Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61664-61719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24161]

[[Page 61663]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 196

October 10, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell,
Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status
for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy
Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61664]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AW92

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered
species status for the Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae),
round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), and
threatened species status for the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei),
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act); and designate
critical habitat for the eight mussel species. The effect of this
regulation is to conserve these eight mussel species and their habitat
under the Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, final economic analysis, and the
coordinates from which the maps were generated are included in the
administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are
available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity and http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, and at the
Panama City FieldOffice. Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or at
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office,
1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 850-769-0552;
facsimile 850-763-2177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue,
Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 850-769-0552; facsimile 850-763-2177.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule
to list the Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), round
ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis) as endangered species,
and the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), and fuzzy pigtoe
(Pleurobema strodeanum) as threatened species; and (2) a final rule to
designate critical habitat for the eight species.

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species or subspecies may warrant protection through listing
if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We are listing these eight mussels
because they have disappeared from portions of their historic ranges or
are very rare, and facing numerous ongoing threats. The Alabama
pearlshell and southern kidneyshell no longer occur in 50 percent or
more of the stream systems in which they were historically found. The
round ebonyshell is extremely rare, and its distribution is restricted
to the main channel of the Escambia-Conecuh River. Choctaw bean
populations in the Escambia River drainage are fragmented, and the
species' numbers are low throughout its range. The narrow pigtoe, fuzzy
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and tapered pigtoe still occur in much of
their known range but have disappeared from many of the tributary and
main channel locations from which they were historically known. All are
facing a variety of threats. However, habitat degradation and loss as a
result of excessive sedimentation, bed destabilization, poor water
quality, and environmental contaminants are considered the most
significant threats to these eight mussels. We are also designating
critical habitat under the Act. Critical habitat is designated on the
basis of the best scientific information available after taking into
consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In total, approximately 2,404 kilometers (km) (1,494 miles
(mi.)) of stream and river channels in nine units in Bay, Escambia,
Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties,
Florida; and Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington,
Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, and Pike
Counties, Alabama, are being designated.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be listed as
an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A)
The present destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its existence. These eight mussel species are facing threats
due to three of these five factors (A, D and E). The Act also requires
that the Service designate critical habitat at the time of listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that
the designation is prudent and critical habitat is determinable for
each of the eight species (see Critical Habitat section below).
We prepared an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider the
economic impacts, we prepared an economic analysis of the designation
of critical habitat. We published an announcement and solicited public
comments on the draft economic analysis. The analysis found that the
estimated incremental economic cost of this critical habitat
designation to be $1.70 million over a 20-year time frame. The majority
of the economic impacts are associated with the transportation sector,
particularly consultation costs associated with the replacement and
maintenance of bridges and roads.
We requested peer review of the methods used in our proposed
listing and critical habitat designation. We specifically requested
that four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on
freshwater mussel conservation and biology, and who are familiar with
the eight species and the three river basins in which they occur,
review the scientific information and methods in the proposed rule. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and
provided additional information,

[[Page 61665]]

clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.
We sought public comment on the designation. During the first
comment period, we received five comment letters directly addressing
the proposed listing and critical habitat designation. During the
second comment period, we received four comment letters addressing the
proposed listing and critical habitat designation, and the draft
economic analysis.

Background

It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the listing and designation of critical habitat
for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more
information on the biology, ecology, and critical habitat of these
eight mussel species refer to the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61482). Information on the
associated draft economic analysis for the proposed rule was published
in the Federal Register on March 27, 2012 (77 FR 18173).

Previous Federal Actions

On October 4, 2011, we published the proposed rule to list and
designate critical habitat for these eight mussels (76 FR 61482).
Federal actions for these species prior to October 4, 2011, are
outlined in the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule opened
a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 5, 2011. On March 27,
2012 (77 FR 18173), we reopened the comment period for 30 days, from
March 27 through April 26, 2012, in order to announce the availability
of and receive comments on a draft economic analysis, and to extend the
comment period on the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation.

Introduction

North American freshwater mussel fauna is the richest in the world
and historically numbered around 300 species (Williams et al. 1993, p.
6). Freshwater mussels are in decline, however, and in the past century
have become more imperiled than any other group of organisms (Williams
et al. 2008, p. 55; Natureserve 2011). Approximately 66 percent of
North America's freshwater mussel species are considered vulnerable to
extinction or possibly extinct (Williams et al. 1993, p. 6). Within
North America, the southeastern United States is the hot spot for
mussel diversity. Seventy-five percent of southeastern mussel species
are in varying degrees of rarity or possibly extinct (Neves et al.
1997, pp. 47-51). The central reason for the decline of freshwater
mussels is the modification and destruction of their habitat,
especially from sedimentation, dams, and degraded water quality (Neves
et al. 1997, p. 60; Bogan 1998, p. 376). These eight mussels, like many
other southeastern mussel species, have undergone reductions in total
range and population density.
These eight species are all freshwater bivalve mussels of the
families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae. The Alabama pearlshell is a
member of the family Margaritiferidae, while the round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe belong to the family Unionidae.
These mussels are endemic to (found only in) portions of three Coastal
Plain rivers that drain south-central and southeastern Alabama and
northwestern Florida: the Escambia (known as the Escambia River in
Florida and the Conecuh River in Alabama), the Yellow, and the
Choctawhatchee. All three rivers originate in Alabama and flow across
the Florida panhandle before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, and are
entirely contained within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic
Region. The Alabama pearlshell is also known from three locations in
the Mobile River Basin; however, only one of those is considered to be
currently occupied.

General Biology

Freshwater mussels generally live embedded in the bottom of rivers,
streams, and other bodies of water. They siphon water into their shells
and across four gills that are specialized for respiration and food
collection. Food items include detritus (disintegrated organic debris),
algae, diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430-431). Adults
are filter feeders and generally orient themselves on or near the
substrate surface to take in food and oxygen from the water column.
Juveniles typically burrow completely beneath the substrate surface and
are pedal (foot) feeders (bringing food particles inside the shell for
ingestion that adhere to the foot while it is extended outside the
shell) until the structures for filter feeding are more fully developed
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 200-221; Gatenby et al. 1996, p. 604).
Sexes in margaritiferid and unionid mussels are usually separate.
Males release sperm into the water column, which females take in
through their siphons during feeding and respiration. Fertilization
takes place inside the shell. The eggs are retained in the gills of the
female until they develop into mature larvae called glochidia. The
glochidia of most freshwater mussel species, including all eight
species addressed in this rule, have a parasitic stage during which
they must attach to the gills, fins, or skin of a fish to transform
into a juvenile mussel. Depending on the mussel species, females
release glochidia either separately, in masses known as conglutinates,
or in one large mass known as a superconglutinate. The duration of the
parasitic stage varies by mussel species, water temperature, and
perhaps host fish species. When the transformation is complete, the
juvenile mussels drop from their fish host and sink to the stream
bottom where, given suitable conditions, they grow and mature into
adults.

Survey Data

Recent distributions are based on surveys conducted from 1995 to
2012. Historical distributions are based on collections made prior to
1995. Historical distribution data from museum records and surveys
dated between the late 1800s and 1994 are sparse, and most of these
species were more than likely present throughout their respective river
basins. Knowledge of historical and current distribution and abundance
data were summarized from Butler 1989; Williams et al. 2000
(unpublished), Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005,
Pilarczyk et al. 2006, and Gangloff, and Hartfield 2009. In addition, a
status survey was conducted in 2010-2012 by M.M. Gangloff and the final
report is in preparation. These studies represent a compilation of
museum records and recent status surveys conducted between 1990 and
2007. We also used various other sources to identify the historical and
current locations occupied by these species. These include surveys,
reports, and field notes prepared by biologists from the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marion, AL;
Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL; Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL; U.S. Geological Survey,
Gainesville, FL; Alabama Malacological Research Center, Mobile, AL;
Troy University, Troy, AL; Appalachian State University, Boone, NC;
various private consulting groups; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Daphne, AL, and Panama City, FL. In addition, we obtained
occurrence data from the collection databases of the Museum of
Fluviatile Mollusks (MFM), Athearn collection; Auburn University
Natural History Museum (AUNHM),

[[Page 61666]]

Auburn, AL; and Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), Gainesville,
FL.

Assessing Status

Assessing the state of a freshwater mussel population is
challenging. We looked at trends in distribution (range) by comparing
recent occurrence data to historical data, and we examined recent
abundance (numbers). One difficulty of investigating population trends
over time in these species is the lack of historical collection data
within the drainages. Athearn (1964, p. 134) noted the streams of
western Florida were inadequately sampled, particularly the lower
Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and the lower Escambia Rivers. Blalock-Herod et
al. (2005, p. 2) stated that little collecting effort had been expended
in the Choctawhatchee River drainage as compared to other nearby river
systems like the Apalachicola and Mobile river drainages. This paucity
of historical occurrence data may create the appearance of an increase
in the number of localities that support a species or an expanding
range; however, this is likely due to increased sampling efforts and to
better sampling methods, like the use of SCUBA gear.
Another difficulty is the lack basic information for some
historical collections, including specific locality, total number of
species or individuals collected, or collection date. For these
reasons, the only accurate comparison that can be made of so many
different sources of historical and recent collection data is whether a
particular species was detected (present) or not (absent) during the
survey. When examining occurrence data, we considered sampled areas in
close proximity as the same sight. Generally, areas sampled that are
within 2 river km (1.2 mi) (approximately) of each other are considered
the same site, and sampled areas that are more than 2 km apart are
considered different sites. Occurences are based on live animals and
shell material. The occurrence data we examined using GIS mapping
software. A summary historical and recent occurrence data, and current
abundance is presented in Table 1.

Table 1--Eight Mussel Occurrence and Abundance by River Drainage--Occurrences Are Based on Live and Shell Material and Abundance Is Based on Live
Individuals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical (pre-1995) Current (1995-2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical
Species Drainage Historical Historical sites Current Total live Average General assessment
sites sites re- currently sites \1\ collected abundance
surveyed occupied \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaritifera marrianae Alabama Alabama.......... 3 3 0 0 0 0 Contracted range,
pearlshell. limited
distribution, very
low numbers.
Escambia......... 12 12 4 9 28 3.14
Fusconaia rotulata round Escambia......... 3 2 2 11 8 1.1 Limited
ebonyshell. distribution, very
low numbers.
Ptychobranchus jonesi southern Escambia......... 10 5 0 0 0 0 Contracted range,
kidneyshell. limited
distribution, very
low numbers.
Yellow........... 1 1 0 0 0 0
Choct............ 12 11 1 10 41 2.5
Villosa choctawensis Choctaw bean Escambia......... 7 7 1 7 14 1.4 Fragmented
populations
(Escambia),
localized
extirpations, low
numbers.
Yellow........... 4 3 2 4 15 3.0
Choct............ 11 10 3 37 143 3.9
Fusconaia burkei tapered pigtoe.. Choct............ 23 22 13 53 361 6.0 Limited
distribution,
localized
extirpations.
Fusconaia escambia narrow pigtoe. Escambia......... 13 10 7 28 166 6.9 Localized
extirpations,
limited
distribution, low
numbers.
Yellow........... 2 2 1 4 23 2.9
Hamiota australis southern Escambia......... 6 4 1 6 20 4 Localized
sandshell. extirpations.
Yellow........... 5 4 2 17 65 3.1
Choct............ 18 16 5 34 211 4.5
Pleurobema strodeanum fuzzy Escambia......... 30 18 12 26 52 6.5 Nearly extirpated
pigtoe. from Yellow
drainage,
localized
extirpations.
Yellow........... 4 4 1 1 1 1
Choct............ 18 15 8 59 587 9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes all currently occupied sites, both historic and new.
\2\ Average number of live individuals collected per site.

[[Page 61667]]

We also considered each species' relative abundance in comparison
to other mussel species with which they co-occur. In addition, we
relied on various published documents whose authors are considered
experts on these species. These publications either described the
status of these species or assigned a conservation ranking, and include
Williams et al. 1993, Williams and Butler 1994; Mirarchi et al. 2004,
Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, and Williams et al. 2008.
Most of the eight species have experienced a decline in populations
and numbers of individuals within populations, but not all have
experienced a decline in range. Recent, targeted surveys for the
Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell show a dramatic decline in
historical range. The Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, fuzzy pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and tapered pigtoe still occur in much of their
historical range; however, they no longer occur at many locations at
which they were historically known, and their numbers appear to be
declining. The round ebonyshell's current range is larger than its
historical range, but this is attributed to the use of dive equipment
in recent surveys that allowed access to the species' deep, main
channel habitat. Despite this range extension, the species still has a
very limited distribution and is considered to be extremely rare.

Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution

Alabama Pearlshell
The Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae, Johnson 1983) is a
medium-sized freshwater mussel known from a few tributaries of the
Alabama and Escambia River drainages in south-central Alabama (Johnson
1983, pp. 299-304; McGregor 2004, p. 40; Williams et al. 2008, pp. 98-
99). The pearlshell is oblong and grows up to 95 millimeters (mm) (3.8
inches (in)) in length. The outside of the shell (periostracum) is
smooth and shiny and somewhat roughened along the posterior slope. The
inside of the shell (nacre) is whitish or purplish and moderately
iridescent (refer to Johnson 1983 for a full description).
The Alabama pearlshell is one of five North American species in the
family Margaritiferidae. The family is represented by only two genera,
Margaritifera (Schumacher 1816) and Cumberlandia (Ortmann 1912). In
Alabama, each genus is represented by a single species--the
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) occurs in the Tennessee River
Basin (Williams et al. 2008, pp. 94-95), and the Alabama pearlshell
occurs in the Escambia and Alabama river basins in south Alabama. Prior
to 1983, the Alabama pearlshell was thought to be the same species as
the Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli Conrad 1838) (Simpson
1914; Clench and Turner 1956), a species now considered endemic to
central Louisiana.
The Alabama pearlshell typically inhabits small headwater streams
with mixed sand and gravel substrates, occasionally in sandy mud, with
slow to moderate current. Very little is known about the life-history
requirements of this species. However, Shelton (1995, p. 5 unpub.
report) suggests that the Alabama pearlshell, as opposed to the
Louisiana pearlshell, which occurs in large colonies, typically occurs
in low numbers. The Alabama pearlshell is also believed to occur in
male-female pairs. Of the 68 Alabama pearlshell observed by Shelton
(1995, p. 5 unpub. report), 85 percent occurred in pairs. Males were
always located upstream of the females and were typically not more than
1 meter (m) apart, and juveniles were usually found just a few inches
apart. The species is believed to be a long-term brooder, where gravid
females have been observed in December. The host fish and other aspects
of its life history are currently unknown.
Historically, the Alabama pearlshell occurred in portions of the
Escambia River drainage, and has also been reported from two systems in
the Alabama River drainage. The Alabama pearlshell's known historical
and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 2
below.

Table 2--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Alabama Pearlshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Flat Creek............... Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical and Current.
Brushy Creek................. Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical.
Limestone Creek.............. Alabama......... Monroe.......... AL Historical.
Amos Mill Creek.............. Escambia........ Conecuh, AL Current.
Escambia.
Autrey Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Beaver Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Brushy Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Horse Creek.................. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Hunter Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Little Cedar Creek........... Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Otter Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Amos Mill population, discovered in 2010, represents a new
record, and possibly the only known surviving population in the Sepulga
River drainage. The Burnt Corn and Otter Creek populations reaffirm
historical records that had not been reported in nearly 30 years. Two
of the Sandy Creek locations, discovered in 2011, are new populations.
Since the late 1990s, more than 70 locations within the Alabama River
Basin were surveyed for mollusks (McGregor et al. 1999, pp. 13-14;
Powell and Ford 2010 pers. obs.; Buntin and Fobian 2011 pers. comm.),
35 of which were located in the Limestone and Big Flat Creek drainages,
and no live Alabama pearlshell were reported. The last documented
occurrence in Big Flat Creek was a fresh dead individual collected in
1995 (Shelton 1999 in litt.), and the last reported occurrence in the
Limestone Creek drainage was 1974, where Williams (2009 pers. comm.)
reported it as common. Despite numerous visits, the pearlshell has not
been collected in this system since 1974. A fresh dead individual
collected by Shelton in 1995,

