[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62928-62960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25539]



[[Page 62927]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 196

October 11, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 
the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 62928]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107; 92210 1111 0000-B2]
RIN 1018-AV88


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, list the Altamaha 
spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa), a freshwater mussel endemic to the 
Altamaha River drainage of southeastern Georgia, as an endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and 
designate approximately 237.4 kilometers (km) (147.5 miles (mi)) of 
mainstem river channel as critical habitat in Appling, Ben Hill, 
Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne, 
and Wheeler Counties, Georgia. This final rule will implement the 
Federal protections provided by the Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis are available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials 
received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this 
final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia 
Ecological Services Office, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 
30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office (see 
ADDRESSES above). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule 
to list the Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) as endangered; and 
(2) a final rule to designate critical habitat for this species.

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for this species prior to October 6, 2010, are 
outlined in our proposed rule (75 FR 61664), which was published on 
that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment 
period, which closed on December 6, 2010. We reopened the comment 
period from May 12, 2011, through June 13, 2011, in order to announce 
the availability of and receive comments on a draft economic analysis 
(DEA), and to extend the comment period on the proposed listing and 
designation (76 FR 27629).

Public Comments

    We received comments from the public on the proposed listing action 
and proposed critical habitat designation, and, in this rule, we 
respond to these issues in a single comments section. Below, we present 
the listing analysis first, followed by the analysis for designation of 
critical habitat.

Background

Species Description

    The Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) is a freshwater mussel 
in the family Unionidae, endemic to (found only in) the Altamaha River 
drainage of southeastern Georgia. The Altamaha River is formed by the 
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee rivers and lies entirely within 
the State of Georgia. The species was described by I. Lea in 1836 from 
a site near the mouth of the Altamaha River in Darien, Georgia (Johnson 
1970, p. 303).
    This species reaches a shell length of approximately 11.0 
centimeters (cm) (4.3 inches (in)). The shell is subrhomboidal or 
subtriangular in outline and moderately inflated. As the name implies, 
the shells of these animals are adorned with one to five prominent 
spines. These spines may be straight or crooked, reach lengths from 1.0 
to 2.5 cm (0.39 to 0.98 in), and are arranged in a single row that is 
somewhat parallel to the posterior ridge. In young specimens, the 
outside layer or covering of the shell (periostracum) is greenish-
yellow with faint greenish rays, but as the animals get older, they 
typically become a deep brown, although some raying may still be 
evident in older individuals. The interior layer of the shell (nacre) 
is pink or purplish (Johnson 1970, p. 303).

Life History and Habitat

    Adult freshwater mussels are filter-feeders, siphoning 
phytoplankton, diatoms, and other microorganisms from the water column. 
For the first several months, juvenile mussels employ pedal (foot) 
feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus from the sediment 
(Yeager 1994, pp. 217-221; Cope et al. 2008, p. 457).
    Although the life history of the Altamaha spinymussel has not been 
studied, the life histories of other mussels in the Elliptio genus have 
been. Internal fertilization results in the female brooding the larvae 
(glochidia), which when mature are released. To ensure survival, 
glochidia must come into contact with a specific host fish or fishes to 
develop into juvenile mussels. Other mussels in the genus Elliptio are 
broadcast releasers, which may release conglutinates that resemble 
insect larvae. This reproductive strategy depends on clear water during 
the time of the year when mussels release their glochidia (Hartfield 
and Hartfield 1996, p. 375). The Altamaha spinymussel is thought to 
reproduce in late spring and release glochidia by May or June (Johnson 
2004, p. 2; Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). The host fish of the Altamaha 
spinymussel is currently unknown. Furthermore, juvenile age classes of 
other mussels are commonly found during surveys; however, no 
spinymussel recruitment has been evident in surveys conducted since 
1990 (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2008, pers. comm.). Research 
to develop a better understanding of the natural history and the 
reasons for a lack of recruitment in the species is continuing.
    This spinymussel is known only from Georgia in Glynn, Ben Hill, 
McIntosh, Telfair, Tattnall, Long, Montgomery, Toombs, Wheeler, 
Appling, Jeff Davis, Coffee, and Wayne Counties. This spinymussel is 
considered a ``big river'' species; is associated with stable, coarse-
to-fine sandy sediments of sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel islands; 
and appears to be restricted to swiftly flowing water (Sickel 1980, p. 
12). Johnson (1970, p. 303) reported Altamaha spinymussels buried 
approximately 5.1 to 10.2 cm (2.0 to 4.0 in) below the substrate 
surface.

Species Distribution and Status

    The historical range of the Altamaha spinymussel was restricted to 
the Coastal Plain portion of the Altamaha River and the lower portions 
of its three major tributaries, the Ohoopee, Ocmulgee, and Oconee 
Rivers (Johnson 1970, p. 303; Keferl 2001, pers. comm.). Large-scale, 
targeted surveys for the mussel have been conducted since the 1960s 
(Keferl 1993, p. 299). Recent surveys have revealed a dramatic decline 
in recruitment, the number of populations, and number of individuals 
within populations throughout the species' historic range (Stringfellow 
and Gagnon 2001, pp. 1-2; Keferl 1995, pp.

[[Page 62929]]

3-6; Keferl 2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.).
Ohoopee River
    In a survey of the Ohoopee River, Keferl (1981, pp. 12-14) found at 
least 30 live specimens of the Altamaha spinymussel at seven of eight 
collection sites, in thinly scattered beds, in the lower 8 kilometers 
(km) (5 miles (mi)) of the river. Spinymussels were not found higher in 
the watershed, presumably because there are insufficient flows to 
support this species. By the early 1990s, however, only two live 
specimens were found at the same sites (Keferl 1995, pp. 3-6; Keferl 
2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.). Stringfellow and 
Gagnon (2001, pp. 1-2) resurveyed these sites using techniques similar 
to those used by Keferl (1981, p. 12), but did not find any live 
Altamaha spinymussels in the Ohoopee River. Therefore, the species is 
currently either extirpated from the Ohoopee River or present in such 
low numbers that it is undetectable.
Ocmulgee River
    The Altamaha spinymussel is known from the Ocmulgee River from its 
confluence with the Oconee River upstream to Red Bluff in Ben Hill 
County (approximately 110 km/68.3 mi). Early collecting efforts in the 
Ocmulgee River near Lumber City yielded many live Altamaha 
spinymussels. In 1962, Athearn made a single collection of 40 live 
spinymussels downstream of U.S. Highway 341 near Lumber City (Johnson 
et al. 2008, Athearn database). Researchers collected 19 and 21 live 
individuals, respectively, during two surveys at Red Bluff (Thomas and 
Scott 1965, p. 67). In 1986, Stansbery collected 11 live individuals at 
the U.S. Highway 441 Bridge near Jacksonville, Georgia (Wisniewski 
2006, pers. comm.).
    The lower Ocmulgee River was surveyed by Keferl in the mid 1990s, 
during 2000-2001 (Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O'Brien 2002, p. 2), and 
in 2004 (Dinkins 2004, pp. 1-1 and 2-1). Over 90 sites have been 
surveyed since 1993, many of which were repeatedly surveyed, resulting 
in a total of 19 live Altamaha spinymussels detected at 10 sites, 
distributed from Jacksonville downstream to the Oconee River 
confluence.
Oconee River
    There are few historical records of Altamaha spinymussels from the 
Oconee River. Athearn collected 18 spinymussels, including 5 juveniles, 
at a site in Montgomery County near Glenwood in the late 1960s (Johnson 
et al. 2008, Athearn database). The species has not been collected 
there since and is probably extirpated from the Oconee River system 
(Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). In 1995, as part of a dam relicensing 
study, 41 sites between Lake Sinclair and Dublin were surveyed (EA 
Engineering 1995, pp. 1-1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2, and 4-3). One hundred forty-
four hours of search time yielded 118 live mussels, but no Altamaha 
spinymussels. Compared to the other portions of its range, the Oconee 
River has not been extensively surveyed, in part because the entire 
mussel fauna of this river appears to be sparse.
Altamaha River
    Most surveys for Altamaha spinymussels have been conducted in the 
Altamaha River. Although methodological differences preclude accurate 
comparison of mussel abundances over time, there is evidence that 
higher abundances of Altamaha spinymussels occurred in the Altamaha 
River historically. Early surveys at the U.S. Route 301 crossing 
documented 20 individuals in 1963, 7 in 1965, and 43 in 1970. Sickel 
sampled seven sites downstream of the U.S. Route 1 bridge in 1967. 
Sixty spinymussels were collected in one 500-square meters (m\2\) 
(5382-square feet (ft\2\)) site, and an additional 21 spinymussels were 
collected in a 400-m\2\ (4306-ft\2\) (Sickel 1980, p. 11; Wisniewski 
2006, pers. comm.) site. One site had five live spinymussels, two sites 
had one each, and two sites had no Altamaha spinymussels.
    From 1993 to 1996, Keferl surveyed 164 sites on the mainstem of the 
Altamaha River between the Ocmulgee-Oconee River confluence and the 
Interstate 95 crossing near the river's mouth (approximately 189 km/117 
mi.). A total of 63 live Altamaha spinymussels were collected from 18 
of these sites, located between the Oconee River and U.S. Route 301 
(116 km/72 mi); however, no Altamaha spinymussels were collected below 
U.S. Route 301 (73 km/45 mi), suggesting absence or extreme rarity in 
the reach between U.S. Route 301 and the river's mouth (approximately 
73 km (45 mi)). In addition, 10 of these sites were clustered within a 
4-km (2-mi) reach upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing near Jesup; 
the remaining eight sites were isolated by long distances of habitat 
with no or sub-detectable numbers of live spinymussels.
    O'Brien (2002, pp. 3-4) surveyed 30 sites on the Altamaha River 
from the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers downstream to 
U.S. Route 301 during 2001, including the 18 known Altamaha spinymussel 
sites, reported by Keferl, within the reach. She collected a total of 
six live individuals from five different sites and freshly dead shells 
from two additional sites.
    In 2003 and 2004, researchers surveyed 25 sites to collect 
specimens for host-fish trials (Albanese 2005, pers. comm.). Live 
Altamaha spinymussels were detected at only four sites. Five of the 
seven sites documented by O'Brien and all four sites documented during 
the host-fish surveys were clustered within a short reach (15 km/24 mi) 
of the Altamaha River just upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing near 
Jesup, Georgia.
    To summarize, researchers were able to find 60 Altamaha 
spinymussels at a single site on the Altamaha River in 1967; in 
contrast, the largest number of Altamaha spinymussels observed from a 
single site on the Altamaha River during the 1990s or 2000s was nine 
(Albanese 2005, pers. comm.).
Summary of Basin-Wide Population Estimates
    In 1994, researchers spent 128 search-hours throughout the Altamaha 
Basin to find 41 spinymussels (Keferl 1995, p. 3). From 1997 through 
2006, researchers searched 233 sites throughout the basin to document 
34 spinymussels in more than 550 hours of searching (Wisniewski 2006, 
pers. comm.); from 2007 to 2009, only 23 spinymussels were found from 
more than 110 sites (Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). In summary, the 
Altamaha spinymussel is considered extirpated from two rivers in its 
historical range, the Ohoopee (15 km (9 mi)) and Oconee Rivers (45 km 
(28 mi)), as well as the lower 73 km (45 mi) of the Altamaha River 
(Table 1). Since 1997, despite extensive survey efforts made by several 
different researchers, only 57 spinymussels have been observed from 7 
sites in the Ocmulgee (110 km (68 mi)) and 15 sites in the upper 
Altamaha (116 km (72 mi)) combined, and while individual spinymussels 
have been found scattered throughout this stretch of river, most of 
these sites have been clustered in the 10 km (6 mi) immediately north 
of the U.S. Route 301 crossing.

[[Page 62930]]



                              Table 1--Decline in Range of the Altamaha Spinymussel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Percent of
              River reach                  Historically  occupied           Current habitat          historical
                                               (linear km/mi)                                        range lost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohoopee................................  15 km/9 mi...............  Not seen since 1997...........           4
Oconee.................................  45 km/28 mi..............  Not seen since 1968...........          12.5
Ocmulgee...............................  110 km/68.3 mi...........  Widely scattered..............           0
Upper Altamaha.........................  116 km/72 mi.............  Widely scattered individuals..           0
Lower Altamaha.........................  73 km/45 mi..............  Not seen since 1970...........          20
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  359 km/222 mi............  226 km/140 mi.................          36.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR)'s database, 
which included many of the surveys mentioned above, Wisniewski et al. 
(2005, p. 2) conducted a test for a temporal change in sites occupied 
in the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers between the early 1990s and the 
early 2000s. Live Altamaha spinymussels were detected at 24 of 241 
sites (10 percent) sampled before 2000 and at 14 of 120 sites (12 
percent) sampled after 2000. Although the percentage of sites occupied 
is not indicative of a decline, an analysis of 39 sites sampled during 
both time periods, of which the spinymussel was initially present in 13 
of the 39 sites, indicated that the spinymussel was lost from 
significantly more sites (11 sites) than it colonized (3 sites) between 
the early 1990s and early 2000s (Wisniewski et al. 2005, p. 2). This 
test is imprecise because the failure to detect Altamaha spinymussels 
when present could result in both false colonizations (species missed 
during early surveys but detected in recent survey) and false 
extirpations (species detected during early survey but missed during 
recent survey). Thus, although the exact number of extirpations and 
colonizations between the two time periods may not be accurate, the 
much higher number of extirpations is suggestive of a decline over this 
time period.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    During the open comment periods for the proposed rule (75 FR 61664) 
and draft economic analysis, we requested that all interested parties 
submit comments or information concerning the proposed listing and 
designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. We 
contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies (including the 
State of Georgia, from whom we directly requested comments), county 
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment. Articles concerning the 
proposed rule and inviting public comment were published by the 
Associated Press, The Brunswick News and the Florida Times Union. An 
article was also published by the Center for Biological Diversity.
    During the comment periods, we received a total of 79 comments. We 
received comments supporting the listing of the Altamaha spinymussel 
from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Resources 
Division, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, three environmental groups, 
and 70 individuals including 9 letters and 65 postcards. We received 
two requests for an extension of the open comment period and notified 
requestors that the comment period would reopen for the Notice of 
Availability of the Draft Economic Analysis, published on May 12, 2011. 
We received no requests for, and therefore did not hold, a public 
hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we requested the opinions of 
four knowledgeable individuals with expertise on freshwater mollusks, 
the Altamaha River Basin, and conservation biology principles. The 
purpose of peer review is to ensure that the designation is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input 
of appropriate experts and specialists. We received written responses 
from three of the peer reviewers.
    Peer reviewers stated that: (1) The proposal included a thorough 
and accurate review of the available scientific and commercial data on 
this mussel and its habitats; (2) the best available scientific data 
documented substantial declines in its abundance and distribution; and 
(3) the data supported the proposed listing as endangered with the 
designation of approximately 237.4 km (147.5 mi) of critical habitat. 
Two peer reviewers provided additional details and correction about the 
life history of the spinymussel, one of these reviewers also provided 
specific recommendations for the primary constituent elements (PCEs). 
The information provided by the reviewers has been incorporated into 
the appropriate sections of this final rule or is addressed in the 
comments below.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new 
data regarding the spinymussel, its critical habitat, and the draft 
economic analysis. Written comments received during the comment periods 
are addressed in the following summary. For readers' convenience, we 
have combined similar comments into single comments and responses.
Peer Reviewer Comments
    (1) Comment: Water quality standards set by the State of Georgia 
are based on water quality criteria established by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for protection of aquatic life, 
not humans. Mussels are not currently represented in datasets used by 
EPA for derivation of water quality criteria. If adopted, the proposed 
criteria for ammonia will be the first to include mussel sensitivity 
data. Therefore, the statement that many of the standards may not be 
protective of mussels is accurate.
    Our response: We agree, and have incorporated this information into 
the Physical or Biological Features Section to reflect this comment. 
Also see Comment 4 below.
    (2) Comment: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations of 33.1 mg/L 
appear unusually high for a river segment with no dams. It seems 
appropriate to exclude this value as described by reporting the 10th 
and 90th percentiles for DO.
    Our response: After reviewing the data, we found three data points 
to be exceptionally high. All three were taken from the same timeframe 
with the same device, which suggests that the device may not have been 
calibrated correctly. These three data points have been thrown out, and 
the concentration range has been recalculated to 0.42-

[[Page 62931]]

