mi) to Mary Daniel Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and Olustee Creek
from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi) to
County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM3 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not currently known to
occur in the unit; however, this portion of the Patsaliga Creek system
is within the species' historic range. We consider it essential to the
conservation of the southern kidneyshell due to the need to re-
establish the species within other portions of its historic range in
order to reduce threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently
support populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna, including a potential fish host for the
fuzzy pigtoe, are known from the Patsaliga Creek drainage, indicating
the potential presence of PCE 5.
Prior to construction of the Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams in
1923, Patsaliga Creek drained directly to the Conecuh River main
channel. It now empties into Point A Lake and is effectively isolated
from the main channel by the dams. The dams are barriers to upstream
fish movement, particularly to anadromous fishes. Therefore, a
potential threat that may require special management of the physical or
biological features includes the absence of fish hosts.
Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River Drainage, Alabama
Unit GCM4 encompasses 137 km (85 mi) of the Conecuh River mainstem
and two tributary streams in Covington, Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock
Counties, AL, within the Escambia River drainage. The unit consists of
the Conecuh River from its confluence with Gantt Lake reservoir at the
Covington-Crenshaw County line upstream 126 km (78 mi) to County Road
8, Bullock County, AL; Beeman Creek from its confluence with the
Conecuh River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the confluence of Mill Creek,
Pike County, AL; and Mill Creek from its confluence with Beeman Creek,
upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County Road 13, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM4 is is within the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (2012) Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not currently known to occur
in the unit; however, this portion of the Conecuh River is within the
species' historic range, and we consider it to be essential to the
conservation of the southern kidneyshell due to the need to re-
establish the species within other portions of its historic range in
order to reduce threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently
support populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species requiring similar PCEs co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna, including a potential fish host for the
fuzzy pigtoe, are known from the upper Escambia River drainage,
indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
The Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams on the Conecuh River mainstem
are barriers to upstream fish movement, particularly to anadromous
fishes. Therefore, a potential threat that may require special
management of the physical or biological features includes the absence
of fish hosts.
Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage, Florida and Alabama
Unit GCM5 encompasses 247 km (153 mi) of the Yellow River mainstem,
the Shoal River mainstem, and three tributary streams in Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, FL, and Covington County, AL. The unit
consists of the Yellow River from the confluence of Weaver River (a
tributary located 0.9 km (0.6 mi), downstream of State Route 87), Santa
Rosa County, FL, upstream 157 km (97 mi) to County Road 42, Covington
County, AL; the Shoal River from its confluence with the Yellow River,
Okaloosa County, FL, upstream 51 km (32 mi) to the confluence of Mossy
Head Branch, Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its confluence with
Shoal River, Okaloosa County, FL, upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton County, FL; and Five Runs Creek
from its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to
County Road 31, Covington County, AL.
Unit GCM5 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell was known from the Yellow
River drainage; however, its occurrence in the basin is based on the
collection of one specimen in 1919 from Hollis Creek in Alabama. We
believe this single, historical record is not sufficient to consider
this unit as essential to the conservation of the southern kidneyshell.