[[Page 61668]]

represents the most recent record from the Big Flat Creek drainage.
Recent data suggest that, of the nine remaining populations, the
largest may occur in Little Cedar and Otter Mill creeks. In 2011,
Fobian and Pritchett reported new populations at two locations in an
unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek. Although this is not the first report
from the Sandy Creek basin, it is the first for the two unnamed
tributaries. In 2010, Buntin and Fobian (2011 pers. comm.) reported 10
live individuals from Otter Creek. This is the first time since 1981
that the pearlshell has been reported from this drainage. Also in 2010,
Powell and Ford reported three live individuals, and several relic
shells, from Amos Mill Creek, in Escambia County, AL. This is the first
report of the pearlshell from this drainage, and county, and the first
live individual from the Sepulga River system in nearly 50 years.
Little Cedar Creek supported good numbers of Alabama pearlshell in the
late 1990's (54 individuals reported in 1998). However, during a
qualitative search of the same area in 2005, only two live pearlshell
were found (Powell 2005 pers. obs.), and in 2006, three live
pearlshells were observed (Johnson 2006 in litt.). Live Alabama
pearlshell have not been observed in Hunter Creek since 1998, when
eight live individuals were reported (Shelton 1999 in litt.). During
two visits to the stream in 1999, Shelton found no evidence of the
species (Shelton 1999 in litt.), and reported high levels of
sedimentation. However, in 2005 the shells of three fresh dead Alabama
pearlshells were reported from Hunter Creek, indicating the persistence
of the species in that drainage (Powell, pers. obs. 2005).
Evidence suggests that much of the rangewide decline of this
species has occurred within the past few decades. Specific causes of
the decline and disappearance of the Alabama pearlshell from historical
stream localities are unknown. However, they are likely related to past
and present land use patterns. Many of the small streams historically
inhabited by the Alabama pearlshell are impacted to various degrees by
nonpoint-source pollution.
Round Ebonyshell
The round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata, Wright 1899) is a medium-
sized freshwater mussel endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). The round
ebonyshell is round to oval in shape and reaches about 70 mm (2.8 in.)
in length. The shell is thick and the exterior is smooth and dark brown
to black in color. The shell interior is white to silvery and
iridescent (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 61; Williams et al. 2008, p.
319). The round ebonyshell was originally described by B.H. Wright in
1899 and placed in the genus Unio. Simpson (1900) reexamined the type
specimen and assigned it to the genus Obovaria. Based on shell
characters, Williams and Butler (1994, p. 61) recognized it as clearly
a species of the genus Fusconaia, and its placement in the genus is
supported genetically (Lydeard et al. 2000, p. 149).
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the round ebonyshell. It occurs in small to medium rivers, typically
in stable substrates of sand, small gravel, or sandy mud in slow to
moderate current. It is believed to be a short-term brooder, and gravid
females have been observed in the spring and summer. The fish host(s)
for the round ebonyshell is currently unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p.
320).
The round ebonyshell is known only from the main channel of the
Escambia-Conecuh River and is the only mussel species endemic to the
drainage (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320). Due to recent survey data, its
known range was extended downstream the Escambia River to Molino,
Florida (Gangloff 2012 pers. comm.), and upstream in the Conecuh River
to just above the Covington County line in Alabama (Williams et al.
2008, p. 320). The round ebonyshell's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Round Ebonyshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington.
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The round ebonyshell has a very restricted distribution (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 61), with its current range (based on live
individuals and shell material) confined to approximately 144 km (89
mi) of the Escambia-Conecuh River main channel. The round ebonyshell is
also considered to be extremely rare (Williams et al. 2008, p. 320).
Researchers collected a total of three live individuals during a 2006
dive survey (Shelton et al. 2007, pp. 8-10 unpub. report), and 4 more
were collected during a dive survey in 2011 (Gangloff 2012 pers. comm).
At stations where the species was present in the 2011 survey, 219
mussels were collected for every 1 round ebonyshell. Because its
distribution is limited to the main channel of one river, the round
ebonyshell is particularly vulnerable to catastrophic events such as
flood scour and contaminant spills, and to activities that cause
streambed destabilization like gravel mining, dredging, and de-snagging
for navigation. Due to its limited distribution and rarity, McGregor
(2004, p. 56) considered the round ebonyshell vulnerable to extinction,
and classified it as a species of highest conservation concern in
Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11) considered the round ebonyshell
as endangered throughout its range.
Southern Kidneyshell
The southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi, van der Schalie
1934) is a medium-sized freshwater mussel known from the Escambia and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow
River drainage in Alabama (Williams et al. 2008, p. 624). The southern
kidneyshell is elliptical and reaches about 72 mm (2.8 in.) in length.
Its shell is smooth and shiny, and greenish yellow to dark brown or
black in color, sometimes with weak rays. The shell interior is bluish
white with some iridescence (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 126; Williams
et al. 2008, p. 624). The southern kidneyshell was described by H. van
der Schalie (1934) as Lampsilis jonesi. Following the examination of
gills of gravid females, Fuller and Bereza (1973, p. 53) determined it
belonged in the genus Ptychobranchus. When gravid, the marsupial gills
form folds along the outer edge, a characteristic unique to the genus
Ptychobranchus (Williams et al. 2008, p. 609).
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the southern kidneyshell. It is typically found in medium creeks to
small rivers in firm sand substrates with slow to moderate current
(Williams et al. 2008,

[[Page 61669]]

pp. 625). A recent status survey in the Choctawhatchee basin in Alabama
found its preferred habitat to be stable substrates near bedrock
outcroppings (Gangloff and Hartfield 2009, p. 25). The southern
kidneyshell is believed to be a long-term brooder, with females gravid
from autumn to the following spring or summer. Preliminary reproductive
studies found that females release their glochidia in small
conglutinates that are bulbous at one end and tapered at the other
(Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center 2006, unpub. data). Host fish for
the southern kidneyshell are currently unknown; however, darters serve
as primary glochidial hosts to other members of the genus
Ptychobranchus (Luo 1993, p. 16; Haag and Warren 1997, p. 580).
The southern kidneyshell is endemic to the Escambia,
Choctawhatchee, and Yellow River drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 624), but is currently known only from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The southern kidneyshell's known
historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown
in Table 4 below.

Table 4--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Kidneyshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Escambia........ AL Historical.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical.
Crenshaw.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical.
Crenshaw.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Hollis Creek................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Henry..... AL Historical.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 1995, the southern kidneyshell has been detected at only 10
locations within the Choctawhatchee River drainage. The species appears
to have been common historically (in 1964, H. D. Athearn collected 98
individuals at one site on the West Fork Choctawhatchee), but it is
currently considered one of the most imperiled species in the United
States (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, p. 16; Williams et al. 2008, p.
625). In addition to a reduction in range, its numbers are very low. A
2006-2007 status survey in the Alabama portion of the Choctawhatchee
basin found the southern kidneyshell was extremely rare. A total of 13
were encountered alive, and the species comprised less than 0.3 percent
of the total mussel assemblage (Gangloff and Hartfield 2009, p. 249).
It is classified as a species of highest conservation concern in
Alabama by McGregor (2004, p. 83), and considered threatened throughout
its range by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14)
Choctaw Bean
The Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis, Athearn 1964) is a small
freshwater mussel known from the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee
River drainages of Alabama and Florida. The oval shell of the Choctaw
bean reaches about 49 mm (2.0 in.) in length, and is shiny and
greenish-brown in color, typically with thin green rays, though the
rays are often obscured in darker individuals. The shell interior color
varies from bluish white to smoky brown with some iridescence (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 100; Williams et al. 2008, p. 758). The sexes are
dimorphic, with females truncate or widely rounded posteriorly, and
sometimes slightly more inflated (Athearn 1964, p. 137). The Choctaw
bean was originally described by H.D. Athearn in 1964.
Very little is known about the habitat requirements or life history
of the Choctaw bean. It is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of silty sand to sandy clay with moderate current. It
is believed to be a long-term brooder, with females gravid from late
summer or autumn to the following summer. Its fish host is currently
unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p. 758).
The Choctaw bean is known from the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 758). The Choctaw bean's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Choctaw Bean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Burnt Corn................... Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Pigeon Creek................. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Olustee Creek................ Escambia........ Pike............ AL Current.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Crenshaw, Pike.. AL Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Five Runs Creek.............. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.

[[Page 61670]]

Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current.
Washington,
Holmes.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Pike, Barbour.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Big Sandy Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Bullock......... AL Current.
Claybank Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Henry, Barbour.. AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Choctaw bean persists in most of its historic range. However,
it has experienced localized extirpations and its numbers are low,
particularly in the Escambia and Yellow river drainages. Of 7
historical sites known to support the species within the Escambia River
drainage, 1 location currently supports the species. Also, its numbers
within the drainage are very low; a total of 14 individuals have been
collected since 1995. Within the Yellow River drainage, the Choctaw
bean is currently known from 4 locations which yielded 15 individuals
total. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, 3 of 10 historical sites
examined recently continue to support the species. The Choctaw bean
continues to persist in most areas and is currently known from a total
of 37 locations throughout the drainage.
Heard (1975, p. 17) assessed the status of the Choctaw bean in 1975
and stated that it was formerly abundant in the main channel of the
Choctawhatchee River in Florida, but has become quite rare. McGregor
(2004, p. 103) considered the Choctaw bean vulnerable to extinction due
to its limited distribution and habitat degradation, and classified it
as a species of high conservation concern in Alabama. Williams et al.
(1993, p. 14) considered the Choctaw bean as threatened throughout its
range.
Tapered Pigtoe
The tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei, Walker 1922) is a small to
medium-sized mussel endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). The elliptical to
subtriangular shell of the tapered pigtoe reaches about 75 mm (3.0 in.)
in length, and is sculptured with plications (parallel ridges) that
radiate from the posterior ridge. In younger individuals, the shell
exterior is greenish brown to yellowish brown in color, occasionally
with faint dark-green rays, and with pronounced sculpture often
covering the entire shell; in older individuals, the shell becomes dark
brown to black with age, and sculpture is often subtle. The shell
interior is bluish white (Williams et al. 2008, p. 295). The tapered
pigtoe was described by B. Walker (in Ortmann and Walker 1922) as
Quincuncina burkei, a new genus and species. In the description,
Ortmann noted the species had gill features characteristic of the genus
Fusconaia; however, this was dismissed based on the presence of
sculpture on the shell. Genetic analysis by Lydeard et al. (2000, p.
149) determined it to be a sister taxon to Fusconaia escambia. Based on
soft anatomy similarity, Williams et al. (2008, p. 296) recognized
burkei as belonging to the genus Fusconaia. Recent molecular studies by
Campbell and Lydeard (2012, p. 28) support the distinctiveness of
burkei as a species and its assignment to the genus Fusconaia.
The tapered pigtoe is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of sand, small gravel, or sandy mud, with slow to
moderate current (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). The reproductive
biology of the tapered pigtoe was studied by White et al. (2008). It is
a short-term brooder, with females gravid from mid-March to May. The
blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta) was found to serve as a host for
tapered pigtoe glochidia in the preliminary host trial (White et al.
2008, p. 122-123).
The tapered pigtoe is endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage
in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 296). Its historical
and current distribution includes several oxbow lakes in Florida, some
with a flowing connection to the main channel. The tapered pigtoe's
known historical and current occurrences, by water body and county, are
shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Tapered Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Log Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Washington, Bay. FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current.
Washington,
Holmes.
Crews Lake................... Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Current.
Crawford Lake................ Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Horseshoe Lake............... Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington, FL Historical and Current.
Holmes, Jackson.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Blue Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.

[[Page 61671]]

Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical.
West Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
East Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Parrot Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical and Current.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Coffee, Dale, AL Historical and Current.
Pike, Barbour.
Big Creek (Whitewater Creek Choctawhatchee.. Pike............ AL Current.
tributary).
Big Creek (Pea River Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
tributary).
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Hurricane Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Historical.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
Bear Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tapered pigtoe appears to be absent from portions of its
historic range and found only in isolated locations (Blalock-Herod et
al. 2005, p. 17). The species was not detected at 9 of the 22
historical sites examined during recent status surveys. Most of those
are in the middle portion of the drainage in Alabama, and the species
appears to be declining in this portion of its range. The tapered
pigtoe is currently known from a total of 53 locations within the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The species persists mainly in the lower
portions of the drainage and in isolated locations in Alabama.
Due to its limited distribution, rarity, and habitat degradation,
Blalock-Herod (2004, p. 105) considered the tapered pigtoe vulnerable
to extinction, and classified it as a species of high conservation
concern in Alabama. The tapered pigtoe is considered threatened
throughout its range by Williams et al. (1993, p. 14).
Narrow Pigtoe
The narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia, Clench and Turner 1956) is a
small to medium-sized mussel known from the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida, and the Yellow River drainage in Florida. The
subtriangular to squarish shaped shell of the narrow pigtoe reaches
about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length. The shell is moderately thick and is
usually reddish brown to black in color. The shell interior is white to
salmon in color with iridescence near the posterior margin (Williams
and Butler 1994, p. 77; Williams et al. 2008, p. 316). The narrow
pigtoe was originally described by W. J. Clench and R. D. Turner in
1956. Both molecular (Campbell and Lydeard 2012, p. 28) and
morphological (Williams et al. 2008, p. 316) evidence support the
distinctiveness of escambia as a species and its assignment to the
genus Fusconaia.
Little is known about the habitat requirements or life history of
the narrow pigtoe. It is found in medium creeks to medium rivers, in
stable substrates of sand, sand and gravel, or silty sand, with slow to
moderate current. It is believed to be a short-term brooder, with
females gravid during spring and summer. The host fish for the narrow
pigtoe is currently unknown (Williams et al. 2008, p. 317). The species
is somewhat unusual in that it tolerates a small reservoir environment
(Williams 2009 pers. comm.). Reproducing narrow pigtoe populations were
found recently in some areas of Point A Lake and Gantt Lake reservoirs.
The narrow pigtoe is endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama and Florida, and to the Yellow River drainage in Florida
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 317). The narrow pigtoe's known historical
and current occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 7
below.

Table 7--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Narrow Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Historical.
Persimmon Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Three Run Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Covington, AL Current.
Crenshaw.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Santa Rosa, FL Historical and Current.
Okaloosa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61672]]

The narrow pigtoe still occurs in much of its historic range, but
may be extirpated from localized areas. In the Escambia River drainage,
the narrow pigtoe occurs in nearly all of its historical range and is
currently known from 28 locations. It was not detected at 3 out of 10
historical sites examined recently in the drainage. The species is rare
in the Yellow River drainage; a total of 23 individuals from 4
locations have been collected since 1995.
McGregor (2004, p. 55) considered the narrow pigtoe vulnerable to
extinction because of its limited distribution, rarity, and
susceptibility to habitat degradation, and classified it as a species
of highest conservation concern in Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p.
11) considered the narrow pigtoe threatened throughout its range.
Southern Sandshell
The southern sandshell (Hamiota australis, Simpson 1900) is a
medium-sized freshwater mussel known from the Escambia River drainage
in Alabama, and the Yellow and Choctawhatchee River drainages in
Alabama and Florida (Williams et al. 2008, p. 338). The southern
sandshell is elliptical in shape and reaches about 83 mm (2.3 in.) in
length. Its shell is smooth and shiny, and greenish in color in young
specimens, becoming dark greenish brown to black with age, with many
variable green rays. The shell interior is bluish white and iridescent.
Sexual dimorphism is present as a slight inflation of the
posterioventral shell margin of females (Williams and Butler 1994, p.
97; Williams et al. 2008, p. 337). The southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis) was originally described by C. T. Simpson (1900) as
Lampsilis australis. Heard (1975), however, designated it as a species
of Villosa. It was placed in the genus Hamiota by Roe and Hartfield
(2005, pp. 1-3), who confirmed earlier published suggestions by Fuller
and Bereza (1973, p. 53) and O'Brien and Brim Box (1999, pp. 135-136)
that this species and three others of the genus Lampsilis represent a
distinct genus. This separation from other Lampsilis is supported
genetically (Roe et al. 2001, p. 2230).
The southern sandshell is typically found in small creeks and
rivers in stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand and fine
gravel, with slow to moderate current. It is a long-term brooder, and
females are gravid from late summer or autumn to the following spring
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 338). The southern sandshell is one of only
four species that produce a superconglutinate to attract a host. The
superconglutinate mimics the shape, coloration, and movement of a fish
and is produced by the female mussel to hold all glochidia (larval
mussels) from one year's reproductive effort (Haag et al. 1995, p.
472). Although the fish host for the southern sandshell has not been
identified, it likely uses predatory sunfishes such as basses, like
other Hamiota species (Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; O'Brien and Brim Box
1999, p. 134; Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p. 1885).
The southern sandshell is endemic to the Escambia River drainage in
Alabama, and the Yellow and Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama
and Florida (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, pp. 1882, 1884). The southern
sandshell's known historical and current occurrences, by water body and
county, are shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Southern Sandshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt corn creek............. Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Conecuh.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Current.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Covington, AL Current and Historical.
Crenshaw, Pike.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Current.
Shoal River.................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa, Walton FL Current.
Pond Creek................... Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Five Runs Creek.............. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical and Current.
Alligator Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Washington...... FL Historical.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Holmes, Jackson. FL Historical.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
West Sandy Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Walton.. AL, FL Current.
Natural Bridge Creek......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Corner Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Historical.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Historical and Current.
Double Bridges Creek......... Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Barbour, Dale... AL Historical and Current.
River.
Sikes Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Henry..... AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
[[Page 61673]]

The southern sandshell persists in its historic range; however, its
range is fragmented and numbers appear to be declining (Williams et al.
2008, p. 338). In the Escambia River drainage, the species was detected
at 1 of 4 historic locations surveyed recently. Also, its numbers are
very low in the drainage; a total of 20 individuals from 6 locations
have been collected in the Escambia River drainage since 1995. Southern
sandshell numbers in the Yellow River drainage are also fairly low,
with 65 individuals collected recently at a total of 17 locations. The
species was not detected at 2 of the 4 historic locations examined
recently in the drainage. In the Choctawhatchee River drainage, the
number of historic locations that currently support the species has
declined from 16 to 5, and it appears to be extirpated from central
portions of the Choctawhatchee River main channel and from some
tributaries. Sedimentation could be one factor contributing to its
decline. In order to reproduce, the southern sandshell must attract a
sight-feeding fish to its superconglutinate lure. Waters clouded by
silt and sediment would reduce the chance of this interaction occurring
(Haag et al. 1995, p. 475).
The southern sandshell is classified as a species of highest
conservation concern in Alabama by Blalock-Herod (2004, p. 60), and
considered threatened throughout its range by Williams et al. (1993, p.
11).
Fuzzy Pigtoe.
The fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum, Wright (1898) is a small
to medium-sized mussel known from the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 574). The fuzzy pigtoe is oval to subtriangular and reaches
about 75 mm (3.0 in.) in length. Its shell surface is usually dark
brown to black in color. The shell interior is bluish white, with
slight iridescence near the margin (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 90;
Williams et al. 2008, p. 573). The fuzzy pigtoe was described by B.H.
Wright (1898) as Unio strodeanus. Simpson (1900) reexamined the type
specimen and reassigned it to the genus Pleurobema. Recent molecular
data support that strodeanum is distinct as a species and belongs to
the genus Pleurobema (Campbell and Lydeard 2012, p. 29).
The fuzzy pigtoe is found in medium creeks to medium rivers in
stable substrates of sand and silty sand with slow to moderate current.
The reproductive biology of the fuzzy pigtoe was studied by White et
al. (2008, pp. 122-123). It is a short-term brooder, with females
gravid from mid-March to May. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta)
was found to serve as a host for fuzzy pigtoe glochidia in the
preliminary study trial.
The fuzzy pigtoe is endemic to the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Williams et al.
2008, p. 574). The fuzzy pigtoe's known historical and current
occurrences, by water body and county, are shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9--Water Bodies With Known Historical and Current Occurrences of the Fuzzy Pigtoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water body Drainage County State Historical or current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia River............... Escambia........ Escambia, Santa FL Historical and Current.
Rosa.
Conecuh River................ Escambia........ Escambia, AL Historical and Current.
Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike.
Burnt Corn Creek............. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Murder Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Jordan Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Bottle Creek................. Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical and Current.
Sepulga River................ Escambia........ Conecuh......... AL Historical.
Persimmon Creek.............. Escambia........ Butler.......... AL Current.
Pigeon Creek................. Escambia........ Covington, AL Historical and Current.
Butler.
Patsaliga Creek.............. Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Little Patsaliga Creek....... Escambia........ Crenshaw........ AL Historical and Current.
Mill Creek................... Escambia........ Pike............ AL Historical.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Okaloosa........ FL Historical and Current.
Yellow River................. Yellow.......... Covington....... AL Historical.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Walton, FL Historical and Current
Washington,
Holmes.
Holmes Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Washington, FL Historical and Current.
Holmes, Jackson.
Bruce Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Sandy Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Blue Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Wrights Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Historical and Current.
Tenmile Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
West Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
East Pittman Creek........... Choctawhatchee.. Holmes.......... FL Current.
Limestone Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Historical.
Eightmile Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Walton.......... FL Current.
Choctawhatchee River......... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Dale.... AL Historical and Current.
Pea River.................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva, Coffee, AL Historical and Current.
Dale, Pike,
Barbour.
Flat Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Whitewater Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Walnut Creek................. Choctawhatchee.. Pike............ AL Current.
Pea Creek.................... Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Big Sandy Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Bullock......... AL Current.
Steep Head Creek............. Choctawhatchee.. Coffee.......... AL Current.
Claybank Creek............... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Hurricane Creek.............. Choctawhatchee.. Geneva.......... AL Current.
Little Choctawhatchee River.. Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Houston... AL Historical.
Panther Creek................ Choctawhatchee.. Houston......... AL Historical.
West Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale, Barbour... AL Historical and Current.
River.