20.3 mg/l. The benefit of using the 10th and 90th percentiles is that 
it allows us to exclude the outliers from the data that may be due to 
device errors.
    (3) Comment: Populations of several fish species, particularly 
anadromous fishes (e.g. striped bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic and 
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum), American 
shad (Alossa sapidissima), and other herrings), have declined 
substantially in recent decades. Host trials for spinymussels with 10 
species of fish from six families (Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae, 
Ictaluridae, Moronidae, Acipenseridae, Catostomidae) have been 
conducted. Unfortunately, none of these trials have produced juvenile 
spinymussels.
    Our response: We agree. One of the largest gaps in knowledge of 
this species is host fish information. Presence of suitable host fish 
in the basin is critical for survival of this species. Evaluation of 
habitat suitability for the spinymussel would be greatly enhanced with 
knowledge of the host fish occurrence and distribution; suitable 
habitat must also be present for the host fish(es). Though all 85 fish 
species native to the Altamaha Basin are still present, populations of 
several fish species have declined substantially compared to historic 
numbers. Host fish have been identified for other members of the genus 
Elliptio, and these species should provide a starting point for the 
spinymussel. Identification of suitable host fish is also critical for 
development of a propagation program. Laboratory culture of juveniles 
would allow for a potential population augmentation program and/or 
could be used to produce organisms for toxicity testing purposes. The 
Service has incorporated this information into the Physical or 
Biological Features Section to reflect this comment.
    (4) Comment: EPA has recently (2009) proposed to revise the chronic 
water quality value for ammonia (at pH 8 and 25 C) from 1.2 mg/L to 
0.26 mg/L. This value is calculated to protect 95% of aquatic species. 
Because ammonia toxicity data have not been generated for the Altamaha 
spinymussel it is prudent for the Service to consider a lower PCE value 
for ammonia such as 0.22 mg N/L as indicated in the proposal.
    Our response: We agree. We believe the value chosen for the PCE for 
ammonia is well supported, which is why it is being adopted by EPA 
(Newton et al. 2003, p. 2556 and Wang et al. 2007, pp. 2041-2043).
    (5) Comment: The commenter recommends adding criteria for copper, 
nickel, and pyrene. Copper toxicity to early life stages of unionids 
has been reported as low as 6.8 ug/L in a 96-hr test at a water 
hardness of 177 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007, p. 2043). Hardness buffers 
metal toxicity by reducing bioavailability of metal ions. Hardness 
values are much lower (20-40 mg/L) in the Altamaha, thus toxicity would 
be expected at even lower copper concentrations. Chronic criteria 
should be substantially lower than this acute value.
    Nickel toxicity has been reported for juvenile unionids at 190 ug/L 
in a 96-hr test with soft water (hardness <50 mg/L). Acute and chronic 
nickel criteria should be lower than 190 ug/L (no citation provided).
    Pyrene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) that may be 
associated with pulp and paper mills among other industrial and urban 
sources. This PAH is toxic to unionid glochidia (24 h LC50) at 2.63 ug/
L in the presence of UV light (no citation provided). Chronic criteria 
for persistent, bioaccumulative compounds like PAHs should be 
substantially lower than acute toxicity values.
    Our response: The Service routinely consults with other federal 
agencies regarding the effects of their actions, and uses the best 
science available. Given the complex and unique conditions inherent in 
individual consultations, as well as at different times of year and 
areas of the river, we believe it would not be prudent to set standards 
for these compounds at this time because temperature, life stage, and 
other unknowns may have substantial impact on their toxicity (e.g., 
temperature and copper interaction). Where surrogate science was 
available and appropriate to establish general guidelines for water 
quality, it was applied in this manner. However, we do not have 
sufficient data to develop water quality criteria for copper, nickel, 
and pyrene at the level of specificity suggested by the commenter.

Comments From the State

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate 
critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel are addressed below.
    Because the comments of one peer reviewer (a State of Georgia 
employee) were adopted by the State, we are including them in our 
response to State comments. The State supports the designation of 
critical habitat for the occupied reaches of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee 
rivers as proposed, including the exclusion of the Altamaha River 
between U.S. Route 1 and the upper property boundary of Moody Forest 
Natural Area from proposed critical habitat. Georgia concurs with the 
Service that the designation of critical habitat in only the currently 
occupied reaches of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers would not 
adequately conserve the Altamaha spinymussel because this range is 
connected in a linear pattern that could be destroyed by a single event 
in the Ocmulgee, flowing downstream into the Altamaha. Therefore, the 
proposed designation of critical habitat in at least one additional 
tributary that historically harbored the Altamaha spinymussel is 
necessary to conserve the species.
    (6) Comment: One item that appears to be poorly supported is the 
considerable discussion found within the Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species regarding contaminants in sediments of the Oconee River as 
primary threats. In the proposed rule the Service included extensive 
text on heavy metal toxicity due to kaolin mining/processing as a 
threat to unionids in the Oconee River Basin. The Service should also 
include extensive text regarding the presence and operations of Lake 
Sinclair.
    Our response: The effects of contaminants in sediment in the Oconee 
River and the entire Altamaha Basin are not well understood. However, 
it is clear that contaminants in sediment are a threat to mussel fauna 
in the Southeast and are, therefore, a potential threat to the 
spinymussel that must be evaluated in the Threats Assessment (Cope 
2008, pp. 452-459). Currently there are no data to describe the 
sensitivity of the spinymussel to environmental stressors such as 
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and contaminants, but tolerances to 
stressors can be inferred from other mussel species. The effects of 
these stressors on mussel fauna are often interconnected. Standardized 
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) guidelines are 
currently available for toxicity tests with early life stages 
(glochidia and juveniles) of freshwater mussels. As a result, toxicity 
and thermal tolerance data are being generated for a growing number of 
unionid species. The Service considers contaminants in sediment a 
potential threat to the spinymussel throughout its range. The nearest 
reservoir is approximately 120 km (75 miles) from the historic range of 
the spinymussel and approximately 165 km (103 mi.) from occupied 
habitat, thus, the effects of hypolimnetic discharges are not 
considered a threat to the Altamaha spinymussel (also see Comment 7 and

[[Page 62932]]

Factor E. Other Natural and Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence).
    (7) Comment: The Oconee River downstream of Lake Sinclair was 
generalized as having sparse mussel populations. The proposal strongly 
suggests that this is a result of contaminants but does not allude to 
any effects due to the presence of a major dam and hydroelectric 
generation facility located at Lake Sinclair. Numerous published 
studies have recognized reservoirs and hydroelectric generation 
facilities as one of the leading reasons for declines and extinctions 
of unionids throughout North America.
    Our response: The Oconee River downstream of Lake Sinclair to U.S. 
Route 280 is poorly surveyed for mussels. Available surveys had 
described the mussel fauna as depauperate (EA Engineering 1995, pp. 1-
1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2, and 4-3). Typically, habitats immediately downstream 
of dams are unsuitable for unionids due to the highly erosive nature of 
the substrates during channel forming events (e.g., spring floods), 
which scour substrates and deposit those benthic organisms occupying 
these habitats elsewhere. Additionally, eroding substrates are often 
deposited upon downstream habitats where unionids occur and thus impede 
their mobility and their ability to siphon or reproduce. Generally, the 
effects of reservoir operations on river channels are greatest closest 
to dams and gradually decline as rivers flow downstream. This effect is 
observed in the Oconee River, which has a deeply entrenched channel 
near Dublin, Georgia, upstream of the historic range of the 
spinymussel. Conversely, the Oconee River downstream of U.S. Route 280 
near Mt. Vernon (within the historic range of the spinymussel), has a 
wider, less entrenched channel with good floodplain connectivity, 
gentle bank slope, and riparian buffers. Mussel fauna diversity greatly 
increases in the lower portion of the Oconee, suggesting that the 
habitat is not degraded by dam operations. While the dam at Lake 
Sinclair certainly has a profound effect on the ecology of the Oconee 
River, it is 75 miles from the historic range of the spinymussel and, 
therefore, was not considered a threat (see Factor E. Other Natural and 
Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
    (8) Comment: The inclusion of the Lower Oconee River as critical 
habitat would more adequately conserve the Altamaha spinymussel than 
the inclusion of the Ohoopee River, as the Oconee River is a much 
larger watershed and would be less vulnerable to dewatering during 
periods of extreme drought, which will likely become more frequent in 
the future. The Oconee River from U.S. 280 in Mt. Vernon downstream to 
its confluence with the Altamaha River should be designated as an 
unoccupied stream reach proposed for critical habitat.
    Our response: We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated critical habitat area is unimportant or 
may not be required for recovery of the species. The Service agrees 
that it is essential for the conservation of the species that one of 
the unoccupied tributaries to the Altamaha be included as critical 
habitat to avoid a linear distribution that might be vulnerable to a 
single catastrophic event. The Service has determined that only one of 
the unoccupied rivers is essential. In deciding which of the two rivers 
to include as critical habitat we looked at all historic records of 
spinymussel. In the Oconee River, the only record of spinymussels was 
from a single collection in 1968. The spinymussel has not been seen in 
the Oconee from any other locations or at any other time and is now 
considered extirpated from this river. Conversely, spinymussels have 
been found from multiple locations over several decades in the Ohoopee 
and were found as recently as 1997. Keferl referred to the Ohoopee as a 
possible refugia for the species endemic to the Altamaha, including the 
spinymussel (Keferl 1981, p. 15). Furthermore, the Oconee has many 
human-induced threats that are not well understood, including: Kaolin 
mining, agriculture, and municipal water treatment. The Ohoopee has 
fewer inputs of point source pollution within this basin; however, this 
river is impacted by municipal water treatment, drought, and, during 
low flows, vehicle traffic in the river bed. Drought is a natural event 
which mussel species have evolved to survive. Vehicle traffic in the 
river bed could be more easily managed than the potential threats to 
the Oconee, which may need extensive study to be understood. In 
determining which river would best serve to protect the spinymussel, 
the Service chose the Ohoopee because it was known to be inhabited by 
the spinymussel more recently, it was considered high-quality habitat 
(habitat that includes multiple PCEs), and manmade impacts should be 
easier to manage.
    (9) Comment: The continued declines of the Altamaha spinymussel are 
likely exacerbated by density-dependence in which too few individuals 
exist to adequately repopulate the basin at observable levels.
    Our response: We agree, and consider this to be the most serious 
threat faced by this mussel (for further explanation see Factor E. 
Other Natural and Man Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 
and Determination).

Public Comments

    (10) Comment: In the proposed rule, the Service has not adequately 
considered the cost to other Federal agencies and how the listing might 
impact civil works programs such as dredging for commercial navigation 
or ecosystem restoration on the Altamaha, Oconee, and Ocmulgee Rivers.
    Our response: The Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(b) 
prohibit us from considering the possible economic impacts associated 
with listing a species. However, we do take into consideration economic 
impacts associated with designating critical habitat in accordance with 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Under section 7 of the Act, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) will need to consult with us for activities 
that may affect the Altamaha spinymussel or its critical habitat. We 
have broadly defined activities that may affect, destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat below (see Application of the ``Adverse 
Modification'' Standard, below), and will work with the Corps to ensure 
that the best available information is used when they consult with us. 
Our final economic analysis (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2011, pp. ES-2, 
ES-3, ES-4) found that there would be only marginal incremental 
administrative costs associated with this critical habitat designation. 
Incremental administrative costs are costs that would occur only as a 
result of the critical habitat designation, which are above and beyond 
costs associated with listing the species (i.e., baseline costs). The 
economic analysis projects approximately $37,100 of total incremental 
impacts (over the next 30 years (2011-2040)) using a seven percent 
discount rate), as the result of critical habitat designation for the 
Altamaha spinymussel.
    In order to estimate the cost of consultation the Service contacted 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to see how many 
consultations they conduct for the shortnose sturgeon

[[Page 62933]]

in the Altamaha River. NMFS biologists informed us that they average 
less than one formal consultation on the Altamaha annually and would 
estimate that they would conduct three formal consultations annually if 
critical habitat were designated for this species (Bolden 2011, pers. 
comm.). Because a listed species already occurs in these rivers, the 
Altamaha spinymussel listing and critical habitat designation would not 
be likely to prompt a large increase in the need for consultation or 
the associated costs to the Corps.
    (11) Comment: The proposal contains considerable speculation as to 
the possible causes for reduced populations of the Altamaha spinymussel 
but provides no substantive detail or analysis concerning the relative 
importance of factors contributing to the supposed primary stressors, 
sedimentation and contaminants.
    Our response: The Service has monitored the decline of the 
spinymussel since it first became a candidate species in 1984. Since 
that time the Service and the State have funded numerous efforts to 
develop a better understanding of the natural history of this species. 
Unfortunately, the low numbers of this species have made it difficult 
to study; therefore, we have analyzed the threats to this species using 
the best available science on surrogate species. The natural history of 
this species is likely very similar to other species in the family 
Unionidae, and it is reasonable to assume that similar threats will 
affect this species in a similar manner. Each threat is discussed in 
detail in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and is 
summarized in the Determination sections. A Threats Matrix detailing 
our best understanding of the relative importance has been developed 
and has been provided to the commenter. A copy of the Threats Matrix is 
on file and available upon request. We have also clarified the relative 
importance of specific threats, as needed, within the Threats Analysis 
of this rule.
    (12) Comment: The proposed rule misrepresents the (EPA's) Total 
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and the impaired waters 
identification process and erroneously suggests that the current 
regulatory process is inadequate and will not afford protection to the 
spinymussel. The proposed rule implies or states directly that current 
regulatory water quality management tools are inadequate to protect 
existing spinymussel populations.
    Our response: The completion of and compliance with a TMDL removes 
a stream from the 303(d) list (list of impaired waterbodies). However, 
as stated, the stream is then placed on the 305(b) list of impaired 
streams with a completed TMDL whether or not water quality conditions 
improve. Furthermore, several waterbodies have been removed from the 
303(d) list upon completion of a TMDL, only to return to the 303(d) 
list due to additional violations. This indicates that while the TMDL 
program can improve water quality in streams, it does not prevent water 
quality violations from occurring, which could have a deleterious 
effect on the Altamaha spinymussel.
    (13) Comment: The proposed rule provides little or no justification 
for the water quality metrics (primary constituent elements, or PCEs) 
that are suggested as ``necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability at all life stages.''
    Our response: In developing the parameters for the water quality 
PCE, we used the best available information to create specific 
guidelines (considering mussel life stage and interactions with 
variables such as temperature) including temperature, dissolved oxygen, 
ammonia, pH, and cadmium. How we derived these criteria is explained 
below. Conversely, there are many possible toxicity issues for which we 
do not believe there is sufficient information to develop water quality 
standards that would be protective of the spinymussel at this time (see 
also response to Comment 5).
Temperature PCE
    We believe that the maximum temperature and the maximum daily 
temperature fluctuation criteria identified in PCE 3 are supported by 
the best available data generated from direct temperature measurements 
of the Altamaha River, as well as comparisons to three temperature 
gauge stations on the Savannah River, which is similar in size, 
hydrology, and proximity (Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.). Therefore, a 
maximum temperature of 32.6 [deg]C with no more than a 2 [deg]C daily 
fluctuation appears justified. See the Physical or Biological Features 
discussion to see how these were derived.
Dissolved Oxygen PCE
    Comments suggesting that dissolved oxygen in bottom layers of 
critical habitat may be lower than the PCE are not appropriate because 
spinymussels are found in the mainstem river in areas of moving water 
that does not stratify. Therefore, the water should be well-mixed and 
dissolved oxygen should be consistent throughout the water column.
Ammonia PCE
    For ammonia, 1.5 mg N/L is the criteria maximum concentration (CMC) 
and 0.22 mg N/L is the criteria continuous concentration (CCC). A 
review of mussel ammonia literature indicates that at least some 
juvenile mussels are sensitive to ammonia at concentrations as low as 
0.093 mg NH3/L in 10-d assays (Newton et al. 2003, p. 2556) and 0.37 mg 
N/L in 28-d tests (Wang et al. 2007, pp. 2041-2043). EPA did not 
include all mussel toxicity test data in derivation of the proposed 
criteria (2009) because some tests did not use `standardized' methods 
(Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). The Service considered all available 
mussel ammonia toxicity data in deriving PCEs. The Service arrived at 
the ammonia PCE values as a compromise between the mussel toxicity 
literature and the proposed EPA criteria. There are no ammonia toxicity 
data available for spinymussel, therefore, we believe this to be the 
most valid approach for establishing a standard.
pH PCE
    The Service attempted to determine the `central range' of pH values 
in the Altamaha River by generating the 10th and 90th percentiles (the 
point at which 10% and 90%, respectively, of the observed values fell) 
of pH. Because the causes of the decline of the spinymussel remain 
unidentified, and no data are available regarding the optimal pH for 
this species, it is reasonable to designate a PCE for critical habitat 
that does not include the extremes of any water quality parameter 
(Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). Critical habitat must be supportive of 
the species, and it is reasonable to assume that extremes of any 
parameter could be detrimental to this species. Critical habitat PCEs 
should incorporate the most stable habitats.
Cadmium PCE
    Mussel toxicity to cadmium (Cd) is reported to occur at 
concentrations as low as 16 [micro]g/L in 96-h tests with juveniles 
(Wang et al. 2010, pp. 2056-2057). The Cd criteria for Georgia are 1 
[micro]g/L (CMC) and 0.15 [micro]g/L (CCC). However, the commenter 
suggests that the Cd concentrations required to cause toxicity are 2000 
to 13,000 times greater than GA water quality criteria (1 ug/L). The Cd 
concentration that caused acute toxicity with juvenile mussels is only 
16 times higher than the Georgia Cd criteria. Therefore, it is not 
prudent to assume that Cd is not a significant contributor to decline 
in spinymussel populations. Early life stages are

