[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61482-61529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24519]



[[Page 61481]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 192

October 4, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 
the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Sandshell, Southern 
Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Status for the Tapered 
Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, and Fuzzy Pigtoe; with Critical Habitat; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 61482]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
RIN 1018-AW92


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Sandshell, 
Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Status for the 
Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, and Fuzzy Pigtoe; With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the 
Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), round ebonyshell 
(Fusconaia rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), southern 
kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa 
choctawensis) as endangered, and the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), 
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema 
strodeanum) as threatened, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act).
    These eight species are endemic to portions of the Escambia River, 
Yellow River, and Choctawhatchee River basins of Alabama and Florida; 
and to localized portions of the Mobile River Basin in Alabama. These 
mussel species have disappeared from other portions of their natural 
ranges primarily due to habitat deterioration and poor water quality as 
a result of excessive sedimentation and environmental contaminants.
    We are also proposing to designate critical habitat under the Act 
for these eight species. In total, approximately 2,406 (kilometers (km) 
(1,495) miles (mi)) of stream and river channels fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. The proposed 
critical habitat is located in Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Jackson, 
Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties, FL; and Barbour, 
Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, 
Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, and Pike Counties, Alabama.
    These proposals, if made final, would implement Federal protection 
provided by the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 5, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by November 18, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2011-0050, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL, Fish and Wildlife 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 proposed 
rule to list the Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), round 
ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota 
australis), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), and Choctaw 
bean (Villosa choctawensis) as endangered, and the tapered pigtoe 
(Fusconaia burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), and fuzzy 
pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum) as threatened; and (2) proposed critical 
habitat designations for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, 
southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 
narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats.
    (2) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of any of these 
species, including the locations of any additional populations.
    (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
these species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and 
their habitat.
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these 
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
    (5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including whether there are threats to these species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (6) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for these eight mussels;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation 
and why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of these species and why.
    (7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat.
    (9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including

[[Page 61483]]

or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. 
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL, Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, 
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and 
fuzzy pigtoe were first identified as candidates for protection under 
the Act in the May 4, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 24876). Candidate 
species are assigned Listing Priority Numbers (LPNs) based on immediacy 
and the magnitude of threat, as well as their taxonomic status. The 
lower the LPN, the higher priority that species is for us to determine 
appropriate action using our available resources. In the 2004, 2005 (70 
FR 24870), 2006 (71 FR 53756), 2007 (72 FR 69034), 2008 (73 FR 75176), 
2009 (74 FR 57869), and 2010 (75 FR 69221) Federal Register Candidate 
Notices of Review, the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, and 
southern kidneyshell were identified as LPN 2 candidate species; the 
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, fuzzy pigtoe, and Choctaw bean were 
identified as LPN 5 candidate species; and the tapered pigtoe was 
identified as an LPN 11 candidate species. In our Notices of Review, we 
determined that publication of a proposed rule to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions. These 
eight species were included in a listing petition filed by the Center 
for Biological Diversity on April 20, 2010. In a separate action, we 
found the petition presented substantial information that the species 
may be warranted for listing. Because we have already made the 
equivalent 12-month finding on these species through our annual 
candidate assessment and notice process, we have also made a 
determination that the species warrant listing. Therefore, we have made 
the requisite findings with regards to the April 20, 2010, petition.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the listing of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean as endangered; and 
the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe and fuzzy pigtoe as threatened in 
this section of the proposed rule. For information relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat, see ``Critical Habitat'' section 
below.

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 sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 
narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe belong to the family Unionidae. These 
mussels are endemic to 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

[[Page 61484]]

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 
2011, and 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). 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), Auburn, Alabama; 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) and abundance 
(numbers), by comparing recent occurrence data to historical data. One 
difficulty of investigating temporal trends in these eight species is 
the lack of historical collection data within the drainages, 
particularly in the lower portion of the main channels. 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 or a larger 
range than historically; however, this is most likely due to increased 
sampling efforts. 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, Garner 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 southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 
fuzzy pigtoe and tapered pigtoe still occur in much of their historical 
range; however, their current range is fragmented and their numbers 
appear to be declining.

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; Mirarchi et al. 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 lower 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. data) 
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. data), 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 1 
below.

[[Page 61485]]



                                         Table 1--Known Historical and Current Occurrences of 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.
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 1990's, 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 2011 pers. comm.; 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 1995, p. 3 unpub. data), 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 (1998), represents 
the most recent record from the Big Flat Creek drainage.
    Recent data suggest that, of the nine remaining populations, the 
largest populations 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, however, 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 3 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 1998 pers. comm.). 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 outside 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 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 near Mystic 
Springs in Florida (Shelton et al. 2007, p. 9 unpub. data), and 
upstream 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 2 below.

[[Page 61486]]



                                        Table 2--Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Round Ebonyshell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Covington....  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Escambia River......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Santa Rosa...  FL....................  Historical and Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The round ebonyshell has one of the most restricted distributions 
of any North American unionid (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 61). Its 
current range (based on live individuals and shell material) is 
confined to approximately 120 km (75 mi) of river channel. The round 
ebonyshell is also extremely rare (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). 
Researchers collected a total of three live individuals during a 2006 
status survey (Shelton et al. 2007, pp. 8-10 unpub. data). At stations 
where the species was present, roughly 950 mussels were collected for 
every 1 round ebonyshell. Its limited distribution and small population 
size makes round ebonyshell particularly vulnerable to catastrophic 
events such as droughts, flood scour, and contaminant spills. Due to 
its limited distribution and rarity, Garner et al. (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 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 (1979), 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 new genus, Hamiota, is 
distinguished based on several characters including unique shape and 
placement of the marsupia (where females brood developing larvae), and 
production of a single large conglutinate, termed a superconglutinate.
    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. A 
superconglutinate is a mass that mimics the shape, coloration, and 
movement of a fish and is produced by the female mussel to hold the 
glochidia (larval mussels) from one year's reproductive effort (Haag et 
al. 1995, p. 472). After release, the superconglutinate is tethered to 
the female mussel by a mucus strand, and it appears to dart and swim in 
the current. 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 3 below.