Therefore, we are not designating Unit GCM5 as critical habitat for the
southern kidneyshell at this time. The unit does currently support
populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna are known from the Yellow River
[[Page 61696]]
drainage, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River Drainages, Florida
and Alabama
Unit GCM6 encompasses 897 km (557 mi) of the Choctawhatchee River
mainstem, the lower Pea River mainstem, and 29 tributary streams in
Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and Jackson Counties, FL, and Geneva,
Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and Barbour Counties, AL. The unit
consists of the Choctawhatchee River from the confluence of Pine Log
Creek, Walton County, FL, upstream 200 km (125 mi) to the point the
river splits into the West Fork Choctawhatchee and East Fork
Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour County, AL; Pine Log Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Walton County, upstream 19 km
(12 mi) to the confluence of Ditch Branch, Washington and Bay Counties,
FL; an unnamed channel forming Cowford Island from its downstream
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2 mi) to its
upstream confluence with the river, Washington County, FL; Crews Lake
from its western terminus 1.5 km (1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is a relic channel southwest of
Cowford Island, and is disconnected from the Cowford Island channel,
except during high flows); Holmes Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Washington County, FL, upstream 98 km (61 mi) to
County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator Creek from its confluence
with Holmes Creek upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road 166, Washington
County, FL; Bruce Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River upstream 25 km (16 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed tributary,
Walton County, FL; Sandy Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Walton County, FL, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of West Sandy Creek, Holmes and Walton County, FL; Blue
Creek from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to
the confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Sandy Creek
from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the
confluence of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Wrights Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes County, FL,
upstream 43 km (27 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Tenmile
Creek from its confluence with Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi) to
the confluence of Rice Machine Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Pittman
Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6.5 km
(4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes County, FL; East Pittman Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to
County Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to Tommy Lane,
Holmes County, FL; the Pea River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to the
Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL; Limestone Creek from its confluence with
the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5 mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream 17 km (10 mi) to the confluence
of Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL; Eightmile Creek from its
confluence with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL, upstream 15 km (9 mi) to
the confluence of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream of County Road
181), Walton County, FL; Corner Creek from its confluence with
Eightmile Creek upstream 5 km (3 mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its confluence with Eightmile Creek
Geneva County, AL, upstream, 4 km (2.5 mi) to the Covington-Geneva
County line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the
confluence of Blanket Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream
22 km (14 mi) to the Fort Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary, upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road 36,
Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road
156, Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and Houston Counties upstream 20 km (13 mi)
to the confluence of Newton Creek, Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5
km (2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill Branch, Houston County,
AL; Bear Creek from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee
River, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner Street),
Houston County, AL; West Fork Choctawhatchee River from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km (33 mi)
to the fork of Paul's Creek and Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL; Judy
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
17 km (11 mi) to County Road 13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from its
confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL,
upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State Route 10, Barbour County, AL; Paul's
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
7 km (4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of County Road 20, Barbour County,
AL; Lindsey Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee
River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Barbour County, AL; an unnamed tributary to Lindsey Creek
from its confluence with Lindsey Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0
mile upstream of County Road 53, Barbour County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River,
Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km (44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
Unit GCM6 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently
supports populations of the five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3,
and 4. In addition, other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-
occur with these five species. A diverse fish fauna is known from the
Choctawhatchee River, including a potential fish host for the fuzzy
pigtoe and tapered pigtoe, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
Not included in this unit are two oxbow lakes now disconnected from
the Choctawhatchee River main channel in Washington County, Florida.
Horseshoe Lake has a record of southern kidneyshell from 1932, and
Crawford Lake has records of Choctaw bean and tapered pigtoe from 1934.
It is possible these oxbow lakes had some connection to the main
channel when the collections were made over 75 years ago. The three
species are not currently known to occur in Horseshoe or Crawford
lakes, and we do not consider them essential to the conservation of the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, or tapered pigtoe.
Threats to the five species and their habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in the existing
[[Page 61697]]
flow regime and water quality due to the Elba Dam on the Pea River
mainstem. As discussed in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
mollusk declines downstream of dams are associated with changes and
fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels and altered water temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages. These alterations can cause mussel declines for many
miles downstream of the dam.
Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River Drainage, Alabama
Unit GCM7 encompasses 234 km (145 mi) of the upper Pea River
mainstem and six tributary streams in Coffee, Dale, Pike, Barbour, and
Bullock Counties, AL. This unit is within the Choctawhatchee River
basin and includes the stream segments upstream of the Elba Dam. The
unit consists of the Pea River from the Elba Dam, Coffee County,
upstream 123 km (76 mi) to State Route 239, Bullock and Barbour
Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its confluence with the Pea River,
Coffee County upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the confluence of Walnut Creek,
Pike County, AL; Walnut Creek from its confluence with Whitewater Creek
upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road 26, Pike County, AL; Big Creek
(Coffee County) from its confluence with Whitewater Creek, Coffee
County, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the confluence of Smart Branch, Pike
County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County) from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence of Sand Creek, Barbour
County, AL; Pea Creek from its confluence with the Pea River upstream 6
km (4 mi) to the confluence of Hurricane Creek, Barbour County, AL; and
Big Sandy Creek from its confluence with the Pea River upstream 6.5 km
(4 mi) to County Road 14, Bullock County, AL.