[[Page 62934]]

generally more sensitive than adults; therefore, PCEs were established 
based on a survey of all published mussel early-life-stage toxicity 
data since 1992.
    Comment (14): Climate change models do not provide information that 
is appropriate for making management decisions regarding the Altamaha 
spinymussel.
    Our response: The Service agrees that it would not be appropriate 
to use climate change models to make management decisions regarding the 
Altamaha spinymussel. However, the Service acknowledges that climate 
change could alter the severity of storms and droughts, which could 
affect spinymussels in the future (See Factor E. Other Natural and Man 
Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence, also see the 
discussion under Critical Habitat, Background).
    Comment (15): The Service should consider that factors unrelated to 
habitat, such as invasive species, may be the most important limiting 
factor for the Altamaha spinymussel.
    Our response: While invasive species may be affecting the Altamaha 
spinymussel (either directly or indirectly), there is little, if any, 
information to support that invasive species are the most important 
limiting factor affecting the Altamaha spinymussel or other mussels 
native to the Altamaha or Atlantic Slope of Georgia. The flathead 
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) was likely introduced into the Altamaha 
River during the 1970s or 1980s, and populations began to greatly 
increase during the 1990s. Flathead catfish may predate the host fish 
for the Altamaha spinymussel and other native unionids (see discussion 
under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 
Continued Existence). However, despite the introduction of this 
piscivorous (fish eating) fish, most fish and mollusk species known 
from the Altamaha Basin as well as the remainder of the Atlantic Slope 
of Georgia, where the flathead catfish has been introduced, appear to 
be extant and relatively abundant. Similar trends occur in the nearby 
Flint River Basin where the flathead catfish has been introduced. 
Despite the introduction of this species and the highly altered nature 
of the Flint River, mussel species composition is similar to those 
experienced prior to the introduction of the flathead catfish 
(Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.).
    The competition between the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and 
native unionids has been examined, but results have been contradictory. 
Yeager et al. (2000, pp. 256-258) suggested that high densities of 
Asian clam may negatively influence unionid recruitment. However, 
Vaughn and Spooner (unpublished data, p. 5) indicated that Asian clam 
densities were generally lower when populations of native unionids were 
dense, but increased with declining populations of native unionids. 
Gardner et al. (1976, pp. 122-124) hypothesized that the decline in 
bivalve populations in the Altamaha River co-occurred with the invasion 
of Corbicula; they also admit that ``a combination of factors probably 
was responsible for the success of Corbicula and the decline of other 
bivalves in the Altamaha River.'' It is likely that the apparent 
declines in the densities of Altamaha spinymussels are a result of a 
variety of factors, some of which may be attributed to invasive 
species. The extent to which they are adversely affected by flathead 
catfish and Asian clam is currently unknown.
    Comment (16): The Service should recognize that suspended solids 
from biological wastewater treatment plants are often comprised largely 
of organic matter and that such solids would not be expected to 
contribute to sedimentation.
    Our response: The Service concurs with this comment; we have no 
information that suspended solids are a threat to the spinymussel at 
this time.
    Comment (17): Sediment issues in the southeastern United States are 
complicated by a legacy of poor agricultural practices during the 1800s 
and early 1900s, which raises questions about sources of sediment 
problems and the relative magnitudes of different sediment sources 
today. Silvicultural activities generally have only a small, short-
lived impact on water quality, especially when compared with other land 
uses.
    Our response: We agree that the primary source of sedimentation is 
legacy sediment and that silvicutural activities have a small and 
short-lived impact on water quality (see Factor A. The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range). Legacy sediment migrating through the floodplains of the 
Altamaha Basin is likely one of the most severe threats to the 
spinymussel. As an example, in Murder Creek, a tributary of the Oconee 
River, over 1.6 m (5.3 ft) of legacy sediment was observed (Jackson et 
al. 2005, p. 1). Much of the eroded sediment was believed to remain in 
valley storage or in transport as bedload in Georgia's Piedmont streams 
(Jackson et al. 2005, p. 3). Based upon estimates of inputs from 
various sources and exports via total suspended solids and bedload, 
sediment exports were greater than sediment inputs. It is assumed that 
the remainder of the sediment came from excavation and mobilization of 
stored valley sediments, principally through lateral migration of 
stream channels and bank erosion (Jackson et al. 2005, pg 10). Legacy 
sediment is an ongoing threat as it moves downstream covering suitable 
habitat.
    Comment (18): The Service should consider that implementation rates 
for forestry best management practices are high nationally and in 
Georgia, including the Altamaha River Basin.
    Our response: We agree that the rates of implementation for 
forestry BMPs are high and consider sediment from silvicultural 
activities to be a small and short-lived impact.
    Comment (19): When properly implemented, forestry BMPs protect 
water quality and habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. BMPs are 
critical in mitigating water quality degradation from silviculture, and 
when appropriately implemented and maintained, are very effective in 
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution. Because of the overwhelming 
body of research related to BMPs and their effectiveness for protecting 
water quality and aquatic habitat, it is not surprising that the 
Service has recognized in previous regulatory proposals that BMPs are 
an important component of conservation strategies for freshwater 
mussels.
    Our Response: The Service agrees that BMPs are protective of water 
quality and mussel habitat, and that industrial forestry activities 
generally do a good job of implementing BMPs. However, some harvesting 
operations fail to use BMPs adequately, and localized impacts can and 
do occur.
    Comment (20): The Georgia Forestry Commission's BMP education and 
monitoring programs are effective at encouraging implementation of 
forestry BMPs and provide ``reasonable assurance'' that forestry BMPs 
are implemented effectively in Georgia.
    Our response: We generally agree with this comment, particularly on 
industrial forests. However, there are individual exceptions, with 
compliance reported by the Georgia Forestry Commission at around 95 
percent.
    Comment (21): Sustainable forestry certification programs require 
participants to meet or exceed forestry BMPs and help ensure high rates 
of BMP implementation.
    Our response: The Service agrees that the sustainable forestry 
program is one of the most effective programs to ensure BMPs are 
properly implemented.
    Comment (22): Preliminary sampling of direct tributaries in 
forested watersheds within the Altamaha River

[[Page 62935]]

Basin suggests that mussel communities are diverse and abundant. The 
role of lakes in supporting the mussel community within the basin is 
not known, but could be significant and should be explored further.
    Our response: We believe that floodplain lakes within the Altamaha 
Basin are of little importance to the Altamaha spinymussel as they do 
not have habitat to sustain the species. Dinkins (2007, p. 4) provides 
support for this by stating, ``species typically found in the river 
where the substrate has a dominant sand matrix and/or slight to 
moderate current during normal flow conditions (e.g., Elliptio spinosa, 
Lampsilis dolabraeformis) were not present in Cogden Lake.'' Cogden 
Lake is a floodplain lake in the Basin. The Altamaha spinymussel is 
typically found in association with protected areas around sand bars, 
in medium to coarse hard-packed sand, with rather swift current near 
gently sloping, soft banks with its distribution greatly restricted to 
these habitats (Meador 2009 p. 52, Sickel 1980, pp. 10-11; Wisniewski 
2008, p. 2). In general, floodplain lakes within the Altamaha River 
Basin exhibit habitats that are not conducive to the survival of the 
Altamaha spinymussel as these habitats typically have little or no flow 
and silty or muddy substrates.
    In conclusion, there is not sufficient evidence to support the 
existence of potential populations of the Altamaha spinymussel in these 
floodplain lakes or tributaries.
    Comment (23): The summary paragraph within Factor A, The present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range, is over-reaching and contains speculative language. Inferences 
that enforcement of laws and regulations may be subverted to economic 
interests and citing pending investigations by nongovernmental 
environmental groups (such as Riverkeepers) should not be relied on as 
the best scientific information available and are highly speculative 
regarding impacts to mussels and their habitat.
    Our response: The Service considers the best scientific and 
commercial information available when making listing decisions, and 
Riverkeepers have provided extensive and detailed field notes 
concerning water quality violations. Few of these notes were considered 
sufficient enough to include in this rule; however, the Altamaha 
Riverkeeper has successfully brought three cases to court (Altamaha 
Riverkeeper v. Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300-042 (S.D. Ga) (Order on 
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001); Altamaha 
Riverkeeper v. City of Lumber City, CV-300-043 (S.D. Ga); Altamaha 
Riverkeepers v City of Cochran, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D. Ga. 2001)) 
regarding water quality standard violations (see Factor A discussion 
below for more detail). We consider these court findings to be relevant 
information related to enforcement of laws and regulations within the 
watershed.
    Comment (24): Two comments supported additional critical habitat 
including the entire historic range of the spinymussel, as well as, 
associated dry lands and wetlands.
    Our response: We believe the occupied and unoccupied areas we are 
designating as critical habitat adequately represent the geographical 
areas essential for the conservation of the species. See our response 
to Comment 8.
    Comment (25): Why was the area around Plant Hatch excluded from 
Critical Habitat designation?
    Our response: We did not include the section of the Altamaha River 
between US Route 1 and the upper property boundary of Moody Forest 
Natural Area from proposed critical habitat because it does not contain 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species. Dredging operations and thermal stress in the vicinity of 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant have altered the habitat quality so that 
the PCEs are not present in this river reach. Habitat within this reach 
is generally unstable, consisting of coarse, mobile sand.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five 
listing factors are: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Bogan (1993, pp. 599-600 and 603-605) linked the decline and 
extinction of bivalves to a wide variety of threats including 
siltation, industrial pollution, municipal effluents, modification of 
stream channels, impoundments, pesticides, heavy metals, invasive 
species, and the loss of host fish. The Altamaha spinymussel lives 
within a large river drainage exposed to a variety of landscape uses. 
Habitat and water quality for the Altamaha spinymussel face degradation 
from a number of sources. Primary among these are threats from 
sedimentation and contaminants within the streams that the spinymussel 
inhabits.
    Sickel (1980, p. 12) characterized the habitat of the Altamaha 
spinymussel as coarse-to-fine-grain sandbars, and suggested that this 
may make the Altamaha spinymussel susceptible to adverse effects from 
sediment (siltation). Sediments deposited on the stable sandbars 
required by the Altamaha spinymussel could make sandbars unstable, 
result in suffocation, or simply change the texture of the substrate, 
making them unsuitable for the species. Sedimentation, including 
siltation from surface runoff, has been implicated as a factor in water 
quality impairment in the United States and has contributed to the 
decline of mussel populations in streams throughout the country (Ellis 
1936, pp. 39-41; Coon et al. 1977, p. 284; Marking and Bills 1979, pp. 
209-210; Wilber 1983, pp. 25-57; Dennis 1984, pp. 207-212; Aldridge et 
al. 1987, pp. 25-26; Schuster et al. 1989, p. 84; Wolcott and Neves 
1991, pp. 1-6; Houp 1993, p. 96; Bogan 1993, pp. 603-605; Waters 1995, 
pp. 53-77; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1084).
    Specific impacts on mussels from sediments include reduced feeding 
and respiratory efficiency, disrupted metabolic processes, reduced 
growth rates, increased substrata instability, and the physical 
smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-41; Stansbery 1970, p. 10; 
Markings and Bills 1979, pp. 209-210; Kat 1982, p. 124; Aldridge et al. 
1987, pp. 25-26; Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 375; Brim Box and 
Mossa 1999, pp. 99-102; TNC 2004, p. 4; Cope 2008, pp. 452-459). Many 
southeastern streams have increased turbidity levels due to siltation 
(van der Schalie 1938, p. 56). Since turbidity is a limiting factor 
that impedes the ability of sight-feeding fishes to forage (Burkhead 
and Jenkins 1991, pp. 324-325), turbidity within the Altamaha River 
Basin during the times that Altamaha spinymussels

[[Page 62936]]

attempt to reproduce may reduce the ability of the host fish to find 
glochidia, and may contribute to the decline of the spinymussel by 
reducing its efficiency at infecting the fish hosts necessary for 
reproduction. In addition, sediment can eliminate or reduce the 
recruitment of juvenile mussels (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101-102), 
interfere with feeding activity (Dennis 1984, pp. 207-212), and act as 
a vector in delivering contaminants to streams (Salomons et al. 1987, 
p. 28).
    From 1700 to 1970, agricultural practices in the Southern Piedmont 
physiographic province resulted in extreme soil erosion, removing more 
than 17.8 cm (7 in.) of soil across the landscape (Trimble 1974, p. 1). 
The Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers all drain through the Piedmont 
and were directly affected by this erosion and resulting sedimentation. 
In 1938, van der Schalie (p. 56) reported the Altamaha River as being 
yellow in color, due to the large amount of suspended silt originating 
from intensive farming and road construction occurring in the 
headwaters. The sediment from these practices moved into stream 
channels and valleys, covering most of the original bottomlands 
(Trimble 1974, p. 26) and is now referred to as legacy sediment 
(Jackson et al. 2005, pg. 3). As a result, stream profiles have been 
dramatically altered with unstable sediment deposits being dissected 
and streams being incised with entrained sediment migrating downstream 
to be deposited in stream channels and floodplains (Trimble 1974, pp. 
116-121; Jackson et al. 2005, pg 1). The GDNR, Environmental Protection 
Division (EPD 2007, p. iii) reported to EPA that approximately 75 
percent of the average sediment load in the Altamaha River Basin 
resulted from row crops and that it contributed an average sediment 
load of 1 ton per acre per year. The EPD concluded that this sediment 
is probably a legacy of past land use. The mobilization of legacy 
sediments, principally through lateral migration of stream channels and 
bank erosion is an ongoing threat as it moves downstream covering 
suitable habitat (Jackson et al. 2005, p. 10). Large -scale sediment 
movement and deposition may result in increased embeddedness, which 
would generally decrease habitat quality (Bringolf 2011, pers. comm.). 
The degree to which rocks (gravel, cobble, and boulders) and snags are 
covered or sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of the stream bottom is a 
measure of embeddedness, and is a parameter evaluated in the riffles 
and runs of streams (also see Our Response to Comment 17). Although it 
is the historical, anthropogenic land use that created the legacy 
sediment, the volume of legacy sediment still migrating through the 
Altamaha River Basin is a significant threat to the spinymussel.
    Studies of the fish populations in the Altamaha River Basin were 
conducted in 2000 by the GDNR Wildlife Resources Division (WRD). The 
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index of Well-Being (IWB) 
rate fish populations as being in Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or in 
Very Poor condition, and were applied by the WRD to identify impaired 
fish populations in the Altamaha River. Stream segments with fish 
populations rated as Poor or Very Poor were listed as Biota Impacted. A 
lack of fish habitat due to stream sedimentation was generally the 
cause of a low IBI score.
    Five Mile Creek (14.5 km/9 mi), Bullard Creek (12.8 km/8 mi), and 
Jacks Creek (14.5 km/9 mi) were rated as ``Very Poor'' and placed on 
the State of Georgia's 303(d) list of impaired waters due to a 
significant impact on fish (EPD 2007a, pp. 1-2). These three streams 
eventually feed into the mainstem of the Altamaha River via larger 
channels. As sediment moves through the basin, habitat is periodically 
buried. WRD recommends that there be no net increase in sediment 
delivered to the impaired stream segments so that these streams will 
recover over time (EPD 2007a, p. 26). Agriculture and roads were 
identified as the major sources of sediment with silviculture, mining 
sites, grazing, and urban development also contributing nonpoint 
sources of sediment (EPD 2007a, p. 9). Agriculture, including row 
crops, poultry farms, and pastures, constitute 15.5 percent of the land 
cover in the Piedmont and 32.7 percent of the land cover in the Coastal 
Plain (GDNR 2005, pp. 97, 132).
    In addition to agriculture, there are numerous sources of sediment 
within the Altamaha River Basin, including silviculture, unpaved roads, 
kaolin mines, and construction sites. A threat assessment conducted by 
TNC (2004, p. 9) listed sediment from urban, industrial, and nonpoint 
sources (NPSs) as a threat to the spinymussel. The EPD (2007, p. v) 
reported that, while historical row crop-based land use contributes the 
majority of sediment in the Altamaha River (75 percent), that among 
other sources, approximately 17.3 percent of the total sediment load is 
from roads; 4.3 percent from grasses and wetlands; 1.5 percent from 
urban lands; and 1.0 percent from quarries, strip mines, and gravel 
pits. In addition, estimates of the contribution from construction 
could not be obtained, but could represent a comparatively high 
sediment load on a per -acre basis (EPD 2007, p. v).
    Industrial forest management is practiced on approximately 8,000 
hectares (40,000 acres) or 33 percent of the floodplain of the Altamaha 
River (TNC 1997, p. 19). Typical forest management regimes in the 
Altamaha River Basin use timber harvest methods and conduct other 
activities that result in ground disturbances. These ground 
disturbances can result in transport of sediment to streams during and 
after precipitation events. In addition, forest management operations 
often require miles of unpaved roads to extract timber and to provide 
access for management activities. The majority of sediment from 
forestry occurs from roads and site preparation activities (EPD 2007a, 
p. 11). These roads, in conjunction with existing unpaved county roads 
that are prevalent throughout the Altamaha River Basin, contribute to 
sediment loading in streams after precipitation events. Through an 
agreement with the EPD, the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) is 
responsible for implementing the use of Best Management Practices 
(BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediment from activities related to 
forestry, such as timber harvest, haul road construction, stream 
crossings, stream side management zones, site preparation, and 
reforestation. However, the Erosion and Sediment Control Act (O.C.G.A. 
12-7-1) exempts commercial forestry activities from the need to acquire 
permits and meet the minimum requirements of that act (Georgia's BMPs 
for Forestry 2009, p. 64). Therefore, compliance with BMPs is voluntary 
and is dependent on education about BMPs to reduce sediment from 
reaching the Altamaha River (EPD 2007a, p. 28) (also see our Response 
to Comments 18, 19, 20 and 21), but appears to be high.
    A number of kaolin mines are located along the Fall Line, a 
geologic land form that separates the Piedmont and Coastal Plain 
physiographic provinces, within the Oconee and Ocmulgee River Basins. 
The operation of these mines and their supporting infrastructure, 
including haul roads and settling ponds, have the potential to increase 
downstream sediment loads if adequate erosion control measures are not 
maintained to stabilize areas subjected to mining-associated ground 
disturbances (Lasier 2004, p. 139).
    In addition, sediment can act as a vector in delivering 
contaminants (such as heavy metals, ammonia, chlorine, numerous organic 
compounds) to streams (Salomons et al. 1987, p. 28; TNC 2004, p. 9). 
Because spinymussels are filter-feeders and bury themselves in