                                       Table 3--Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Sandshell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alligator Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Historical.
Bruce Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Historical.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes, Dale...........  FL, AL................  Historical and Current.
Corner Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Double Bridges Creek................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Henry..................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical.
Eightmile Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton, Geneva.........  FL, AL................  Current.
Flat Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Historical.
Jordan Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Conecuh................  AL....................  Current.
Limestone Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Historical.
Little Choctawhatchee River.........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Houston..........  AL....................  Historical.
Natural Bridge Creek................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Patsaliga Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Current.
Pauls Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea Creek (Barbour Co.).............  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Pea Creek (Dale Co.)................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva, Barbour........  AL....................  Historical.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee, Dale, Pike.....  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Sikes Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.

[[Page 61487]]

 
Tenmile Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour, Dale..........  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Whitewater Creek....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Historical.
Wrights Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Burnt Corn Creek....................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Conecuh......  AL....................  Historical.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Pike...................  AL....................  Current.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Covington, Crenshaw....  AL....................  Historical.
Little Patsaliga Creek..............  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical.
Sepulga River.......................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Five Runs Creek.....................  Yellow.................  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Pond Creek..........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa, Walton.......  FL....................  Historical.
Shoal River.........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa...............  FL....................  Current.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa...............  FL....................  Current.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The southern sandshell persists in its historical range; however, 
its range is fragmented and numbers appear to be declining (Williams et 
al. 2008, p. 338). The number of locations in the Escambia drainage 
known to support the species has declined. It is known from a total of 
nine locations, however, only three are recent occurrences. Also, its 
numbers are very low; a total of four individuals (live and shell 
material) have been collected in the Escambia drainage since 1995. In 
the Yellow River drainage, the number of locations known to support 
southern sandshell populations has declined from a total of 15 to 10 
currently. The number of locations known to support the species in the 
Choctawhatchee River drainage has declined from 44 to 25 currently; and 
it may be extirpated from central portions of the Choctawhatchee River 
main channel and from some of its tributaries. Sedimentation could be 
one factor contributing to its decline. In order to reproduce, the 
southern sandshell must attract a site-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 Garner et al. (2004, p. 60), and 
considered threatened throughout its range by Williams et al. (1993, p. 
11).
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 
medium rivers in firm sand substrates with slow to moderate current 
(Williams et al. 2008, 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 drainage. The southern kidneyshell's known historical 
and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 4 
below.

                                      Table 4--Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Kidneyshell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton, Geneva.........  FL, AL................  Historical.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Henry............  AL....................  Historical.
Flat Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Historical.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Pike, Barbour..........  AL....................  Historical.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee, Dale...........  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical.
Whitewater Creek....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Historical.

[[Page 61488]]

 
Burnt Corn Creek....................  Escambia...............  Escambia...............  AL....................  Historical.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Covington, Crenshaw....  AL....................  Historical.
Jordan Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Little Patsaliga Creek..............  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Covington, Crenshaw....  AL....................  Historical.
Sepulga River.......................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Hollis Creek........................  Yellow.................  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 population numbers also 
appear to be very low. A 2006-2007 status survey in the Alabama 
portions 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 Garner et al. (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 large creeks and small 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 the table below.

                                         Table 5--Known Historical and Current Occurrences for the Choctaw Bean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Bullock................  AL....................  Current.
Bruce Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  AL....................  Historical.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington, Geneva.....  FL, AL................  Historical and Current.
Claybank Creek......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Henry..................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Flat Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Current.
Judy Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
Limestone Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Paul's Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea Creek...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva, Pike, Barbour..  AL....................  Historical and Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Pike, Barbour..........  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Whitewater Creek....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Current.
Wrights Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Crenshaw, Pike.........  AL....................  Current.
Escambia River......................  Escambia...............  Santa Rosa.............  FL....................  Historical.
Escambia River......................  Escambia...............  Escambia...............  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek..............  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical.
Murder Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Olustee Creek.......................  Escambia...............  Pike...................  AL....................  Current.
Patsaliga Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Pigeon Creek........................  Escambia...............  Butler.................  AL....................  Historical.
Five Runs Creek.....................  Yellow.................  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa, Covington....  FL, AL................  Historical and Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61489]]

    The Choctaw bean persists in most of its historical range. However, 
its populations are fragmented and its numbers are low, particularly in 
the Escambia and Yellow drainages. The number of locations in the 
Escambia River drainage known to support the species has declined from 
a total of 13 to 6 currently. Also, its numbers within the drainage are 
very low; a total of only 10 individuals have been collected since 
1995. The number of locations known to support the Choctaw bean in the 
Yellow River drainage has declined from a total of 7 to 4 currently. 
Since 1995, a total of 28 individuals have been collected within the 
Yellow drainage. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, the Choctaw bean 
continues to persist in most areas. It is known from a total of 40 
locations throughout the drainage, 34 of which are recent occurrences.
    Heard assessed the status of the Choctaw bean in 1975 (p. 17) and 
stated that it was formerly abundant in the main channel of the 
Choctawhatchee River in Florida, but has become quite rare. Garner et 
al. (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 (1922) (in Ortmann and Walker) as 
Quincuncina burkei, a new genus and species (the genus description was 
done by A. E. Ortmann and the species description by Walker). 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 genetic results and soft anatomy similarity, 
Williams et al. (2008, p. 296) recognized burkei as belonging to the 
genus Fusconaia.
    The tapered pigtoe is found in small 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 main channel. The tapered pigtoe's known 
historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown 
in the table below.

