[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31866-31874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13687]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AX01


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the Tulotoma Snail From Endangered to Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify 
the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to threatened, 
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). This action is based on a review of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, which indicates that the endangered 
designation no longer correctly reflects the status of this snail.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule are 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson Ecological 
Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 
39213 (telephone 601-321-1122; facsimile 601-965-4340).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213-7856 (telephone 601-321-1122; 
facsimile 601-965-4340). Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of a final rule to 
reclassify the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to 
threatened, under the authority of the Act.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the reclassification of the tulotoma snail from endangered to 
threatened. For information on our proposed

[[Page 31867]]

determination, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35424).
    The tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica), henceforth ``tulotoma,'' 
is a gill-breathing, operculate snail in the family Viviparidae. 
Operculate means that the snail has a rounded plate that seals the 
mouth of the shell while the snail is inside. The shell is spherical 
and can reach a size somewhat larger than a golf ball, and typically 
ornamented with spiral lines of knob-like structures (Herschler et al. 
1990, p. 815). Its adult size and ornamentation distinguish it from all 
other freshwater snails in the Coosa-Alabama River system.
    The tulotoma is found only in the State of Alabama. It was 
described from the Alabama River in 1834 by T.A. Conrad, and collection 
records indicate a historical range of around 563 kilometers (km) (350 
miles (mi)) in the Coosa and Alabama River drainages of Alabama from 
the Coosa River in St. Clair and Calhoun Counties, Alabama, to the 
Alabama River in Monroe County, Alabama (Herschler et al. 1990, pp. 
815-817). Historical collection localities in the Coosa River system 
included numerous sites on the river itself as well as the lower 
reaches of several of its large tributaries in St. Clair, Calhoun, 
Talladega, Shelby, Chilton, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama 
(Herschler et al. 1990, pp. 815-817). In the Alabama River system, the 
tulotoma was recorded only from two collection localities: The type 
locality near Claiborne, Monroe County, Alabama, and Chilachee Creek 
southwest of Selma, Dallas County, Alabama (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 
815).
    Tulotoma occur in cool, well-oxygenated, clean, free-flowing 
streams, including rivers and the lower portions of the rivers' larger 
tributaries (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 822). This species is generally 
found in shoals (a shallow place in a body of water) and riffles (a 
rocky shoal lying just below the surface of the water) with moderate to 
strong currents. Although this species is typically associated with 
shoals and riffles, it inhabits rivers that rise and fall, and tulotoma 
have been collected at depths more than 5 meters (m) (15 feet (ft)) 
(Hartfield 1991, p. 7). The species is strongly associated with 
boulder, cobble, and bedrock stream bottoms and is generally found 
clinging tightly to the underside of large rocks or between cracks in 
bedrock (Christman et al. 1996, p. 28). Historical habitats included 
large coastal plain river, large high-gradient rivers, and multiple 
upland tributary streams.
    Based on a study of the tulotoma life history in the Coosa River 
below Jordan Dam, Elmore County, Alabama, tulotoma produce live-born 
offspring year round, but reproduction peaks during the months of May 
to July, and at sizes of about 3 to 5 millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.2 
inches (in)) height of last whorl (HLW) or coil in a tulotoma shell 
(Christman et al. 1996, pp. 45-59). They grow rapidly during their 
first year reaching sizes of 11 to 14 mm (0.4 to 0.5 in), with females 
producing an average of 16 offspring in their second year (Christman et 
al. 1996, pp. 45-59). Females that live beyond their second year grow 