[[Page 62937]]

the substrate, they are exposed to metals dissolved in water, contained 
within suspended particles, and deposited in bottom substrates (Naimo 
1995, p. 341). Cope et al. (2008, pp. 452-459) described potential 
routes of a variety of contaminants absorbed by mussels in various 
stages of their lifecycle. Contaminants contained in point and nonpoint 
discharges can degrade water and substrate quality and adversely 
impact, if not destroy, mussel populations (Horne and McIntosh 1979, 
pp. 127-132; McCann and Neves 1992, pp. 80-87; Havlik and Marking 1987, 
p. 14).
    Contaminants associated with industrial and municipal effluents may 
cause decreased oxygen, increased acidity, and other water chemistry 
changes that may be lethal to mussels, particularly during the highly 
sensitive early life stages (Sheehan et al. 1989, pp. 139-140; Keller 
and Zam 1991, pp. 541-543; Bogan 1993, pp. 603-604; Goudreau et al. 
1993, pp. 216-227; TNC 2004, pp. 8-9). Exposure to sublethal levels of 
toxic metals can alter growth, filtration efficiency, enzyme activity, 
and behavior (Naimo 1995, pp. 341, 354). In laboratory experiments, 
mussels suffered mortality when exposed to 16 ug/L, 96-h EC50 cadmium 
(Wang et al. 2010), 0.093 mg N/L, 10-d LC50 ammonia (Newton et al. 
2003), 39 ug/L, 96-h LC50 chromium (Keller and Zam 1991), 16 ppm 
arsenic trioxide, 6.8 ug/L, 96-h EC50 copper (Wang et al. 2007), and 
151 ug/L, 96-h EC50, hardness ~45 mg/L zinc (Wang et al. 2010); 
however, effects depend upon the length of exposure and mussel life 
stage (Havlik and Marking 1987, p. 1). The adults of certain species 
may tolerate short-term exposure (Keller 1993, p. 701), but low levels 
of some metals may inhibit glochidial attachment in others (Huebner and 
Pynn[ouml]nen 1992, p. 2353; Jacobson et al. 1993, pp. 881-882) likely 
due to toxicity to glochidia. Mussel recruitment may be reduced in 
habitats with low but chronic heavy metal and other toxicant inputs 
(Yeager et al. 1994, p. 217; Naimo 1995, pp. 347 and 351-352; Ahlstedt 
and Tuberville 1997, p. 75). Researchers found that several heavy 
metals were found to have toxic effects at different levels and 
duration of exposure; however, no toxicity studies have been conducted 
specifically on the Altamaha spinymussel (Havlik and Marking 1987, p. 
3; Naimo 1995, p. 341; Keller and Lydy 1997, p. 4). Furthermore, 
differences between controlled laboratory experiments and field 
conditions (with multiple and unknown variables) make it difficult to 
predict how contaminants affect wild populations (Wisniewski 2008, 
pers. comm.).
    From 2000 to 2008, many stream segments in the Altamaha Basin have 
been listed on the State's 303(d) list of impaired waters for a variety 
of reasons. Once a stream segment is listed as impaired, the State must 
complete a plan to address the issue causing the impairment; this plan 
is called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Completion of the plan is 
generally all that is required to remove the stream segment from the 
303(d) list and does not mean that water quality has changed. Once the 
TMDL is completed, the stream segment may be placed on the 305(b) list 
of impaired streams with a completed TMDL. Many of these stream 
segments have appeared repeatedly on the 303(d) list. The Ohoopee River 
and Little Ohoopee River have been listed on nearly every report for 
almost every violation. Other stream segments that have repeatedly been 
identified on the 303(d) list from 2000 until 2008 include Big Cedar 
Creek, Doctors Creek, Jacks Creek, Milligan Creek, Oconee Creek, 
Pendleton Creek, Rocky Creek, Sardis Creek, Swift Creek, Tiger Creek, 
and Yam Gandy Creek. This demonstrates a chronic threat, from multiple 
sources of pollution, scattered across the basin.
    In 2000, the Altamaha River was listed on the 303(d) list of 
impaired waters due to excessive mercury levels in fish tissue. In 
2002, EPA Region 4 established a TMDL for mercury levels for the 
Altamaha River from its confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to 
Penholloway Creek (149.5 km/92.9 mi) including Appling, Jeff Davis, 
Long, Tattnall, Tombs, and Wayne Counties. This river segment is 
entirely within the current or historic range of the spinymussel with 
four National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted 
facilities, including:
     Rayonier Inc.-Jesup (67 million gallons per day (MGD));
     Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant (Plant Hatch) (43.4 
MGD);
     Jesup Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) (2.5 MGD); and
     Glennville WPCP (0.88 MGD) (EPA 2002a, pp. 1-5).
    This 149.5-km (92.9-mi) segment of the Altamaha River, from the 
confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to Penholloway Creek, was 
removed from the 303(d) list in 2002 because the TMDL was completed; it 
is currently listed as a stream supporting its designated use 
(fishing).
    In 2000, EPD added 23 stream segments, totaling 411.9 km (256 mi), 
to the 303(d) list for not meeting dissolved oxygen standards (EPD 
2002, p. 1). All of these segments are within tributaries to the 
Altamaha River within the range of the spinymussel. Between 2000 and 
2001, there were nine NPDES permitted discharges with effluent limits 
for oxygen -consuming substances identified in the Altamaha River Basin 
watershed above the 23 stream segments listed (EPD 2002, p. 11). 
Nonpoint source runoff from natural sources contributed oxygen-
demanding pollutants (EPD 2002, p. 12). Upon completion of a TMDL in 
2002, these river segments were removed from the 303(d) list.
    In 2006, EPD listed 18 stream segments totaling 280 km (174 mi) as 
impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria in excess of water quality 
standards (EPD 2007c, pp. 1-2). All of these stream segments are 
tributaries to the Altamaha River within the current or historic range 
of the species. Between 2005 and 2006, there were 10 municipal 
wastewater treatment plants that discharged more than 0.1 MGD, along 
with four confined animal feed operations that were considered sources 
of fecal coliform. Nonpoint sources include wildlife, livestock 
grazing, livestock access to streams, application of manure to 
pastureland and cropland, leaking sanitary sewer lines, leaking septic 
systems, land application systems (6 in the basin), and landfills (43 
in the basin) (EPD 2007c, pp. 10-16). Even after the completion of the 
TMDL, six of these stream segments remain on the 303(d) list.
    In 2008, EPD listed 583 km (362 mi.) of tributaries to the Altamaha 
River to the 305(b)/303(d) list of impaired waters, and all of these 
stream segments have completed TMDLs (EPD 2008 pp. A-130-A-134). The 
draft 2010 305(b)/303(d) list of impaired waters for the Altamaha River 
included all of the stream segments from the 2008 list and added an 
additional 48 km (30 mi). These are all tributaries to the Altamaha or 
Ohoopee Rivers within the current or historic range of the Altamaha 
spinymussel. These stream segments are listed as impaired for a variety 
of reasons (e.g., dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and mercury levels 
within fish tissue). All of these river segments, such as the Ohoopee 
River (including the historic range of the spinymussel), have TMDLs but 
are still considered impaired.
    More than 161 km (100 mi) of the Ohoopee River and its tributaries 
were added to the 303(d) list in 2000 due to excessive mercury levels 
in fish tissue. The primary source of mercury is believed to be 
deposition of atmospheric mercury. During 1998-1999, there were seven 
municipal wastewater treatment

[[Page 62938]]

facilities (EPA 2002b, pp. 1-3) and as many as 170 sources of air 
emissions in the watershed (EPA 2002b, p. 18). These sources of mercury 
impacted all of the extirpated range of the spinymussel on the Ohoopee 
River, which is a major tributary to the Altamaha River. A TMDL was 
established in 2002; however, based on additional information gathered 
since 2002, EPA will begin revising needed load reductions in 2011 (EPA 
2002b, p. 2). These segments of the Ohoopee remain on the 303(d) list.
    In 2006, EPD added five stream segments, totaling 64.3 km (40 mi), 
within the Ohoopee drainage to the 303(d) list for not meeting 
dissolved oxygen standards (EPD 2007b, p. 1). All of these segments are 
within the range of the spinymussel. During 2004-2005, there were eight 
NPDES permitted discharges with effluent limits for oxygen-consuming 
substances identified in the Altamaha River Basin watershed (EPD 2007b, 
p. 10). There were four animal feeding lots and six wastewater land 
application operations that were identified as sources of oxygen-
demanding nutrients. Nonpoint source runoff from forestry, row crop 
agriculture, pastureland, urban development, and natural sources also 
contribute oxygen-demanding pollutants (EPD 2007b, pp. 13-15). Upon 
completion of a TMDL in 2007, these five river segments were removed 
from the 303(d) list.
    In addition, there have been illegal effluent discharges into the 
Ohoopee that may have an adverse impact on the Altamaha spinymussel. 
For instance, the wastewater treatment discharge from Rogers State 
Prison enters the Ohoopee River approximately 10 km (6 mi) upstream of 
the largest historical population of Altamaha spinymussels known in the 
Ohoopee River. The Altamaha Riverkeeper reported fecal coliform 
discharges from the prison that exceeded the prison's NPDES permit 
(Holland 2002, pers. comm.).
    The Altamaha Riverkeeper, a conservation group that works to 
maintain the quality of the Altamaha River system, has discovered a 
number of illegal discharges that could impact the Altamaha 
spinymussel. In 2001, a court found that Amercord Inc. had violated its 
NPDES permit multiple times at its Lumber City tire plant by 
discharging quantities of cyanide, copper, zinc, and lead into the 
Ocmulgee River in excess of permit limitations (Altamaha Riverkeeper v. 
Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300-042 (S.D. Ga.) (Order on Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001)). In a second case, following 
allegations of discharges into the Ocmulgee River from Lumber City's 
waste treatment pond in excess of its NPDES permit, Lumber City agreed 
to implement several short- and long-term wastewater treatment 
improvements, which are expected to protect a population of Altamaha 
spinymussels (Altamaha Riverkeeper v. City of Lumber City, CV-300-043 
(S.D. Ga.)). The Altamaha Riverkeeper also discovered that from July 
1995 to April 2001, the City of Cochran's waste treatment pond had 
discharged in violation of its NPDES permit (Altamaha Riverkeepers v. 
City of Cochran, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1369-70 (M.D. Ga. 2001)). The 
City had been releasing ferric sulfate (used to treat fecal coliform) 
into Jordan Creek, a tributary of the Ocmulgee River approximately 80 
km (50 mi) upstream of known populations of Altamaha spinymussels.
    Sediment in the Oconee River carries toxic loads of heavy metals 
presumably discharged from municipal wastewater treatment plants and 
kaolin-mining settling ponds (Lasier 2004, pp. 139-140, 144-151). 
Wastewater treatment plants and kaolin mines often employ settling 
ponds to allow pollutants to settle and turbidity to decrease. Copper 
sulfate and aluminum sulfate are often used as algaecides, to reduce 
algae blooms, and as flocculants to force precipitation of turbid 
waters and, in water treatment processes, to improve the sedimentation 
or filterability of small particles.
    Lasier (2004, pp. 150-151) reported ``abnormally'' high levels of 
chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc in the lower Oconee river that 
would indicate a ``significant'' impact to the quality of sediment and 
pore water (the water in contact with the river bottom, and the water 
in which mussels reside). TNC (2004, p. 9) found water quality and 
sediment quality reflected ``significant'' inputs of pollution with 
concentrations of heavy metals (including cadmium, copper, chromium, 
lead, and zinc) at levels above regional and national concentrations. 
Shoults-Wilson (2008, pp. 86-92) sampled sites throughout the Altamaha 
River Basin to evaluate the presence of heavy metals in the water 
column and in the sediment and compared the bioaccumulation of heavy 
metals by Asian clams to E. hopetonensis (an Altamaha River endemic). 
Sampling of sites upstream and downstream of potential point sources of 
heavy metals demonstrated ``significantly'' elevated bioaccumulation of 
cadmium, copper, and mercury below inputs from kaolin processing, as 
well as elevated zinc and chromium below Plant Hatch, the Rayonier pulp 
mill in Jesup, Georgia, and the Amercord tire facility. Mussels in the 
Altamaha River Basin may accumulate trace elements from the fine 
fraction of sediment as well as the water column.
    The cumulative effects of effluent from wastewater treatment plants 
and kaolin mines on Altamaha spinymussel habitat have not been 
quantified; however, mussels appear to be among the most intolerant 
organisms to heavy metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p. 545), and several 
heavy metals are lethal, even at relatively low levels (Havlik and 
Marking 1987, p. 3). Most metals are persistent in the environment, 
remaining available for uptake, transportation, and transformation by 
organisms until they are removed from the river (Hoover 1978, pp. 28-
38; Lasier 2004, p. 140) through processes such as washing out to sea, 
leaching through the soil, or being taken up by an organism that is 
then removed from the river.
    In areas of heavy agricultural use in the Southeast, surface runoff 
can move pesticides, including malathion and other insecticides, into 
surface water (McPherson et al. 2003, pp. 1-2). Stream ecosystems are 
negatively impacted when nutrients are added at concentrations that 
cannot be assimilated (TNC 2004, p. 7). The effects of pesticides on 
mussels may be particularly profound, potentially altering metabolic 
activities or resulting in delayed mortality (Fuller 1974, pp. 252-253; 
Havlik and Marking 1987, pp. 9-11; Moulton et al. 1996, pp. 132-136); 
commonly used pesticides have been directly implicated in a North 
Carolina mussel die-off (Fleming et al. 1995, pp. 877-879). The Oconee, 
Ocmulgee, and Ohoopee River systems contain significant acreage in 
cotton and onion farming. Malathion, one of the most important 
pesticides used in cotton farming, inhibits physiological activities of 
mussels (Kabeer et al. 1979, pp. 71-72) and may decrease the ability of 
mussels to respire and obtain food. Malathion toxicity (24 h LC50) has 
been reported as low as 8 mg/L for glochidia of Lampsilis siliquoidea 
and other unionid species (Keller and Ruessler 1997, p. 1).
    The operations of Plant Hatch, located on the Altamaha River in 
Appling County, may pose a threat to the Altamaha spinymussel. On 
September 14, 2001, the Service received Joint Public Notice 940003873 
from the Corps, Savannah District, describing a project to expand and 
maintain Plant Hatch's intake basin within the Altamaha River. 
Implementation of this permit authorized annual dredging of

[[Page 62939]]

the plant intake basin and authorized removing 33,965 cubic meters 
(44,424 cubic yards) of material biannually from the intake basin. 
While the amount of material removed annually is generally far less 
than the amount permitted (Dodd 2008, pers. comm.), annual dredging 
could negatively impact the Altamaha spinymussel by decreasing channel 
stability (creating a potential head cut), altering sediment transport 
dynamics, increasing sedimentation and turbidity downstream during 
dredging operations, and decreasing habitat quality for host fishes. It 
is unknown how far downstream these impacts extend.
    Impacts to aquatic fauna through entrainment of potential host 
fishes and thermal discharges may also occur. Plant Hatch takes in 
water to create steam, and then uses the steam to generate electricity. 
Following a cooling process, the water is returned to the river, and 
although it has been cooled, the water temperature is warmer than the 
ambient temperature of the river. Plant Hatch has made substantial 
efforts to reduce thermal discharges through the construction of 
cooling towers that have significantly reduced the thermal plume. 
However, thermal discharges could still negatively impact the Altamaha 
spinymussel from heat stress; higher water temperatures can increase 
the sensitivity of mussels to certain pollutants (Augspurger et al. 
2003, p. 2574). Pandolfo et al. (2010, pp. 693-698) also reported that 
high water temperatures can increase the sensitivity of early life 
stages of mussels to copper). These effects would be exacerbated during 
years of low rainfall, when less water would be available to dissipate 
the heat of the Plant Hatch effluent. Plant Hatch also monitors fish 
entrainment, so if the host fish of the spinymussel was known, 
management efforts could be made to reduce the potential of this 
impact.
    In summary, the loss and modification of habitat is a significant 
threat to the Altamaha spinymussel. Degradation from sedimentation and 
contaminants threatens the habitat and water quality necessary to 
support the Altamaha spinymussel. Sediment from unpaved roads, kaolin 
mines, past and current agriculture practices, silviculture, and 
construction sites within the Altamaha River Basin can suffocate 
Altamaha spinymussels and make stable sandbars required by Altamaha 
spinymussels unstable or change the texture of the substrate, rendering 
them unsuitable for the species. Contaminants associated with 
industrial and municipal effluents (e.g., heavy metals, ammonia, 
chlorine, numerous organic compounds) may cause decreased oxygen, 
increased acidity, and other water chemistry changes that are lethal to 
mussels, particularly the highly sensitive early life stages of 
mussels; exposure to sublethal levels of toxic metals can alter growth, 
filtration efficiency, enzyme activity, and behavior. As a result we 
have determined that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the Altamaha spinymussel's habitat or 
range is a threat to the continued existence of the Altamaha 
spinymussel throughout its range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The Altamaha spinymussel is not a commercially valuable species, 
nor are the streams that it inhabits subject to commercial mussel 
harvesting activities. However, this species has been actively sought 
for scientific and private collections (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.); such 
activity may increase if the species becomes rarer. Overcollection may 
have been a localized factor in the decline of this species, 
particularly in the Ohoopee River where a 1986 collection consisted of 
at least 30 live individuals (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). Although the 
GDNR can regulate the number of mussels collected with a Scientific 
Collection Permit, the localized distribution and small size of known 
populations renders them extremely vulnerable to overzealous 
recreational or scientific collecting. However, we have no specific 
information indicating that overcollection is currently a threat or 
that overcollecting may occur in the future.
    Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to 
the Altamaha spinymussel at this time.