                                        Table 6--Known Historical and Current Occurrences for the Tapered Pigtoe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Houston................  AL....................  Historical.
Big Creek...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Blue Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Bruce Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington, Walton,      FL....................  Historical and Current.
                                                                Holmes.
Cowford Island channel..............  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Crawford Lake.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Historical.
Crews Lake..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Historical.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Henry..................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
East Pittman Creek..................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Eightmile Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton, Geneva.........  FL, AL................  Current.
Flat Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington, Holmes,      FL....................  Historical and Current.
                                                                Jackson.
Horseshoe Lake......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Historical.
Hurricane Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Historical.
Judy Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
Limestone Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Little Choctawhatchee River.........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Houston..........  AL....................  Historical.
Panther Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Houston................  AL....................  Historical.
Parrot Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Paul's Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea Creek...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Barbour..........  AL....................  Historical.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee, Pike...........  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Pine Log Creek......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington, Bay........  FL....................  Current.
Sandy Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Tenmile Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Pike.............  AL....................  Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
West Pittman Creek..................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.

[[Page 61490]]

 
Wrights Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tapered pigtoe appears to be absent from portions of its 
historical range and found only in isolated locations (Blalock-Herod et 
al. 2005, p. 17). The species is known from a total of 60 locations 
within the Choctawhatchee River drainage. It was not detected at 11 
historical sites examined during recent status surveys (9 additional 
historic locations were not examined). Many of those historic 
occurrences are in the middle section of the drainage, and the species 
appears to be declining in that portion of its range. The tapered 
pigtoe continues to persist in isolated locations, mainly in the 
Choctawhatchee River main channel in Florida and in the headwaters in 
Alabama.
    Due to its limited distribution, rarity, and habitat degradation, 
Garner et al. (2004, p. 105) consider 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.
    Little is known about the habitat requirements or life history of 
the narrow pigtoe. It is found in creeks and small 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 does tolerate 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--Known Historical and Current Occurrences for the Narrow Pigtoe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottle Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Burnt Corn Creek....................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Current.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Pike...................  AL....................  Current.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Covington,     AL....................  Historical and Current.
                                                                Crenshaw.
Escambia River......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Santa Rosa...  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Murder Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Panther Creek.......................  Escambia...............  Butler.................  AL....................  Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Covington, Crenshaw....  AL....................  Current.
Persimmon Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Butler.................  AL....................  Current.
Three Run Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Butler.................  AL....................  Current.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Santa Rosa.............  FL....................  Historical.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa...............  FL....................  Historical and Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The narrow pigtoe still occurs in much of its historic range, but 
may be extirpated from localized areas. In the Escambia drainage, the 
number of locations that support the species has declined from 32 to 24 
currently. It was not detected at two historical sites examined 
recently (four historical sites were not examined) in the drainage. In 
the Yellow drainage, the number of sites supporting narrow pigtoe 
populations has declined from four to three currently. The species is 
rare in the Yellow River drainage; a total of only 23 individuals from 
3 locations have been collected since 1995.
    Garner et al. (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.
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. The uniqueness of 
the fuzzy pigtoe has been verified by Williams et al. (2008, p. 574).
    The fuzzy pigtoe is found in medium creeks and 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, p. 122-123). It is a short-term brooder, with females

[[Page 61491]]

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 8 below.

                                          Table 8--Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Fuzzy Pigtoe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Water body                       Drainage                  County                   State                    Historical or current
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Bullock................  AL....................  Current.
Blue Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Choctawhatchee River................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington, Walton,      FL, AL................  Historical and Current.
                                                                Holmes, Geneva, Dale.
Claybank Creek......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Henry..................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
East Pittman Creek..................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Eightmile Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton, Geneva.........  FL, AL................  Current.
Flat Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes, Jackson........  FL....................  Current.
Holmes Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Washington.............  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Hurricane Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva.................  AL....................  Current.
Judy Creek..........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale...................  AL....................  Current.
Limestone Creek.....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Historical.
Little Choctawhatchee River.........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Houston..........  AL....................  Historical.
Panther Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Houston................  AL....................  Historical.
Pauls Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea Creek...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Pike, Barbour..........  AL....................  Current.
Pea River...........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Geneva, Coffee, Dale...  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Walton.................  FL....................  Current.
Steep Head Creek....................  Choctawhatchee.........  Coffee.................  AL....................  Current.
unnamed trib. to Lindsey Cr.........  Choctawhatchee.........  Barbour................  AL....................  Current.
Walnut Creek........................  Choctawhatchee.........  Pike...................  AL....................  Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee R..........  Choctawhatchee.........  Dale, Barbour..........  AL....................  Historical and Current.
West Pittman Creek..................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Current.
Wrights Creek.......................  Choctawhatchee.........  Holmes.................  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Bottle Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Burnt Corn Creek....................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Conecuh River.......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Covington,     AL....................  Historical and Current.
                                                                Crenshaw, Pike.
Escambia River......................  Escambia...............  Escambia, Santa Rosa...  FL....................  Historical and Current.
Jordan Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek..............  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Mill Creek..........................  Escambia...............  Pike...................  AL....................  Historical.
Murder Creek........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Patsaliga Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Crenshaw...............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Persimmon Creek.....................  Escambia...............  Butler.................  AL....................  Current.
Pigeon Creek........................  Escambia...............  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.........................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Sepulga River.......................  Escambia...............  Conecuh................  AL....................  Historical.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Covington..............  AL....................  Historical.
Yellow River........................  Yellow.................  Okaloosa...............  FL....................  Historical and Current.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the Escambia River drainage, the fuzzy pigtoe is 
historically known from a total of 38 locations. It is currently known 
from 20 of these locations, however, its status in the Escambia 
drainage is difficult to assess as 15 of the 18 remaining historical 
sites have not be surveyed since 1995. The fuzzy pigtoe is exceedingly 
rare in the Yellow River drainage, where it is known from a total of 
only five localities. A single individual collected in 2010 in the 
Florida portion of the main channel is the only recent record of the 
species in the drainage. Its range in the Yellow drainage has declined, 
and the species may no longer occur in the Alabama portions of the 
drainage. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, the number of locations 
that support fuzzy pigtoe populations has declined from 61 to 54. At 
one site on Limestone Creek, a once abundant population may have 
disappeared: A total of 56 individuals was collected in 1988; only 3 
were collected in 1993 by the same collector; and none were collected 
during site visits at the same location in 1996 and 2011. Although the 
species still occurs in much of its historic range in the drainage, it 
may be extirpated from localized areas.
    The fuzzy pigtoe is considered vulnerable to extinction because of 
its limited distribution and dwindling habitat by Garner et al. (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 Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