more slowly and produce an average of 28 juveniles per year (Christman 
et al.1996, pp. 45-59); few tulotoma survived longer than 2 years of 
life in the lower Coosa River (Christman et al. 1996, p. 61).
    At the time of listing in 1991, the tulotoma was known from five 
localized areas in the lower Coosa River drainage (56 FR 797; January 
9, 1991). These included approximately a 3-kilometer (km) (1.8-mile 
(mi)) reach (section of river) of the lower Coosa River between Jordan 
Dam and the City of Wetumpka (Elmore County, Alabama) and short reaches 
of four tributaries: 2 km (1.2 mi) of Kelly Creek (St. Clair and Shelby 
Counties, Alabama), 4 km (2.4 mi) of Weogufka Creek, and 3 km (1.8 mi) 
of Hatchet Creek (Coosa County, Alabama), and from a single shoal on 
Ohatchee Creek (Calhoun County, Alabama) (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 
819). Each river reach is considered a population, and a population can 
contain one or more colonies. A colony is defined as the tulotoma found 
under one rock or several adjacent rocks. A site is considered a 
specific location within the river reach, where specific colonies are 
located.
    Spatial distribution and trends of four of these five tulotoma 
populations (all populations except Ohatchee Creek) were monitored 
annually between 1992 and 1995, and again in 1999, and 2004 (DeVries 
2005, p. 3). The lower Coosa River population has expanded throughout a 
10-km (6-mi) reach (Hartfield 1991, Christman et al. 1996, pp. 23-25; 
DeVries 2005, p. 14), and the species' numbers in this reach are 
estimated at more than 100 million tulotoma (Christman et al. 1996, p. 
59). Habitat in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam has improved and 
expanded due to implementation of a minimum flow regime below the dam 
and installation of an aeration system (Christman et al. 1996, p. 59; 
Grogan 2005, p. 3).
    Colony size and distribution of tulotoma within the tributaries 
have been monitored and appear to be stable within a 13.7-km (8.5-mi) 
reach of Weogufka Creek, a 14-km (8.8-mi) reach of Hatchet Creek, and a 
5.8-km (3.6-mi) reach of Kelly Creek (DeVries 2005, pp.11-13). Habitat 
conditions within these three tributaries appear to have remained 
stable since listing (DeVries 2005, p. 4; 2008, pp. 5-9). The Kelly 
Creek tulotoma population has expanded into suitable habitat in an 
approximately 8-km (5-mi) reach of the middle Coosa River above and 
below the confluence of Kelly Creek (Garner 2003, Powell 2005, Lochamy 
2005), likely as a result of implementation of pulsing flows below 
Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen levels (Krotzer 2008).
    No tulotoma have been rediscovered from the Ohatchee Creek shoal 
population for 15 years, and it is now believed to be extirpated 
(DeVries 2005, pp. 10). Impacts of nonpoint source pollution at the 
Ohatchee shoal, including excessive sedimentation and algal growth, 
have been observed (Hartfield 1992).
    Since its listing in 1991, tulotoma populations have also been 
located at six additional locations: Three in the Coosa River drainage 
and three in the Alabama River. (Garner 2003, 2006, 2008; DeVries 2005, 
p. 7; Johnson 2008). In the lower Coosa River drainage the tulotoma has 
been discovered surviving in a 0.8-km (0.5-mi) reach of Choccolocco 
Creek, a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek, and about 2 km 
(1.2 mi) of Weoka Creek (DeVries 2005, pp. 10-13). The tulotoma 
population's range, colony size, and habitat in Choccolocco Creek have 
remained relatively stable since monitoring began in 1995 (DeVries 
2005, p. 4). Tulotoma colony sizes in Weoka Creek have reached higher 
densities than any other tributary population; however, population 
trends have been monitored for only 3 years (DeVries 2005, p. 5). The 
Yellowleaf Creek tulotoma population is extremely localized (found in a 
small area in the creek that is isolated from other populations) and 
has not been monitored; however, occasional spot checks show the 
species continues to persist (Johnson 2006).
    The other three new populations were discovered in the Alabama 
River, one below each of three dams: Claiborne Lock and Dam (one 
colony), R.F. Henry Lock and Dam (three colonies), and Millers Ferry 
Lock and Dam (one colony). A single localized colony was discovered 
near the type locality in the lower Alabama River below Claiborne Lock 
and Dam, Monroe County, Alabama (Garner 2006). Additionally, dead 
tulotoma shells were found in appropriate habitat over a 1.6-km (1.0-
mi) reach of the Alabama River (Garner