C. Disease or Predation

    Diseases of freshwater mussels are poorly known, and we have no 
specific information indicating that disease occurs within Altamaha 
spinymussel populations or poses a threat. Juvenile and adult mussels 
are preyed upon by some invertebrate species (particularly as newly 
metamorphosed juveniles), parasites (for example, nematodes, 
trematodes, and mites), a few vertebrate species (for example, otter, 
raccoon, and turtles) and some fish. However, we have no evidence of 
any specific declines in the Altamaha spinymussel due to predation.
    In summary, diseases and predation of freshwater mussels remain 
largely unstudied and are not considered a threat to the Altamaha 
spinymussel.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Altamaha spinymussel is listed as a high-priority species by 
the State of Georgia (GDNR 2005, p. 135) and has recently been listed 
as Endangered under Georgia's Endangered Wildlife Act (EWA). Under the 
EWA, it is unlawful to intentionally harm, disturb, or sell a protected 
animal, unless authorized, or to cause the destruction of habitat of 
protected animals on State-owned lands. The EWA specifically states, 
however, that rules and regulations promulgated under the EWA shall not 
impede construction of any nature. Thus, protection under the EWA 
prevents unlawful capture or killing of the listed species, but does 
not prevent habitat changes that lead to population loss.
    Sources of nonpoint-source pollution include timber operations (see 
Our Response to Comments 18, 19, 20 and 21), clearing of riparian 
vegetation, urbanization, road construction, and other practices that 
allow sediment to enter streams (TNC 2004, p. 13). Although BMPs for 
sediment and erosion control are often recommended or required by local 
ordinances for construction projects, compliance, monitoring, and 
enforcement of these recommendations are often poorly implemented. 
Furthermore, Georgia's Erosion and Sediment Control Act exempts 
commercial forestry activities from the need to acquire permits and 
meet the minimum requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Act 
(Georgia's BMPs for Forestry 2009, p. 64). While compliance rates are 
high in the state, compliance with BMPs is voluntary and is dependent 
on education on proper implementation of BMPs to reduce sediment from 
reaching the Altamaha River (EPD 2007a, p. 28). Although historical row 
crop-based land use contributes the majority of sediment to the 
Altamaha River, other sources continue to contribute to the total 
sediment load (See discussion under Factor A).
    Point-source discharges within the range of the Altamaha 
spinymussel have been reduced since the inception of the Federal Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), but this may not provide adequate 
protection for filter-feeding organisms that can be impacted by 
extremely low levels of contaminants. Municipal wastewater plants 
continue to discharge large amounts of effluent and, in some 
circumstances, in excess of permitted levels (see discussion under 
Factor A). There is no specific

[[Page 62940]]

information on the sensitivity of the Altamaha spinymussel to common 
industrial and municipal pollutants, and very little information on 
other freshwater mollusks. Current State and Federal regulations 
regarding pollutants are assumed to be protective of freshwater 
mollusks; however, this species may be more susceptible to some 
pollutants than test organisms commonly used in bioassays. For example, 
several recent studies have suggested that EPA's criteria for ammonia 
may not be protective of freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 
2571; Newton et al. 2003, pp. 2559-2560; Mummert et al. 2003, pp. 2548-
2552). New ammonia criteria have been proposed by EPA (2009) that would 
be more protective of unionids. Wang et al. (2007a, p. 2036, 2007b, p. 
2048, 2010, p. 2053) have also reported toxicity data for unionid early 
life stages for chlorine, metals and ammonia. In a review of the 
effects of eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and Muller (2004, p. 329) 
noted that stenoecious (narrowly tolerant) species disappear as waters 
become more eutrophic. They also refer to studies that associate 
increased levels of nitrate with the decline and absence of juvenile 
mussels (Patzner and Muller 2004, pp. 330-333). Other studies have also 
suggested that early life stages of mussels are sensitive to inorganic 
chemicals such as chlorine, metals, and ammonia (Keller and Zam 1991, 
pp. 543-545; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 221; Naimo 1995, pp. 354-355). 
Therefore, it appears that a lack of adequate research and data 
prevents existing regulations, such as the Clean Water Act 
(administered by EPA and the Corps), from being fully utilized or 
effective.
    In summary, some regulations exist that protect the species and its 
habitat; however, these regulations enforced by the State provide 
little direct protection of Altamaha spinymussel and only if protection 
of the spinymussel will not inhibit economic development. Nonpoint-
source pollution is not regulated, and the Clean Water Act does not 
adequately protect the habitat from degradation caused by point-source 
pollutants. As described under Factor A, there have been a number of 
recent illegal effluent discharges into the Altamaha River Basin, in 
excess of permit limits, that may have impacted the Altamaha 
spinymussel, and other investigations are pending (Altamaha Riverkeeper 
v. Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300-042 (S.D. Ga) (Order on Motion for 
Partial Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001); Altamaha Riverkeeper v. City 
of Lumber City, CV-300-043 (S.D. Ga); (Altamaha Riverkeepers v City of 
Cochran, No. CV-447-2)). Thus, existing regulations are not effective 
at protecting the spinymussel and its habitat from sedimentation and 
lethal contaminants. Therefore, we find the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the 
Altamaha spinymussel throughout its range.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Withdrawal of surface water within the Altamaha Basin for 
thermoelectric power generation, public water supplies, commercial 
industrial uses, and agriculture has a dramatic effect on flow rates 
(TNC 2004, p. 8). No major dams are located on the Altamaha River 
system within the known historical range of the Altamaha spinymussel, 
and the nearest reservoir is approximately 165 km (102.5 mi) from 
occupied habitat. However, the dams that form Sinclair Reservoir on the 
Oconee River and Jackson and Tobesofkee Reservoirs in the Ocmulgee 
River Basin can influence downstream mussels and their populations 
through changes in flows that result from electrical power generation 
and water storage (TNC 2004, p. 6) (see Our Response to Comment 7). 
Within the Altamaha River Basin, 1,149 MGD was withdrawn for 
thermoelectric power generation in 1990 (Marella and Fanning 1990, pp. 
14-17); water withdrawals of this magnitude can cause drastic flow 
reductions and alterations that may strand mussels on sandbars, 
resulting in mortality of individuals and harm to populations. Laurens 
County, Georgia, which includes the City of Dublin, withdrew 2.64 MGD 
for public water supplies, 12.79 MGD for commercial industrial use, and 
5.57 MGD for agricultural uses in 1990 (Marella and Fanning 1990, p. 
16). In 1990, the total amount of surface water withdrawn from the 
Altamaha River Basin was approximately 1,315 MGD (Marella and Fanning 
1990, p. 61). This information regarding water withdrawals dates back 
to 1990, which is the most recent comprehensive effort to study water 
withdrawals from this watershed. As development pressures continue to 
grow, water withdrawals are expected to increase.
    Drought conditions were prevalent in Georgia between 1998 and 2002, 
and again in 2007 and 2008, which may have negatively affected the 
Altamaha spinymussel. Georgia averages 127 cm (50 in) of precipitation 
annually (U.S. Geological Survey 1986, p. 195; GDNR 2005, p. 41) but 
received less than 102 cm (40 in) of precipitation annually during 
recent droughts in 2000, 2002, and 2007 (Knaak and Joiner 2007, pp. 1-
2). The Ohoopee River and many other streams in the basin suffered 
reduced flow rates, and the Ohoopee River was reported to have low 
water levels with an estimated average depth of 15 cm (6 in) in the 
main channel during summer surveys (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 3) 
when normal channel depth is several feet or more. Normally, mussels 
will bury themselves in the river bottom as a mechanism to survive a 
drought, but many mussels may have died from desiccation during this 
prolonged drought (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). Although the effects of 
the drought on the Altamaha spinymussel have not been quantified, 
mussel declines as a direct result of drought have been documented 
(Golladay et al. 2004, p. 494; Haag and Warren 2003, p. 1165). 
Furthermore, there is a growing concern that climate change may lead to 
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 
2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 
1015) (see Comment 14). Reduction in local water supplies due to 
drought is also compounded by increased human demand and competition 
for surface and ground water resources for power production, 
irrigation, and consumption (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504).
    In addition, low flow conditions provide access to the river 
margins and channels for all-terrain vehicles (ATV) and four-wheel 
drive vehicles (TNC 2004, p. 12; Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 3). 
During a survey in 2001, Stringfellow and Gagnon (2001, p. 3) observed 
heavy ATV and four-wheel drive vehicle traffic and high levels of 
erosion near bridges and homes. They encountered several groups of ATV 
users, 2 to 12 persons per group, riding in the river channel. Because 
water levels were so low, ATV use of the stream extended to all 
portions of the channel, including pools, runs, and dried sandbars. 
Observations on the Ohoopee River during low flow in October of 2006 
revealed extensive ATV traffic that destroyed mussel beds (Rickard 
2006, personal observation). These vehicles may directly crush mussels 
and may also destabilize stream banks and increase sedimentation rates, 
burying mussels or impairing feeding, respiration, metabolism, and 
reproductive success (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 3).
    Nonindigenous species such as the flathead catfish and the Asian 
clam have been introduced to the Altamaha Basin and may be adversely 
affecting the Altamaha spinymussel. Flathead catfish are fast-growing 
fish that are dominant predators in river systems and are usually 
exclusively piscivorous in their

[[Page 62941]]

adult stage (Bourret et al. 2008, p. 413; Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867). 
Since its introduction outside its native range, the flathead catfish 
has altered the composition of native fish populations through 
predation (Bourett et al. 2008, p. 413; Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867; 
Sea Grant, 2006, p. 2; Pine et al. 2005, p. 902). Flatheads were 
introduced to the Altamaha Basin in the 1970s (USGS 2009, unpaginated).
    Although the host fish or fishes of the Altamaha spinymussel have 
not been identified, in other native freshwater mussels, various 
centrarchids (sunfish), ictalurids (catfish), and catostomids (suckers) 
have been identified as hosts of the larvae. Other species of mussels 
in the genus Elliptio are known to parasitize various species of 
Etheostoma and Percina (darters), and other stream-adapted fish species 
(Haag and Warren 2003, p. 80). Flatheads introduced in the Altamaha 
River eliminated bullhead catfish (Ameiurus sp.) and caused an 80 
percent decline in redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) (Sea Grant 2006, 
p. 2); centrarchids and ictalurids were dominant prey items (Sakaris 
2006, p. 867). Other potential centrachid host fish such as the 
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill (L. macrochirus) 
have all suffered population declines (Harrison 2001, pers. comm.), as 
well as the robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), shortnose sturgeon 
(Acipenser brevirostrum), and shad (Alosa sapidissima) (TNC 2004, p. 
5). Some of these declines may be attributable, at least in part, to 
flathead catfish (TNC 2004, p.5). If one or more of these species is 
the host fish for the Altamaha spinymussel, the spinymussel's breeding 
success and recruitment could be reduced by the presence of flathead 
catfish (Keferl 2001, pers. comm).
    Asian clams were observed in the Altamaha River in 1971, and are 
believed to have been introduced in the Ocmulgee River in 1968 or 1969 
(Gardner 1976, p. 117). Surveys have found large numbers of Asian clams 
in the Altamaha Basin for more than 25 years (Gardner et al. 1976, pp. 
118-124; Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 2; O'Brien, pers. comm., 
2001). The invasion of Asian clams in the Altamaha River has been 
accompanied by drastic declines in populations of native mussels, 
although it is unknown if the clams competitively excluded the mussels 
or simply colonized their habitat when they declined due to other 
factors (Gardner 1976, p. 124). Asian clams may pose a direct threat to 
native species through competition for available resources (space, 
minerals, or food), resulting in decline or local extirpation (Williams 
et al. 1993, p. 7; Bogan 1993, p. 605).
    The linear nature of the Altamaha spinymussel's habitat, reduced 
range, and very small population size make this species vulnerable to 
random detrimental or catastrophic events. Small, isolated populations 
may experience decreased demographic viability (population birth and 
death rates, immigration and emigration rates, and sex ratios), 
increased susceptibility of extinction from stochastic environmental 
factors (e.g., weather events, disease), and an increased threat of 
extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent inbreeding depression 
and genetic drift. Surviving populations of spinymussels are small (see 
summary of Basin-wide Population Estimates), extremely localized, and 
vulnerable to habitat modification, toxic spills, progressive 
degradation from contaminants (see discussions under Factors A and D), 
and natural catastrophic changes to their habitats (for example, flood 
scour and drought). Low numbers of individuals may also increase 
inbreeding and reduce genetic diversity (Lynch 1996, pp. 493-494) (see 
Our Response to Comment 9).
    In summary, a variety of natural and manmade factors currently 
threatens the Altamaha spinymussel. Withdrawal of surface water within 
the Altamaha Basin for thermoelectric power generation, public water 
supplies, commercial industrial uses, and agriculture can cause drastic 
flow reductions and alterations that may strand mussels on sandbars, 
resulting in mortality of individuals and harm to populations. 
Recurring drought and water withdrawal, combined with impacts of off-
road vehicles, has reduced flows and destabilized stream banks required 
to support this mussel. Nonindigenous species, such as flathead catfish 
and the Asian clam, have potentially adversely impacted populations of 
the spinymussel's host fish, thereby affecting recruitment, and may 
directly impact the spinymussel through competition for resources. 
Lastly, because the Altamaha spinymussel populations are so small and 
isolated, any factor (i.e., habitat change or natural and manmade 
factors) that results in a decline in habitat or individuals may be 
problematic for the long-term recovery of this species. Therefore, we 
have determined that other natural and manmade factors are threats to 
the continued existence of the Altamaha spinymussel throughout its 
range.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Altamaha spinymussel. Section 3 of the Act defines an 
``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' and a 
``threatened species'' as ``any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' As described in detail above, the 
species is currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing 
threats of habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E). This 
species' extremely small and isolated populations make it particularly 
susceptible to extinction at any time due to threats described under 
Factors A, D, and E.
    The Altamaha spinymussel has been observed at only 22 sites since 
2000, despite extensive survey efforts made by several different 
researchers. Most of these sites are clustered geographically within 
short reaches of the lower Ocmulgee River and the Altamaha River 
upstream of U.S. Route 301, and there are long reaches with no or 
undetectable numbers of Altamaha spinymussels separating these groups 
of sites. Meador (2009, p. 51) attempted to estimate abundance of 
Altamaha spinymussel in the mainstem Altamaha, but was unable to 
capture, tag, and recapture sufficient individuals for an assessment. 
Recent surveys of the Ohoopee River and the analysis presented by 
Wisniewski et al. (2005) suggest that the species may still be 
declining. Finally, the comparatively low numbers of Altamaha 
spinymussels collected during recent surveys of the Altamaha and 
Ocmulgee Rivers further suggests that this species has declined 
substantially from historical levels. To summarize, researchers were 
able to find 60 Altamaha spinymussels at a single site on the Altamaha 
River in 1967; in contrast, the largest number of Altamaha spinymussels 
observed from a single site on the Altamaha River during the 1990s or 
2000s was nine (Albanese 2005, pers. comm.).
    The remaining small spinymussel populations are threatened by a 
variety of factors that are expected to persist indefinitely and 
impact, or have the potential to impact, remaining spinymussel habitat. 
These factors include siltation, industrial pollution, municipal 
effluents, modification of