[[Page 61492]]

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species 
based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. 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 water quality 
degradation and habitat modification 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 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; 
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 Conecuh and Alabama drainages, D. N. 
Shelton (1996, pp. 1-5 in litt.) 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., in prep.). 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 portions 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

[[Page 61493]]

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 
small 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, 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 
2010b; ADEM 2010c).
    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 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 2010a, 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 2010a, 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.
    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). Below dams, mollusk declines are associated with changes and 
fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved 
oxygen

[[Page 61494]]

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 below 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, AL. 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 in Alabama was constructed 
in 1903 for power generation, but is no longer in use. The dam does not 
store water, so outflow basically equals inflow. The Elba Dam does not 
have a reservoir, only a widened channel, which is roughly one and a 
half to two times wider above the dam than below. 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 fish migration and to the movement of mussel host 
species. By blocking fish movement, the dams prevent gene exchange 
between upstream and downstream mussel populations. The three dams 
currently separate populations of southern sandshell, southern 
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 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; and Lake Tholocco, on 
Claybank Creek, is a tributary to the Choctawhatchee River in Dale 
County, AL. Waters released from these 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 drainage in Alabama, the Yellow River 
mainstem in Florida, and the Little Choctawhatchee River in Alabama. 
These proposed projects have implications for the 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 of habitat and range from various forms of 
pollution and impoundments is a significant threat to the continued 
existence of these eight species. Degradation from sedimentation and 
contaminants threatens the habitat and water quality necessary to 
support these species throughout their entire range. 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. The effects of 
impoundments are more discreet, 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 of high magnitude to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, 
southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean; and a 
threat of moderate magnitude to the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and 
fuzzy pigtoe. This threat is current (as evidenced by population 
declines) 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, southern sandshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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

[[Page 61495]]

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 river 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 2010b, pp. 3-6; FDEP 2010a, 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. This is 
apparent from the decline in all eight mussels. 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 within the proposed designation. 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, swept into unsuitable habitats, or 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, 
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. data) 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 between

[[Page 61496]]

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 sandshell, 
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, and narrow pigtoe have not been 
identified, however, other species of the same genera are known to 
parasitize cyprinids (minnows), centrachids (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 
wide-spread 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. data). 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 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 
threaten 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 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 portions 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 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 high in magnitude to the Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, 
and Choctaw bean; and are moderate in magnitude to the tapered pigtoe, 
narrow pigtoe, 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 are moderate in 
magnitude to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern 
kidneyshell, southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean; and are low in 
magnitude 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 magnitude of these threats at this time.

Proposed 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 sandshell, 
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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 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 sedimentation, municipal and 
industrial

[[Page 61497]]

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. We believe 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] 1987, 
pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133-135, 152). We believe the impact of 
habitat degradation, catastrophic events, and introduced species are 
more severe (magnitude is higher) to the Alabama pearlshell, round 
ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean, 
which have few populations coupled with low numbers of individuals and/
or very limited ranges, than they are to the tapered pigtoe, narrow 
pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe which have declining and fragmented 
populations and limited ranges. We believe that, 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 sandshell, southern 
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean are in danger of extinction throughout 
all of their ranges; and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy 
pigtoe are threatened 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 propose to list the Alabama pearlshell, round 
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean 
as endangered species throughout all of their ranges; and we propose to 
list the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe as threatened 
species throughout all of their ranges. Furthermore, we examined each 
of the five species proposed for endangered status and each of the 
three species proposed for threatened status to analyze 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 their entire respective, we find there are no 
significant portions of any of the species' ranges that may 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.
    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 that may affect the eight mussel species 
include, but are not limited to: 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 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. It has been the 
experience of the Service from consultations on other species, however, 
that nearly all section 7 consultations have been resolved so that the 
species have been protected and the project objectives have been met.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 
wildlife 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. 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 species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. 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 proposed 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:

[[Page 61498]]

    (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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 1875 
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345; telephone: 404-679 -
7140; facsimile: 404-679-7081.