[[Page 31868]]

2006). During the summer of 2008, two colonies were located near Selma, 
Dallas County, Alabama (Johnson 2008), and a single robust (healthy or 
vigorous) colony containing approximately 150 tulotoma was discovered 
below R.F. Henry Lock and Dam, Autauga and Lowndes Counties, Alabama 
(Garner 2008). Both juvenile and adult tulotoma were present at the 
three sites. A single localized colony was also discovered below 
Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Wilcox County, Alabama (Powell 2008). For 
additional details about the expansion of the tulotoma range, see the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, below.

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for this species prior to June 22, 2010, are 
outlined in our proposed rule for this reclassification (75 FR 35424). 
Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which 
closed on August 23, 2010.

Recovery Achieved

    Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead 
intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed 
species, define criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is 
achieved, and provide guidance to our Federal, State, other 
governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods to minimize 
threats to listed species. There are many paths to accomplishing 
recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all 
criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be 
exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that 
instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently 
and the species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to 
threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be 
discovered that were not known when the recovery plan was finalized. 
These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the 
recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that 
was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new 
information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for 
recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic 
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully 
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    In 1994, the recovery goal, criteria, and tasks for the tulotoma 
were first proposed in the Technical/Agency Draft Mobile River Basin 
Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Technical Draft Recovery Plan) (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, p. 21). The Technical Draft Recovery 
Plan stated that the tulotoma could be reclassified to threatened 
status when a population study, in progress at the time, documented a 
stable or increasing population size due to flow and habitat 
improvements in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam (Devries 2005).
    The 1994 draft plan received wide review and interest, which 
resulted in the formation of the Mobile River Aquatic Ecosystem 
Coalition (Ecosystem Coalition), formed by representatives of State and 
Federal agencies, and business and citizen groups from throughout the 
Mobile River Basin. The first task of the Ecosystem Coalition was to 
produce a draft of an ecosystem plan addressing all listed aquatic 
species in the Mobile River Basin. By the time the final Mobile River 
Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) was published 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), studies had been completed 
showing that the status of tulotoma in the Coosa River had improved 
considerably due to habitat improvements (Christman et al. 1996, 
DeVries 2005). Therefore, the recovery criterion for reclassification 
of tulotoma to threatened status was modified to recommend 
reclassification to threatened status upon completion of a status 
review confirming a stable or increasing population of tulotoma in the 
Coosa River below Jordan Dam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. 
21).
    Our recent 5-year review of the tulotoma documented an increase in 
the extent and size of tulotoma populations in the Coosa River below 
Jordan Dam, an increase in range and number of colonies and individuals 
in 3 of 4 tributary populations known at the time of listing, and 
discovery of 6 previously unknown populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 2008).
    The 2000 Recovery Plan addressed protecting habitat integrity and 
improving habitat quality, reducing impacts from permitted activities, 
promoting watershed stewardship, conducting basic research, 
establishing propagation programs if necessary, and monitoring species' 
population size and distribution for all species addressed in the 
Recovery Plan. Some recovery actions accomplished in the Coosa River 
under this plan include the establishment of minimum flows below Jordan 
Dam to improve habitat conditions in that reach and the implementation 
of pulsing flows below Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen in 
that reach. Watershed management plans have also been developed to 
address nonpoint source pollution in the lower Coosa Basin and the 
Alabama River Basin. These and other recovery accomplishments 
addressing threats to the tulotoma are presented in more detail in the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, below.

Summary of Opportunity for Public Input

    During the open comment period for the proposed rule (75 FR 35424), 
we requested that all interested parties submit comments or information 
concerning the proposed reclassification of tulotoma from endangered to 
threatened. We directly notified and requested comments from the State 
of Alabama. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, 
county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and 
other interested parties and invited them to comment. We also published 
newspaper notices inviting public comment in the following newspapers: 
Daily Home, Talladega, Alabama; Monroe Journal, Monroe, Alabama; 
Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery, Alabama; and Selma Times Journal, 
Selma, Alabama. During the comment period, we received no public 
comments.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) December 16, 2004, Final Information Bulletin for Peer 
Review (OMB 2004), we requested the independent opinions of four 
knowledgeable individuals with expertise on the tulotoma, freshwater 
mollusks, the Mobile River Basin, and conservation biology principles. 
The purpose of such review is to ensure that the reclassification is 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, 
including input of appropriate experts and specialists. We received a 
single comment from a peer reviewer stating that the proposed rule was 
comprehensive and accurate, and recommending that we include reference 
to a summary journal article that was not cited in the proposed rule. 
This article has been referenced, where appropriate, in the Background 
section, above.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species. 
``Species'' is

[[Page 31869]]

defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or 
wildlife or plants and any distinct vertebrate population segment of 
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 
Once the ``species'' is determined, we then evaluate whether that 
species may be endangered or threatened because of one or more of the 
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Those factors 
are: (A) Habitat modification, destruction, or curtailment; (B) 
overutilization of the species 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 continued existence. We must consider these same five 
factors in reclassifying or delisting a species. Listing, 
reclassifying, or delisting may be warranted based on any of the above 
threat factors, either singly or in combination.
    For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, an 
analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently 
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect 
the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or 
downlisting.
    The following threats analysis examines the five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the listed tulotoma snail 
within the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this analysis, we 
will first evaluate whether the currently listed species, the tulotoma, 
should be considered threatened or endangered throughout its range. If 
we determine that the species is threatened, then we will consider 
whether there are any significant portions of the species' range where 
it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. The word ``range'' refers to the range in which 
the species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to 
the value of that portion of the range being considered to the 
conservation of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period 
of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be 
anticipated, or trends extrapolated.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate all five 
factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the tulotoma 
to determine whether the currently listed species is threatened or 
endangered. The five factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the Act 
and their applications to tulotoma are presented below.
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. When listed in 1991, the tulotoma 
was believed to inhabit less than 2 percent (12 km (7.2 mi)) of its 
563-km (350-mi) historical range. A Coosa River population of tulotoma 
was known to survive below Jordan Dam. Populations were also known from 
four Coosa River tributaries: Kelly, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Ohatchee 
Creeks. All of these populations were isolated by dams and impounded 
waters and considered to be vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution. 
Population trends were unknown, but were believed to be possibly 
declining.
    At the time of listing, hydropower discharges were limiting the 
range and abundance of tulotoma to only a 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of the 
Coosa River below Jordan Dam. Water discharges for hydropower purposes 
were released from Jordan Dam for 2.25 hours per day; at all other 
times, flow consisted of only dam seepage. As a result of the low water 
quantity, water quality problems, particularly low dissolved oxygen and 
elevated temperatures, were a significant limiting factor to tulotoma 
below Jordan Dam. In 1992, the Alabama Power Company (APC) established 
minimum flows in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, and later installed 
a draft tube aeration system to ensure maintenance of dissolved oxygen 
levels at or above State standards (Grogan 2005, pp. 2-3). The APC also 
initiated studies to document the range, numbers, demographics, and 
life history of tulotoma in the reach of the Coosa River below Jordan 
Dam and to determine the effects of the new minimum flow regime 
(Christman et al. 1996, p. 18). Other studies were also conducted to 
monitor long-term population trends in this reach of the Coosa River 
(e.g., De Vries 2005). Numerous tulotoma colonies have been discovered 
as a result of the monitoring efforts. With increased flows, additional 
colonies have become established in the upper portion of the reach and, 
in the downstream areas, the tulotoma has extended its range laterally 
within the channel in habitats made available by the constant minimum 
flows. Thousands of colonies consisting of more than 100 million 
tulotoma now inhabit a 10-km (6-mi) reach of the Coosa River below the 
Jordan Dam (Christman et al. 1996, p. 59; DeVries 2004, pp. 8-10, 2005 
p. 14).
    In 1991, tulotoma were also known to occur in 2 km (1.2 mi) of 
Kelly Creek, 4 km (2.4 mi) of Weogufka Creek, 3 km (1.8 mi) of Hatchet 
Creek, and from a single shoal on Ohatchee Creek (Herschler et al. 
1990, p. 819). These four known tributary populations of tulotoma were 
considered to be extremely localized, vulnerable to water quality or 
channel degradation, and susceptible to decline and extirpation from 
effects of nonpoint source pollution and stochastic events within their 
respective watersheds. As a result of studies and surveys, we now know 
that the range of tulotoma is greater than estimated at the time of 
listing for three of these populations, and tulotoma is now known to 
occur in a 13.7-km (8.5-mi) reach of Weogufka Creek, a 14-km (8.8-mi) 
reach of Hatchet Creek, and a 5.8-km (3.6-mi) reach of Kelly Creek 
(DeVries 2005 pp. 11-13). Tulotoma colony sizes within these three 
populations have remained stable over a 12-year period (DeVries 2005, 
pp. 11-13). The Kelly Creek tulotoma population has expanded into an 
approximately 8-km (5-mi) reach of the middle Coosa River above and 
below the confluence of Kelly Creek (Garner 2003, Lochamy 2005, Powell 
2005), likely as a result of implementation of pulsing flows below 
Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen levels (Krotzer 2008). No 
tulotoma have been rediscovered in the Ohatchee Creek shoal population 
for 15 years, and, therefore, the population is now believed to be 
extirpated (DeVries 2005, p. 10).
    Although the Ohatchee Creek population has apparently become 
extirpated since the time of listing (DeVries 2005, p. 10), other 
tributary stream surveys have located three populations in the Lower 
Coosa River drainage that were unknown at the time of listing. Tulotoma 
are now known from a 0.8-km (0.5-mi) reach of Choccolocco Creek, a 0.4-
km (0.25-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek, and about 2 km (1.2 mi) of 
Weoka Creek (DeVries 2005, pp. 10-13). Although very localized, the 
Choccolocco Creek population has remained stable in colony size and 
numbers over the past decade (DeVries 2005, pp. 10-11). The Weoka Creek 
population has been sampled only twice since its discovery; however, 
tulotoma colonies are abundant in the stream reach, and average colony 
size is larger than any other tributary population (DeVries 2005, 
pp.13-14.) The Yellowleaf Creek population is localized, small, and has 
not been routinely monitored; however,