[[Page 62942]]

stream channels, pesticides, heavy metals, invasive species, loss of 
host fish, water withdrawal, recurring drought, and loss of genetic 
viability. In addition, as described under Factor D, existing 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate the current threats 
to the Altamaha spinymussel and its habitat. We believe the remaining 
small, isolated populations of spinymussels are not large enough to be 
resilient against any of the above factors acting on the species itself 
or its habitat. Furthermore, we believe these threats, particularly the 
threats to populations resulting from habitat degradation, small 
population size, and drought, are current and are projected to continue 
into the future. If the present trends that negatively affect the 
species and its limited and restricted habitat continue, the Altamaha 
spinymussel is in immediate danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range; therefore, proposing threatened status is not appropriate.
    We find that the Altamaha spinymussel is presently in danger of 
extinction throughout its entire range, based on the immediacy and 
magnitude of the threats described above. Based on our analysis, we 
have no reason to believe that the negative population trends for the 
Altamaha spinymussel will improve, nor will the effects of current 
threats acting on the species be ameliorated in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we are listing the Altamaha spinymussel as an endangered 
species throughout all of its range.
    Furthermore, because we find that the Altamaha spinymussel is 
endangered throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider 
its status in a significant portion of its range. Consequently, we are 
listing the Altamaha spinymussel as an endangered species under the 
Act.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (I) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (II) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (ii) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation on Federal actions that 
may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does 
not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, 
preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow 
the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does 
not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests 
Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a 
listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a 
destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal action 
agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or recover 
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life-cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the 
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the 
species). Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed only when we determine 
that those areas are essential for the conservation of the species and 
that designation limited to those areas occupied at the time of listing 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas we should designate as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status 
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished 
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. In particular, we recognize that climate change may 
cause changes in the arrangement of occupied habitat river reaches. 
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe 
storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 
2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). Drought conditions in 2000-
2001 and 2007-2008 greatly reduced the habitat of the spinymussel in 
the Ohoopee River and rendered the populations vulnerable to 
anthropogenic disturbances, such as water extraction and vehicles 
within the riverbed (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.; Stringfellow and Gagnon 
2001, p. 3).
    The information currently available on the effects of global 
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently 
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the

[[Page 62943]]

effects. Nor are we currently aware of any climate change information 
specific to the habitat of the Altamaha spinymussel that would indicate 
what areas may become important to the species in the future. 
Therefore, we were unable to determine what additional areas, if any, 
may be appropriate to include in the critical habitat for this species. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas we may eventually determine, based on 
scientific data not now available to the Service, that are necessary 
for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.
    Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but 
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be 
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act. These areas are also subject to the regulatory protections 
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the 
basis of the best available scientific information at the time of the 
agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available to 
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining occupied areas that contain the features 
that are essential to the conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel, and 
unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the 
Altamaha spinymussel.
    We have reviewed the available information pertaining to historical 
and current distribution, life history, and habitat requirements of 
this species. Our sources included: Peer-reviewed scientific 
publications; unpublished survey reports; unpublished field 
observations by the Service, State, and other experienced biologists; 
and notes and communications from qualified biologists or experts.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species which may require special 
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distribution of a species.
    We consider the physical or biological features to be the primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and 
spatial arrangement essential for the conservation of the species. We 
derive the PCEs from the biological needs of the species as described 
in the Background section of this proposal. Unfortunately, little is 
known of the specific habitat requirements for the Altamaha spinymussel 
other than that they require flowing water, stable river channels, and 
adequate water quality. Altamaha spinymussel mussel larvae also require 
a currently unknown fish host for development to juvenile mussels. To 
identify the physical or biological needs of the species, we have 
relied on current conditions at locations where the species survives, 
the limited information available on this species and its close 
relatives, and factors associated with the decline and extirpation of 
these and other aquatic mollusks from extensive portions of the 
Altamaha River Basin.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    The Altamaha spinymussel is historically associated with the main 
stem of the Altamaha River and its larger tributaries (greater than 500 
cubic feet per second (cfs) Mean Monthly Discharge (MMD)), and does not 
occur in smaller tributaries. Spinymussels are generally associated 
with stable, coarse-to-fine sandy sediments of sandbars, sloughs, and 
mid-channel islands, and they appear to be restricted to swiftly 
flowing water (Sickel 1980, p. 12). Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel 
islands provide space for the spinymussel and also provide cover, 
shelter, and sites for breeding, reproduction, and growth of offspring. 
Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel islands are dynamic habitats formed 
and maintained by water quantity, channel slope, and sediment input to 
the system through periodic flooding, which maintains connectivity and 
interaction with the flood plain. Changes in one or more of these 
parameters can result in channel degradation or channel aggradation, 
with serious effects to mollusks. Therefore, we believe that stream 
channel stability and floodplain connectivity are essential to the 
conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel.

Water

    The Altamaha spinymussel is a riverine-adapted species that depends 
upon adequate water flow and is not found in ponds or lakes. 
Continuously flowing water is a habitat feature associated with all 
surviving populations of this species. Flowing water maintains the 
river bottom, sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel islands habitat where 
this species is found, transports food items to the sedentary juvenile 
and adult life stages of the Altamaha spinymussel, removes wastes, and 
provides oxygen for respiration for this species.
    The ranges of standard physical and chemical water quality 
parameters (such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 
conductivity) that define suitable habitat conditions for the Altamaha 
spinymussel have not been investigated. However, as relatively 
sedentary animals, mussels must tolerate the full range of such 
parameters that occur naturally within the streams where they persist. 
Both the amount (flow) and the physical and chemical conditions (water 
quality) where this species currently exists vary widely according to 
season, precipitation events, and seasonal human activities within the 
watershed. Conditions across their historical ranges vary even more due 
to geology, geography, and differences in human population densities 
and land uses. In general, the species survives in areas where the 
magnitude, frequency, duration, and seasonality of water flow is 
adequate to maintain stable sandbar, slough, and mid-channel-island 
habitats (for example, sufficient flow to remove fine particles and 
sediments without causing degradation), and where water quality is 
adequate for year-round survival (for example, moderate to high levels 
of dissolved oxygen, low to moderate input of nutrients, and

[[Page 62944]]

relatively unpolluted water and sediments). Therefore, adequate water 
flow and water quality (as defined below) are essential to the 
conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel.
    It is apparent that heat stress from increased water temperature 
makes mussels more sensitive to contaminants. A growing body of 
literature is addressing the acute thermal tolerance of mussels, 
(Pandolfo et al 2009, p. 347; 2010a, p. 959; 2010b, p. 691). Pandolfo 
et al. (2010a, p. 959) reported upper lethal temperatures for early 
life stages of 8 species of unionid mussels and the average median 
lethal temperature (LT50) was 31.6 [deg]C. Pandolfo et al. (2009, p. 
347) reported a measurable physiological indicator of stress (i.e., 
increased heart rate) in juvenile mussels exposed to temperatures as 
little as 3 [deg]C above ambient (i.e. 30 [deg]C). Pandolfo et al. 
(2010b, p. 691) clearly demonstrated an interaction between temperature 
and sensitivity to copper in juveniles of three mussel species: 
fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidia), pink heelsplitter (Potamilus 
alatus), and black sandshell (Ligumia recta). In short, mussels exposed 
to copper were less able to withstand thermal stress. Clearly stressors 
do not occur in isolation and more multiple-stressor research is 
desperately needed. Because thermal tolerance data do not exist for 
spinymussel or other Altamaha mussel species, we are left to use the 
best available data to approximate spinymussel thermal tolerance, and 
we believe this to be the most valid approach for establishing a 
thermal PCE for spinymussel. Pandolfo et al. (2010a, p. 959) indicates 
that the lowest 48-hr LT50 (median lethal temperature) was 33.8 [deg]C.
    In addition to physiological stress due to temperature itself, 
temperature greatly influences the form (and thereby the toxicity) of 
other compounds, most notably ammonia. Higher temperatures result in a 
shift from the nontoxic ammonium ion (NH4+) to 
the highly toxic ammonia ion (NH3). Ammonia may be one of 
the primary limiting factors in reaches of river downstream from point 
and nonpoint sources of nitrogen such as municipal wastewater treatment 
facilities and agricultural fields, among others (Bringolf 2011, pers. 
comm.).
    These rivers (in the Altamaha Basin), like most Atlantic Slope 
drainages in Georgia receive a majority of their water through overland 
flow and runoff whereas streams in the southwestern part of Georgia 
receive a large proportion of their water though groundwater 
discharges, which have greater influences on stream flows and 
temperatures. Additionally, streams in the southwestern part of Georgia 
are greatly affected by agricultural withdrawals, which can reduce or 
eliminate the volume of groundwater being discharged into waters in 
this part of the state and thus affect water temperatures in these 
creeks and rivers more than waters in other basins. The Altamaha River 
in the historical and current range of the Altamaha spinymussel is 
largely forested and rural and exhibits those conditions most similar 
to the Savannah River gauge near Port Wentworth (02198840). Unlike the 
Savannah River near the gauge in Augusta (02197000), the Altamaha River 
Basin in the area that is designated as critical habitat is more than 
165 km (103 miles) from the nearest reservoir and thus the effects of 
hypolimnetic discharges are not considered a threat to the Altamaha 
spinymussel. (Layzer and Madison 1995, pp. 340-344; Watters 2000, p. 
265; Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.).
    The water quality metrics PCE was derived using data collected from 
the Altamaha River and its tributaries within the historical range of 
the Altamaha spinymussel. Temperature measurements collected throughout 
the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Oconee rivers in this area ranged from 8.6 
[deg]C to 32.6 [deg]C (47.5 to 90.7 [deg]F). Observations of historical 
United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge data at several sites on 
the Altamaha River near Jesup indicated that the maximum water 
temperature observed between 1974 and 1984 was 32 [deg]C (89.7 [deg]F) 
(Dyar and Alhadef 1997, p. 26). Since none of the USGS gauge stations 
on the Altamaha River or its major tributaries include recent 
temperature data, we downloaded daily stream temperature data from the 
USGS gauge stations found on the nearby Savannah River, which is 
similar to the Altamaha River in size and its location within the 
Coastal Plain physiographic province of Georgia. Three gauge stations 
on the Savannah River collect temperature data: Savannah River at 
Augusta (02197000), Savannah River near Port Wentworth, upstream of 
Interstate 95 (02198840), and Savannah River at Port Wentworth 
(02198920). At the gauge station in Augusta, the maximum water 
temperature recorded in the 323 days within the day period of record 
(4/21/2010-3/9/2011) was 24.8 [deg]C (76.6 [deg]F) and the maximum 
daily water temperature fluctuation was 5.7 [deg]C (42.3 [deg]F). The 
maximum water temperature recorded in the 3,835 days within the period 
of record (10/13/1999-3/9/2011) for the Savannah River near Port 
Wentworth was 31.7 [deg]C (89.1 [deg]F) with a maximum daily water 
temperature fluctuation of 2.1 [deg]C (35.8 [deg]F). The maximum water 
temperature recorded in the 3,883 days within the period of record (11/
5/1999-3/9/2011) for the Savannah River at GA highway 25 in Port 
Wentworth was 32.4 [deg]C (90.3 [deg]F) with a maximum daily water 
temperature fluctuation of 3.7 [deg]C (38.7 [deg]F).
    Although the maximum daily water fluctuations of the Savannah River 
at Augusta (02197000) and the Savannah River at Port Wentworth 
(02198920) are greater than the daily temperature fluctuation 
recommended in the PCEs of the Altamaha spinymussel listing proposal, 
it is important to note that these sites are located in or immediately 
downstream of major industrial/urban areas or dams which likely 
contribute to the greater daily fluctuations in water temperatures. 
Furthermore, temperatures on the Savannah River in Augusta are 
influenced by hypolimnetic discharges from Clarks Hill Reservoir and 
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, which are located immediately upstream 
of the USGS gauge station. Therefore, water temperatures at the 
Savannah River gauge (02198840) upstream of Port Wentworth, which is 
located in a densely forested and rural area and well downstream of any 
potential hypolimnetic discharges are likely more similar to those 
temperatures and fluctuations observed in the Altamaha River 
(Wisniewski 2011, pers. comm.).
    A natural flow regime that includes periodic flooding and maintains 
connectivity and interaction with the flood plain is critical for the 
exchange of nutrients, spawning activities for potential host fish, and 
sand bar maintenance. In 2007, persistent severe drought conditions 
throughout the southeastern United States created record low discharges 
(streamflow) in the Altamaha River at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
gauge station in Doctortown, Georgia. During the driest portions of the 
2006-2009 drought period, the lowest discharges observed were 25 
percent of the MMD for the 77-year period of record for the Doctortown 
gauge. Despite record low flows, native unionids (mussels) appeared to 
persist throughout most of the Lower Altamaha River Basin.
    The numeric standards for pollutants and water quality parameters 
(for example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy metals) have been adopted by 
the State of Georgia under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.). Water quality standards set by the State of Georgia are based on 
water quality criteria

[[Page 62945]]

established by EPA for protection of aquatic life. That said, mussels 
are not currently represented in datasets used by EPA for derivation of 
water quality criteria. Some of these standards (particularly organic 
and heavy metal contaminants) may not adequately protect Altamaha 
spinymussels, or are not being appropriately measured, monitored, or 
achieved in some reaches (see discussions under Factors A and D). While 
Georgia's pH criterion is a range of 6.0 to 8.5 under the adopted State 
standards, data compiled by the GDNR indicate that pH at 159 sites in 
the Altamaha River Basin averaged 6.9 and ranged from 4.9 to 9.1, which 
means many sites are outside of the range adopted by the State. 
Potential contaminants such as ammonia may be more lethal at pH levels 
at the edges of the observed range. Therefore, we removed outliers from 
this data set by generating the 10th and 90th percentiles for pH, which 
were 6.1 to 7.7 standard units. These levels are likely more 
representative of natural pH levels associated with the Altamaha River 
Basin and would likely reduce lethal contaminant associations between 
other chemicals in the watershed.
    Current Georgia TMDLs for waters supporting warm-water fishes 
require a daily average dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of 5.0 mg/l 
and a minimum of 4.0 mg/l. The mean DO concentration of 217 
measurements made in known spinymussel sites throughout the Altamaha 
River Basin was 8.7 mg/l and ranged from 0.42 mg/l to 20.3 mg/l. The 
10th and 90th percentiles for DO were 4.3 and 9.7 mg/l, which are 
similar to the observations of Golladay et al. (2004, pp. 501-503). A 
daily average DO concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum DO 
concentration of 4.0 mg/l should provide adequate protection for the 
Altamaha spinymussel.
    Other factors that can potentially alter water quality are droughts 
and periods of low-flow, nonpoint-source runoff from adjacent land 
surfaces (for example, excessive amounts of nutrients, pesticides, and 
sediment), and random spills or unregulated discharge events. This 
could be particularly harmful during drought conditions when flows are 
depressed and pollutants are more concentrated. Adequate water quality 
is essential for normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life 
stages of the Altamaha spinymussel.

Food

    Unionid mussels, such as the Altamaha spinymussel, filter algae, 
detritus, and bacteria from the water column (Williams et al. 2008, p. 
67). Although the life history of the Altamaha spinymussel has not been 
studied, the life histories of other mussels in the Elliptio genus 
indicate that adult freshwater mussels are filter-feeders, siphoning 
phytoplankton, diatoms, and other microorganisms from the water column. 
For the first several months, juvenile mussels employ pedal (foot) 
feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus from the sediment 
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217-221; Cope et al. 2008, p. 457). Food 
availability and quality for the Altamaha spinymussel in sandbars, 
sloughs, and mid-channel-island habitats are affected by habitat 
stability, floodplain connectivity, flow, and water quality.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing

    Freshwater mussels require a host fish for transformation of larval 
mussels (glochidia) to juvenile mussels (Williams et al. 2008, p. 68); 
therefore, the presence of the appropriate host fish is essential to 
the conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel. The specific fish host(s) 
for the Altamaha spinymussel is unknown; however, other species of 
mussels in the genus Elliptio are known to parasitize various species 
of Etheostoma, Percina, and other stream-adapted fish species (Haag and 
Warren 2003, p. 80). Eighty-five fish species representing 22 families 
are native to the Altamaha River Basin. Five families account for 65 
percent of the native fish species in the Altamaha River Basin. The 
family Cyprinidae comprises 20 percent of the fish species, while 
Centrarchidae, Catostomidae, Ictaluridae, and Percidae comprise 15 
percent, 12 percent, 11 percent, and 8 percent of the species, 
respectively. These families are known to be suitable hosts for most 
unionids in North America. All 85 species native to the Altamaha River 
Basin are still present within the basin; however, populations of 
several fish species, particularly anadromous fishes (e.g., striped 
bass, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, American shad and other 
herrings), have declined substantially in recent decades and, if used 
as hosts, may be related to declines in Altamaha spinymussel abundance. 
Host trials with 10 species of fish from six families (Centrarchidae, 
Cyprinidae, Ictaluridae, Moronidae, Acipenseridae, Catostomidae) did 
not produce any juvenile Altamaha spinymussels (R. Bringolf 2010, pers. 
comm.).
    Juvenile Altamaha spinymussels require stable sandbar, slough, and 
mid-channel-island 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, pp. 372-374). 
Geomorphic instability can result in the loss of interstitial habitats 
and juvenile mussels due to scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993, pp. 
372-373). Therefore, stable sandbar, slough, and mid-channel-island 
habitats with low to moderate amounts of filamentous algae growth are 
essential to the conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel.
    Periodic floodplain connectivity that occurs during wet years 
provides habitats for spawning and foraging activities to fishes 
requiring floodplain habitats for successful reproduction and 
recruitment to adulthood. Barko et al. (2006, pp. 252-256) found 
several fish species benefited from the resource exploitation of 
floodplain habitats that were not typically available for use during 
hydrologically normal years. Furthermore, Kwak (1988, pp. 243-247) and 
Slipke et al. (2005, p. 289) indicated that periodic inundation of 
floodplain habitats increased successful fish reproduction, which leads 
to increased availability of native host fishes for unionid 
reproduction. However, Rypel et al. (2009, p. 502) indicated that 
unionids tended to exhibit minimal growth during high flow years. 
Therefore, optimal flooding of these habitats would not be too frequent 
and should occur at similar frequencies to that of the natural 
hydrologic regime of the Altamaha River.