Unit GCM7 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently
supports populations of the five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3,
and 4. In addition, other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-
occur with these five species. A diverse fish fauna is known from the
upper Pea River, including potential fish host(s) for the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
The Elba Dam on the Pea River mainstem is a barrier to upstream
fish movement, particularly to anadromous fishes. Therefore, a
potential threat that may require special management of the physical or
biological feature includes the absence of potential host fishes.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have
invalidated our regulatory 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, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (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 continue to serve its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not
require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 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, or
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 and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of 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 sometimes may need to 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.
[[Page 61698]]
Application of the ``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. 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 Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs and provide
for the conservation of these species.
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 these eight mussel species include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter channel geomorphology.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging,
desnagging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities
may lead to changes in water flows and levels that would degrade or
eliminate the mussels or their fish host and/or their habitats. These
actions can also lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in
water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the mussels
or their fish host.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to
impoundment, water diversion, water withdrawal, water draw-down, and
hydropower generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the
habitat necessary for growth and reproduction of these mussels.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry,
quality, or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated
effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point
source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities
could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances
of the mussels or their fish host and result in direct or cumulative
adverse affects to these individuals 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,
and other watershed 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 mussels by
causing excessive sedimentation and burial of the species or their
habitats, or nutrification leading to excessive filamentous algal
growth. Excessive filamentous algal growth can cause reduced nighttime
dissolved oxygen levels through respiration, and prevent juvenile
mussels from settling into stream sediments.
Exemptions
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. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
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.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe to determine
if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Fort Rucker
The U.S. Army-operated Fort Rucker Aviation Center, located in
Daleville, Alabama, owns lands that include portions of the proposed
critical habitat designation (specifically unit GCM6, Choctawhatchee
River and Lower Pea River Drainage). Portions of Claybank and Steep
Head creeks are on lands within the Fort Rucker military reservation.
Fort Rucker has completed an INRMP (US Army 2009) that guides
conservation activities on the installation through 2014. The INRMP
specifically addresses maintaining and improving water quality through
reduction in sedimentation and erosion control, land management
practices, and improved treatment facilities. (US Army 2009, pp. 82-83,
90, 128-129). In addition, the INRMP will be updated to incorporate the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Fort Rucker INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the species occurring
in habitats within or downstream of the Fort Rucker military
reservation. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)
[[Page 61699]]
of the Act. We are not including approximately 25 km (16 mi) of stream
habitat in this critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
NAS Whiting Field Complex
The U.S. Navy owns lands that include portions of the proposed
critical habitat designation in unit AP2. A segment of Hunter Creek is
on lands within the boundaries of Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting
Field's Navy Outlying Field (NOLF) Evergreen located in Conecuh County,
Alabama. The NAS Whiting Field Complex has completed an INRMP
(Department of the Navy 2006) that guides conservation activities on
the installation through 2016. The INRMP specifically addresses
improving water quality through vegetative buffers, stormwater and
pesticide management, erosion control, and land management practices
(Department of the Navy 2006, pp. 5.4-5.6, 5.15-5.26). In addition, the
INRMP will be updated to incorporate the Alabama pearlshell.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the NAS Whiting Field INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the Alabama
pearlshell occurring in habitats within or adjacent to NOLF Evergreen.
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of stream habitat in this
final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Other Department of Defense Lands
Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), located in Niceville, Florida, owns the
lands adjacent to the critical habitat designation (specifically unit
GCM5, Yellow River Drainage). The lower portions of the Shoal and
Yellow rivers form the northwestern boundary of the military
reservation. However, no portions of stream or river channels
designated as critical habitat occur within the boundary of the
military reservation, and therefore Eglin AFB lands are not exempted.