[[Page 31870]]

occasional spot checks show the species continues to persist (Johnson 
2006).
    Tulotoma colonies have also been discovered at three locations in 
the Alabama River: Near the type locality below Claiborne Lock and Dam 
in Monroe County, Alabama (Garner 2006); below Millers Ferry Lock and 
Dam in Wilcox County, Alabama (Powell 2008); and below Robert F. Henry 
Lock and Dam at a location in Autauga and Lowndes Counties, Alabama 
(Garner 2008), and at a locality in Dallas County, Alabama (Johnson 
2008). The presence of juvenile and adult tulotoma in these three river 
reaches indicates that the newly discovered colonies are self-
maintaining.
    The 1991 listing rule (56 FR 797) noted the vulnerability of 
localized (isolated) tributary populations to nonpoint source 
pollution, specifically siltation from construction activities. The 
extirpation of the Ohatchee Creek population is suspected to be due to 
sedimentation and nutrient enrichment from nonpoint sources in the 
watershed. Although other monitored tulotoma populations have remained 
stable or expanded since listing, they remain vulnerable to water and 
habitat quality degradation, particularly in the tributaries. Lower 
Choccolocco Creek is on the State list of impaired waters for organic 
pollution due to contaminated sediments (Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management (ADEM) 2006, p. 5). Yellowleaf Creek and 
several other lower Coosa River watersheds have been identified as High 
Priority Watersheds (i.e., vulnerable to degradation) by the Alabama 
Clean Water Partnership (ACWP) (ACWP 2005a, Chapter 12) due to the high 
potential of nonpoint source pollution associated with expanding human 
population growth rates and urbanization. For example, the headwaters 
of Yellowleaf Creek are about 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the greater 
metropolitan area surrounding Birmingham, Alabama, and the watershed is 
highly dissected by county roads. High sediment discharge has been 
identified as an issue in Kelly Creek (ACWP in prep., p. 43), and 
potential fecal coliform problems have been documented at several 
locations in Choccolocco Creek (ACWP in prep., p. 38). However, the 
ACWP has also developed locally endorsed and supported plans to address 
nonpoint source pollution and maintain and improve water quality in the 
lower Coosa River Basin (ACWP 2005a, pp. 3.1-3.48) and in the middle 
Coosa River Basin (AWCP in prep., pp. 49-50) (see Factor D. below for 
further detail on monitoring plans). Full implementation of current 
programs and plans will reduce the vulnerability of tributary 
populations to nonpoint source pollution.
    Summary of Factor A: The range of tulotoma has increased from 6 
populations in 1991, occupying 2 percent of its historical range, to a 
total of 10 populations, occupying 10 percent of the historical range. 
In addition, these populations are found in a wide range of 
historically occupied habitats, including large coastal plain rivers, 
large high-gradient rivers, and multiple upland tributary streams. 
Populations known at the time of listing have been monitored, and with 
the exception of Ohatchee Creek, were found to be stable or increasing. 
Four of the six populations discovered since 1991 have been monitored 
for 2 to 12 years. The Choccolocco Creek population has remained stable 
for 12 years. The Yellowleaf Creek population has not been routinely 
monitored, and we cannot determine a population trend beyond mere 
presence or absence; however, occasional spot checks show the species 
continues to persist (Johnson 2006). The Weoka Creek and Lower Alabama 
River populations have been observed and monitored for a period of 4 
and 2 years, respectively; however, this is not a sufficient amount of 
time to be able to determine a population trend.
    Habitat-related threats have been addressed in the Coosa River 
through establishing minimum flows or pulsing flows below Jordan and 
Logan Martin Dam, respectively. Habitat conditions have improved; 
occupied habitat has expanded in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam; and 
tulotoma numbers are now estimated at greater than 100 million 
individuals. The ranges of tulotoma populations in Kelly, Weogufka, and 
Hatchet Creek have expanded 2- to 5-fold since listing. Tulotoma colony 
densities within these populations have remained stable or increased.
    Tulotoma remains extirpated from approximately 90 percent of its 
historical range, and surviving populations remain isolated, localized, 
and vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution. These conditions are 
expected to continue for the foreseeable future. While monitored 
populations have persisted and expanded over the past two decades, and 
a program to address nonpoint source pollution in the Coosa and Alabama 
Rivers and their tributaries has been established by ACWP and ADEM, the 
tulotoma continues to be threatened by the destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat and range such that the tulotoma is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Overutilization was not a threat when the species 
was listed in 1991, but the final listing rule noted the vulnerability 
and susceptibility of the localized populations to overcollecting 
should the tulotoma, with its ornate shell, become important to the 
commercial pet trade (56 FR 797; January 9, 1991). However, there has 
been no evidence to date that any commercial use in the pet trade 
industry has occurred.
    In summary, overutilization for any purpose is not currently 
considered a threat to tulotoma, and is not likely to become a threat 
within the foreseeable future.
    C. Disease or predation. The January 9, 1991, final rule (56 FR 
797) listing the tulotoma found no evidence of disease or predation as 
a threat, and we are not aware of any evidence since listing that 
suggests tulotoma is currently threatened by disease or predation or 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. At the time of 
the 1991 listing, existing laws were considered inadequate to protect 
the tulotoma. The species was not officially recognized by Alabama as 
needing any special protection or given any special consideration under 
other environmental laws when project impacts were reviewed.
    Tulotoma are now protected from collection or commerce under 
Alabama Nongame Species Regulations 220-2-92. In addition, the Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) recognizes 
tulotoma as a Species of Highest Conservation Concern (Mirarchi et al. 
2004, p. 120; ADCNR 2005, p. 301). The persistence of tulotoma and the 
improvement of some populations over time is an indication that 
existing regulatory mechanisms are now providing some measure of 
consideration and protection of the species. For example, the Alabama 
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program has been implemented to 
identify and reduce water pollution in impaired waters (ADEM 2007). 
Under this program, Choccolocco Creek has been identified as impaired, 
and plans are under development to remove contaminated sediments.
    The ACWP has been organized to educate and coordinate public 
participation in water quality issues, particularly nonpoint source 
pollution