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the Altamaha Spinymussel

    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species, we have determined that 
the Altamaha spinymussel's PCEs are:
    (1) Geomorphically stable river channels and banks (channels that 
maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity 
patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation) 
with stable sandbar, slough, and mid-channel-island habitats of coarse-
to-fine sand substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment 
and attached filamentous algae.
    (2) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species are found and to maintain connectivity of 
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for sand bar maintenance, food availability, and spawning 
habitat for native fishes.

[[Page 62946]]

    (3) Water quality necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages, including specifically temperature (less 
than 32.6 [deg]C (90.68 [deg]F) with less than 2 [deg]C (3.6 [deg]F) 
daily fluctuation)), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen content (daily average DO 
concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0 mg/l), an ammonia level 
not exceeding 1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L (normalized to pH 8 and 25 [deg]C 
(77 [deg]F)), and other chemical characteristics.
    (4) The presence of fish hosts (currently unknown) necessary for 
recruitment of the Altamaha spinymussel. The continued occurrence of 
diverse native fish assemblages currently occurring in the basin will 
serve as an indication of host fish presence until appropriate host 
fishes can be identified for the Altamaha spinymussel.
    This final designation is designed to conserve those areas 
containing the PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs present to support at 
least one of the species' life history functions. In this final 
designation, all occupied areas (Units 1, 2, and 3) contain all PCEs 
and support multiple life processes. The unoccupied area (Unit 4) 
contains PCEs 1, 2 and 4, but does not currently meet the water quality 
standard (see Unit 4 below).

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and whether those features may require special management 
considerations or protection. None of the critical habitat units being 
designated for this species have been designated as critical habitat 
for other species under the Act. Large areas of upland habitat adjacent 
to the designated critical habitat are currently protected or receive 
special management; 13.4 km (8.4 mi.) on both sides of the river and 
75.9 km (47.0 mi) on one side of the river only are managed as 
conservation properties through easements with 300' buffers on many 
timber lands and active management on lands owned by the State and The 
Nature Conservancy (see Table 2). However, approximately 148 km (92 mi) 
have no protection. Various activities in or adjacent to each of the 
critical habitat units described in this final rule may affect one or 
more of the PCEs and may require special management considerations or 
protection. Some of these activities include, but are not limited to, 
those discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' 
above. Features in all the final critical habitat units may require 
special management due to threats posed by land-use runoff and point- 
and nonpoint-source water pollution (see discussion under Factor A and 
Factor D). Other activities that may affect PCEs in the final critical 
habitat units include those listed in the ``Effects of Critical 
Habitat'' section below.
    In summary, we find that the areas we are designating as critical 
habitat that were occupied at the time of listing contain the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the Altamaha 
spinymussel, which may require special management considerations or 
protection. Special management consideration or protection may be 
required to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, the threats 
affecting each unit and to preserve and maintain the essential features 
that the final critical habitat units provide to the Altamaha 
spinymussel. We are also designating areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing that have been 
determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. 
Additional discussions of threats facing individual sites are provided 
in the individual unit descriptions.

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel (see 
above), and areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are essential for the conservation of the species. We are 
designating as critical habitat all river channels that are currently 
occupied by the species. We are also designating a specific area not 
currently occupied but that was historically occupied, because we have 
determined (1) That the area is essential for the conservation of the 
Altamaha spinymussel, and (2) that designating only occupied habitat is 
not sufficient to conserve this species.
    When determining final critical habitat boundaries, we make every 
effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by 
buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands usually 
lack PCEs for endangered or threatened species. Areas designated as 
critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel include only stream 
channels within the ordinary high-water line, and do not contain any 
developed areas or structures. The ordinary high-water line defines the 
stream channel and is the point on the stream bank where water is 
continuous and leaves some evidence such as erosion or aquatic 
vegetation.

Occupied Stream Reaches Designated as Critical Habitat

    We have defined occupied habitat as those stream reaches known to 
be currently occupied by the Altamaha spinymussel. We used information 
from surveys and reports prepared by the GDNR, private contractors, and 
Service field records to identify the specific locations occupied by 
the Altamaha spinymussel.
    Currently, the limited occupied habitat for this species is 
extremely scattered and isolated. The Altamaha spinymussel persists in 
scattered portions of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers (see Population 
Estimates and Status above). We have determined that all occupied areas 
contain features essential to the conservation of the species.
    River habitats are highly dependent upon upstream and downstream 
channel habitat conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, where one 
occurrence record was known from a river reach, we considered the 
entire reach between the uppermost and lowermost locations as occupied 
habitat, as discussed below.
    The Altamaha spinymussel is currently known to survive in scattered 
populations along 223 km (138 mi) of the Ocmulgee and upper Altamaha 
Rivers extending from Telfair and Ben Hill Counties to Long and Wayne 
Counties, Georgia, except for a 2.7-km (1.7-mi) reach of river in the 
vicinity of the Plant Hatch facility. From 1997 through 2009, 
researchers searched 336 sites throughout the basin and documented 57 
Altamaha spinymussels, with all occurrences widely scattered throughout 
its current range. There are no known barriers to movement in this 
range; therefore, we consider the entire 223-km (138-mi) reach between 
the uppermost and lowermost collection sites for the Altamaha 
spinymussel as occupied habitat. In the area designated as critical 
habitat, boundaries extend from the nearest downstream landmark at both 
ends of the reach.

[[Page 62947]]

Unoccupied Stream Reaches Designated as Critical Habitat

    In identifying unoccupied river reaches that could be essential for 
the conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel, we first considered the 
availability of potential habitat throughout the historical range that 
may be suitable for the survival and persistence of the species. We 
also eliminated from consideration free-flowing rivers or river 
segments without any historical records of occurrence (that is the 
Little Ocmulgee River and the upper portions of the Oconee and Ocmulgee 
Rivers). We eliminated the lower portion of the Altamaha River from 
consideration because of poor water quality and limited habitat 
availability. The lower Oconee River was initially eliminated due to 
poor water quality and limited habitat availability, however, recent 
mussel surveys have demonstrated that water quality is likely adequate 
for the spinymussel and suitable habitat is available. However, only 
one tributary is needed as critical habitat, and the lower Oconee only 
has one known observation of spinymussels from 1968, conversely the 
Ohoopee has multiple reports of spinymussel with the most recent in 
1997. See our response to Comment 8.
    We have identified 14.4 km (9 mi) of habitat in the Ohoopee River 
that is currently unoccupied by the Altamaha spinymussel and that meets 
the criteria for designation as critical habitat. Historical records of 
Altamaha spinymussel occurred in the lower portions of the Ohoopee 
River. Keferl (1981, p. 15) referred to the Ohoopee as a possible 
refuge for the Altamaha spinymussel. However, extreme drought and all-
terrain vehicle disturbance appear to have extirpated the species from 
otherwise suitable habitat.
    The unoccupied stream reach we are designating as critical habitat 
was historically occupied (i.e., prior to 1997; see Table 1). We 
believe that this reach is essential for Altamaha spinymussel 
conservation because the range of the Altamaha spinymussel has been 
severely curtailed, occupied habitats are limited and isolated, and 
population sizes are extremely small, and the area meets the selection 
criteria identified below. Furthermore, the occupied habitats are 
contiguous, placing them at high risk of extirpation and extinction 
from stochastic events. The inclusion of essential unoccupied areas, in 
a separate tributary, will provide habitat for population 
reintroduction, reduce the level of stochastic threats to the species' 
survival, and decrease the risk of extinction for this species.
    The area designated as critical habitat that is not known to be 
currently occupied meets all of the following criteria:
    (1) It contains sufficient PCEs (for example, such characteristics 
as geomorphically stable channels, perennial water flows, and 
appropriate benthic substrates) to support life history functions of 
the Altamaha spinymussel;
    (2) It supports diverse aquatic mollusk communities, including the 
presence of closely related species requiring PCEs similar to the 
Altamaha spinymussel; and
    (3) It is adjacent to currently occupied areas where there is 
potential for natural dispersal and reoccupation by the Altamaha 
spinymussel.
    (4) It is essential to the conservation of the species.

Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating four units, totaling approximately 237.4 km 
(147.5 mi), as critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. Georgia 
owns navigable stream bottoms within the ordinary high-water line. All 
units are considered navigable and, as stated below, critical habitat 
is designated for the stream channel within the ordinary high-water 
line only. Accordingly, the State of Georgia owns the stream bottoms 
within all of the areas designated as critical habitat. Lands adjacent 
to critical habitat units are either in private ownership or 
conservation status. Table 2 identifies the critical habitat units, 
occupancy of the units, the approximate extent designated as critical 
habitat, and provides information on adjacent land ownership and 
conservation status.

                          Table 2--Occupancy and Ownership of Lands Adjacent to Critical Habitat Units for Altamaha Spinymussel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Conservation/
                 Unit                          Location                 Occupancy          Total length     Private km      private km     Conservation
                                                                                              km (mi)          (mi)            (mi)           km (mi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  Ocmulgee River..........  Occupied...............      110 (68.3)     89.2 (55.4)      14.3 (8.8)       6.4 (4.0)
2A...................................  Upper Altamaha River A..  Occupied...............     31.4 (19.5)       2.7 (1.7)     21.6 (13.4)       7.1 (4.4)
2B...................................  Upper Altamaha River B..  Occupied...............     30.7 (19.1)     22.9 (14.2)       7.8 (4.9)           0 (0)
3....................................  Middle Altamaha River...  Occupied...............     50.9 (31.6)     18.8 (11.7)     32.1 (19.9)           0 (0)
4....................................  Lower Ohoopee River.....  Unoccupied.............      14.4 (9.0)      14.4 (9.0)           0 (0)           0 (0)
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  ........................  .......................   237.4 (147.5)        148 (92)       75.9 (47)      13.4 (8.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private), conservation area on one bank and private on the other
  (Conservation/Private), and conservation area on both banks (Conservation).

    The critical habitat units include the river channels below the 
ordinary high water mark. As defined in 33 CFR 329.11, the ordinary 
high water mark on nontidal rivers is the line on the shore established 
by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, 
such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes 
in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the 
presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider 
the characteristics of the surrounding areas. For each stream reach 
designated as a critical habitat unit, the upstream and downstream 
boundaries are described generally below. More precise definitions are 
provided in the Regulation Promulgation section at the end of this 
rule.
    We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel:

Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill, Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff Davis 
Counties

    Unit 1 includes 110 km (68.3 mi) of the lower Ocmulgee River from 
the confluence of House Creek with the Ocmulgee River at Red Bluff 
Landing in Ben Hill and Telfair Counties, downstream to the Altamaha 
River (at the confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers, Jeff Davis 
and Telfair Counties). Live Altamaha spinymussels have been collected 
from 11 sites within Unit 1, the uppermost near Red Bluff (Thomas and 
Scott 1965, p. 67). Surveys

[[Page 62948]]

conducted since 1997 on the Ocmulgee River have yielded 19 Altamaha 
spinymussels from 7 sites (Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O'Brien 2002, p. 
2; Dinkins 2004, pp. 1-1, 2-1). The entire reach of the Ocmulgee River 
that composes Unit 1 is occupied. This unit contains all of the PCEs.
    The Altamaha spinymussel and its habitat may require special 
management considerations or protection to address changes in the 
existing flow regime due to activities such as impoundment, water 
diversion, or water withdrawal; alteration of water chemistry or water 
quality; and changes in streambed material composition and quality from 
activities that would release sediments or nutrients into the water, 
such as deadhead logging (instream log salvage), construction projects, 
livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle use.

Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River, Wheeler, Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff Davis, 
Appling, and Tatnall Counties

    Unit 2 includes a total of 62.1 km (38.6 mi) of the Altamaha River 
from the confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers (Wheeler and Jeff 
Davis Counties) downstream to the confluence of the Altamaha and 
Ohoopee Rivers (Appling and Tattnall Counties).
    Unit 2A includes 31.4 km (19.5 mi) of the Altamaha River from the 
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers to Route 1.
    Unit 2B includes 30.7 km (19.1 mi) of the Altamaha River from the 
upstream boundary of Moody Forest to the confluence of the Altamaha and 
Ohoopee Rivers.
    However, we are not including in this critical habitat designation 
a stretch of the Altamaha River from U.S. Route 1 downstream to the 
State-owned property of Moody Forest (2.7 km (1.7 mi)), which includes 
Plant Hatch. This area does not contain the PCEs necessary for the 
Altamaha spinymussel due to:
    (1) Dredging for intake pipes at Plant Hatch, which destabilizes 
the river channel and banks, sandbar, slough, and mid-channel-island 
habitats and disrupts the movement of coarse-to-fine sand substrates 
with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment; and
    (2) Thermal discharges from Plant Hatch that reduce water quality.
    In the upper Altamaha River, historic surveys collected Altamaha 
spinymussels from 15 sites, while recent surveys have collected live 
Altamaha spinymussels from only 2 sites; dead shells have been 
collected from an additional 14 sites (Sickel 1980; Keferl 1995, p. 3; 
Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11, O'Brien 2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009, pers. 
comm.). The entire reach of the Altamaha River that composes Unit 2 is 
occupied. This unit contains all of the PCEs.
    The Altamaha spinymussel and its habitat may require special 
management considerations or protection to address changes in the 
existing flow regime due to activities such as impoundment, water 
diversion, or water withdrawal; alteration of water chemistry or water 
quality; and changes in streambed material composition and quality from 
activities that would release sediments or nutrients into the water, 
such as deadhead logging (instream log salvage), construction projects, 
livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle use.

Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River, Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and Long 
Counties

    Unit 3 includes approximately 50.9 km (31.6 mi) of the Altamaha 
River from the confluence with the Ohoopee (Tattnall and Appling 
Counties) downstream to U.S. Route 301 (Wayne and Long Counties). 
Historic and recent surveys of the middle Altamaha River have yielded 
live Altamaha spinymussels from 26 sites. Shell material was found at 
an additional 13 sites (Keferl 1981, p. 14; Keferl 1995, p. 3; Cammack 
et al. 2001, p. 11; O'Brien 2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). 
The entire reach of the Altamaha River that composes Unit 3 is 
occupied. This unit contains all of the PCEs.
    The Altamaha spinymussel and its habitat may require special 
management considerations or protection to address changes in the 
existing flow regime due to such activities as impoundment, water 
diversion, or water withdrawal; alteration of water chemistry or water 
quality; and changes in streambed material composition and quality from 
activities that would release sediments or nutrients into the water, 
such as deadhead logging (instream log salvage), construction projects, 
livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle use.

Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River, Tattnall County

    Unit 4 includes the lower 14.4 km (9 mi) of the Ohoopee River, from 
2.2 km (1.3 mi) upstream of Tattnall County Road 191, downstream to the 
confluence of the Ohoopee and the Altamaha River in Tattnall County, 
Georgia.
    The Altamaha spinymussel historically occupied this stretch of the 
Ohoopee River but has not been found here since the mid-1990s 
(Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, pp. 1-2) and is considered extirpated. 
Historic collections were made from seven sites (Keferl 1981, p. 14). 
Keferl (1981, p. 15) considered the Ohoopee to contain excellent 
habitat that would serve as a refuge for declining mussel populations. 
This stretch of the Ohoopee River contains PCEs 1, 2, and 4 for the 
Altamaha spinymussel, and continues to support four species commonly 
associated with the presence of the Altamaha spinymussel: Elliptio 
dariensis (75 percent of sites with E. spinosa), E. hopetonensis (93 
percent), E. shepardiana (80 percent), and Lampsilis dolabraeformis (90 
percent). Lampsilis splendida was found at 72 percent of sites 
(Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). The Ohoopee does not meet state water 
quality standards for mercury, however, EPA will begin revising needed 
load reductions in 2011 (EPA 2002b, p. 2).
    Critical habitat units 1, 2, and 3 are contiguous, making them very 
vulnerable to a catastrophic event that could eliminate all known 
occupied habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. Therefore, we believe 
that the stream segment within this unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because reestablishing the Altamaha 
spinymussel on a separate tributary such as the Ohoopee River would 
significantly reduce the impact of stochastic threats to the species' 
survival.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the courts of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits Courts of 
Appeals have invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would remain functional (or retain those physical or 
biological features that relate to the ability of the

[[Page 62949]]

area to periodically support the species) to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 
our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
     Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
     Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
     Are economically and technologically feasible, and
     Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect Altamaha spinymussel or its 
designated critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the 
Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a 
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are 
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 
7 consultations.

Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standard

Jeopardy Standard

    Prior to and following listing and designation of critical habitat, 
the Service applies an analytical framework for jeopardy analyses that 
relies heavily on the importance of the core area population (middle 
mainstem Altamaha) to the survival and recovery of the species. The 
section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these populations but 
also on the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
    The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery 
needs of the species in a qualitative fashion without making 
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is 
necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is 
incompatible with the viability of the affected core area population, 
inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding is 
considered to be warranted, because of the relationship of the core 
area population to the survival and recovery of the species as a whole.

Adverse Modification Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability 
for the PCEs to be functionally established. Activities that may 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the 
physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces 
the conservation value of critical habitat for the Altamaha 
spinymussel.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, should 
result in consultation for the Altamaha spinymussel include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the geomorphology of their stream and 
river habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, and 
discharge of fill materials. These activities could cause aggradation 
or degradation of the channel bed elevation or significant bank 
erosion, result in entrainment or burial of these mollusks, and cause 
other direct or cumulative adverse effects to these species and their 
life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow 
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
impoundment, water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydropower 
generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat 
necessary for growth and reproduction of these mollusks.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or water 
quality (for example, temperature, pH, contaminants, and excess 
nutrients). Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
hydropower discharges, or the release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (nonpoint 
source). These activities could alter water conditions that are beyond 
the tolerances of these mollusks and result in direct or cumulative 
adverse effects to the species and their life cycles.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material 
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or 
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvest, 
off-road vehicle use, and other watershed

[[Page 62950]]

and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into 
the water. These activities could eliminate or reduce habitats 
necessary for the growth and reproduction of these mollusks by causing 
excessive sedimentation and burial of the species or their habitats, or 
nutrient enrichment leading to excessive filamentous algal growth. 
Excessive filamentous algal growth can cause reduced night-time 
dissolved oxygen levels through respiration and prevent mussel 
glochidia from settling into stream sediments.

Exemptions and Exclusion

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent 
appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; 
fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland 
protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support 
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands within the critical 
habitat designation for this species. Therefore, there are no specific 
lands that meet the criteria for exemption from the designation of 
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factors to use and how much weight to 
give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. For example, we 
consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) where a national security impact might exist. We also 
consider whether landowners have developed any conservation plans for 
the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion of lands from, critical 
habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the 
government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal 
entities. We also consider the economic impacts, environmental impacts, 
and any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude 
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits 
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of 
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If, based on 
this analysis, we determine that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, we can exclude the area only if such exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species.
    In the proposed rule, we requested information on why any area 
should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by 
section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the 
benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by 
designation such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent. 
In this instance, we have examined all comments submitted with respect 
to providing adequate protection and management for the Altamaha 
spinymussel. None of the comments provided sufficient information to 
satisfy the criteria necessary for exclusion from final critical 
habitat.
    In preparing this final rule, we determined that the lands within 
the designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel are 
not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and there are no 
other known national security impacts expected from the designation; 
there are currently no conservation partnerships for the spinymussel; 
and the designation does not include any tribal lands or trust 
resources. Since the critical habitat designation includes only aquatic 
areas that are generally held in public trust, involves no Tribal 
lands, and includes no areas presently under special management or 
protection provided by a legally operative plan or agreement for the 
conservation of this mussel, we believe that, other than economics, 
there are no other relevant impacts to evaluate under section 4(b)(2).

Economic Analysis (EA)

    We prepared an economic analysis that is consistent with the ruling 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in New 
Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
248 F.3d 1277 (2001), and that was available for public review and 
comment during the comment period for the proposed rule. The final 
economic analysis is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. The final EA (Industrial Economics 2011) considers 
the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation 
of the Altamaha spinymussel, including costs associated with sections 
4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to 
designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects 
of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and 
local laws that aid habitat conservation for the Altamaha spinymussel 
in essential habitat areas. The EA considers both economic efficiency 
and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, 
efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' 
associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat 
protection measures (for example, lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use).
    The final EA states that incremental impacts stem primarily from 
administrative costs of section 7 consultations, and are relatively 
small. Present value incremental impacts of spinymussel conservation 
are estimated

[[Page 62951]]

to be $37,100 total over the analysis timeframe (2011 to 2040), 
applying a seven percent discount rate. All of these impacts stem from 
the administrative cost of addressing adverse modification of critical 
habitat during section 7 consultations. Because the region is primarily 
rural, the Service and contacted stakeholders do not anticipate that 
designation of critical habitat for the spinymussel will have 
substantial impact on economic activity. Accordingly, a small number of 
section 7 consultations are expected during the analytic timeframe, 
most of which will occur in habitat currently occupied by the 
spinymussel.
    The majority of the incremental impacts are related to electric 
power generation and transmission. Over the 30-year analytic timeframe, 
four hydropower plants in the region will renew their operating 
licenses and will, therefore, conduct section 7 consultations with the 
Service. In addition, this analysis assumes that the Edwin I. Hatch 
nuclear power plant will conduct informal section 7 consultations with 
the Service for periodic dredging operations, and regional utilities 
will conduct on average one consultation per year for construction and 
repair of electric power lines. In comparison, the analysis projects 
that relatively few section 7 consultations will be required for 
transportation and recreation activities.
    Based on the best available information, including the prepared 
economic analysis, we believe that all of the four units are essential 
for the conservation of the spinymussel. Critical habitat aids in the 
conservation specifically by protecting the primary constituent 
elements on which the spinymussel depends. It can also result in 
benefits by providing information to the public, local and State 
governments, Federal agencies, and other entities engaged in activities 
or long-range planning in areas essential to the conservation of the 
spinymussel. Conservation of the Altamaha spinymussel and essential 
features of its habitats will require habitat management, protection, 
and restoration, which will be facilitated by knowledge of habitat 
locations and the physical or biological features of those habitats. We 
conclude that these benefits of inclusion outweigh the above-described 
costs of designation for all areas we are designating as critical 
habitat in this rule.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies; groups; 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal activities that may affect the Altamaha spinymussel 
include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the issuance of 
permits for reservoir construction, stream alterations, discharges, 
wastewater facility development, water withdrawal projects, pesticide 
registration, mining, and road and bridge construction. It has been the 
experience of the Service, however, that nearly all section 7 
consultations have been resolved so that species have been protected 
and the project objectives have been met.
    Listing the Altamaha spinymussel initiates the development and 
implementation of a rangewide recovery plan for the species. This plan 
will bring together Federal, State, and local agency efforts for the 
conservation of this species. Recovery plans establish a framework for 
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts. The plans set recovery 
priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to accomplish 
the priorities. They also describe the site-specific actions necessary 
to achieve conservation and survival of each species.
    Listing also will require us to review any actions on Federal lands 
and activities under Federal jurisdiction that may affect the Altamaha 
spinymussel; allow State plans to be developed under section 6 of the 
Act; encourage scientific investigations of efforts to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act; and promote habitat conservation plans on non-Federal lands under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt any of these), import or export, 
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed 
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain 
exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation 
agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are set forth at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. 
Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    Under the Interagency Cooperative Policy for Endangered Species Act 
Section 9 Prohibitions, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), we identify to the maximum extent practicable those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 
of the Act if the Altamaha spinymussel is listed. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness as to the effects of this 
listing on future and ongoing activities within a species' range. We 
believe, based on the best available information that the following 
actions will not result in a violation of the provisions of section 9 
of the Act, provided these actions are carried out in accordance with 
existing regulations and permit requirements:
    (1) Possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate 
transport that does not involve commercial activity, of specimens of 
this species that were legally acquired prior to the addition of the 
Altamaha spinymussel to the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened 
Wildlife;
    (2) Development and construction activities designed and 
implemented under State and local water quality regulations and 
implemented using

[[Page 62952]]

approved best management practices; and
    (3) Any actions that may affect the Altamaha spinymussel that are 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency (such as bridge 
and highway construction, pipeline construction, hydropower licensing), 
when the action is conducted in accordance with the consultation 
requirements for listed species under section 7 of the Act.
    Potential activities that we believe will likely be considered a 
violation of section 9 of the Act if this species becomes listed, 
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing, 
harming, killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including 
interstate and foreign commerce, or attempting any of these actions, 
with the Altamaha spinymussel;
    (2) Unlawful destruction or alteration of their habitats (such as 
unpermitted instream dredging, impoundment, channelization, or 
discharge of fill material) that impairs essential behaviors, such as 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering, or results in killing or injuring the 
Altamaha spinymussel;
    (3) Discharge or water withdrawal permits that results in harm or 
death to any individuals of this species or that results in degradation 
of its occupied habitat to an extent that essential behaviors such as 
breeding, feeding, and sheltering are impaired; and
    (4) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other 
pollutants into waters supporting the Altamaha spinymussel that kills 
or injures or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining requirements, 
such as reproduction, food, or shelter.
    Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may 
be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider 
the description of future and ongoing activities provided above to be 
exhaustive; we provide them simply as information to the public.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely violate the provisions of section 9 of the Act, contact the 
Georgia Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests for copies 
of regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, GA 30345 (phone 404-679-7313; fax 404-679-7081).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to 
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis 
for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities 
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing 
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We 
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to 
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not 
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic 
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of 
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers 
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. 
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of 
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider 
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In 
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities 
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be 
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where a listed 
species already occurs; e.g., the short-nosed sturgeon, Federal 
agencies already are required to consult with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the sturgeon. Federal 
agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect 
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could 
result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the 
requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities 
(see Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
    In our final economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions

[[Page 62953]]

related to the listing of the Altamaha spinymussel and the proposed 
designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated 
impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in 
chapters 3 through 5 and appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the 
potential for economic impacts related to: (1) Power generation and 
transmission; (2) transportation; (3) other activities (agriculture, 
recreation and forestry); and (4) impacts to small entities and the 
energy industry.
    According to the final EA, impacts on small entities due to this 
rule are expected to be modest because the incremental costs of the 
rule are estimated to be administrative in nature. The final EA 
evaluated the incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation 
for the Altamaha spinymussel over the next 30 years, which was 
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited 
planning information is available for most activities to forecast 
activity levels for projects beyond a 30-year timeframe. Applying a 
seven percent discount rate, electric power generation and transmission 
is estimated to incur the largest impact at $26,700 over the next 30 
years (2011-2040), overall incremental impacts associated with the 
designation are estimated at $37,100 over the same time period.
    In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we 
concluded that this rule will not result in a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for the spinymussel 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations 
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' issued 
May 18, 2001, Federal agencies must prepare and submit a ``Statement of 
Energy Effects'' for all ``significant energy actions.'' The purpose of 
this requirement is to ensure that all Federal agencies ``appropriately 
weigh and consider the effects of the Federal Government's regulations 
on the supply, distribution, and use of energy.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided guidance for 
implementing E.O. 13211 that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute 
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory 
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat are the 
subject of the analysis under Executive Order 13211. The potential 
effects of this designation on power production were considered in the 
economic analysis. As described in Chapter 4, estimated incremental 
impacts to the energy industry as a result of critical habitat 
designation for the spinymussel are minor and administrative in nature. 
Therefore, the rule is not expected to affect the production, 
distribution, or use of energy, and none of the above criteria are 
relevant to this analysis.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) A condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would listing 
these species or designating critical habitat shift the costs of the 
large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because the Altamaha spinymussel only occurs 
in navigable waters in which the river bottom is owned by the State of 
Georgia. However, the adjacent upland properties are owned by private 
entities, the State, or Federal partners (see Table 2). As such, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel in a takings 
implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel 
does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce

[[Page 62954]]

policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of 
this critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Georgia. The critical habitat designation may have some 
benefit to this government in that the areas that contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, 
and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the 
species are specifically identified. While making this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated areas to 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the Altamaha 
spinymussel.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).
    Also, it is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with 
designating critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v Babbitt, 48 F. 3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species 
Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly 
with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to Tribes.
    We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied at the 
time of listing that contain the features essential for the 
conservation, and no tribal lands that are unoccupied areas that are 
essential for the conservation, of the Altamaha spinymussel. Therefore, 
we have not designated critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel on 
Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological 
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and at Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107.

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is the staff of the Georgia 
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding ``Spinymussel, Altamaha'' 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) * * *

[[Page 62955]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                     Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                         population where                                 Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range        endangered or         Status     When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                               threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Clams
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Spinymussel, Altamaha............  Elliptio spinosa....  U.S.A. (GA).........  Entire.............  E                      796     17.95(f)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(f) by adding an entry for ``Altamaha spinymussel 
(Elliptio spinosa)'' after the entry for ``Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema 
hanleyianum)'' to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
    Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa).
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Appling, Ben Hill, 
Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne, 
and Wheeler Counties, Georgia, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for 
the Altamaha spinymussel are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Geomorphically stable river channels and banks (channels that 
maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity 
patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation) 
with stable sandbar, slough, and mid-channel-island habitats of coarse-
to-fine sand substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment 
and attached filamentous algae.
    (ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species are found and to maintain connectivity of 
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for sand bar maintenance, food availability, and spawning 
habitat for native fishes.
    (iii) Water quality necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages, including specifically temperature (less 
than 32.6 [deg]C (90.68 [deg]) with less than 2 [deg]C (3.6 [deg]F) 
daily fluctuation), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen content (daily average DO 
concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0 mg/l), an ammonia level 
not exceeding 1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L (normalized to pH 8 and 25 [deg]C 
(77 [deg]F)), and other chemical characteristics.
    (iv) The presence of fish hosts (currently unknown) necessary for 
recruitment of the Altamaha spinymussel. The continued occurrence of 
diverse native fish assemblages currently occurring in the basin will 
serve as an indication of host fish presence until appropriate host 
fishes can be identified for the Altamaha spinymussel.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing 
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of 
the PCEs, such as buildings, bridges, aqueducts, airports, and roads, 
and the land on which such structures are located.
    (4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps were developed from USGS 7.5 
minute quadrangles, and critical habitat unit upstream and downstream 
limits were then identified by longitude and latitude using decimal 
degrees.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Altamaha 
spinymussel follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 62956]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC11.000


[[Page 62957]]


    (6) Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill, Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff 
Davis Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 1 includes the channel of the Ocmulgee River from the 
confluence of House Creek with the Ocmulgee at Red Bluff Landing 
(longitude -83.18, latitude 31.85), Ben Hill and Telfair Counties, 
Georgia, downstream to Altamaha River (longitude -82.54, latitude 
31.96), at the confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers, Jeff Davis 
and Telfair Counties, Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Ocmulgee River) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC11.001
    

[[Page 62958]]


    (7) Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River, Wheeler, Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff 
Davis, Appling, and Tattnall Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 2 includes the channel of the Altamaha River from the 
confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers (longitude -82.54, 
latitude 31.96), Wheeler and Jeff Davis Counties, Georgia, downstream 
to the US 1 crossing (longitude -82.36, latitude 31.94), and from the 
western edge of Moody Forest (longitude -82.33, latitude 31.93) 
downstream to the confluence of the Altamaha and Ohoopee Rivers 
(longitude -82.11, latitude 31.90), Appling and Tattnall Counties, 
Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Upper Altamaha River) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC11.002
    

[[Page 62959]]


    (8) Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River, Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and 
Long Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 3 includes the channel of Altamaha River, extending from 
the confluence with the Ohoopee (longitude -82.11, latitude 31.90), 
Tattnall and Appling Counties, Georgia, downstream to U.S. Route 301 
(longitude -81.84, latitude 31.67), Wayne and Long Counties, Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Middle Altamaha River) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC11.003
    

[[Page 62960]]


    (9) Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River, Tattnall County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 4 includes the channel of the Ohoopee River, starting 2.2 
km (1.3 mi) upstream of Tattnall County Road 191 (longitude -82.14, 
latitude 31.98), Tattnall County, Georgia, downstream to the confluence 
of the Ohoopee River with the Altamaha River (longitude -82.11, 
latitude 31.90), Tattnall County, Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 4 (Lower Ohoopee River) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC11.004
    
* * * * *

     Dated: September 23, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-25539 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C