These reaches are also currently designated critical habitat for the
threatened Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) (68 FR 13370,
March 19, 2033).
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to 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 statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, is clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area
from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA)
of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (77 FR
18173). The draft analysis, dated March 5, 2012, was made available for
public review March 27, 2012, through April 26, 2012 (77 FR 18173).
Following the close of the comment period, a final analysis (FEA)
(dated May 24, 2012) of the potential economic effects of the
designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments
and any new information (Industrial Economics 2012).
The intent of the economic analysis is to quantify the economic
impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe;
some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, considering protections already in place for the species
(e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks at
baseline impacts incurred from the listing of the species, and
forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur with
the designation of critical habitat. For a further description of
analysis methods, see the ``Framework for the Analysis'' section of the
FEA.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks at costs that will be
incurred once listed, and considers those costs that may occur in the
20 years following the designation of critical habitat, which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The final
economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of conservation efforts
for these eight species associated with the following categories of
activity: (1)
[[Page 61700]]
Impoundments, dams, and diversions; (2) dredging, channelization, and
instream mining; (3) transportation and utilities; (4) residential and
commercial development; (5) timber management, agriculture, and
grazing; and (6) oil wells/drilling.
The FEA states that the present value of total incremental cost of
critical habitat designation is estimated to be $1.70 million over the
analysis timeframe (2012 to 2031), applying a 7 percent discount rate
or $147,000 annually. 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, with
little planned economic activity, the Service and contacted
stakeholders do not anticipate that designation of critical habitat for
these mussels will have substantial impact on economic activity. The
majority of the incremental impacts (67 percent) are related to road
and bridge construction and maintenance projects. Specifically, over
the 30-year timeframe of the FEA, the Alabama Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) expect 208 road and bridge maintenance and resurfacing projects
will occur in the region, and ADOT and FDOT will, therefore, conduct
section 7 consultations with the Service when roadways cross streams
designated as critical habitat. In Alabama, data were not available to
determine the number of road crossings in critical habitat, and this
likely results in an overestimate of impacts to transportation projects
in Alabama.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exerting his discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for these eight species based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents may
be obtained by contacting the Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES)
or by downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those Department of
Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to
the Alabama pearlshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. We have also determined
that the remaining lands within the designation of critical habitat for
the species are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas
from this final designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or
other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe, and the final
designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this final
designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 must 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. SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), 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 (13 CFR 121.201). 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
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if 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.
[[Page 61701]]
To determine if the designation of critical habitat for the eight
mussel species will affect a substantial number of small entities, we
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types
of economic activities (e.g., governments (counties), development, and
dredging). 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 the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe. 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 critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of the eight mussels
and the designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the
estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as described in
Chapters 2 through 4 and Appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the
potential for economic impacts related to: (1) Impoundments, dams, and
diversions; (2) dredging, channelization, and in-stream mining; (3)
transportation and utilities; (4) residential and commercial
development; (5) timber management, agriculture, and grazing; and (6)
oil wells/drilling.
According to the final economic analysis, 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 economic analysis evaluated the incremental impacts of
designating critical habitat for these eight mussels over the next 20
years (2012-2031), 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 20-year
timeframe. This analysis estimates that 7 small governments, 20 small
development-related entitities, and 4 small dredging-related entities
are likely to incur administrative costs as third parties associated
with section 7 consultation. Applying a 7 percent discount rate,
incremental impacts associated with the designation are estimated to
represent less than 1 percent of the annual revenues each small entity.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would 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 Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe 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
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 (E.O.
13211; ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing
this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated
with the 8 mussels conservation activities within critical habitat are
not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) 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, or 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; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children 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 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
[[Page 61702]]
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions do not 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 critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any
programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities
must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical
habitat. The final economic analysis concludes incremental impacts may
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for
activities related to impoundments and dams, development, and dredging
projects; however, these are not expected to significantly affect small
government entities. Consequently, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
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 Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe in a takings implications assessment. As
discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only
Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or 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.