Critical Habitat for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern 
Sandshell, Southern Kidneyshell, Choctaw Bean, Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow 
Pigtoe, and Fuzzy Pigtoe

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe in this 
section of the proposed rule.
    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 seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) 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.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical or biological features which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. 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), focusing on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as roost sites, 
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). 
Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical or biological 
features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement to provide for a species' life-history processes, are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Under the Act, 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. 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. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate 
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied 
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, 
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be 
included in the critical habitat designation.
    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 source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed 
journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other 
unpublished

[[Page 61499]]

materials and expert opinion 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. 
2006, p. 10; 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 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.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected 
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism under Factor B for any of these species, and 
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to 
initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the 
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if 
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a 
prudent finding is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of 
designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the 
Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus 
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has 
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 
conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) 
providing educational benefits to State or county governments or 
private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent 
harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of 
threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find 
that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the eight 
species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. When 
critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species 
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific 
data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for these eight species.

Physical and 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 propose as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features 
(PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species which may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 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 PBFs required for the Alabama pearlshell, 
round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw 
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe based on their 
biological needs. Unfortunately, little is known of the specific 
habitat requirements of any of these eight mussel species other than 
all require flowing water, stable stream or river channels, adequate 
water quality, and fish hosts for larval mussel development to juvenile 
mussels. To identify the physical and biological needs of the species, 
we have relied on current conditions at locations where each of the 
species survive, the limited information available on these eight 
mussels and their close relatives, and factors associated with the 
decline and extirpation of these and other freshwater

[[Page 61500]]

mussels from portions of the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River 
basins.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, 
southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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. Stream channel stability is essential to the 
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow 
pigtoe, 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, flow, and water 
quality. Adequate food availability and quality is essential for normal 
behavior, growth, and viability during all life stages of these 
species.
Water
    The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, 
southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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, removes wastes, and provides oxygen for 
respiration. 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 in the Dams and Impoundments section (see Factor A, above), 
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, we believe that 
flowing water is essential to the conservation of all eight 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 exist 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 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, adequate water flow and water quality 
(as defined below) are essential to the conservation of the Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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, 2011). 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 sandshell, southern 
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy 
pigtoe.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing
    Freshwater mussels require a host fish for transformation of larval 
mussels

[[Page 61501]]

(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, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, 
and Choctaw bean is currently unknown; however, other species of the 
same genera are known to parasitize cyprinids (minnows), centrachids 
(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).
    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, stable bottom substrate with low to moderate amounts 
of filamentous algae growth is essential to the conservation of Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Eight Mussel Species

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the PBFs 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). We consider PCEs to be 
the elements of PBFs that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the habitat 
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the 
species, we have determined that the PCEs for the Alabama pearlshell, 
round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw 
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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 (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species are found, and to maintain connectivity of 
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning 
habitat for native fishes.
    (4) Water quality, including temperature (not greater than 32 
[deg]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 the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and that may require special management considerations or 
protections. None of the portions of the critical habitat units 
proposed for these eight species below have been designated as critical 
habitat for other mussel species that are already listed under the Act. 
None of the areas proposed are presently under special management or 
protection provided by a legally operative management plan or agreement 
for the conservation of either the Alabama pearlshell, round 
ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, 
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, or fuzzy pigtoe. Various activities in 
or adjacent to each of the critical habitat units described in this 
proposed rule may affect one or more of the PCEs. Some of these 
activities include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' above (see Factors A and 
D). Other activities that may affect PCEs in the proposed critical 
habitat units include those listed in the ``Available Conservation 
Measures'' section above.
    Many of the threats to the eight mussels and their habitat are 
pervasive and common in all of the nine units. 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 proposed for 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) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the species, and areas 
outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that 
are essential for the conservation of the species. We are proposing to 
designate as critical habitat all stream channels that we have 
determined are essential to the conservation of the eight species. 
These include streams that are currently occupied by one or more of the 
species, as well as some specific areas not currently occupied, but 
that were historically occupied, because we have determined that the 
additional areas are essential for the conservation of those species 
and that designating only occupied habitat is not sufficient to 
conserve them.
    We began our analysis by considering historical and current ranges 
of each of the eight species. We used various sources including 
published literature and museum collection databases, as well as 
surveys, reports, and field notes prepared by biologists (see 
Background

[[Page 61502]]

section). We then identified the specific areas that are occupied by 
each of the eight mussels and that contain one or more of the PCEs. 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 post-1994 survey data. Several surveys 
were conducted in the basins between the years of 1995 to 2010 (Shelton 
1995, 1999 unpub. data; Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; Pilarczyk et al. 
2006, Shelton et al. 2007 unpub. data; Gangloff and Hartfield 2009). 
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 current and 
historical records. To identify the unoccupied 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 
since then, the stream reach is considered unoccupied.
    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, we believe areas not 
currently occupied by the Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell 
are essential for their conservation. However, 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. We believe this single, historical collection is not 
sufficient to include any portions of the Yellow River drainage as 
essential to the conservation of the southern kidneyshell at this time. 
All of the stream habitat areas proposed as critical habitat that are 
currently not known to be occupied contain sufficient PBFs (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 proposed 
designations for the Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell are 
essential to their conservation.