[[Page 61674]]

Judy Creek................... Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
Pauls Creek.................. Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Unnamed tributary to Lindsey Choctawhatchee.. Barbour......... AL Current.
Creek.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Dale............ AL Current.
River.
East Fork Choctawhatchee Choctawhatchee.. Henry........... AL Historical and Current.
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within the Escambia River drainage, the fuzzy pigtoe was detected
at 15 of the 21 historic locations surveyed since 1995; however, its
status in the drainage is difficult to assess as 9 historical sites
have not been surveyed since 1995, and at least 3 other sites have
vague localities. The fuzzy pigtoe is exceedingly rare in the Yellow
River drainage, where it is currently known from 1 of 4 historic
locations. A single individual collected in 2010 in the main channel in
Florida is the only recent record of the species in the drainage. Its
range in the Yellow River drainage has declined, and the species may no
longer occur in the upper portion of the drainage in Alabama. In the
Choctawhatchee River drainage, the fuzzy pigtoe stills occurs in nearly
all of its historic range and is currently known from a total of 50
locations; however, the species has become extirpated in localized
areas. Fifteen of the 18 historic locations in the drainage were
surveyed recently, and 8 continue to support fuzzy pigtoe populations.
At one site on Limestone Creek, a once abundant population may have
disappeared--a total of 42 live fuzzy pigtoes were collected in 1988;
the surveyor revisited the site in 1993, and found only 1 live and 4
dead specimens and noted that the creek appeared to have more sand and
that mussels were not as abundant (Butler 1988 and 1993 in litt.). No
fuzzy pigtoes were detected during a 2011 site visit (Gangloff 2012
pers. com.).
The fuzzy pigtoe is considered vulnerable to extinction because of
its limited distribution and dwindling habitat by McGregor (2004, p.
101), who classified it as a species of high conservation concern in
Alabama. Williams et al. (1993, p. 11) considered the fuzzy pigtoe a
species of special concern throughout its range.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat for the eight mussels
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with
the publication of the proposed rule (76 FR 61482) opened on October 4,
2011, and closed on December 5, 2011. We also requested comments on the
proposed listing and critical habitat rule and the associated draft
economic analysis during a comment period that opened March 27, 2012,
and closed on April 26, 2012 (77 FR 18173). We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing, so none were held. We also contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies (including the States of Alabama
and Florida, from whom we directly requested comments), county
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment. Articles concerning the
proposed rule and inviting public comment were published by seven local
newspapers.
During the first comment periods, we received five comment letters
directly addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation. During the second comment period, we received four comment
letters addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation and the draft economic analysis. All substantive
information provided during both comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we requested the expert opinions of four knowledgeable
individuals with expertise on freshwater mussel conservation and
biology, and with familiarity of the eight species and the three river
basins in which they occur. We received written responses from two of
the four peer reviewers we contacted.
We reviewed all comments received from the two peer reviewers for
substantive and new information regarding the proposal to list and
designate critical habitat for the eight mussels. The peer reviewers
generally concurred with our conclusions and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final
listing and critical habitat rule. One peer reviewer provided several
narrative comments, and we addressed most of those below; however, a
few minor comments are directly incorporated into this final rule.
Another peer reviewer submitted a marked-up copy of the proposed rule,
noting errors and suggestions; we adopted most of the suggested changes
and incorporated them directly into this final rule. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
this final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1) Comment: Much of the recent status data utilized were obtained
from personal communications, unpublished (i.e., non-peer-reviewed)
reports or other generally unavailable reports. Accordingly, it is
difficult to assess the rigor of these studies or the Service's
interpretation of their data. More information, including sampling
effort and methods, mussel catch per unit effort, numbers encountered
relative to other species, and specifics of study site locations, is
needed to better assess changes in population status or distributions.
Our response: We obtained much of the status data, particularly the
recent survey data, from unpublished reports, field notes, or emails.
This information is the best scientific data available to us at this
time. Although the unpublished reports are not available through
journals, they are part of the administrative record and can be
obtained through the Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
We agree that information on sampling methods and effort, relative
numbers, locations, etc., is important; however, the occurrence data
are a compilation of numerous surveys, and it is not practical to
report detailed information related to each survey effort. Documenting
changes in status and population trends over the period of record is
problematic because historic collections often lack basic information
such as the specific locality, total number of species or individuals
collected, or even collection date. The only accurate comparison that
can be made of so many different sources of

[[Page 61675]]

historical and recent collection data is whether a particular species
was detected (present) or not (absent) during the survey.
(2) Comment: The assignment of endangered or threatened species
status appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Three species are clearly in
serious decline and warrant endangered status: Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, and southern kidneyshell. However, the southern
sandshell and Choctaw bean appear to have among the largest extant
ranges of any species covered in the proposed rule and remain extant in
the Choctawhatchee, Escambia, and Yellow rivers drainages. This
distinction needs more quantitative or more detailed biological
justification.
Our response: In assessing the status of these mussels, we analyzed
each species' current distribution (range), abundance (numbers), and
population trend. We also examined the magnitude of the various threats
to each of the species. Section 3(6) of the Act defines an endangered
species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and section 3(20) of the
Act defines a threatened species as ``any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' At the time the proposed
rule published, we had determined that the current status of the
southern sandshell and Choctaw bean, combined with the threats they are
facing, made them in danger of extinction throughout their range.
However, since the proposed rule was published, additional surveys have
taken place, including a Service-funded status survey, and we now have
new status and distribution information. In this final rule, we updated
the occurrence information to reflect the new data, and we reexamined
the status of each species. These new data include locations of
populations of the southern sandshell in two new creek systems, Murder
and West Sandy creeks, and in two historical creek systems, Burnt Corn
and Pond creeks. The new data also showed that southern sandshell
abundance is higher than previously known. Because the species is found
in numerous streams, we have determined it is no longer in danger of
extinction throughout its range. However, the species does still face
the wide range of threats explained in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section and is vulnerable to meeting the
definition of an endangered species if these threats continue.
Therefore, we are revising the status of the southern sandshell and are
listing it as a threatened species (see ``Determination'' section). On
the other hand, new information confirms that the Choctaw bean's range
in the Escambia River drainage has declined, and its abundance
rangewide is currently low. It currently faces severe and imminent
threats in its aquatic habitats, and these threats are compounded by
its low abundance. Based on this new information, we therefore find
that the Choctaw bean continues to be in danger of extinction
throughout its limited range and are listing it as an endangered
species as proposed (see ``Determination'' section).
(3) Comment: More clarification about the number of historical
sites (as well as what constitutes a `site') that have been resurveyed
for all of these taxa is needed. The reviewer states that this
information is critical to assessing declines, and is difficult to
extract from the rule as currently written.
Our response: We added Table 1 to the final rule to consolidate
information on occurrence and abundance. We also added a statement that
we considered sampling areas in close proximity to the same site.
Specifically, areas sampled that are within 2 river km (1.2 mi)
(approximately) of each other are considered the same site, whereas
sampled areas that are more than 2 km apart are considered different
sites.
(4) Comment: The boundaries of the critical habitat units seem
somewhat arbitrary. The reviewer asserted that separation of the basins
into these units artificially inflates perceived fragmentation and
discontinuities in the system. Many of these units are at the very
least hydrologically and physiochemically connected, and also likely
remain biologically connected to a degree. Specifically, the peer
reviewer suggested that units GCM1, GCM2, GCM3, and GCM4 should be
considered a single critical habitat unit, and GCM6 and GCM7 should
likewise be merged into a single critical habitat unit. The peer
reviewer asserted that this would emphasize connectivity of these
systems and the importance of managing aquatic populations at a
watershed scale. Another commenter agreed and requested that the
Service follow the recommendation of the peer reviewer and consolidate
the six units into two distinct units.
Our response: We carefully considered how to delineate the
boundaries of the units. Our consideration focused primarily on
connectivity and threats, and the spatial distribution of the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of each species.
The four divisions in the Escambia drainage are the result of the two
mainstem dams on the Conecuh River, creating units GCM1, GCM2, GCM3,
and GCM4. In the Choctawhatchee drainage, GCM6 and GCM7 are the result
of the Elba dam on the Pea River mainstem. Threats to units downstream
of the dams (GCM1 and GCM6) can include altered water quality
(temperatures, dissolved oxygen), fluctuations in flow regime, and bed
scour. Threats unique to the unit encompassing the two reservoirs
(GCM2) are related to the operation of the dams and include drawdowns.
Threats to the units upstream of the dams (GCM 3, GCM 4 and GCM 7)
include the absence of anadromous fish hosts. These dams are barriers
to upstream fish passage, and potentially to mussel gene flow. For
these reasons, we believe these mainstem dams are logical boundaries.
Finally, the critical habitat units do not infer recovery units. We
have not yet completed a recovery plan for these species, but our
recovery strategy for the eight mussels will undoubtedly involve
managing and protecting these river systems at the watershed level.
(5) Comment: A reviewer suggested we consider combining units AP2
and GCM1.
Our response: We believe combining units AP2 and GCM1 would be an
inaccurate representation of the Alabama pearlshell's range and
habitat. The Alabama pearlshell is a headwater species and, as such,
seldom co-occurs with the other six species in the drainage.
(6) Comment: Cumberlandia is found throughout the Mississippi basin
not just the Tennessee drainage.
Our response: The context of the Cumberlandia information was the
distribution of the genus in Alabama. We revised the sentence to make
this more clear.
(7) Comment: Dredging, channelization, and snag removal and
resulting streambed destabilization should be listed as the foremost
threats to round pearlshell (reviewer meant round ebonyshell). This
taxon is relatively drought tolerant as its core populations appear to
reside in deep water habitats.
Our response: We agree and have added these activities as threats
to the round ebonyshell.
(8) Comment: Characterization of narrow pigtoe habitat is somewhat
vague and seems to imply that this animal is a small to moderate-sized
stream specialist. The reviewer stated that occupied habitats include
reaches of the lower Escambia and Yellow rivers, and considers both
fairly large rivers.

[[Page 61676]]

Our response: We made minor revisions to the description of narrow
pigtoe habitat to clarify. However, we disagree that the lower Escambia
and Yellow rivers are large rivers, and we follow the description by
Williams et al. (2008 p. 317) which classifies them as medium-sized
rivers. This species is known from medium-sized creeks such as Murder
and Patsaliga creeks in Alabama and medium-sized rivers such as the
lower Escambia and Yellow rivers in Florida. We would describe nearby
river systems like the Mobile and Apalachicola as ``large.'' The
species does not occur in these rivers.
(9) Comment: What is the status of the proposed Little
Choctawhatchee River Reservoir?
Our response: The Little Choctawhatchee project is a proposed water
supply reservoir project in Dale and Houston Counties, Alabama. The
Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed Management Authority
has applied for a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The project is in need of funding, but it is anticipated
that it will move forward (Industrial Economics 2012, p. 4-11).
(10) Comment: One reviewer stated that there may be some commercial
harvest of Alabama pearlshell, and asked if the Service has encountered
any evidence for this claim.
Our response: We have no evidence that Alabama pearlshell were or
are being harvested commercially.
(11) Comment: A peer reviewer suggested we include additional
information in the document regarding the Elba Dam and its impact on
downstream hydrology. The peer reviewer stated that it is a run-of-
river structure and is, to his knowledge, not managed for hydropower
production. The peer reviewer would like to see more info about the
height and permeability of this and other dam structures.
Our response: At the time the proposed rule was published, we
mistakenly believed the Elba Dam was not in operation. However, the dam
is currently operating, generating power during peak periods and
storing some water. We have revised our discussion of the dam's
operation, and added dam height and fish passage information for the
structure. We likewise added dam height and fish passage information
for the Gantt and Point A dams on the Conecuh River.
(12) Comment: A peer reviewer mentioned that they did not find any
mussels during a recent survey in the Yellow River upstream from the
U.S. 84 crossing or in Hollis Creek. At the time of their survey,
Hollis Creek was a small, sandy, intermittent stream at its confluence
with the Yellow River and was unlikely to support listed mussels.
Our response: The Yellow River at the U.S. 84 crossing has a recent
(1996) collection of Choctaw bean, and this portion of the river will
remain as critical habitat. The 5.5-km (3.5-mi) segment of Hollis Creek
was included as critical habitat in unit GCM5 in the proposed rule, but
we have removed this segment in this final rule based on this new
information, and adjusted the final critical habitat lengths for Unit
GCM5 and the entire designation accordingly.
(13) Comment: A peer reviewer asked why Fort Rucker lands were not
included as critical habitat, and stated that this reach seems to be an
important section that is likely to be disturbed by Department of
Defense activities, which in turn could affect listed mussel
populations downstream in the Choctawhatchee River.
Our response: Fort Rucker has completed an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP) that guides conservation activities
on the installation through 2014. Lands within military installations
are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, provided they are: ``* * * subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is
proposed for designation.'' The INRMP specifically addresses
maintaining and improving water quality through sedimentation and
erosion control, land management practices, and improved treatment
facilities. Therefore, in the proposed rule we determined that the
streams on Ft. Rucker were exempt from the designation. In addition,
the INRMP will be updated to incorporate the southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. We
will work with Fort Rucker's Environmental and Natural Resources
Division to incorporate conservation actions specific to these species
into the INRMP.

Comments From the States

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the State of Florida regarding the proposal to
list and designate critical habitat for the eight mussels are addressed
below. No comments were received from the State of Alabama.
(14) Comment: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and supports the listing
and the designation of critical habitat.
Our response: We appreciate the support and look forward to
continuing to work with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to
recovery these mussels.
(15) Comment: One commenter asserted that the listing of the eight
mussels and designation of critical habitat in the Florida Panhandle
Region will increase costs and time spent on Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) activities due to the need to conduct mussel
surveys, the need to have formal section 7 consultation with the
Service, the need to hire specialized consultants to conduct the survey
and perform the formal consultation, and the mandated time requirements
of a formal section 7 consultation. The comment states that, due to the
significant number of bridges needing replacement and the limited funds
available, these increased costs and prolonged timelines will have an
economic burden and will constitute a safety concern for the public.
Our response: The economic analysis includes data provided by FDOT
on the number of road and bridge construction and maintenance projects
likely to occur over the next 20 years. The final economic analysis
(FEA) estimates a total of 122 consultations over the next 20 years
associated with road and bridge construction and maintenance activities
within or affecting proposed critical habitat in Florida. The total
present value incremental impact of consultations on these projects is
$358,000 (an annualized impact of $31,600). As described in section 3.2
of the FEA, once the species are listed, the Service may recommend
mussel surveys for proposed projects. However, these surveys would be
recommended regardless of critical habitat due to the presence of
listed species, and are therefore not quantified as a cost of the
designation. In general, designation of critical habitat by itself does
not generate the need for formal section 7 consultation. Consultation
is triggered by activities that may affect the listed species or its
critical habitat. Because each unit is already occupied by one or more
of the mussel species, consultation would be required for activities
with a Federal nexus that may affect the species regardless of the
designation of critical habitat. Transportation planning, including
planning for bridge replacement projects, typically has a

[[Page 61677]]

timeline, from planning to construction, of approximately 5 years.
Informal and formal section 7 consultation can take place concurrent
with other aspects of environmental planning without adding to the
overall project timeline. There are also alternatives to individual
project consultations, such as a programmatic formal consultation for
bridge replacement projects, that could expedite the consultation
process while reducing costs. The assessment of potential impacts of a
project on critical habitat occurs at the same time as the assessment
of the potential for the project to adversely affect a listed species.
Consequently, critical habitat designation is not anticipated to
generate additional delays in project schedules. Bridges that present
an imminent public safety hazard may constitute an emergency, requiring
emergency consultation. The Service has procedures for addressing
emergency consultations that provide guidance to avoid and minimize
effects to species and their habitat while allowing the emergency
response to proceed. In non-emergency situations, when public safety is
at risk, the consultation can often be expedited to address safety
concerns.
(16) Comment: One comment states that Florida's Environmental
Resource Permitting (ERP) Program provides the eight mussels with an
additional level of environmental protection that is not offered in
Alabama. The comment states that ERP ensures heightened water quality
requirements and best management practices. The comment asserts that
Florida should be excluded from the requirements of critical habitat
designation due to the presence of applicable State statutes, including
ERP, which applies to all activities on State, county, city, or Federal
properties.
Our response: In response to information provided by the FDOT,
section 3.1.2 of the FEA includes a description of the Florida ERP and
the baseline protections it provides the eight mussels. The existence
of this program does not preclude section 7 consultation requirements
for projects with a Federal nexus. As such, the existence of this
program does not change the estimated incremental impacts of critical
habitat designation in Florida, which are limited to administrative
costs of consultation. The heightened water quality protection measures
of Florida's ERP provide benefits to freshwater mussels and support
primary constituent element (PCE) 4, water quality. However, this
measure alone cannot address all the potential threats to these species
and their habitat from large-scale construction projects that can be
addressed under section 7 of the Act. Threats may include direct injury
and loss of individuals, as well as effects to other PCEs such as
maintaining geomorphically stable stream and river channels (PCE 1),
and stable substrates (PCE 2). Therefore, we are not excluding lands in
the State of Florida.