The majority of the designation occurs in navigable waterways whose
stream bottoms are owned by the States of Alabama and Florida. Impacts
of this designation could occur on non-Federal riparian lands adjacent
to the designated streams where there is Federal involvement (e.g.,
Federal funding or permitting) subject to section 7 of the Act, or
where a decision on a proposed action on federally owned land could
affect economic activity on adjoining non-Federal land. However, in
general, we believe that the takings implications associated with this
critical habitat designation will be insignificant. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for these eight mussels does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Florida. We
received comments from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and have addressed them in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section of this rule. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait 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) will 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 Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in 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 elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of these species.
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, 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals
[[Page 61703]]
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under 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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
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 controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time
of listing (2012) that contain the features essential for the
conservation, and no unoccupied Tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation, of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. Therefore, none of the designated critical
habitat for these species is on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Panama City Field
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Panama City Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Bean, Choctaw,''
``Ebonyshell, round,'' ``Kidneyshell, southern,'' ``Pearlshell,
Alabama'', ``Pigtoe, fuzzy'', ``Pigtoe, narrow'', ``Pigtoe, tapered'',
and ``Sandshell, southern'' in alphabetical order under ``CLAMS'' to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Clams
* * * * * * *
Bean, Choctaw.................... Villosa choctawensis U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
* * * * * * *
Ebonyshell, round................ Fusconaia rotulata.. U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
* * * * * * *
Kidneyshell, southern............ Ptychobranchus U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
jonesi.
* * * * * * *
Pearlshell, Alabama.............. Margaritifera U.S.A. (AL)......... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
marrianae.
* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, fuzzy.................... Pleurobema U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA
strodeanum.
* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, narrow................... Fusconaia escambia.. U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA
* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, tapered.................. Fusconaia burkei.... U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA
* * * * * * *
Sandshell, southern.............. Hamiota australis... U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61704]]
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for eight
mussel species in four northeastern Gulf of Mexico drainages,
immediately before the entry for ``Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema
hanleyianum)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Eight mussel species in four northeast Gulf of Mexico drainages:
the Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), Alabama
pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), tapered pigtoe
(Fusconaia burkei), and southern sandshell (Hamiota australis).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for the following counties:
(i) Alabama. Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington,
Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, and Pike
Counties.
(ii) Florida. Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa,
Walton, and Washington Counties.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe consist of five components:
(i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand with clay or
gravel with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(iii) A hydrologic flow regime (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 habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning
habitat for native fishes.
(iv) Water quality, including temperature (not greater than 32
[deg]C), pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
milligrams per liter), hardness, turbidity, and other chemical
characteristics necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages.
(v) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse assemblages of native fish
species will serve as a potential indication of host fish presence
until appropriate host fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, the presence of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) will serve as a potential indication of fish host presence.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, dams, roads, and other paved areas) and
the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries
on November 9, 2012, with the exception of the impoundments created by
Point A and Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not the actual dam
structures).
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created with USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) GIS data. The
1:100,000 river reach (route) files were used to calculate river
kilometers and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 9.3.1 software was used to determine
longitude and latitude coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units was Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM), NAD 83, Zone 16 North. The following data sources were
referenced to identify features (like roads and streams) used to
delineate the upstream and downstream extents of critical habitat
units: NHD data, Washington County USFWS National Wetlands Inventory,
1999 Florida Department of Transportation Roads Characteristics
Inventory (RCI) dataset, U.S. Census Bureau 2000 TIGER line waterbody
data, ESRIs World Street Map Service, Florida Department of
Transportation General Highway Maps, DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The maps in this entry, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's
internet site, https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity, https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index maps follow (Map 1 for the Alabama pearlshell, and Map 2
for the round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe):
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 61705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.000
[[Page 61706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.001
(6) Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage, Monroe and Wilcox Counties,
AL. This unit is critical habitat for the Alabama pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of Big Flat Creek from State
Route 41 upstream 56 kilometers (km) (35 miles (mi)), Monroe County,
AL; Flat Creek from its confluence with Big Flat Creek upstream 20 km
(12 mi), Monroe County, AL; and Dailey Creek from its confluence Flat
Creek upstream 17 km (11 mi), Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River drainages, follows:
[[Page 61707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(7) Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River.