[[Page 31871]]

and implementation of TMDLs (http://www.cleanwaterpartnership.org). The 
ACWP, in coordination with ADEM, has developed a Lower Coosa River 
Basin Management Plan and an Alabama River Basin Management Plan to 
address nonpoint source pollution and watershed management issues (AWCP 
2005a, p. I; AWCP 2005b, pp. xv-xvii). The Lower Coosa Plan includes 
the watersheds of the Yellowleaf, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Weoka Creek 
populations, along with the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, while the 
Alabama River Basin Plan includes the watersheds of the newly 
discovered Alabama River tulotoma population. A draft Middle Coosa 
River Basin Management Plan, which includes Choccolocco and Kelly 
Creeks, is under development (AWCP in prep., pp. i, v-vi, 43). These 
plans are a mechanism to identify water quality problems in the 
drainages, educate the public, and coordinate activities to maintain 
and improve water quality in the basins; however, they have yet to be 
fully implemented.
    Federal status under the Act continues to provide additional 
protections to the tulotoma not available under State laws. For 
example, during recent water shortages due to an extended drought in 
the Southeast, emergency consultation under section 7 of the Act was 
conducted between the Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC), and APC representatives on efforts to conserve water by 
decreasing minimum flows below Jordan Dam. The consultation identified 
measures to be implemented to minimize impacts to tulotoma and monitor 
the effects of the reductions (e.g., FERC 2007, pp. 1-8).
    Summary of Factor D: Although additional regulatory mechanisms have 
been developed since listing including Alabama's regulations to prevent 
collection or commerce and various water quality programs and 
initiatives, tulotoma drainage populations require further regulations 
that would ensure improved water quality and water availability in some 
areas. At present, without the protections of the Act, the tulotoma 
remains threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
such that it is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. Random or stochastic events such as droughts and chemical 
spills, and genetic drift were identified in the final listing rule as 
threats to the species due to its restricted range, isolation of the 
populations, and lack of genetic exchange between populations. The 
tulotoma's restricted range and isolation remain the greatest cause of 
concern for the species' continued existence and are factors that 
compound the effects of the other threats identified above. Within its 
respective watersheds, each population is vulnerable to changes in land 
use that might result in detrimental impacts (e.g., urbanization and 
increased nonpoint source pollution). All populations also remain 
independently vulnerable to stochastic threats such as droughts or 
chemical spills. These threats, however, have been somewhat offset by 
the extension of the ranges of the populations known at listing and by 
the discovery of additional populations within the historical range of 
the species.
    In general, larger populations are more resilient to stochastic 
events than extremely small populations. For example, due to the 
extended 2007 drought in the Southeast, minimum flows below Jordan Dam 
were reduced in order to conserve water in upstream reservoirs for 
water supply and hydroelectric production. The reduction in flows led 
to high amounts of suspended algal material and fine sediment, which 
are harmful to tulotoma (Powell 2008) and resulted in the stranding and 
estimated mortality of more than 73,000 tulotoma in the Coosa River 
below Jordan Dam (APC 2008, p. 43). Although this loss seems relatively 
insignificant in a population estimated at more than 100 million 
individual tulotoma, it demonstrates the vulnerability of range-
restricted populations to stochastic events.
    The documentation of more tulotoma populations (since listing) 
distributed in different watersheds makes rangewide extinction from 
localized activities or stochastic threats less likely. In addition, 
although populations remain isolated from each other, the robust size 
of most populations reduces the threat of genetic drift and 
bottlenecks. However, each tulotoma population remains vulnerable to 
natural or human-induced stochastic events within its respective 
watershed, as demonstrated by the loss of the Ohatchee Creek 
population. Assessments of tributary populations following the severe 
2007 drought found little to no changes in distribution or density of 
the tulotoma in Kelly, Weogufka, Hatchet, or Choccolocco Creeks 
(DeVries 2008, p. 3-15). However, tulotoma recruitment was not observed 
in the Choccolocco Creek population (DeVries 2008, pp. 9-11), and 
colony densities had declined at Weoka Creek (DeVries 2008, p. 15). The 
assessment was unable to determine if the Weoka Creek tulotoma decline 
was attributed to the drought or human impacts (DeVries 2008, p. 15).
    Summary of Factor E: Although extension of the ranges of tulotoma 
populations and discovery of additional populations makes rangewide 
extinction from localized activities or stochastic threats less likely, 
all tulotoma populations remain individually vulnerable to stochastic 
threats such as drought and chemical spills and threatened by changes 
in land use. Given the relatively small number of populations, Factor E 
is still a threat to the tulotoma such that it is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.