Comments From Federal Agencies

(17) Comment: The U.S. Navy expressed its interest and commitment
to work proactively with the Service to address potential issues should
these species be listed under the Act. The Navy also provided
information on properties within the watersheds of the proposed
critical habitat units AP2 and GCM1, and these include Naval Air
Station (NAS) Whiting Field's Navy Outlying Landing Field (NOLF)
Evergreen (Alabama) and NOLF Pace (Florida).
Our response: After receiving these comments, the Service contacted
the Navy and requested updated GIS files to better assess the locations
of the NOLFs relative to proposed critical habitat. Once we had the
detailed NOLF boundaries, we determined that the NOLF Pace does not
have critical habitat within the boundary of the property, and that the
NOLF Evergreen does have critical habitat within its boundary. NOLF
Evergreen is situated within the Murder Creek drainage and includes an
approximately 0.40-km (0.25-mi) segment of Hunter Creek, which is
critical habitat in unit AP2 for the Alabama pearlshell. We also
determined that the NAS Whiting Field Complex INRMP specifically
addresses maintaining and improving water quality, and will be updated
to incorporate the Alabama pearlshell. Therefore, lands within this
installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section
4(a)(3) of the Act as described in the ``Exemptions'' section, and this
final rule has been changed accordingly.
This comment provides new information on the administrative effort
required on the part of the NAS for maintenance of its INRMP. Review
and updating of this INRMP occurs annually and would therefore occur
regardless of critical habitat designation. However, incremental
administrative effort may be required to consider the impact of
activities covered under the INRMP on critical habitat. As discussed in
section 4.1 of the DEA, the Service does not anticipate the critical
habitat designation will generate recommendations for conservation
efforts beyond those it would recommend due to the listing of the
species. As a result, incremental economic impacts of critical habitat
associated with consultation on the Navy's INRMP would be limited to
additional administrative effort. The FEA is therefore revised to
incorporate additional administrative costs to Units AP2 and GCM1
associated with the annual formal consultation on the NAS's INRMP.

Public Comments

(18) Comment: Comments received from several groups and individuals
support the listing of the eight mussels and designation of critical
habitat. These include: The Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society,
the Choctawhatchee River Keeper, the Center for Biological Diversity,
American Rivers, and two anonymous commenters.
Our response: We appreciate the support.
(19) Comment: Multiple comments assert that the critical habitat
designation will generate benefits. One comment suggests that critical
habitat could be a stimulus for getting local, State, and Federal
resources agencies to cooperate to address threats such as untreated
active gully systems and to expand work to reduce pollutant transport
from unpaved roads and associated roadside water conveyances. Another
comment asserts that the mussels contribute economic value through
denitrification of rivers, reducing the need to treat the water. A
third comment similarly suggests that the Service should consider the
economic benefits of the rule in terms of water quality improvements
that will benefit downstream water users and public health.
Our response: Section 2.3.3 of the DEA describes that, ``[U]nder
Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to provide an
assessment of both the social costs and benefits of proposed regulatory
actions * * * Rather than rely on economic measures, the Service
believes that the direct benefits of the proposed rule are best
expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the expected
cost impacts on the rulemaking.'' As described in section 4.4 of the
DEA, the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to generate
additional conservation measures for the eight mussels beyond those
that will be generated by their listing. Absent changes in land
management or conservation measures for the eight mussels, we do not
expect any incremental economic benefits, including improved water
quality and associated benefits to human health and

[[Page 61678]]

reduced cost of downstream water treatment, to result specifically from
designation of critical habitat for the eight mussels.
(20) Comment: One commenter provided a recent publication of a
molecular study by Campbell and Lydeard (2012) titled The genera of
Pleurobemini (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Ambleminae). The study confirms the
taxonomy of Fusconaia burkei, F. escambia, and Pleurobema strodeanum,
and it reassigns Fusconaia rotulata to the new genus Reginaia.
Our response: We incorporated these recent findings into this final
determination, except the reassignment of Fusconaia rotulata to the new
genus Reginaia. It is the Service's policy to recognize a nomenclature
change once it has been vetted and generally accepted by the scientific
community. However, because this finding was published in 2012, it has
not had time to go through this process. If the change is accepted, we
can revise the name in the future.
(21) Comment: One commenter agreed with the Service's inclusion of
the Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell on the Federal List of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife, but states that the proposed
critical habitat should be extended to cover historically known ranges.
The currently proposed critical habitat zones for the Alabama
pearlshell, AP1 and AP2, do not contain any main stream channel that
would prevent population isolation. The commenter recommended the
Service include those sections of the Escambia River, Conecuh River,
Cedar Creek, and the entirety of Murder Creek in order to connect Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and the Sepulga River and allow for a
continuous stretch of critical habitat for the Alabama pearlshell. The
commenter also stated that unit AP2 (commenter meant AP1) should be
extended to contain sections of the Alabama River to allow the Alabama
pearlshell to increase its range and numbers. Finally, the commenter
recommended extending the southern kidneyshell's proposed critical
habitat to include unit GCM5 in order to include known historical
ranges and improve the species' chance of recovery.
Our response: As described under Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat, We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing in 2012. We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of
these species. We have no data showing the Alabama pearlshell occurred
in any of the rivers or creeks suggested for inclusion in the comment.
For this reason, and based on the above criteria, we have no scientific
information to support the extension of critical habitat in units AP1
and AP2 into the mainstem of these rivers at this time.
The southern kidneyshell's occurrence in the Yellow River is based
on a single specimen collected in 1919, from Hollis Creek in Covington
County, Alabama. The Hollis Creek segment was re-surveyed in 2012, and
the surveyor noted the stream is small and intermittent, and is
unlikely to support listed mussels (see comment 12); this may indicate
habitat degradation or hydrology alteration or both since the
collection. At this time, we do not believe that southern kidneyshell
critical habitat should include the Yellow River drainage (including
GCM5) because it is not essential to the conservation of the species
and does not contain the physical or biological features needed to
support the species.
(22) Comment: The proposed rule contains considerable speculation
as to possible causes for reduced populations of the eight mussel
species. The Service should rely instead on rigorous scientific
information about relationships between factors potentially affecting
these species, including the proposed water quality criteria associated
with primary constituent elements, and actual population responses.
Our response: The Service has monitored the status of the eight
mussels since they first became candidates for listing in 2004. Since
that time, the Service and the States have funded numerous efforts to
develop a better understanding of the natural history of these species.
We have also analyzed the threats to these species using the best
available science on surrogate species. The natural histories of these
species are likely very similar to other species in the family
Unionidae, and it is reasonable to assume that similar threats will
affect these species in a similar manner. Each threat is discussed in
detail in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and is
summarized in the Determination sections. A threats matrix detailing
our best understanding of the relative importance of these threats has
been developed and is in the administrative record and available upon
request (see ADDRESSES above).
(23) Comment: When properly implemented, forestry best management
practices protect water quality and habitat for species associated with
riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats. Implementation and compliance
rates for forestry best management practices are high nationally and in
the Southeast, including in Alabama and Florida.
Our response: The Service agrees that best management practices
(BMPs) are protective of water quality and mussel habitat, and that
industrial forestry activities generally do a good job of implementing
BMPs. However, BMPs are voluntary and, therefore, are not always
implemented. In addition, some harvesting operations fail to use BMPs
adequately, and localized impacts can and do occur. We consider
sediment from silvicultural activities to be one of many potential
sediment sources within a watershed.
(24) Comment: Sustainable forestry certification programs require
participants to meet or exceed forestry best management practices and
help ensure high rates of implementation.
Our response: The Service agrees that the sustainable forestry
program is one of the most effective programs to ensure BMPs are
properly implemented. Nonetheless, because they are voluntary, BMPs are
not always implemented (see our response to Comment (23)) and some
forestry activities can contribute sediments into stream systems.
(25) Comment: Suspended solids from modern biological wastewater
treatment plants are often comprised largely of organic matter, and
such solids would generally not be expected to contribute significantly
to sedimentation or contaminated sediment.
Our response: The Service concurs with this comment. We have no
information that suspended solids discharged by wastewater treatment
plants, at permitted levels, are a threat to the eight mussels at this
time.
(26) Comment: Sediment issues in the southeastern United States are
complicated by a legacy of poor agricultural practices during the 1800s
and early 1900s, which raises questions about sources of sediment
problems and the relative magnitudes of different sediment sources
today. Silvicultural activities generally have only a small, short-
lived impact on water quality,

[[Page 61679]]

especially when compared with other land uses.
Our response: We agree that one of the primary sources of
sedimentation in these basins is legacy sediment; however, we not aware
of any studies that have looked at the relative contribution of
historic and current sediment sources. We agree that silvicutural
activities have a small and short-lived impact on water quality
compared to other land uses; however, we do not believe the activities
have small and short-lived impact to habitat quality. As discussed
under Factor A under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, heavy
sediment loads can destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a corresponding
shift in mussel fauna (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100), and can lead
to rapid changes in stream channel position, channel shape, and bed
elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102).
(27) Comment: Herbicides used in forest management operation pose
little risk to fauna, and there is no evidence that they endanger
viability of aquatic organisms.
Our response: We do not agree that there is no evidence that
herbicides used in forest management endanger viability of aquatic
organisms. As described under Factors A and D under Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, numerous studies have documented that certain
pesticides are lethal to mussels, particularly to the highly sensitive
early life stages. A multitude of bioassay tests conducted on several
mussel species show that freshwater mussels are more sensitive than
previously known to the pesticides glyphosate and the surfactant MON
0818, ingredients in some pesticides used in forestry management.
(28) Comment: Climate change models do not provide information that
is appropriate for making management decisions regarding these mussel
species.
Our response: We agree that it would not be appropriate to use
climate change models, which are broad in scale, to make management
decisions regarding the eight mussels. However, we must consider
evidence that climate change could lead to increased frequency of
severe storms and droughts, which could affect these eight mussels in
the future (see Factor E discussion, below).

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

After consideration of the comments we received during the public
comment periods (see above), we made changes to the final listing rule.
Many small, nonsubstantive changes and corrections, not affecting the
determination (e.g., updating the Background section in response to
comments, minor clarifications) were made throughout the document.
Below is a summary list of more substantive changes made to this
document.
(1) The total length of critical habitat was revised to 2,404 km
(1,494 mi.) due to the removal of Hollis Creek, the exemption of a
small section of Hunter Creek, and the accidental omission of one
segment (Corner Creek) in a spreadsheet used to sum unit lengths for
the proposed rule. Corner Creek was featured in the unit descriptions
and maps of the proposed rule, but was inadvertently left out of the
spreadsheet.
(2) The status of the southern sandshell was revised to a
threatened species based on a peer reviewer's comment and new survey
data.
(3) Unit AP2 was revised to remove a 0.4 km (0.25 mi) segment of
Hunter Creek in Covington County, Alabama. This segment was determined
to be exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because it receives
management under an approved INRMP created by the U.S. Navy (see
comment 17 and our response).
(4) Table 1 was added to address peer review comment 3.
(5) The Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution section was
revised to reflect additional threats to round ebonyshell identified by
a reviewer. These additional threats include dredging, channelization,
and de-snagging of trees and brush for navigation.
(6) Information related to dam height and fish passage for Point A,
Gantt, and Elba dams was added, and information related to the
operation of Elba dam on the Pea River was revised.
In addition to these changes and additions, several errors in the
proposed rule were corrected. These include:
(1) Renumbering of tables. The proposed rule contained two Tables 1
and 2; the second tables 1 and 2 were renumbered to Tables 10 and 11 in
this document.
(2) Adding 1 km (1 mi) to the length of AP2. The length was
recalculated and revised to 96 km (155 mi).
(3) Removing a portion of GCM5. Hollis Creek from its confluence
with the Yellow River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42,
Covington County, Alabama, was erroneously included as critical habitat
in the proposed rule, and we have removed it from this final rule; the
length of unit GCM 5 was revised to 247 km (153 mi.).
(4) Adding 5 km (3.0 mi) to GCM6. This corrects an accidental
omission of the Corner Creek segment length from the total length of
critical habitat in the proposed rule. This happened due to its
omission from a spreadsheet used to calculate the total length of
units. The Corner Creek segment was, however, included in the critical
habitat description in the proposed rule. The corrected length of the
unit is 897 mi (557 km).
(5) Correcting other small errors in Table 10. Specifically, for
southern sandshell,in unit GCM1, we revisedthe total length to 2,222 km
(1,379 mi); for southern kidneyshell, we changed unit GCM5 to GCM6 and
revised its total length to 1,975 km (1,226 mi); and for fuzzy pigtoe,
we changed unit GCM2 to GCM1 and revised its total length to 2,222 km
(1,379 mi).
(6) Changing the term ``protected'' to ``managed'' in Table 11 to
more accurately define the various types of public lands.
(7) Where appropriate, updating occurrence information to
incorporate data from a status survey completed in March of 2012.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
listed as an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

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

The habitats of freshwater mussels are vulnerable to habitat
modification and water quality degradation from a number of activities
associated with modern civilization. The primary cause of the decline
of these eight mussels has been the modification and destruction of
their stream and river habitat, with sedimentation as the leading
cause. Their stream habitats are subject to pollution and alteration
from a variety of sources including adjacent land use

[[Page 61680]]

activities, in-water activities, effluent discharges, and impoundments.
Nonpoint-source pollution from land surface runoff originates from
virtually all land use activities and includes sediments, fertilizer,
herbicide and pesticide residues; animal wastes; septic tank leakage
and gray water discharge; and oils and greases. Current activities and
land uses that can negatively affect populations of these eight mussels
include unpaved road crossings, improper silviculture and agriculture
practices, highway construction, housing developments, pipeline
crossings, and cattle grazing. These activities can result in physical
disturbance of stream substrates or the riparian zone, excess
sedimentation and nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen
concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and altered flow.
Limited range and low numbers make these eight mussels vulnerable to
land use changes that would result in increases in nonpoint-source
pollution.
Sedimentation is one of the most significant pollution problems for
aquatic organisms (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 55), and has been
determined to be a major factor in mussel declines (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-
40). Impacts resulting from sediments have been noted for many
components of aquatic communities. For example, sediments have been
shown to abrade or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to
underwater surfaces); affect respiration, growth, reproductive success,
and behavior of aquatic insects and mussels; and affect fish growth,
survival, and reproduction (Waters 1995, pp. 173-175). Heavy sediment
loads can destroy mussel habitat, resulting in a corresponding shift in
mussel fauna (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100). Excessive sedimentation
can lead to rapid changes in stream channel position, channel shape,
and bed elevation (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Sedimentation has
also been shown to impair the filter feeding ability of mussels. When
in high silt environments, mussels may keep their valves closed more
often, resulting in reduced feeding activity (Ellis 1936, p. 30), and
high amounts of suspended sediments can dilute their food source
(Dennis 1984, p. 212). Increased turbidity from suspended sediment can
reduce or eliminate juvenile mussel recruitment (Negus 1966, p. 525;
Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101-102). Many mussel species use visual
cues to attract host fishes; such a reproductive strategy depends on
clear water. For example, increased turbidity may impact the southern
sandshell life cycle by reducing the chance that a sight-feeding host
fish will encounter the visual display of its superconglutinate lure
(Haag et al. 1995, p. 475; Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, p. 1885). If the
superconglutinate is not encountered by a host within a short time
period, the glochidia will become nonviable (O'Brien and Brim Box 1999,
p. 133). Also, evidence suggests that conglutinates of the southern
kidneyshell, once released from the female mussel, must adhere to hard
surfaces in order to be seen by its fish host. If the surface becomes
covered in fine sediments, the conglutinate cannot attach and is swept
away (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 373).
Biologists conducting mussel surveys within the drainages have
reported observations of excessive sedimentation in the streams and
rivers of the three basins. While searching for the Alabama pearlshell
in headwater streams of the Escambia and Alabama drainages, D. N.
Shelton (1996, pp. 1-5 unpub. report) reported many streams within the
study area had experienced heavy siltation, and that all species of
mollusks appeared to be adversely affected. M. M. Gangloff (Gangloff
and Hartfield 2009, p. 253) observed large amounts of sand and silt in
the mainstem Pea and Choctawhatchee rivers during a 2006-2007 survey,
and considered this a possible reason for the decline of mussels in the
drainage.
In 2009-2010, The Nature Conservancy completed an inventory and
prioritization of impaired sites in the Yellow River watershed in
Alabama and Florida (Herrington et al., 2010 unpub. report). The study
identified and quantified the impacts of unpaved road crossings and
streambank instability and erosion within the river corridor and
riparian zone, to assess impairments that could impact the five species
occurring in the drainage. A total of 339 unpaved roads and
approximately 209 river miles of mainstem and tributaries were assessed
using standardized methods. Out of these, 409 sites ranked ``High'' or
``Moderate'' in risk of excessive sedimentation according to the
Sediment Risk Index. Many of the impaired sites (149) were located
upstream of known mussel locations. In addition, habitat conditions
were characterized at 44 known mussel locations; the sites were scored
numerically and rated as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The majority
of the mussel sites were assessed to be either fair or poor. Most of
these locations were within the vicinity of bridge crossings and boat
ramps and several, particularly in the Shoal River in Florida, were
directly downstream of highly impaired unpaved road and river corridor
sites. In summary, the study found the threat of sedimentation and
habitat degradation is high throughout the Yellow River watershed with
over 75 percent of sites assessed exhibiting high or moderate risk, and
the majority of known mussel locations impaired.
Potential sediment sources within a watershed include virtually any
activity that disturbs the land surface. Current sources of sand, silt,
and other sediment accumulation in south-central Alabama and western
Florida stream channels include unpaved road runoff, agricultural
lands, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and construction and other
development activities (Williams and Butler 1994, p. 55; Bennett 2002,
p. 5 and references therein; Hoehn 1998, pp. 46-47 and references
therein). The Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed
Management Plan (CPYRWMP) and the Conecuh-Sepulga-Blackwater Rivers
Watershed Protection Plan (CSBRWPP) document water quality impairments
to the Alabama portion of the watersheds. Both plans identify elevated
levels of sediment as one of the primary causes of impairment (CPYRWMP,
p. 156; CSBRWPP, p. 110). In the Choctawhatchee and Yellow river
drainages, four out of the nine streams in which sediment loads were
calculated by the Geological Survey of Alabama had significant sediment
impairment (CPYRWMP, p. 157). In Alabama, runoff from unpaved roads and
roadside gullies is considered the main source of sediment transported
into the streams of the drainages (Bennett 2002, p. 5 and references
therein; CPYRWMP, p. 145). Unpaved roads are constructed primarily of
sandy materials and are easily eroded and transported to stream
corridors. In addition, certain silvicultural and agricultural
activities cause erosion, riparian buffer degradation, and increased
sedimentation. Uncontrolled access to streams by cattle can result in
destruction of riparian vegetation, bank degradation and erosion, and
localized sedimentation of stream habitats.
Land surface runoff also contributes nutrients (for example,
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, sewage, and animal manure) to
rivers and streams, causing them to become eutrophic. Excessive
nutrient input stimulates excessive plant growth (algae, periphyton
attached algae, and nuisance plants). This enhanced plant growth can
cause dense mats of filamentous algae that can expose juvenile mussels
to entrainment or predation and be detrimental to the survival of
juvenile mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,