Drainages, Escambia and Conecuh Counties, AL. This unit is critical
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of Burnt Corn Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek upstream 66 km (41 mi), Conecuh County,
AL; the mainstem of Murder Creek from its confluence with Jordan Creek
upstream 17 km (11 mi) to the confluence of Otter Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream
12 km (7 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Otter Creek from its confluence with
Murder Creek, upstream 9 km (5.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek
from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the
Navy Outlying Field (NOLF) Evergreen northern boundary, Conecuh County,
AL; Hunter Creek from the NOLF Evergreen southern boundary upstream 3.0
km (1.9 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from County Road 29
upstream 5 km (3.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; two unnamed tributaries to
Sandy Creek--one from its confluence with Sandy Creek upstream 8.5 km
(5.0 mi) to just above Hagood Road, and the other from it confluence
with the previous unnamed tributary upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to just
above Hagood Road; Little Cedar Creek from County Road 6 upstream 8 km
(5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Amos Mill Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia and Conecuh Counties,
AL; Polly Creek from its confluence with Amos Mill Creek upstream 3 km
(2 mi), Conecuh County, AL; and Bottle Creek from its
[[Page 61708]]
confluence with the Sepulga River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages is provided at
paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River Drainage in Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties, FL, and Escambia, Covington, Conecuh, and Butler
Counties, AL. This unit is critical habitat for the round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Escambia-Conecuh River mainstem from the
confluence of Spanish Mill Creek Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, FL,
upstream 204 km (127 mi) to the Point A Lake dam, Covington County, AL;
Murder Creek from its confluence with the Conecuh River, Escambia
County, AL, upstream 62 km (38 mi) to the confluence of Cane Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Burnt Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek, Escambia County, AL, upstream 59 km (37 mi) to County Road 20,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate 65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to
the confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga
River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route 106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon
Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh and Covington
Counties, upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the confluence of Three Run Creek,
Butler County, AL; and Three Run Creek from its confluence with Pigeon
Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM1, Lower Escambia River, follows (to preserve
detail, the map is divided into south and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 61709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.003
[[Page 61710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.004
(9) Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs in Covington
County, AL. This unit is critical habitat for the narrow pigtoe.
(i) The unit extends from Point A Dam, Covington County, upstream
21 km (13 mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw County line, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM2, Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs,
follows:
[[Page 61711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.005
(10) Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek Drainage in Covington, Crenshaw,
and Pike Counties, AL. The Patsaliga Creek drainage is within the
Escambia River basin. This unit is critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with
Point A Lake at County Road 59, Covington County, AL, upstream 108 km
(67 mi) to Crenshaw County Road 66-Pike County Road 1, AL; Little
Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 28 km
(17 mi) to Mary Daniel Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and Olustee Creek
from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi) to
County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM3, Patsaliga Creek Drainage follows:
[[Page 61712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.006
(11) Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River Drainage in Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock Counties, AL. This unit is critical habitat
for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Conecuh River from its confluence with
Gantt Lake reservoir at the Covington-Crenshaw County line upstream 126
km (78 mi) to County Road 8, Bullock County, AL; Beeman Creek from its
confluence with the Conecuh River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the
confluence of Mill Creek, Pike County, AL; and Mill Creek from its
confluence with Beeman Creek, upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County Road 13,
Pike County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM 4, Upper Escambia River Drainage, follows:
[[Page 61713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.007
(12) Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and
Walton Counties, FL, and Covington County, AL. This unit is critical
habitat for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Yellow River mainstem from the confluence
of Weaver River (a distributary located 0.9 km (0.6 mi), downstream of
State Route 87), Santa Rosa County, FL, upstream 157 km (97 mi) to
County Road 42, Covington County, AL; the Shoal River mainstem from its
confluence with the Yellow River upstream 51 km (32 mi) to the
confluence of Mossy Head Branch, Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its
confluence with the Shoal River upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton County, FL; and Five Runs Creek
from its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to
County Road 31, Covington County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM5, Yellow River Drainage, follows:
[[Page 61714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(13) Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River Drainages
in Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and Jackson Counties, FL, and
Geneva, Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and Barbour Counties, AL.