Conclusion of the Five-Factor Analysis

    In developing this rule, we have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding the threats facing 
this species, as well as the ongoing conservation efforts. Although 
reduced, three of the five listing factors continue to pose a known 
threat to the tulotoma: The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A); 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
    The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 2000) (see ``Recovery Achieved'' above) states 
that the tulotoma should be considered for reclassification from 
endangered to threatened status when an updated status review of the 
species is completed and a stable or increasing tulotoma population in 
the Coosa River below Jordan Dam is confirmed. The 5-year review of the 
status of tulotoma, completed in 2008, documented an increase in extent 
and size of tulotoma populations in the Coosa River, Kelly Creek, 
Weogufka Creek, and Hatchet Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2008). Threats to the species have also been reduced through habitat 
improvements in the Coosa River, identification of six drainage 
populations of the species that were unknown at the time of listing, 
development of watershed management plans, and protection of tulotoma 
under State laws. However, delisting criteria for the tulotoma have not 
been met as watershed plans that protect and monitor water quality and 
habitat quality in occupied watersheds have not been fully implemented.
    Recovery plans are intended to guide and measure recovery. Recovery 
criteria for downlisting and delisting are developed in the recovery 
planning

[[Page 31872]]

process to provide measureable goals on the path to recovery; however, 
precise attainment of all recovery criteria is not a prerequisite for 
downlisting or delisting. Rather, the decision to change the status of 
a listed species under the Act is based on the analysis of the 5 
listing factors identified in section 4 of the Act. The Act provides 
for downlisting from endangered to threatened when the best available 
data indicate that a species, subspecies, or distinct population 
segment is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    Based on the analysis above and given the reduction in threats, the 
tulotoma is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all its 
range. In the section that follows, we consider whether it is in danger 
of extinction in a significant portion of its range.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that the tulotoma snail is no longer endangered 
throughout its range as a consequence of the threats evaluated under 
the five factors in the Act, we must next consider whether there are 
any significant portions of its range where the species is currently 
endangered. A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part 
of the current range of the species and is important to the 
conservation of the species as evaluated based upon its representation, 
resiliency, or redundancy.
    The first step in determining whether a species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the 
range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can 
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. 
However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that 
are not reasonably likely to be significant. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be 
significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there. 
In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species 
are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to 
warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of 
threats applies only to portions of the range that are not significant 
to the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant 
further consideration.
    If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we 
then determine whether the species is in fact endangered in any 
significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the 
species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient 
for the Service to address the significance question first, and in 
others the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that 
a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not 
determine whether the species is endangered there. Conversely, if the 
Service determines that the species is not endangered in a portion of 
its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is 
significant.
    For the tulotoma we applied the process described above to 
determine whether any portions of the range warranted further 
consideration. Habitat quality is variable throughout the range of the 
tulotoma. However, the basic biological components necessary for the 
tulotoma to complete its life history are present throughout the areas 
currently occupied by each population, and there is no particular 
location or area that provides a unique or biologically significant 
function necessary for tulotoma recovery. The quantity of habitat 
available to each surviving population of tulotoma is also variable.
    Although the threats identified above are common to all areas 
currently occupied by tulotoma, the magnitude of the threats are likely 
higher in the stream reaches where tulotoma colonies are currently 
extremely localized, such as Yellowleaf and Choccolocco Creeks and the 
Alabama River. However, due to habitat limitations and the resulting 
small range of tulotoma in each of these stream reaches (each less than 
2 percent of currently occupied range) they are not significant to the 
species in a noticeable or measurable way. In addition, we concluded 
through the five-factor analysis that the existing or potential threats 
(Factors A, D, and E) are uniform throughout its range, and there is no 
portion of the range where one or more threats is geographically 
concentrated. Therefore, we have determined that there are no portions 
of the range that qualify as a significant portion of the range in 
which the tulotoma is in danger of extinction currently or within the 
foreseeable future.
    As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat 