[[Page 61681]]

p. 373). Excessive plant growth can also reduce dissolved oxygen in the
water when dead plant material decomposes. In a review of the effects
of eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and Muller (2001, p. 329) noted
that stenoecious (narrowly tolerant) species disappear as waters become
more eutrophic. They also refer to studies that associate increased
levels of nitrate with the decline and absence of juvenile mussels
(Patzner and Muller 2001, pp. 330-333). Filamentous algae may also
displace certain species of fish, or otherwise affect fish-mussel
interactions essential to recruitment (for example, Hartfield and
Hartfield 1996, p. 373). Nutrient sources include fertilizers applied
to agricultural fields and lawns, septic tanks, and municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.
Because of their sedentary characteristics, mussels are extremely
vulnerable to toxic effluents (Sheehan et al. 1989, pp. 139-140;
Goudreau et al. 1993, pp. 216-227; Newton 2003, p. 2543). Descriptions
of localized mortality have been provided for chemical spills and other
discrete point-source discharges; however, rangewide decreases in
mussel density and diversity may result from the more insidious effects
of chronic, low-level contamination (Newton 2003, p. 2543, Newton et
al. 2003, p. 2554). Freshwater mussel experts often report chemical
contaminants as factors limiting to unionids (Richter et al. 1997, pp.
1081-1093). They note high sensitivity of early life stages to
contaminants such as chlorine (Wang et al. 2007 pp. 2039-2046), metals
(Keller and Zam 1991, p. 542; Jacobson et al. 1993, pp. 879-883),
ammonia (Augspurger et al. 2003, pp. 2571-2574; Wang et al. 2007 pp.
2039-2046), and pesticides (Bringolf et al. 2007a,b pp. 2089-2092, pp.
2096-2099). Pesticide residues from agricultural, residential, or
silvicultural activities enter streams mainly by surface runoff.
Agricultural crops locally grown within the range of these mussels
associated with high pesticide use include cotton, peanuts, corn, and
soybeans. Chlorine, metals, and ammonia are common constituents in
treated effluent from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities. A total of 62 municipal and 39 industrial wastewater
treatment facilities are permitted in Alabama and Florida to discharge
treated effluent into surface waters of the three river drainages (FDEP
2010a; ADEM 2010a).
States maintain water-use classifications through issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to
industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum limits on
certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) has designated the water use
classification for most portions of the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee Rivers as ``Fish and Wildlife'' (F&W), and a few
portions (mostly lakes) as ``Swimming'' (S). The F&W designation
establishes minimum water quality standards that are believed to
protect existing species and water uses like fishing and recreation
within the designated area, while the S classification establishes
higher water quality standards that are protective of human contact
with the water. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) classifies all three river drainages as Class III waters. The
Class III designation establishes minimum water quality standards that
are believed to protect species and uses such as recreation. The
Choctawhatchee and Shoal Rivers are also designated as Outstanding
Florida Waters (OFW) by the State of Florida. The designation prevents
the discharge of pollutants, which would lower existing water quality
or significantly degrade the OFW.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
requires States to identify waters that do not fully support their
designated use classification. These impaired water bodies are placed
on the State's 303(d) list, and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must
be developed for the pollutant of concern. A TMDL is an estimate of the
total load of pollutants that a segment of water can receive without
exceeding applicable water quality criteria. Alabama's 303(d) list
identifies a total of 25 impaired stream segments within the Escambia,
Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River basins that either support populations
of the eight species or that flow into streams that support them. The
list identifies metals (mercury and lead), organic enrichment,
pathogens, siltation, excess nutrients, or unknown toxicity as reasons
for impairment (ADEM 2010b, pp. 4-8). Various potential point and non-
point pollution sources are identified, such as atmospheric deposition,
pasture grazing, feedlots, municipal, industrial, urban runoff,
agriculture, and land development. Florida's 303(d) list identifies a
total of 22 impaired stream segments within the basins that either
support populations of seven of the species (the Alabama pearlshell
does not occur in Florida) or that flow into streams that support them.
The list identifies coliform bacteria, low dissolved oxygen
(nutrients), and mercury (in fish tissue) as reasons for inclusion
(FDEP 2010b, pp. 4-6).
While the negative effects of point-source discharges on aquatic
communities in Alabama and Florida have been reduced over time by
compliance with State and Federal regulations pertaining to water
quality, there has been less success in dealing with nonpoint-source
pollution impacts. Because these contaminant sources stem from urban
surface runoff, private landowner activities (construction, grazing,
agriculture, silviculture), and public construction works (bridge and
highway construction and maintenance), they are often more difficult to
regulate.
These mussels require stable stream and river habitats and
activities that cause channel instability can negatively impact their
populations. Activities such sand and gravel mining, the removal of
large woody material, off-road vehicles use, and land use changes are
known to cause channel destabilization. Activities that destabilize
stream beds and channels can result in drastic alterations to stream
geomorphology and consequently to the stream's ecosystem.
Instream gravel mining has been implicated in the destruction of
mussel populations (Stansbery 1970, p. 10; Hartfield 1993, pp. 138-
139). Instream sand and gravel mining can cause severe bank erosion,
channel widening, destruction of riparian habitats, and other
geomorphic changes (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, pp. 26-27; Brown et al.
1998, pp. 987-992), including head cuts that can extend considerable
distances upstream from the mines (Hartfield 1993, pp. 138-139) and
substrate disturbance and siltation impacts that can be realized for
considerable distances downstream (Stansbery 1970, p. 10). Poorly
located or inadequately designed mines in the flood plain can have
similar effects and result in alterations to streams channels (Mossa
and Coley, 2004, p. 2). For example, a mined area along Big Escambia
Creek near Century, Florida resulted in the formation of a new channel
through the mines, causing excessive sedimentation in downstream areas.
A large restoration project was required to put the stream back into
its natural channel. Numerous mining operations occur along a gravel
vein in the upper Escambia and Choctawhatchee river drainages in
Florida and Alabama (Metcalf 2012 pers. com).
Operations that remove large woody material from channels, either
for navigation and maintenance (desnagging) or for the recovery of pre-
cut submerged timber (deadhead

[[Page 61682]]

logging), have the potential to affect mussel communities by creating
unstable substrates (Watters 1999, p. 269). These types of permitted
activities are common in areas where these mussels occur. The removal
of large logs may result in changes to sedimentation patterns and
stream morphology, the erosion of banks and bars, and the consequent
loss of habitat structure and species diversity (Watters 1999, p. 268;
Cathey et al. unpub. report, p. 1).
Low flow conditions provide access to stream margins and channels
for off-road vehicles. The practice of driving off-road vehicles within
stream channels has been observed in the upper Conecuh and
Choctawhatchee river drainages (Metcalf 2012 pers. com). These vehicles
may destabilize stream banks, increase sedimentation rates, and may
also directly crush mussels (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, p. 3).
Land use activities such as land clearing and development can cause
channel instability by accelerating stormwater runoff into streams.
Increased runoff rates can result in bank erosion and bed scour (Brim
Box and Mossa 1999, p. 103), and can lead to channel incision (Booth
1990, p. 407; Doyle et al. 2000, p. 157, 175). These flow regime
changes can significantly and rapidly alter the morphology of the
stream channel, and can eventually lead to degradation throughout the
watershed as sediments eroded in the upper portions are deposited in
the lower reaches (Doyle et al. 2000, pp. 156, 175).
The damming of rivers has been a major factor contributing to the
demise of freshwater mussels (Bogan 1993, p. 604). Dams eliminate or
reduce river flow within impounded areas, trap silts and cause sediment
deposition, alter water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, change
downstream water flow and quality, affect normal flood patterns, and
block upstream and downstream movement of mussels and their host fishes
(Bogan 1993, p. 604; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp. 915-917; Watters 1999,
pp. 261-264; McAllister et al. 2000, p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp.
20-21). Downstream of dams, mollusk declines are associated with
changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced
dissolved oxygen levels, water temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages (Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; Neves et al. 1997, pp.
63-64; Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20-21).
Because rivers are linear systems, these alterations can cause mussel
declines for many miles downstream of the dam (Vaughn and Taylor 1999,
p. 916).
Three significant mainstem impoundments are situated within the
three drainages, all in Alabama. Constructed in 1923 for hydroelectric
power generation, Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams are located on the
mainstem of the Conecuh River in Covington County, Alabama. The
downstream dam, Point A, is 41 ft. high, and Gantt dam is 35 ft. high.
Combined, these two dams impound approximately 3,400 acres at normal
pool. Both impoundments have limited storage capacity and are operated
as modified run-of-river projects with daily peaking. For example, when
inflows to Gantt are greater than 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs),
the outflow matches the inflow at Point A. However, during the summer
months, when inflows can fall below 1,500 cfs, a portion of the inflow
may be stored and released when power generation is in high demand.
Regardless of the inflow, Point A dam has a minimum continuous
discharge requirement of 500 cfs and a requirement to meet a dissolved
oxygen level of no less than 4.0 milligram per liter (mg/l).
The Elba dam on the Pea River mainstem near Elba, Alabama, was
constructed in 1903 for power generation. The dam generates power
during peak periods and stores some water, but does not have a
reservoir, only a widened channel which is roughly one and a half to
two times wider upstream of the dam than downstream. The 29 ft. high
structure is a barrier to to upstream fish migration (Williams et al.
2008, p. 34). Channel scour (deepening of the streambed as a result of
erosion) is occurring downstream of the Elba Dam (Williams 2010 pers.
comm.).
All three dams are barriers to upstream fish migration and to the
movement of potential mussel host species. The Service (2003 pp. 13392-
3) noted that Point A Dam and Elba Dam prevent threatened Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) movement farther upstream at all flow
conditions. By blocking fish movement, the dams may prevent gene
exchange between upstream and downstream mussel populations. Gulf
sturgeon have been shown to serve as a primary host for mussel larvae
(Fritts et al., in review), although we do not know if they serve as a
host for any of these eight species. The three dams currently separate
populations of southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. In addition, two smaller
impoundments are located on tributary streams. Lake Frank Jackson is
situated on Lightwood Knot Creek, a tributary to the Yellow River in
Covington County, Alabama; Lake Tholocco, on Claybank Creek, is a
tributary to the Choctawhatchee River in Dale County, Alabama. Waters
released from these two shallow impoundments can have extremely
elevated temperatures in summer, which alters the normal temperature
cycle downstream (Williams et al. 2000 unpub. data).
The potential exists for more dams to be constructed within the
three drainages, and at least four additional impoundments are
proposed. These include proposed impoundments on Murder Creek and Big
Escambia Creek in the Escambia River drainage in Alabama, the Yellow
River mainstem in Florida, and the Little Choctawhatchee River in
Alabama. These proposed projects have implications for populations of
all eight species. Given projected population increases and the need
for municipal water supply, other proposals for impoundment
construction are expected in the future.
In summary, the loss and degradation of habitat from various forms
of pollution, stream bed destabilization, and impoundments are a threat
to the continued existence of these eight species. Degradation from
sedimentation and contaminants is a threat to the habitat and water
quality necessary to support these species throughout their entire
ranges. Sedimentation can cause mortality by suffocation; impair the
ability to feed, respire, and reproduce; and destabilize substrate.
Contaminants associated with municipal and industrial effluents
(metals, ammonia, chlorine) and with agriculture and silviculture
(pesticides) are lethal to mussels, particularly to the highly
sensitive early life stages. These mussels require stabile stream and
river channels, and quickly disappear from areas destabilized by gravel
mining, the removal of large woody material, off-road vehicle use, and
increased surface runoff. The effects of impoundments are more subtle,
but can cause severe alternations to mussel habitat both upstream and
downstream of the dam, and can impair dispersal and breeding ability.
While recent surveys for these species have documented several new
populations, they have also documented a decline in (and the loss of)
many of the known populations due to human impact. Therefore, we have
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat and range is a threat with severe impact to the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw
bean, and is a threat with moderate impact to the tapered pigtoe,
narrow

[[Page 61683]]

pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. This threat is current
and is projected to continue and increase into the future with
additional anthropogenic pressures.

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

None of the eight mussels are commercially valuable species, and
the streams and rivers that they inhabit are not subject to harvesting
activities for commercial mussel species. Although the eight species
have been taken for scientific and private collections in the past,
collecting is not considered a factor in the decline of these species.
Such activity may increase as their rarity becomes known; however, we
have no specific information indicating that overcollection is
currently a threat. Therefore, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the eight mussels at this time.

C. Disease or Predation

Diseases of freshwater mussels are poorly known, and we have no
specific information indicating that disease poses a threat to
populations of these eight species. Juvenile and adult mussels are prey
items for some invertebrate predators and parasites (for example,
nematodes and mites), and provide prey for a few vertebrate species
(for example, raccoons, muskrats, otters, and turtles) (Hart and Fuller
1974, pp. 225-240). However, we have no evidence of any specific
declines in these species due to predation. Therefore, diseases and
predation of freshwater mussels remain largely unstudied and are not
considered a threat to the eight mussels at this time.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There is no information on the sensitivity of the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe to
aquatic pollutants. Current State and Federal regulations regarding
pollutants are designed to be protective of aquatic organisms; however,
freshwater mussels may be more susceptible to some pollutants than test
organisms commonly used in bioassay tests. A multitude of bioassay
tests conducted on 16 mussel species (summarized by Augspurger et al.
2007, pp. 2025-2028) show that freshwater mussels are more sensitive
than previously known to some chemical contaminants including chlorine,
ammonia, copper, the pesticides chlorothalonil and glyphosate, and the
surfactant MON 0818. For example, several recent studies have
demonstrated that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria
for ammonia may not be protective of freshwater mussels (Augspurger et
al. 2003, p. 2571; Newton et al. 2003, pp. 2559-2560; Mummert et al.
2003, pp. 2548-2552).
Ammonia is an important aquatic pollutant because of its relatively
high toxicity and common occurrence in riverine systems. This has
application to the expected sources of these chemicals in the
environment. Significant sources of nutrient enrichment leading to
elevated ammonia include industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater
treatment plant effluents, and urban and agricultural runoff (chemical
fertilizers and animal wastes) (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2026).
Elevated copper in surface waters can result from natural runoff
sources, but is more often associated with a private or municipal
wastewater effluent. Pesticide residues enter streams from
agricultural, residential, or silvicultural runoff. Environmental
chlorine concentrations will most often be associated with a point
source discharge such as a municipal wastewater treatment facility.
As indicated in the Factor A discussion above, sedimentation is
considered the most significant threat to these eight species. Best
management practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control are often
recommended or required for construction projects; however, compliance,
monitoring, and enforcement of these recommendations are often poorly
implemented. Although unpaved roads likely contribute the majority of
sediment to the streams and rivers in the basins, other sources
including forestry, row crops, and construction contribute to the total
sediment load.
States are required under the Clean Water Act to establish a TMDL
for the pollutants of concern that the water body can receive without
exceeding the applicable standard (see discussion under Factor A).
However, the Federal Clean Water Act is not fully utilized in the
protection of these river systems. For example, of the 51 impaired
water bodies identified within the drainages, less than one-fourth
currently have approved TMDLs (ADEM 2010c, pp. 3-6; FDEP 2010b, pp. 4-
6).
In summary, some regulatory mechanisms exist that protect aquatic
species; however, these regulations are not effective at protecting
mussels and their habitats from sedimentation and contaminants.
Pollution from non-point sources is the greatest threat to these eight
mussels (see Factor A discussion); however, this type of pollution is
difficult to regulate and not effectively controlled by State and
Federal water quality regulations. Therefore, we find current existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the eight mussels
throughout their ranges. This threat is current and is projected to
continue into the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Random Catastrophic Events
The Gulf coastal region is prone to extreme hydrologic events.
Extended droughts result from persistent high-pressure systems, which
inhibit moisture from the Gulf of Mexico from reaching the region
(Jeffcoat et al. 1991, p. 163-170). Warm, humid air from the Gulf of
Mexico can produce strong frontal systems and tropical storms resulting
in heavy rainfall and extensive flooding (Jeffcoat et al. 1991, p. 163-
170). Although floods and droughts are a natural part of the hydrologic
processes that occur in these river systems, these events may
contribute to the further decline of mussel populations suffering the
effects of other threats.
During high flows, flood scour can dislodge mussels where they may
be injured, buried, or swept into unsuitable habitats, or mussels may
be stranded and perish when flood waters recede (Vannote and Minshall
1982, p. 4105; Tucker 1996, p. 435; Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 107-115;
Peterson et al. 2011, unpaginated). Heavy spring rains in 2009 resulted
in severe flooding in the basins that destroyed numerous stream
crossings.
During drought, stream channels may become disconnected pools where
mussels are exposed to higher water temperatures, lower dissolved
oxygen levels, and predators, or channels may become dewatered
entirely. Johnson et al. (2001, p. 6) monitored mussel responses during
a severe drought in 2000 in tributaries of the Lower Flint River in
Georgia, and found that most mortality occurred when dissolved oxygen
levels dropped below 5 mg/L. Furthermore, increased human demand and
competition for surface and ground water resources for irrigation and
consumption during drought can cause drastic reductions in stream flows
and alterations to hydrology (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Golladay et
al. 2007 unpaginated). Extended droughts occurred in the Southeast
during 1998 to 2002, and again in 2006 to 2008. The effects of these
recent droughts on these eight mussels are unknown; however,