This unit is critical habitat for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Choctawhatchee River mainstem from the
confluence of Pine Log Creek, Walton County, FL, upstream 200 km (125
mi) to the point the river splits into the West Fork Choctawhatchee and
East Fork Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour County, AL; Pine Log Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Walton County,
upstream 19 km (12 mi) to Ditch Branch, Washington and Bay Counties,
FL; an unnamed channel forming Cowford Island from its downstream
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2 mi) to its
upstream confluence with the river, Washington County, FL; Crews Lake
from its western terminus 1.5 km (1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is a relic channel southwest of
Cowford Island, and is disconnected from the Cowford Island channel,
except during high flows); Holmes Creek from its
[[Page 61715]]
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Washington County, FL,
upstream 98 km (61 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator
Creek from its confluence with Holmes Creek upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to
County Road 166, Washington County, FL; Bruce Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 25 km (16 mi) to the confluence
of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of West Sandy Creek, Holmes and Walton Counties, FL; Blue
Creek from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to
the confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Sandy Creek
from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the
confluence of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Wrights Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes County, FL,
upstream 43 km (27 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Tenmile
Creek from its confluence with Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi) to
the confluence of Rice Machine Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Pittman
Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, upstream 6.5
km (4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes County, FL; East Pittman Creek from
its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to
County Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to Tommy Lane,
Holmes County, FL; the Pea River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to the
Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL; Limestone Creek from its confluence with
the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5 mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream 17 km (10 mi) to the confluence
of Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL; Eightmile Creek from its
confluence with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL, upstream 15 km (9 mi) to
the confluence of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream of County Road
181), Walton County, FL; Corner Creek from its confluence with
Eightmile Creek, upstream 5 km (3 mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its confluence with Eightmile Creek,
Geneva County, AL, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to the Covington-Geneva
County line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the
confluence of Blanket Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream
22 km (14 mi) to the Fort Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary, upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road 36,
Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road
156, Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and Houston Counties, upstream 20 km (13 mi)
to the confluence of Newton Creek, Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with Little Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5 km
(2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill Branch, Houston County, AL;
Bear Creek from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee River,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner Street), Houston
County, AL; West Fork Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km (33 mi) to the
fork of Pauls Creek and Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL; Judy Creek
from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream 17 km
(11 mi) to County Road 13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from its
confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River Dale County, AL,
upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State Route 10, Barbour County, AL; Pauls
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
7 km (4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of County Road 20, Barbour County,
AL; Lindsey Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee
River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Barbour County, AL; an unnamed tributary to Lindsey Creek
from its confluence with Lindsey Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0
mile upstream of County Road 53, Barbour County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River,
Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km (44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM6, Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River
Drainages, follows (to preserve detail, the map is divided into south,
central, and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 61716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.009
[[Page 61717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.010
[[Page 61718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.011
(14) Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River Drainage in Coffee, Dale, Pike,
Barbour, and Bullock Counties, AL. The Pea River drainage is within the
Choctawhatchee River Basin. This unit is critical habitat for the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Pea River mainstem from the Elba Dam,
Coffee County, upstream 123 km (76 mi) to State Route 239, Bullock and
Barbour Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River, Coffee County, upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the confluence of
Walnut Creek, Pike County, AL; Walnut Creek from its confluence with
Whitewater Creek upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road 26, Pike County,
AL; Big Creek (Coffee County) from its confluence with Whitewater
Creek, Coffee County, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the confluence of Smart
Branch, Pike County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County) from its confluence
with the Pea River upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence of Sand
Creek, Barbour County, AL; Pea Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to the confluence of Hurricane Creek,
Barbour County, AL; and Big Sandy Creek from its confluence with the
Pea River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road 14, Bullock County, AL.
[[Page 61719]]
(ii) Map of Unit GCM7, Upper Pea River Drainage, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.012
* * * * *
Dated: September 20, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24161 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P