 TABLE 1--Occupancy and stream length of proposed critical habitat units
                               by species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total stream
              Unit                     Currently       length kilometers
                                       occupied?            (miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1: Big Flat Creek.............  Yes................            92 (57)
AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder     Partially \1\......           156 (97)
 Creek, and Sepulga River.
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................          248 (154)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia-Conecuh....  Yes................          558 (347)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek...........  Yes................           149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia-Conecuh      Yes................           137 (85)
 River.
GCM5: Yellow River..............  Yes................          253 (157)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and    Yes................          892 (554)
 Lower Pea River.
GCM7: Upper Pea River...........  Yes................          234 (145)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................      1,665 (1,033)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia-Conecuh....  No.................          558 (347)

[[Page 61503]]

 
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek...........  No.................           149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia-Conecuh      No.................           137 (85)
 River.
GCM5: Choctawhatchee River and    Yes................          253 (157)
 Lower Pea River.
GCM7: Upper Pea River...........  Yes................          234 (145)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................        1,331 (826)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia-Conecuh....  Yes................          558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek...........  Yes................           149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia-Conecuh      Yes................           137 (85)
 River.
GCM5: Yellow River..............  Yes................          253 (157)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and    Yes................          892 (554)
 Lower Pea River.
GCM7: Upper Pea River...........  Yes................          234 (145)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................      2,223 (1,380)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and    Yes................          892 (554)
 Lower Pea River.
GCM7: Upper Pea River...........  Yes................          234 (145)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................        1,126 (699)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia-Conecuh....  Yes................          558 (347)
GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt      Yes................            21 (13)
 Lake Reservoirs.
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek...........  Yes................           149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia-Conecuh      Yes................           137 (85)
 River.
GCM5: Yellow River..............  Yes................          253 (157)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................        1,118 (694)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM2: Lower Escambia-Conecuh....  Yes................            21 (13)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek...........  Yes................           149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia-Conecuh      Yes................           137 (85)
 River.
GCM5: Yellow River..............  Yes................          253 (157)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and    Yes................          892 (554)
 Lower Pea River.
GCM7: Upper Pea River...........  Yes................          234 (145)
                                                      ------------------
    Total.......................  ...................      1,686 (1,046)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 km (11 mi) of Murder Creek mainstem are unoccupied.

    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 these boundaries of proposed 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 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 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

[[Page 61504]]

are incomplete, and that there may be river segments or small 
tributaries not included in this proposed 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, we believe that, 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 above criteria, we delineated a total of nine critical 
habitat units--two Alabama pearlshell units (AP1, AP2), and seven Gulf 
Coast mussels units (GCM1 through GCM7) for 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 sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 
narrow pigtoe, 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, and the unit is designated only for 
the narrow pigtoe.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this 
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas 
and other structures because these lack PCEs for the eight species. The 
areas proposed for critical habitat below include only stream channels 
within the ordinary high-water line and do not contain developed areas 
or 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 
proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are 
not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would 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 and biological features 
in the adjacent critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing nine habitat units encompassing 2,406 km (1,495 
mi) of stream channel in Alabama and Florida for these eight freshwater 
mussel species. Unit name, location, and the approximate stream length 
of each proposed critical habitat unit are shown in Table 2. The 
proposed critical habitat units include 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 proposal. We believe that most, if not all, lands beneath the 
navigable waters included in this proposed rule are owned by the States 
of Alabama and Florida. The lands beneath most nonnavigable waters 
included in this proposed 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. 
Table 2 identifies the approximate length of private and protected 
riparian lands.

 Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units, Location, Approximate Stream Length, and Ownership of Riparian Lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Private/
           Unit                   Location         Total length     Private km     protected km    Protected km
                                                     km  (mi)          (mi)*           (mi)*           (mi)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1.......................  Big Flat Creek, AL..         92 (57)         92 (57)               0               0
AP2.......................  Burnt Corn Creek,           156 (97)        156 (97)               0               0
                             Murder Creek, and
                             Sepulga River, AL.
GCM1......................  Lower Escambia             558 (347)       482 (299)         18 (11)         59 (36)
                             River, AL, FL.
GCM2......................  Point A Lake and             21 (13)         21 (13)               0               0
                             Gantt Lake
                             Reservoirs, AL.
GCM3......................  Patsaliga Creek, AL.        149 (92)        149 (92)               0               0
GCM4......................  Upper Escambia              137 (85)        130 (81)           7 (4)               0
                             River, AL.
GCM5......................  Yellow River, AL, FL       253 (157)        104 (64)         68 (42)         81 (50)
GCM6......................  Choctawhatchee and         892 (554)       718 (446)         61 (38)        119 (74)
                             Lower Pea River,
                             AL, FL.
GCM7......................  Upper Pea River, AL.       234 (145)       228 (142)               0           5 (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlap between units AP2 and GCM1..............        -85 (53)  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................  2,406...............         (1,495)    1,993 (1239)        153 (95)       264 (164)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Distances 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/Protected); and county, state, or federal on both banks
  (Protected).


[[Page 61505]]

    Below we present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why 
they meet the definition of critical habitat for each species. We also 
present any threats unique to the unit's features that may require 
special management of the PCEs. For each stream reach proposed as a 
critical habitat unit, the upstream and downstream boundaries are 
described generally below. More precise estimates are provided in the 
Regulation Promulgation section at the end of this proposed rule.