[[Page 61684]]

substantial declines in mussel diversity and abundance as a direct
result of drought have been documented in southeastern streams (for
example, Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 494-503; Haag and Warren 2008, p.
1165). The Alabama pearlshell is particularly at risk during drought as
its headwater stream habitats are vulnerable to dewatering. Shelton
(1995, p. 4 unpub. report) reported one of the most common causes of
mortality in the species is due to stranding by extreme low water.
There is a growing concern that climate change may lead to
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Cook et al. 2004, p.
1015). Specific effects of climate change to mussels, their habitat,
and their fish hosts could include changes in stream temperature
regimes, the timing and levels of precipitation causing more frequent
and severe floods and droughts, and alien species introductions.
Increases in temperature and reductions in flow may also lower
dissolved oxygen levels in interstitial habitats, which can be lethal
to juveniles (Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 131-133). Effects to mussel
populations from these environmental changes could include reduced
abundance and biomass, altered species composition, and host fish
considerations (Galbraith et al. 2010, pp. 1180-1182). The present
conservation status, complex life histories, and specific habitat
requirements of freshwater mussels suggest that they may be quite
sensitive to climate change (Hastie et al. 2003, p. 45).
The linear nature of their habitat, reduced range, and small
population sizes make these eight mussels vulnerable to contaminant
spills. Spills as a result of transportation accidents are a constant,
potential threat as numerous highways and railroads cross the stream
channels of the basins. Also, more than 400 oil wells are located
within Conecuh and Escambia Counties, Alabama. In Conecuh County, most
of these wells are concentrated in the Cedar Creek drainage, which
supports at least two populations of the Alabama pearlshell. These
wells are subject to periodic spills either directly at the well site
or associated with the transport of the oil. For example, on February
5, 2010, an oil spill occurred in the headwaters of Feagin Creek.
Feagin Creek is located between two known pearlshell locations, Little
Cedar and Amos Mill creeks. The resulting spill discharged more than
150 gallons of oil into Feagin Creek. Although there were no known
populations of the pearlshell in Feagin Creek, this type of spill could
have easily occurred in one of the adjacent watersheds that supports
the pearlshell. Since 2000, there have been 13 spills reported in
Conecuh, 36 in Escambia, and 33 in Covington Counties, Alabama.
Reduced Genetic Diversity
Population fragmentation and isolation prohibits the natural
interchange of genetic material among populations. Low numbers of
individuals within the isolated populations have greater susceptibility
to deleterious genetic effects, including inbreeding depression and
loss of genetic variation (Lynch 1996, pp. 493-494). Small, isolated
populations, therefore, are more susceptible to environmental
pressures, including habitat degradation and stochastic events, and
thus are the most susceptible to extinction (Primack 2008, pp. 151-
153). It is unknown if any of the eight mussel species are currently
experiencing a loss of genetic diversity. However, surviving
populations of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, and southern
kidneyshell do have highly restricted or reduced ranges, fragmented
habitats, and extremely small population sizes.
Host Fish Considerations
As mentioned in the General Biology section above, all of these
eight species require a fish host in order to complete their life
cycle. Therefore, these mussels would be adversely affected by the loss
or reduction of fish species essential to their parasitic glochidial
stage. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), a common and abundant
fish species, was found to serve as a glochidial host for the tapered
pigtoe and fuzzy pigtoe (White et al. 2008, p. 123). The specific hosts
for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and southern sandshell and have not been
identified; however, other species of the same genera are known to
parasitize cyprinids (minnows), centrarchids (sunfish), and percids
(darters) (Haag and Warren 1997, pp. 580-581, 583; Keller and Ruessler
1997, p. 405; O'Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134; Haag et al. 1999, p.
150; Haag and Warren 2003, pp. 81-82; Luo 1993, p. 16).
Nonindigenous Species
The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been introduced to the
drainages and may be adversely affecting these eight mussels through
direct competition for space and resources. The Asian clam was first
detected in eastern Gulf drainages in the early 1960s, and is presently
widespread throughout the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River
drainages (Heard 1975, p. 2). The invasion of the Asian clam in these
and in other eastern Gulf drainages has been accompanied by drastic
declines in populations of native mussels (see observations by Heard
1975, p. 2; and Shelton 1995, p. 4 unpub. report). However, it is
difficult to say whether the Asian clam competitively excluded the
native mussels, or if it was simply tolerant of whatever caused the
mussels to disappear. The Asian clam may pose a direct threat to native
mussels, particularly as juveniles, as a competitor for resources such
as food, nutrients, and space (Neves and Widlak 1987, p. 6). Dense
populations of Asian clams may ingest large numbers of unionid sperm,
glochidia, and newly metamorphosed juveniles, and may actively disturb
sediments, reducing habitable space for juvenile native mussels, or
displacing them downstream (Strayer 1999, p. 82; Yeager et al. 2000,
pp. 255-256).
The flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) has been introduced to
the drainages and may be adversely impacting native fish populations.
The flathead catfish is a large predator native to the central United
States, and since its introduction outside its native range, it has
altered the composition of native fish populations through predation
(Boschung and Mayden 2004, p. 350). Diet and selectivity studies of
introduced flathead catfish in coastal North Carolina river systems
show it feeds primarily on other fish species (Guier et al. 1984, pp.
617-620; Pine et al. 2005, p. 909). The flathead catfish is now well-
established in the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River
drainages, and its numbers appear to be growing (Strickland 2010 pers.
comm.). Biologists working in the Florida portions of these drainages
have observed a correlation between the increase in flathead catfish
numbers and a decrease in numbers of other native fish species,
particularly of bullhead catfish (Ameiurus sp.) and redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus) (Strickland 2010 pers. comm.). Although we do not
know the specific fish hosts for six of the mussel species, the loss or
reduction of native fishes in general could affect their ability to
recruit.
In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors currently are a
threat to these eight mussels. Stochastic events such as droughts and
floods have occurred in these three river drainages in the past, and
climate change may increase the frequency and intensity of

[[Page 61685]]

similar events in the future. The withdrawal of surface and ground
waters during drought can cause further drastic flow reductions and
alterations that may cause declines in mussel abundance and
distribution. Contaminant spills have also occurred in these drainages
and currently are a threat, particularly in the Alabama portion of the
Escambia River drainage, where there are numerous oil wells. It is not
known if these species are currently experiencing a loss of genetic
viability; however, their restricted or reduced ranges, fragmented
habitats, and small population sizes increases the risks and
consequences of inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variation.
Introduced species, such as the Asian clam, may adversely impact these
mussels through direct competition for space and resources. Another
introduced species, the flathead catfish, may consume host fishes,
thereby affecting mussel recruitment. Therefore, we have determined
that other natural or manmade factors, specifically threats from
flooding, drought, and contaminant spills, are severe threats to the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw
bean, and they are moderate threats to the tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. These threats are
currently impacting these species and are projected to continue or
increase in the future. We have determined that threats from the Asian
clam have moderate impacts to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, southern sandshell, and Choctaw bean, and these
threats have low impacts to the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and
fuzzy pigtoe. We have determined that reduced genetic diversity, the
absence or reduction of fish hosts, and the presence of flathead
catfish have the potential to adversely impact the eight mussels.
However, we do not know the intensity of these threats at this time.

Determination

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. Section 3(6) of the Act defines an endangered species as
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and section 3(20) of the Act
defines a threatened species as ``any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' As described in detail above, these
eight species are currently at risk throughout all of their respective
ranges due to ongoing threats of habitat destruction and modification
(Factor A), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D),
and other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence (Factor E). Specifically, these factors include excessive
sedimentation, municipal and industrial effluents, pesticides,
excessive nutrients, impoundment of stream channels, recurring drought
and flooding, contaminant spills, and the introduced Asian clam. In
addition, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate
some of the threats affecting these mussels and their habitats. Based
on the best available science, these threats are currently impacting
these species and are projected to continue and potentially worsen in
the future. These eight mussels are also at increased threat due to the
loss of genetic viability and the reduction or absence of fish hosts
(described under Factor E); however, these threats are not currently
known to be imminent.
Species with small ranges, few populations, and small or declining
population sizes, are the most vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008,
p. 137). The effects of certain factors, particularly habitat
degradation and loss, catastrophic events, and introduced species,
increase in magnitude when population size is small (Soul[eacute] 1980,
pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133-135, 152). The impact of habitat
degradation, catastrophic events, and introduced species are more
severe to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean than the other four species, which have
few or isolated populations coupled with low numbers of individuals and
limited or reduced ranges. Nonetheless, the tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell and fuzzy pigtoe, which still occur in much
of their historical ranges have been eliminated from historic streams
and main channel locations and have declining numbers of individuals.
When combining the effects of historical, current, and future habitat
loss and degradation; historical and ongoing drought; and the
exacerbating effects of small and declining population sizes and
curtailed ranges, the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean are in danger of extinction throughout
all of their ranges, and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell and fuzzy pigtoe are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges. In addition, any
factor (i.e., habitat loss or natural and manmade factors) that results
in a further decline in habitat or individuals may be problematic for
the long-term recovery of these species.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, and Choctaw bean as endangered species throughout
all of their ranges, and the tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe as threatened species throughout all of
their ranges. In the proposed rule we examined all available
information on the eight species to determine if any significant
portions of their ranges may warrant a different status. However,
because of their limited and curtailed ranges, and uniformity of the
threats throughout them, we find there are no significant portions of
any of the species' ranges that warrant a different determination of
status.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed wildlife are
discussed in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation and are further
discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a

[[Page 61686]]

point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
under to section 6 of the Act, the States of Alabama and Florida will
be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of these eight mussel species.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include: The management of and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense
and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; licensing of hydroelectric
dams, and construction and management of gas pipeline and power line
rights-of-way approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
construction and maintenance of roads or highways funded by the Federal
Highway Administration; and land management practices administered by
the Department of Agriculture.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 17.32 for threatened wildlife.
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on planned and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon these eight mussel species, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) and the black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus).
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of these species.
(4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any
stream or water body in which these species are known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Panama City
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

[[Page 61687]]

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in critical habitat if they contain physical
or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of
the species and (2) which may require special management considerations
or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify,
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those physical and biological
features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Primary constituent elements are the specific elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes,
are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary sources of information include the
articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and
Lovejoy 2005, p.4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial
areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed

[[Page 61688]]

species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
(PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species, and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe from studies of these species' habitat, ecology, and life
history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed
rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61482), and in the information presented below.
We have determined that Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell,
southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe require the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe are all historically associated with the Escambia, Yellow,
and Choctawhatchee river drainages in Alabama and Florida. The Alabama
pearlshell is also known from three locations in the Mobile River
Basin; however, only one of those is considered to be currently
occupied. The eight mussels are found embedded in stable substrates
composed mainly of fine to coarse sand, with occasional patches of clay
or gravel (Williams et al. 2008, pp. 32-34), and within areas of
sufficient current velocities to remove finer sediments. These habitats
are formed and maintained by water quantity, channel slope, and normal
sediment input to the system. Changes in one or more of these
parameters can result in channel degradation or channel aggradation,
with serious effects to mussels. The decline of the mussel fauna of
these eastern Gulf Coastal Plain drainages is not well understood, but
is primarily associated with the loss of habitats and channel
instability due to excessive sedimentation (Williams and Butler 1994,
p. 55). Sedimentation has been determined to be a major factor in
habitat destruction, resulting in corresponding shift in mussel fauna
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102). Stable stream bottom substrates not
only provide space for populations of these eight mussel species, but
also provide cover and shelter and sites for breeding, reproduction,
and growth of offspring. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify stream channel stability to be a physical or biological
feature for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
Food
Freshwater mussels, such as these eight species, filter algae,
detritus, and bacteria from the water column (Williams et al. 2008, p.
67). For the first several months, juvenile mussels employ pedal (foot)
feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, and detritus from the sediment
(Yeager et al. 1994, pp. 217-221). Food availability and quality are
affected by habitat stability, floodplain connectivity, water flow, and
water quality. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
adequate food availability and quality to be a physical or biological
feature for these species.
Water
The Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe are riverine species that depend upon adequate water flow.
Continuously flowing water is a habitat feature associated with all of
the eight species. Flowing water maintains the stream bottom habitats
where these species are found, transports food items to the sedentary
juvenile and adult life stages, transports sperm to the adult females,
provides oxygen for respiration, and removes wastes. Populations of the
narrow pigtoe were recently discovered in Gantt and Point A Lakes
(Williams et al. 2008, p. 317), manmade reservoirs on the Conecuh River
mainstem in Alabama. We attribute the occurrence of the species in
these impoundments to the relatively small size of the reservoirs, and
to the operational regime of the dams. As mentioned under Factor A,
both impoundments have limited storage capacity and are operated as
modified run-of-river projects with daily peaking. Therefore, most of
the time, the outflow matches the inflow. Also, some areas in the
reservoirs are narrow and riverine, for instance the area around Dunns
Bridge on Gantt Lake. Here, narrow pigtoe were found in relatively high
numbers in firm, stable sand substrates with little or no silt
accumulation (Williams 2009, pers. comm.; Pursifull 2006, pers. obs.).
Although the natural state of the river's hydrological flow regime is
modified, it does retain the features necessary to maintain the benthic
habitats where the species are found. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify flowing water to be a physical or
biological feature for these eight mussel species.
The ranges of standard physical and chemical water quality
parameters (such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
conductivity) that define suitable habitat conditions for the eight
species have not been investigated. However, as relatively sedentary
animals, mussels must tolerate the full range of such parameters that
occur naturally within the streams where they persist. Both the amount
(flow) and the physical and chemical conditions (water quality) where
each of the eight species currently exists vary widely according to
season, precipitation events, and seasonal human activities within the
watershed. Conditions across their historical ranges vary even more due
to watershed size, geology, geography, and differences in human
population densities and land uses. In general, each of the species
survives in areas where the magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of water flow are adequate to

[[Page 61689]]

maintain stable habitats (for example, sufficient flow to remove fine
particles and sediments without causing degradation), and where water
quality is adequate for year-round survival (for example, moderate to
high levels of dissolved oxygen, low to moderate input of nutrients,
and relatively unpolluted water and sediments). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify adequate water flow and water quality
(as defined below) to be a physical or biological feature for the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
We currently believe that most numeric standards for pollutants and
water quality parameters (for example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy
metals) that have been adopted by the States under the Clean Water Act
represent levels that are essential to the conservation of each of
these eight mussels. However, some States' standards may not adequately
protect mollusks, or are not being appropriately measured, monitored,
or achieved in some reaches (see Factors A and D above). The Service is
currently in consultation with the EPA to evaluate the protectiveness
of criteria approved in EPA's water quality standards for threatened
and endangered species and their critical habitats as described in the
memorandum of agreement that our agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201,
February 22, 2001). Other factors that can potentially alter water
quality are droughts and periods of low flow, non-point-source runoff
from adjacent land surfaces (for example, excessive amounts of
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides), point-source discharges from
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities (for example,
excessive amounts of ammonia, chlorine, and metals), and random spills
or unregulated discharge events. This could be particularly harmful
during drought conditions when flows are depressed and pollutants are
more concentrated. Therefore, adequate water quality is essential for
normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life stages of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing
Freshwater mussels require a host fish for transformation of larval
mussels (glochidia) to juvenile mussels (Williams et al. 2008, p. 68).
Thus, the presence of the appropriate host fishes to complete the
reproductive life cycle is essential to the conservation of these eight
mussels. The blacktail shiner was found to serve as a host for the
fuzzy pigtoe and tapered pigtoe in a preliminary study trial (White et
al. 2008, p. 123). This minnow species occurs in a variety of habitats
in drainages throughout the coastal plain (Mettee et al. 1996, pp. 174-
175). The specific host fish(es) for the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, and
southern sandshell are not currently known; however, other species of
the same genera are known to parasitize cyprinids (minnows),
centrarchids (sunfish), and percids (darters) (Haag and Warren 2003,
pp. 81-82; Haag and Warren 1997, pp. 580-581, 583; Keller and Ruessler
1997, p. 405; O'Brien and Brim Box 1999, p. 134; Haag et al. 1999, p.
150). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the
presence of the appropriate host fishes to complete the reproductive
life cycle to be a physical or biological feature for these eight
mussel species.
Juvenile mussels require stable bottom habitats for growth and
survival. Excessive sediments or dense growth of filamentous algae can
expose juvenile mussels to entrainment or predation and be detrimental
to the survival of juvenile mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p.
373). Geomorphic instability can result in the loss of habitats and
juvenile mussels due to scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993, p.
138). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify stable
bottom substrate with low to moderate amounts of filamentous algae
growth to be a physical or biological feature for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Eight Mussels

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of these eight mussel species in areas occupied at the
time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements
(PCEs). Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we have determined that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe are:
(1) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation).
(2) Stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand with clay or
gravel with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(3) A hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic
habitats where the species are found, and to maintain connectivity of
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning
habitat for native fishes.
(4) Water quality, including temperature (not greater than 32
[ordm]C), pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
mg/L), hardness, turbidity, and other chemical characteristics
necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages.
(5) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse assemblages of native fish
species will serve as a potential indication of host fish presence
until appropriate host fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, the presence of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) will serve as a potential indication of fish host presence.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by these species at the
time of listing contain features that are essential to their
conservation and that may require special management considerations or
protections. None of the portions of the critical habitat units for
these species below has been designated as critical habitat for other
mussel species that are already listed under the Act. None of the areas
is presently under special management or protection provided by a
legally operative management plan or agreement for the conservation of
these species.
Many of the threats to the eight mussels and their habitat are
pervasive and common in all of the nine units that we are designating
as critical habitat

[[Page 61690]]