factors to assess whether tulotoma is endangered or threatened 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based on habitat 
improvements, the numbers of tulotoma populations now known (10 
populations found in 8 discrete drainages), the robust size of most of 
these populations (numbering in the thousands to tens of millions of 
individual tulotoma), the stability of monitored populations over the 
past 15 years, and current efforts toward watershed quality protection, 
planning, and monitoring, we have determined that none of the existing 
or potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are 
likely to cause the tulotoma to become in danger of extinction within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. However, we have determined that threats to the tulotoma still 
exist, specifically as a result of water quality and quantity issues as 
discussed under Factors A, D, and E. Due to these continued threats, 
the tulotoma meets the definition of threatened in that it is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are reclassifying the 
tulotoma's status from endangered to threatened under the Act.

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 increases public awareness of 
threats to the tulotoma, and promotes conservation actions by Federal, 
State, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The 
Act provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the 
States, and provides for recovery planning and implementation. The 
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against 
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to the tulotoma. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a Federal action may affect the 
tulotoma or its habitat, the responsible Federal agency must consult 
with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the tulotoma. Federal agency actions that may require 
consultation include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the 
issuance of permits for reservoir construction, stream alterations, 
discharges, wastewater facility development, water withdrawal projects, 
pesticide registration, mining, and road and bridge construction.

[[Page 31873]]

    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened 
wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 
17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harm, harass, and 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct), import or export, ship in 
interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species of 
wildlife. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to Service agents and agents of State 
conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are 
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and for incidental take in the course of 
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, permits are also 
available for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special 
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office, 1208-B Main Street, 
Daphne, Alabama 36526 (telephone 251/441-5181). Requests for copies of 
the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 
200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (telephone 404/679-7217, facsimile 404/679-
7081).

Effects of This Rule

    This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the tulotoma from 
endangered to threatened on the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. However, this reclassification does not significantly change 
the protection afforded this species under the Act. Anyone taking, 
attempting to take, or otherwise possessing a tulotoma, or parts 
thereof, in violation of section 9 is subject to a penalty under 
section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all Federal 
agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry 
out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
tulotoma.
    Recovery objectives and criteria for tulotoma will be revised in 
the Recovery Plan. Recovery actions directed at the tulotoma will 
continue to be implemented as outlined in the current Recovery Plan 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), including: (1) Protecting 
habitat integrity and quality; (2) informing the public about recovery 
needs of tulotoma; (3) conducting basic research on the tulotoma and 
applying the results toward management and protection of the species 
and its habitats; (4) identifying opportunities to extend the range of 
the species; and (5) monitoring the populations.
    Finalization of this rule does not constitute an irreversible 
commitment on our part. Reclassification of the tulotoma to endangered 
status would be possible if changes occur in management, population 
status, habitat, or other actions that would detrimentally affect the 
populations or increase threats to the species.

Required Determinations

Data Quality Act

    In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554).

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. 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

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands affected by this rule.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119 and upon request 
from the Jackson, Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Paul Hartfield, Jackson, 
Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

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 revising the entry in the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife for ``Snail, tulotoma'' under SNAILS to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 31874]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                       * * * * * *
 Snails
 
                                                                       * * * * * *
Snail, tulotoma..................  Tulotoma magnifica..  U.S.A. (AL)........  Entire.............  T                  412, 789           NA           NA
 
                                                                       * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 18, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13687 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P