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 Hwy 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 proposed as critical habitat 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. 
data) 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 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 PCEs 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 156 km (97 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 8 km (5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from County 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.
    The Alabama pearlshell currently occurs in Jordan, Hunter, Otter, 
Sandy, and Little Cedar, Bottle, and Amos Mill Creek drainages. 
Although it historically occurred in the mainstem of Murder Creek, it 
has not been collected there in recent years. 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 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 presence of 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 may require 
special management of the PCEs including, alteration of natural stream 
flows, maintaining 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 proposed as critical habitat for the round ebonyshell, 
southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 
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

[[Page 61506]]

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, southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, 
narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe indicating the presence of 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 PCEs 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, under Dams and Impoundments, mollusk declines below dams are 
associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and 
erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and water temperatures, and 
changes in resident fish assemblages. These alterations can cause 
mussel declines for many miles below 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 proposed as critical habitat for the narrow pigtoe. As 
mentioned in the PCEs for the narrow pigtoe (above), 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 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, a 
fish species that occupies a variety of habitats including large, 
flowing rivers, and lakes and reservoirs (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 128). 
The unit currently supports narrow pigtoe populations, indicating the 
presence of 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 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 PCEs 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 2006a in litt.; Johnson 2006b 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 proposed as critical habitat for the southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 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' historical 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 historical range in order to reduce 
threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently support 
populations of southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and 
fuzzy pigtoe indicating the presence of 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 PCEs 
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 proposed as critical habitat for the southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 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' 
historical 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 historical range in 
order to reduce threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently 
support populations of southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 
and fuzzy pigtoe indicating the presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In 
addition, other mussel species requiring similar PCEs co-occur

[[Page 61507]]

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 PCEs includes the absence of fish hosts.

Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage, Florida and Alabama

    Unit GCM5 encompasses 253 km (157 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 the 
Shoal River, Okaloosa County, FL, upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the 
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton County, FL; Five Runs Creek from 
its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to County 
Road 31, Covington County, AL; and Hollis Creek from its confluence 
with the Yellow River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, 
Covington County, AL.
    Unit GCM5 is proposed as critical habitat for the southern 
sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern 
kidneyshell is 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 southern 
sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe indicating the 
presence of 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 drainage, indicating the 
potential presence of PCE 5.

Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River Drainages, Florida 
and Alabama

    Unit GCM6 encompasses 892 km (554 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 upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the 
confluence of West Sandy Creek, 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 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 the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva 
County upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the confluence of Blanket Creek, 
Coffee County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva 
County 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 upstream 
54 km (33 mi) to the fork of Paul's Creek and

[[Page 61508]]

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 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 Choctawhatchee River, Dale County upstream 71 km (44 
mi) to County Road 71, Barbour County, AL.
    Unit GCM6 is proposed as critical habitat for the southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, and 
fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently supports populations of the five 
species and other mussel species requiring similar PCEs, indicating the 
presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. 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, FL. 
Horseshoe Lake has a record of the southern kidneyshell from 1932, and 
Crawford Lake has records of the 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 PCEs include the potential of significant 
changes in the existing flow regime and water quality due to the Elba 
dam on the Pea River mainstem. As discussed in Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species, under Dams and Impoundments, mollusk declines 
below dams are associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime, 
scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and water 
temperatures, and changes in resident fish assemblages. These 
alterations can cause mussel declines for many miles below 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 Big Creek) 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 Big Creek) 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 proposed as critical habitat for the southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, and 
fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently supports populations of the five 
species, and other mussel species requiring similar PCEs, indicating 
the presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. 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 PCEs 
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 
proposed 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 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 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

[[Page 61509]]

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.

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 sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, 
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, 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 may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow 
pigtoe, or fuzzy pigtoe. These activities include, but are not limited 
to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the geomorphology of their stream and 
river habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, and 
discharge of fill materials. These activities could cause aggradation 
or degradation of the channel bed elevation or significant bank erosion 
and result in entrainment or burial of these mussels, and could cause 
other direct or cumulative adverse effects to these species and their 
life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow 
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to; 
impoundment, water diversion, water withdrawal, 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 or water 
quality (for example, temperature, pH, contaminants, and excess 
nutrients). Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
hydropower discharges, or the release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point 
source). These activities could alter water conditions that are beyond 
the tolerances of these mussels and result in direct or cumulative 
adverse effects to the species and their life cycles.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material 
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or 
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvest, 
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 resource 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:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) 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

[[Page 61510]]

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 U.S. Army-operated Fort Rucker Aviation Center, located in 
Daleville, AL, 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 (BioResources 2007) that guides 
conservation activities on the installation through 2014. This INRMP 
does not mention any of the southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe by name, but does 
specifically address maintaining and improving water quality through 
reduction in sedimentation and erosion control, land management 
practices, and improved treatment facilities (BioResources 2007, pp. 
82-83, p. 90, pp.128-129). 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 southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered 
pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe 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) of the Act. Pursuant to this exemption, we are not including 
approximately 16 mi (25 km) of stream habitat in this proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), located in Niceville, FL, owns the 
lands adjacent to the proposed 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 
proposed for critical habitat designation occur within the boundary of 
the military reservation, and therefore are not proposed for exemption. 
These reaches are also currently designated critical habitat for the 
Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) (68 FR 13370).

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, are 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, we 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.
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 are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Panama City, FL, Fish and 
Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 
During the development of a final designation, we will consider 
economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas 
may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.
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 proposal, we have 
determined that some lands owned by the Department of Defense (Fort 
Rucker Army Aviation Center) are within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for these eight mussels. However, this installation 
has a completed INRMP that provides for the conservation of aquatic 
fish and wildlife and their habitats, and therefore stream sections 
within the installation are already exempted from the definition of 
critical habitat under Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (see Exemptions above) so 
that there is no need to propose them for exclusion under Section 
4(b)(2) based on national security impact. We have also proposed 
portions of the Yellow and Shoal Rivers that form the northwestern 
boundary of Eglin Air Force Base as critical habitat. However, these 
rivers are adjacent to the installation and not owned by the Department 
of Defense. Therefore, we do not propose to exclude them under Section 
4(b)(2) based on national security concerns.
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 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 proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Alabama pearlshell, 
round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw 
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe, and the proposed 
designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We 
anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this 
proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does 
not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

[[Page 61511]]

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical 
habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the 
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, 
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of 
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon 
the following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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. The SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. 
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 
12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required factual 
basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft economic 
analysis, we will announce availability of the draft economic analysis 
of the proposed designation in the Federal Register and reopen the 
public comment period for the proposed designation. We will include 
with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. This includes 
information on hydroelectric generation, transportation, mining, 
permitted discharges, as well as other economic factors within the 
Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River basins. We have concluded 
that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic 
analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. 
Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that we make a 
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provide the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 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 [T]ribal 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 [T]ribal governments under entitlement 
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of 
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, 
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the 
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust 
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: 
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 
Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster 
Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support 
Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private 
sector mandate'' includes a 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 entities or private parties. Under the Act, 
the only 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

[[Page 61512]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern 
kidneyshell, southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow 
pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe will significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because these mussel species occur primarily in State-owned 
river channels, or in remote privately owned stream channels. As such, 
a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, 
further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and 
revise this assessment if appropriate.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 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 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow 
pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe in a takings implications assessment. The 
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of 
critical habitat for the eight species does not pose significant 
takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Florida. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and 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) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the physical and 
biological features within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the Alabama pearlshell, round 
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, 
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe.

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)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
connection with listing a species or 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)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

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), E.O. 13175, 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 have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied at the 
time of listing that contain the features essential for the 
conservation of, and no Tribal lands that are essential for the 
conservation of, these eight species. Therefore, we have not proposed 
designation of critical habitat for any of the eight species on Tribal 
lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply,

[[Page 61513]]

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. We do 
not expect the designation of critical habitat for the Alabama 
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, 
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, or fuzzy pigtoe to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Although 
one of the proposed units is below hydropower reservoirs, current and 
proposed operating regimes have been deemed adequate for the species, 
and therefore their operations will not be affected by the proposed 
listing or designation of critical habitat. As discussed in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section, there is a large 
concentration of oil wells located in Conecuh and Escambia Counties, 
Alabama. Although this activity primarily affects Units AP2 and GCM1, 
we do not believe it is a significant threat to the species discussed 
in this rule. All other proposed units are remote from energy supply, 
distribution, or use activities. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Panama City Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is Sandra Pursifull of the 
Panama City, FL, Fish and Wildlife Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

    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 Sec.  17.11(h) by adding:
    ``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
---------------------------------------------------------------------   Historic    where  endangered or     Status    When listed    Critical   Special
               Common name                      Scientific name          range           threatened                                   habitat     rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
                  Clams                   ..........................  ...........  .....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  .......
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
bean, Choctaw...........................  Villosa choctawensis......  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               E  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
ebonyshell, round.......................  Fusconaia rotulata........  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               E  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
kidneyshell, southern...................  Ptychobranchus jonesi.....  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               E  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
pearlshell, Alabama.....................  Margaritifera marrianae...  U.S.A. (AL)  NA                               E  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
pigtoe, fuzzy...........................  Pleurobema strodeanum.....  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               T  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
pigtoe, narrow..........................  Fusconaia escambia........  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               T  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
pigtoe, tapered.........................  Fusconaia burkei..........  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               T  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
sandshell, southern.....................  Hamiota australis.........  U.S.A. (AL,  NA                               E  ...........     17.95(f)    NA
                                                                              FL)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61514]]

    3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for 
``eight mussel species in four northeastern Gulf of Mexico drainages'' 
and in the same alphabetical order that the species appears in the 
table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
    Eight mussel species in three 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 designated in 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) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern 
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy 
pigtoe are:
    (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 (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species are found; and to maintain connectivity of 
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for 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 mg/
L), 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 the effective date of this rule, 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.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Alabama 
pearlshell, and index map of critical habitat units for the round 
ebonyshell, southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, 
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 61515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.000


[[Page 61516]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.001

    (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 Hwy 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 Flat Creek upstream 17 km 
(11mi), Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, 
Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages, are 
combined and follows the Unit AP2 description.
    (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,

[[Page 61517]]

upstream 9 km (5.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek from its 
confluence with Murder Creek upstream 8 km (5 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 confluence with the Sepulga River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 
mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh County, AL.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, 
Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.002


[[Page 61518]]


    (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 sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 
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) Note: 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 61519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.003


[[Page 61520]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.004

    (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) Note: Map of Unit GCM2, Point A Lake and Gantt Lake 
Reservoirs, follows:

[[Page 61521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.005

    (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 
sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 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) Note: Map of Unit GCM3, Patsaliga Creek Drainage follows:

[[Page 61522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.006

    (11) Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River Drainage in Covington, 
Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock Counties, AL. This unit is critical habitat 
for the southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow 
pigtoe, 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) Note: Map of Unit GCM 4, Upper Escambia River Drainage, 
follows:

[[Page 61523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.007

    (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 southern sandshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, 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; Five Runs Creek from 
its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to County 
Road 31, Covington County, AL; and Hollis Creek from its confluence 
with the Yellow River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, 
Covington County, AL.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit GCM5, Yellow River Drainage, follows:

[[Page 61524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.008

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 sandshell, southern 
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 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 61525]]

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 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 the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County 
upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the confluence of Blanket Creek, Coffee 
County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County 
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 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 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 Choctawhatchee River, Dale County upstream 71 
km (44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour County, AL.
    (ii) Note: 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 61526]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.009


[[Page 61527]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.010


[[Page 61528]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.011

    (16) 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 sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, 
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 Big Creek) 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 
Big Creek) 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

[[Page 61529]]

6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road 14, Bullock County, AL.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit GCM7, Upper Pea River Drainage, follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC11.012
    
* * * * *

     Dated: September 7, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-24519 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C