(see below). These include the potential of significant changes in
stream bed material composition and quality by activities such as
construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and other
watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water; the potential of significant alteration of
water chemistry or water quality; the potential of anthropogenic
activities such as channelization, impoundment, and channel excavation
that could cause aggradation or degradation of the channel bed
elevation or significant bank erosion; and the potential of significant
changes in the existing flow regime due to such activities as
impoundment, water diversion, or water withdrawal. Because the areas we
are designating as critical habitat below are facing these threats,
they require special management consideration and protection.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied (that is
those occupied at the time of listing)--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing (2012). We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, that
were historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of
these species.
We began our analysis by considering historical and current ranges
of each of the eight species. Sources of this information include
research published in peer-reviewed articles and books, agency reports,
museum collections, and surveys by biologists (see Background section).
We then identified the specific areas that are occupied by each of the
eight mussels and that contain one or more of the physical or
biological features. We defined occupied habitat as those stream
reaches known to be currently occupied by any of the eight species. To
identify the currently occupied stream reaches, we used survey data
collected from 1995 to 2012. Several surveys were conducted in the
basins between the years of 1995 to 2012 (Shelton 1995 unpub. report;
Shelton 1999 in litt.; Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; Pilarczyk et al.
2006; Shelton et al. 2007 unpub. report; Gangloff and Hartfield 2009;
Gangloff 2010-12, unpub. data). These surveys were used to assess the
current conservation status of the species, and extended their known
ranges. For this reason, we considered the year 1995 to be the
demarcation between historical and current records. To identify
historically occupied stream reaches, we used survey data between the
late 1800s and 1994. Therefore, if a species was known to occur in an
area prior to 1995, but was not collected in the same area since then,
the stream reach is considered historically occupied.
We then evaluated occupied stream reaches to delineate the probable
upstream and downstream extent of each species' distribution. Known
occurrences for some mussel species are extremely localized, and rare
mussels can be difficult to locate. In addition, creek and river
habitats are highly dependent upon upstream and downstream channel
habitat conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, where more than
one occurrence record of a particular species was found within a stream
reach, we considered the entire reach between the uppermost and
lowermost locations as occupied habitat.
We then considered whether this essential area was adequate for the
conservation of each of the eight species. Small, isolated, aquatic
populations are subject to chance catastrophic events and to changes in
human activities and land use practices that may result in their
elimination. Larger, more contiguous populations can reduce the threat
of extinction due to habitat fragmentation and isolation. For these
reasons, we believe that conservation of the Alabama pearlshell and
southern kidneyshell requires expanding their ranges into currently
unoccupied portions of their historical habitat. Given that threats to
these two species are compounded by their limited distribution and
isolation, it is unlikely that currently occupied habitat is adequate
for their conservation. The range of each has been severely curtailed,
their occupied habitats are limited and isolated, and population sizes
are small. For example, the Alabama pearlshell is no longer believed to
occur in the Limestone Creek system (Monroe County), several
tributaries in the Murder Creek system, or in the Patsaliga Creek
drainage. The southern kidneyshell once occurred in all three river
basins, but is currently known only from the Choctawhatchee basin.
While occupied units provide habitat for current populations, these
species are at high risk of extirpation and extinction from stochastic
events, whether periodic natural events or potential human-induced
events (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The inclusion of
essential unoccupied areas will provide habitat for population
reintroduction and will decrease the risk of extinction. Based on the
best scientific data available, areas not currently occupied by the
Alabama pearlshell and southern kidneyshell are essential for their
conservation, with one exception. We eliminated from consideration the
Yellow River drainage as critical habitat for the southern kidneyshell.
Its occurrence in the Yellow River is based on a 1919 collection of one
specimen from Hollis Creek in Covington County, Alabama. However, we
believe this single, historical collection is not sufficient to support
the conclusion that any portions of the Yellow River drainage are
essential to the conservation of the southern kidneyshell at this time.
Otherwise, all of the stream habitat areas designated as critical
habitat that are currently not known to be occupied contain sufficient
physical or biological features (e.g., geomorphically stable channels,
perennial water flows, adequate water quality, and appropriate benthic
substrates) to support life-history functions of the mussels. The
stream reaches also lack major anthropogenic disturbance, and have
potential for reoccupation by the species through future reintroduction
efforts. Based on the above factors, all unoccupied stream reaches
included in the designations for the Alabama pearlshell and southern
kidneyshell are essential to their conservation.
Following the identification of occupied and unoccupied stream
reaches, the next step was to delineate the probable upstream and
downstream extent of each species' distribution. We used USGS 1:100,000
digital stream maps to delineate the boundaries of critical habitat
units according to the criteria explained below. The upstream boundary
of a unit in a stream is the first perennial, named tributary
confluence; a road-crossing bridge; or a permanent barrier to fish
passage (such as a dam) above the upstream-most current occurrence
record. Many of the Alabama pearlshell survey sites are located near
watershed headwaters. In these areas, the upstream boundary of a unit
is the point where the stream and its tributaries are no longer
perennially flowing streams. The confluence of a

[[Page 61691]]

tributary typically marks a significant change in the size of the
stream and is a logical and recognizable upstream terminus. When a
named tributary was not available, a road-crossing bridge was used to
mark the boundary. Likewise, a dam or other barrier to fish passage
marks the upstream extent to which mussels may disperse via their fish
hosts. The downstream boundary of a unit in a stream is the confluence
of a named tributary, the upstream extent of tidal influence, or the
upstream extent of an impoundment, below the downstream-most occurrence
record. In the unit descriptions, distances between landmarks marking
the upstream or downstream extent of a stream segment are given in
kilometers (km) and equivalent miles (mi), as measured tracing the
course of the stream, not straight-line distance. Distances less than
10 km (6.2 mi) are rounded to the nearest half number, and distances of
10 km (6.2 mi) and greater are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Because mussels are naturally restricted by certain physical
conditions within a stream or river reach (i.e., flow, substrate), they
may be unevenly distributed within these habitat units. Uncertainty on
upstream and downstream distributional limits of some populations may
have resulted in small areas of occupied habitat excluded from, or
areas of unoccupied habitat included in, the designation. We recognize
that both historical and recent collection records upon which we relied
are incomplete, and that there may be river segments or small
tributaries not included in this designation that harbor small, limited
populations of one or more of the eight species considered in this
designation, or that others may become suitable in the future. The
exclusion of such areas does not diminish their potential individual or
cumulative importance to the conservation of these species. However,
with proper management, each of the nine critical habitat units are
capable of supporting one or more of these mussel species, and will
serve as source populations for artificial reintroduction into
designated stream units, as well as assisted or natural migration into
adjacent undesignated streams within each basin. The habitat areas
contained within the units described below constitute our best
evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of these species at
this time. Critical habitat may be revised for any or all of these
species should new information become available.
Using the criteria above, we delineated a total of nine critical
habitat units--two units (AP1, AP2) for the Alabama pearlshell, and
seven Gulf Coast mussels units (GCM1 through GCM7) for one or more of
the other seven mussel species. We depicted the Alabama pearlshell
units separately as this species tends to inhabit headwater stream
environments and seldom co-occurs with the other seven species,
although some critical habitat in the downstream portions of Unit AP2
overlaps with the upstream portions of Unit GCM1 in the Escambia River
drainage. The round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe
often co-occur within the same stream segments, so most of the GCM
critical habitat units are designated for more than one species. Unit
GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs is the only exception,
which is designated for the narrow pigtoe only.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas because
such lands lack physical or biological features for these eight mussel
species. The areas designated as critical habitat listed below include
only stream channels within the ordinary high-water line and do not do
not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways,
dams, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are
located, with the exception of the impoundments created by Point A and
Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not the actual dam structures). The
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological featues in the adjacent critical
habitat.
Units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to support life-history processes of
these eight mussel species. Some units contain all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some segments contain only some elements of the
physical or biological features necessary to support each species'
particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, on our Internet
sites http://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see ADDRESSES above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating nine units as critical habitat for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. The occupancy and stream length of designated critical habitat
units by species is shown in Table 10.

Table 10--Occupancy and Stream Length of Designated Critical Habitat Units by Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total stream
length
Unit Currently occupied? kilometers
(miles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1: Big Flat Creek............................ Yes......................................... 92 (57)
AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Partially \1\............................... 155 (96)
Sepulga River.
------------------

[[Page 61692]]

Total...................................... ............................................ 247 (153)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,379)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... No.......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... No.......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... No.......................................... 137 (85)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,975 (1,226)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,397)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,131 (702)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs... Yes......................................... 21 (13)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 1,112 (690)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCM1: Lower Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 558 (347)
GCM3: Patsaliga Creek.......................... Yes......................................... 149 (92)
GCM4: Upper Escambia River..................... Yes......................................... 137 (85)
GCM5: Yellow River............................. Yes......................................... 247 (153)
GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River. Yes......................................... 897 (557)
GCM7: Upper Pea River.......................... Yes......................................... 234 (145)
------------------
Total...................................... ............................................ 2,222 (1,379)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ 17 km (11 mi) of Murder Creek mainstem are unoccupied.

[[Page 61693]]

The designated critical habitat includes the creek and river
channels within the ordinary high-water line only. For this purpose, we
have applied the definition found at 33 CFR 329.11, and consider the
ordinary high-water line on nontidal rivers to be the line on the shore
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical
characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank;
shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial
vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate
means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
States were granted ownership of lands beneath navigable waters up
to the ordinary high-water line upon achieving Statehood (Pollard v.
Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior sovereigns or the States may
have made grants to private parties that included lands below the
ordinary high-water mark of some navigable waters that are included in
this rule. Most, if not all, lands beneath the navigable waters
included in this final rule are owned by the States of Alabama and
Florida. The lands beneath most nonnavigable waters included in this
final rule are in private ownership. Riparian lands along the waters
are either in private ownership, or are owned by county, State, or
Federal entities. Lands under county, State, and Federal ownership
consist of managed conservation areas and Department of Defense lands,
and are considered to have some level of protection. The approximate
length of each habitat unit and land ownership is shown in Table 11.

Table 11--Critical Habitat Units, Location, Approximate Stream Length, and Ownership of Riparian Lands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Length km Private/ Managed
Unit Location (mi) Private km (mi)* km (mi)* Managed km (mi)*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1..................................... Big Flat Creek, AL............. 92 (57) 92 (57) 0 0
AP2..................................... Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, 155 (96) 155 (96) 0 0
and Sepulga River, AL.
GCM1.................................... Lower Escambia River, AL, FL... 558 (347) 482 (299) 18 (11) 59 (36)
GCM2.................................... Point A Lake and Gantt Lake 21 (13) 21 (13) 0 0
Reservoirs, AL.
GCM3.................................... Patsaliga Creek, AL............ 149 (92) 149 (92) 0 0
GCM4.................................... Upper Escambia River, AL....... 137 (85) 130 (81) 7 (4) 0
GCM5.................................... Yellow River, AL, FL........... 247 (153) 98 (61) 68 (42) 81 (50)
GCM6.................................... Choctawhatchee River and Lower 897 (557) 718 (446) 61 (38) 119 (74)
Pea River, AL, FL.
GCM7.................................... Upper Pea River, AL............ 234 (145) 228 (142) 0 5 (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlap between units AP2 and GCM1 -85 (53) -85 (53) 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ............................... 2,404 (1,494) 1,987 (1,235) 153 (95) 263 (164)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
* Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private); private on one bank and county, state or federal on the other
(Private/Managed); and county, state, or federal ownership on both banks (Managed).

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for each species, below.

Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage, Alabama

Unit AP1 encompasses 92 km (57 mi) of the Big Flat Creek drainage,
in Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL. The unit is within the Mobile River
basin. It includes the mainstem of Big Flat Creek from State Route 41
upstream 56 km (35 mi), Monroe County, AL; Flat Creek from its
confluence with Big Flat Creek upstream 20 km (12 mi), Monroe County,
AL; and Dailey Creek from its confluence with Flat Creek upstream 17 km
(11 mi), Wilcox County, AL.
Unit AP1 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Alabama pearlshell. Based on collection records,
the species was last collected in the Big Flat Creek system in 1995,
when Shelton (1995, p. 3 unpub. report) documented a fresh dead
individual. Although it is likely that the Alabama pearlshell has
always been rare in Big Flat Creek, the unit currently supports healthy
populations of several other native mussel species, indicating the
presence of essential physical or biological features, and contains
PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. A diverse fish fauna, including potential fish
host(s) for the Alabama pearlshell, are known from the Big Flat Creek
drainage, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and its habitat may require
special management of the physical or biological features including
maintaining natural stream flows and protecting water quality from
excessive point- and non-point-source pollution. For example, runoff
from agricultural and industrial sites can alter water quality through
added nutrients and sediment. Runoff from unpaved roads can also add
sediments, and poorly designed road culverts can degrade habitats and
limit distribution of the species. Some culverts can isolate pearlshell
populations by acting as a barrier for dispersion and movement of host
fish(es).

Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages,
Alabama

Unit AP2 encompasses 155 km (96 mi) of the Burnt Corn Creek, Murder
Creek, and Sepulga River drainages within the Escambia River drainage
in Escambia and Conecuh Counties, AL. It includes the mainstem of Burnt
Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 66 km (41
mi), Conecuh County, AL; the mainstem of Murder Creek from its
confluence with Jordan Creek upstream 17 km (11 mi) to the confluence
of Otter Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence
with Murder Creek upstream 12 km (7 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Otter
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi),
Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek
upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the NOLF Evergreen northern boundary,
Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek from the NOLF Evergreen southern
boundary upstream 3.0 km (1.9 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from
County

[[Page 61694]]

Road 29 upstream 5 km (3.5 mi) to Hagood Road; two unnamed tributaries
to Sandy Creek--one from its confluence with Sandy Creek upstream 8.5
km (5.0 mi) to Hagood Road, and the other from its confluence with the
previous unnamed tributary 2.5 km (1.5 mi) upstream to Hagood Road,
Conecuh County, AL; Little Cedar Creek from County Road 6 upstream 8 km
(5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Amos Mill Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia and Conecuh Counties,
AL; Polly Creek from its confluence with Amos Mill Creek upstream 3 km
(2 mi), Conecuh County, AL; and Bottle Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh
County, AL.
Unit AP2 is mostly within the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing (2012) for the Alabama pearlshell. The Alabama
pearlshell currently occurs in Jordan, Hunter, Otter, Sandy, Little
Cedar, Bottle, and Amos Mill creek drainages. Although it historically
occurred in the mainstem of Murder Creek, it has not been collected
there since 1991. Therefore, this short reach of Murder Creek is
considered unoccupied by the Alabama pearlshell, but essential to the
conservation of the species. This unoccupied reach retains the physical
or biological features of a natural stream channel and supports other
native mussel species. It has potential for reoccupation by the
pearlshell, particularly if threats can be identified and mitigated.
The unit currently supports healthy populations of several other
native mussel species, indicating the elements of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with the
pearlshell. A diverse fish fauna, including potential fish host(s) for
the Alabama pearlshell, are known from these drainages, indicating the
potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the Alabama pearlshell and its habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological featues include
alteration and maintenance of natural stream flows (including the
construction of impoundments), and protecting water quality from
excessive point- and non-point-source pollution.

Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River Drainage, Florida and Alabama

Unit GCM1 encompasses 558 km (347 mi) of the lower Escambia River
mainstem and 12 tributary streams in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties,
FL, and Escambia, Covington, Conecuh, and Butler Counties, AL. The unit
consists of the main channel of the Escambia-Conecuh River from the
confluence of Spanish Mill Creek, Escambia and Santa Rosa counties, FL,
upstream 204 km (127 mi) to the Point A Lake dam, Covington County, AL;
Murder Creek from its confluence with the Conecuh River, Escambia
County, AL, upstream 62 km (38 mi) to the confluence of Cane Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Burnt Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek, Escambia County, AL, upstream 59 km (37 mi) to County Road 20,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate 65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to
the confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga
River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route 106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon
Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh and Covington
Counties, upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the confluence of Three Run Creek,
Butler County, AL; and Three Run Creek from its confluence with Pigeon
Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
Unit GCM1 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern
kidneyshell is not currently known to occur in the unit; however, this
portion of the Escambia River system is within the species' historical
range, and we consider it essential to the southern kidneyshell's
conservation due to the need to re-establish the species within other
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from
stochastic events. The unit currently supports populations of round
ebonyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or biological
features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, other mussel
species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these five species. A
diverse fish fauna, including potential fish host(s) for the fuzzy
pigtoe, are known from the Escambia River drainage, indicating the
potential presence of PCE 5.
Threats to the five species and their habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in the existing flow regime and water
quality due to two upstream impoundments. As discussed in Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species, mollusk declines downstream of dams are
associated with changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and
erosion, reduced dissolved oxygen levels and altered water
temperatures, and changes in resident fish assemblages. These
alterations can cause mussel declines for many miles downstream of the
dam.

Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs, Alabama

Unit GCM2 encompasses 21 km (13 mi) of the Point A Lake and Gantt
Lake reservoir system in Covington County, AL. Both lakes are
impoundments on the Conecuh River main channel in the Escambia River
drainage. The unit extends from Point A Lake dam, Covington County
upstream 21 km (13 mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw County line in
Alabama.
Unit GCM2 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the narrow pigtoe. As mentioned in discussion of
essential physical or biological features for the narrow pigtoe, we
attribute its occurrence in these two impoundments to the small size of
the reservoirs and to the operational regime of the dams. This allows
for water movement through the system, and prevents silt accumulation
in some areas. The largest narrow pigtoe population occurs in the
middle reach of Gantt Lake, where the reservoir narrows and becomes
somewhat riverine. Although the natural state of the river's
hydrological flow regime is modified, it does retain the presence of
the physical or biological features necessary to maintain the benthic
habitats where the species are found. The persistence of the narrow
pigtoe within these reservoirs indicates the presence of an appropriate
fish host. Although its fish host(s) is unknown, other mussels of the
genus Fusconaia are known to use cyprinid minnows, fish that occupy a
variety of habitats including large, flowing rivers, and

[[Page 61695]]

lakes and reservoirs (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 128). The unit currently
supports narrow pigtoe populations, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 3, 4,
and 5. We consider the habitat in this unit essential to the
conservation of the narrow pigtoe as it possesses the largest known
population. The fuzzy pigtoe is known historically from this stretch of
the Conecuh River (one specimen was collected in 1915). However, the
collection was made prior to construction of the reservoirs in 1923,
and it is not presently known to occur in this now-impounded section of
the river.
Threats to the narrow pigtoe and its habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in water levels due to periodic
drawdowns of the reservoirs for maintenance to the dams. Within the two
reservoirs, mussels occur in shallow areas near the shore, where they
are susceptible to exposure when water levels are lowered. A drawdown
of Point A Lake in 2005, and Gantt Lake in 2006, exposed and killed a
substantial number of mussels (Johnson 2006 in litt.). During the Gantt
drawdown, 142 individuals of narrow pigtoe were relocated after being
stranded in dewatered areas near the shoreline (Garner 2009 pers.
comm.; Pursifull 2006, pers. obs.).

Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek Drainage, Alabama

Unit GCM3 encompasses 149 km (92 mi) of Patsaliga Creek and two
tributary streams in Covington, Crenshaw, and Pike Counties, AL, within
the Escambia River basin. The unit consists of the Patsaliga Creek
mainstem from its confluence with Point A Lake at County Road 59,
Covington County, AL, upstream 108 km (67 mi) to Crenshaw County Road
66-Pike County Road 1 (the creek is the county boundary), AL; Little
Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 28 km
(17 mi) to Mary Daniel Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and Olustee Creek
from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi) to
County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM3 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not currently known to
occur in the unit; however, this portion of the Patsaliga Creek system
is within the species' historic range. We consider it essential to the
conservation of the southern kidneyshell due to the need to re-
establish the species within other portions of its historic range in
order to reduce threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently
support populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna, including a potential fish host for the
fuzzy pigtoe, are known from the Patsaliga Creek drainage, indicating
the potential presence of PCE 5.
Prior to construction of the Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams in
1923, Patsaliga Creek drained directly to the Conecuh River main
channel. It now empties into Point A Lake and is effectively isolated
from the main channel by the dams. The dams are barriers to upstream
fish movement, particularly to anadromous fishes. Therefore, a
potential threat that may require special management of the physical or
biological features includes the absence of fish hosts.

Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River Drainage, Alabama

Unit GCM4 encompasses 137 km (85 mi) of the Conecuh River mainstem
and two tributary streams in Covington, Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock
Counties, AL, within the Escambia River drainage. The unit consists of
the Conecuh River from its confluence with Gantt Lake reservoir at the
Covington-Crenshaw County line upstream 126 km (78 mi) to County Road
8, Bullock County, AL; Beeman Creek from its confluence with the
Conecuh River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the confluence of Mill Creek,
Pike County, AL; and Mill Creek from its confluence with Beeman Creek,
upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County Road 13, Pike County, AL.
Unit GCM4 is is within the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (2012) Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell is not currently known to occur
in the unit; however, this portion of the Conecuh River is within the
species' historic range, and we consider it to be essential to the
conservation of the southern kidneyshell due to the need to re-
establish the species within other portions of its historic range in
order to reduce threats from stochastic events. The unit does currently
support populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species requiring similar PCEs co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna, including a potential fish host for the
fuzzy pigtoe, are known from the upper Escambia River drainage,
indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
The Point A Lake and Gantt Lake dams on the Conecuh River mainstem
are barriers to upstream fish movement, particularly to anadromous
fishes. Therefore, a potential threat that may require special
management of the physical or biological features includes the absence
of fish hosts.

Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage, Florida and Alabama

Unit GCM5 encompasses 247 km (153 mi) of the Yellow River mainstem,
the Shoal River mainstem, and three tributary streams in Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, FL, and Covington County, AL. The unit
consists of the Yellow River from the confluence of Weaver River (a
tributary located 0.9 km (0.6 mi), downstream of State Route 87), Santa
Rosa County, FL, upstream 157 km (97 mi) to County Road 42, Covington
County, AL; the Shoal River from its confluence with the Yellow River,
Okaloosa County, FL, upstream 51 km (32 mi) to the confluence of Mossy
Head Branch, Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its confluence with
Shoal River, Okaloosa County, FL, upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton County, FL; and Five Runs Creek
from its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to
County Road 31, Covington County, AL.
Unit GCM5 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe. The southern kidneyshell was known from the Yellow
River drainage; however, its occurrence in the basin is based on the
collection of one specimen in 1919 from Hollis Creek in Alabama. We
believe this single, historical record is not sufficient to consider
this unit as essential to the conservation of the southern kidneyshell.
Therefore, we are not designating Unit GCM5 as critical habitat for the
southern kidneyshell at this time. The unit does currently support
populations of Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe, indicating the presence of essential physical or
biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition,
other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-occur with these four
species. A diverse fish fauna are known from the Yellow River

[[Page 61696]]

drainage, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.

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

Unit GCM6 encompasses 897 km (557 mi) of the Choctawhatchee River
mainstem, the lower Pea River mainstem, and 29 tributary streams in
Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and Jackson Counties, FL, and Geneva,
Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and Barbour Counties, AL. The unit
consists of the Choctawhatchee River from the confluence of Pine Log
Creek, Walton County, FL, upstream 200 km (125 mi) to the point the
river splits into the West Fork Choctawhatchee and East Fork
Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour County, AL; Pine Log Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Walton County, upstream 19 km
(12 mi) to the confluence of Ditch Branch, Washington and Bay Counties,
FL; an unnamed channel forming Cowford Island from its downstream
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2 mi) to its
upstream confluence with the river, Washington County, FL; Crews Lake
from its western terminus 1.5 km (1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is a relic channel southwest of
Cowford Island, and is disconnected from the Cowford Island channel,
except during high flows); Holmes Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Washington County, FL, upstream 98 km (61 mi) to
County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator Creek from its confluence
with Holmes Creek upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road 166, Washington
County, FL; Bruce Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee
River upstream 25 km (16 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed tributary,
Walton County, FL; Sandy Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Walton County, FL, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of West Sandy Creek, Holmes and Walton County, FL; Blue
Creek from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to
the confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Sandy Creek
from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the
confluence of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Wrights Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes County, FL,
upstream 43 km (27 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Tenmile
Creek from its confluence with Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi) to
the confluence of Rice Machine Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Pittman
Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6.5 km
(4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes County, FL; East Pittman Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to
County Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to Tommy Lane,
Holmes County, FL; the Pea River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to the
Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL; Limestone Creek from its confluence with
the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5 mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream 17 km (10 mi) to the confluence
of Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL; Eightmile Creek from its
confluence with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL, upstream 15 km (9 mi) to
the confluence of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream of County Road
181), Walton County, FL; Corner Creek from its confluence with
Eightmile Creek upstream 5 km (3 mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its confluence with Eightmile Creek
Geneva County, AL, upstream, 4 km (2.5 mi) to the Covington-Geneva
County line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the
confluence of Blanket Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream
22 km (14 mi) to the Fort Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary, upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road 36,
Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road
156, Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and Houston Counties upstream 20 km (13 mi)
to the confluence of Newton Creek, Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5
km (2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill Branch, Houston County,
AL; Bear Creek from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee
River, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner Street),
Houston County, AL; West Fork Choctawhatchee River from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km (33 mi)
to the fork of Paul's Creek and Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL; Judy
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
17 km (11 mi) to County Road 13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from its
confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL,
upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State Route 10, Barbour County, AL; Paul's
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
7 km (4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of County Road 20, Barbour County,
AL; Lindsey Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee
River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Barbour County, AL; an unnamed tributary to Lindsey Creek
from its confluence with Lindsey Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0
mile upstream of County Road 53, Barbour County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River,
Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km (44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
Unit GCM6 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently
supports populations of the five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3,
and 4. In addition, other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-
occur with these five species. A diverse fish fauna is known from the
Choctawhatchee River, including a potential fish host for the fuzzy
pigtoe and tapered pigtoe, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
Not included in this unit are two oxbow lakes now disconnected from
the Choctawhatchee River main channel in Washington County, Florida.
Horseshoe Lake has a record of southern kidneyshell from 1932, and
Crawford Lake has records of Choctaw bean and tapered pigtoe from 1934.
It is possible these oxbow lakes had some connection to the main
channel when the collections were made over 75 years ago. The three
species are not currently known to occur in Horseshoe or Crawford
lakes, and we do not consider them essential to the conservation of the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, or tapered pigtoe.
Threats to the five species and their habitat that may require
special management of the physical or biological features include the
potential of significant changes in the existing

[[Page 61697]]

flow regime and water quality due to the Elba Dam on the Pea River
mainstem. As discussed in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
mollusk declines downstream of dams are associated with changes and
fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels and altered water temperatures, and changes in resident
fish assemblages. These alterations can cause mussel declines for many
miles downstream of the dam.

Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River Drainage, Alabama

Unit GCM7 encompasses 234 km (145 mi) of the upper Pea River
mainstem and six tributary streams in Coffee, Dale, Pike, Barbour, and
Bullock Counties, AL. This unit is within the Choctawhatchee River
basin and includes the stream segments upstream of the Elba Dam. The
unit consists of the Pea River from the Elba Dam, Coffee County,
upstream 123 km (76 mi) to State Route 239, Bullock and Barbour
Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its confluence with the Pea River,
Coffee County upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the confluence of Walnut Creek,
Pike County, AL; Walnut Creek from its confluence with Whitewater Creek
upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road 26, Pike County, AL; Big Creek
(Coffee County) from its confluence with Whitewater Creek, Coffee
County, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the confluence of Smart Branch, Pike
County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County) from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence of Sand Creek, Barbour
County, AL; Pea Creek from its confluence with the Pea River upstream 6
km (4 mi) to the confluence of Hurricane Creek, Barbour County, AL; and
Big Sandy Creek from its confluence with the Pea River upstream 6.5 km
(4 mi) to County Road 14, Bullock County, AL.
Unit GCM7 is within the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing (2012) for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. The unit currently
supports populations of the five species, indicating the elements of
essential physical or biological features, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 3,
and 4. In addition, other mussel species, requiring similar PCEs, co-
occur with these five species. A diverse fish fauna is known from the
upper Pea River, including potential fish host(s) for the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, indicating the potential presence of PCE 5.
The Elba Dam on the Pea River mainstem is a barrier to upstream
fish movement, particularly to anadromous fishes. Therefore, a
potential threat that may require special management of the physical or
biological feature includes the absence of potential host fishes.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir.
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not
require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

[[Page 61698]]

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs and provide
for the conservation of these species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result
in consultation for these eight mussel species include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter channel geomorphology.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging,
desnagging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities
may lead to changes in water flows and levels that would degrade or
eliminate the mussels or their fish host and/or their habitats. These
actions can also lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in
water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the mussels
or their fish host.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to
impoundment, water diversion, water withdrawal, water draw-down, and
hydropower generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the
habitat necessary for growth and reproduction of these mussels.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry,
quality, or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated
effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point
source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities
could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances
of the mussels or their fish host and result in direct or cumulative
adverse affects to these individuals and their life cycles.
(4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvest,
and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments
or nutrients into the water. These activities could eliminate or reduce
habitats necessary for the growth and reproduction of these mussels by
causing excessive sedimentation and burial of the species or their
habitats, or nutrification leading to excessive filamentous algal
growth. Excessive filamentous algal growth can cause reduced nighttime
dissolved oxygen levels through respiration, and prevent juvenile
mussels from settling into stream sediments.

Exemptions

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe to determine
if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Fort Rucker
The U.S. Army-operated Fort Rucker Aviation Center, located in
Daleville, Alabama, owns lands that include portions of the proposed
critical habitat designation (specifically unit GCM6, Choctawhatchee
River and Lower Pea River Drainage). Portions of Claybank and Steep
Head creeks are on lands within the Fort Rucker military reservation.
Fort Rucker has completed an INRMP (US Army 2009) that guides
conservation activities on the installation through 2014. The INRMP
specifically addresses maintaining and improving water quality through
reduction in sedimentation and erosion control, land management
practices, and improved treatment facilities. (US Army 2009, pp. 82-83,
90, 128-129). In addition, the INRMP will be updated to incorporate the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Fort Rucker INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the species occurring
in habitats within or downstream of the Fort Rucker military
reservation. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)

[[Page 61699]]

of the Act. We are not including approximately 25 km (16 mi) of stream
habitat in this critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
NAS Whiting Field Complex
The U.S. Navy owns lands that include portions of the proposed
critical habitat designation in unit AP2. A segment of Hunter Creek is
on lands within the boundaries of Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting
Field's Navy Outlying Field (NOLF) Evergreen located in Conecuh County,
Alabama. The NAS Whiting Field Complex has completed an INRMP
(Department of the Navy 2006) that guides conservation activities on
the installation through 2016. The INRMP specifically addresses
improving water quality through vegetative buffers, stormwater and
pesticide management, erosion control, and land management practices
(Department of the Navy 2006, pp. 5.4-5.6, 5.15-5.26). In addition, the
INRMP will be updated to incorporate the Alabama pearlshell.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the NAS Whiting Field INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the Alabama
pearlshell occurring in habitats within or adjacent to NOLF Evergreen.
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of stream habitat in this
final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Other Department of Defense Lands
Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), located in Niceville, Florida, owns the
lands adjacent to the critical habitat designation (specifically unit
GCM5, Yellow River Drainage). The lower portions of the Shoal and
Yellow rivers form the northwestern boundary of the military
reservation. However, no portions of stream or river channels
designated as critical habitat occur within the boundary of the
military reservation, and therefore Eglin AFB lands are not exempted.
These reaches are also currently designated critical habitat for the
threatened Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) (68 FR 13370,
March 19, 2033).

Exclusions

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, is clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area
from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA)
of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (77 FR
18173). The draft analysis, dated March 5, 2012, was made available for
public review March 27, 2012, through April 26, 2012 (77 FR 18173).
Following the close of the comment period, a final analysis (FEA)
(dated May 24, 2012) of the potential economic effects of the
designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments
and any new information (Industrial Economics 2012).
The intent of the economic analysis is to quantify the economic
impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Alabama
pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean,
tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe;
some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, considering protections already in place for the species
(e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks at
baseline impacts incurred from the listing of the species, and
forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur with
the designation of critical habitat. For a further description of
analysis methods, see the ``Framework for the Analysis'' section of the
FEA.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks at costs that will be
incurred once listed, and considers those costs that may occur in the
20 years following the designation of critical habitat, which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The final
economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of conservation efforts
for these eight species associated with the following categories of
activity: (1)

[[Page 61700]]

Impoundments, dams, and diversions; (2) dredging, channelization, and
instream mining; (3) transportation and utilities; (4) residential and
commercial development; (5) timber management, agriculture, and
grazing; and (6) oil wells/drilling.
The FEA states that the present value of total incremental cost of
critical habitat designation is estimated to be $1.70 million over the
analysis timeframe (2012 to 2031), applying a 7 percent discount rate
or $147,000 annually. All of these impacts stem from the administrative
cost of addressing adverse modification of critical habitat during
section 7 consultations. Because the region is primarily rural, with
little planned economic activity, the Service and contacted
stakeholders do not anticipate that designation of critical habitat for
these mussels will have substantial impact on economic activity. The
majority of the incremental impacts (67 percent) are related to road
and bridge construction and maintenance projects. Specifically, over
the 30-year timeframe of the FEA, the Alabama Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) expect 208 road and bridge maintenance and resurfacing projects
will occur in the region, and ADOT and FDOT will, therefore, conduct
section 7 consultations with the Service when roadways cross streams
designated as critical habitat. In Alabama, data were not available to
determine the number of road crossings in critical habitat, and this
likely results in an overestimate of impacts to transportation projects
in Alabama.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exerting his discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for these eight species based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents may
be obtained by contacting the Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES)
or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those Department of
Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to
the Alabama pearlshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. We have also determined
that the remaining lands within the designation of critical habitat for
the species are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas
from this final designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or
other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Alabama pearlshell,
round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe,
narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe, and the final
designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this final
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.

[[Page 61701]]

To determine if the designation of critical habitat for the eight
mussel species will affect a substantial number of small entities, we
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types
of economic activities (e.g., governments (counties), development, and
dredging). We apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to
each industry to determine if certification is appropriate. However,
the SBREFA does not explicitly define ``substantial number'' or
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances,
especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the number of
small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, or fuzzy pigtoe. Federal agencies also must consult with us
if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application of the
``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our final economic analysis of the critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of the eight mussels
and the designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the
estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as described in
Chapters 2 through 4 and Appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the
potential for economic impacts related to: (1) Impoundments, dams, and
diversions; (2) dredging, channelization, and in-stream mining; (3)
transportation and utilities; (4) residential and commercial
development; (5) timber management, agriculture, and grazing; and (6)
oil wells/drilling.
According to the final economic analysis, impacts on small entities
due to this rule are expected to be modest because the incremental
costs of the rule are estimated to be administrative in nature. The
final economic analysis evaluated the incremental impacts of
designating critical habitat for these eight mussels over the next 20
years (2012-2031), which was determined to be the appropriate period
for analysis because limited planning information is available for most
activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year
timeframe. This analysis estimates that 7 small governments, 20 small
development-related entitities, and 4 small dredging-related entities
are likely to incur administrative costs as third parties associated
with section 7 consultation. Applying a 7 percent discount rate,
incremental impacts associated with the designation are estimated to
represent less than 1 percent of the annual revenues each small entity.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on the above reasoning and currently available
information, we concluded that this rule will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat
for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell,
Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.

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

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 (E.O.
13211; ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing
this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated
with the 8 mussels conservation activities within critical habitat are
not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only

[[Page 61702]]

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any
programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities
must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical
habitat. The final economic analysis concludes incremental impacts may
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for
activities related to impoundments and dams, development, and dredging
projects; however, these are not expected to significantly affect small
government entities. Consequently, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe in a takings implications assessment. As
discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only
Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency
for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
The majority of the designation occurs in navigable waterways whose
stream bottoms are owned by the States of Alabama and Florida. Impacts
of this designation could occur on non-Federal riparian lands adjacent
to the designated streams where there is Federal involvement (e.g.,
Federal funding or permitting) subject to section 7 of the Act, or
where a decision on a proposed action on federally owned land could
affect economic activity on adjoining non-Federal land. However, in
general, we believe that the takings implications associated with this
critical habitat designation will be insignificant. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for these eight mussels does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Florida. We
received comments from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and have addressed them in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section of this rule. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Alabama pearlshell, round
ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow
pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of these species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals

[[Page 61703]]

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act.
We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position
was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time
of listing (2012) that contain the features essential for the
conservation, and no unoccupied Tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation, of the Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe. Therefore, none of the designated critical
habitat for these species is on Tribal lands.

References Cited

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

Authors

The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Panama City Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Bean, Choctaw,''
``Ebonyshell, round,'' ``Kidneyshell, southern,'' ``Pearlshell,
Alabama'', ``Pigtoe, fuzzy'', ``Pigtoe, narrow'', ``Pigtoe, tapered'',
and ``Sandshell, southern'' in alphabetical order under ``CLAMS'' to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Clams

* * * * * * *
Bean, Choctaw.................... Villosa choctawensis U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA

* * * * * * *
Ebonyshell, round................ Fusconaia rotulata.. U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA

* * * * * * *
Kidneyshell, southern............ Ptychobranchus U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
jonesi.

* * * * * * *
Pearlshell, Alabama.............. Margaritifera U.S.A. (AL)......... NA................. E 808 17.95(f) NA
marrianae.

* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, fuzzy.................... Pleurobema U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA
strodeanum.

* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, narrow................... Fusconaia escambia.. U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA

* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, tapered.................. Fusconaia burkei.... U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA

* * * * * * *
Sandshell, southern.............. Hamiota australis... U.S.A. (AL, FL)..... NA................. T 808 17.95(f) NA

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61704]]

0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for eight
mussel species in four northeastern Gulf of Mexico drainages,
immediately before the entry for ``Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema
hanleyianum)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Eight mussel species in four northeast Gulf of Mexico drainages:
the Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), Alabama
pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), tapered pigtoe
(Fusconaia burkei), and southern sandshell (Hamiota australis).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for the following counties:
(i) Alabama. Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington,
Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, and Pike
Counties.
(ii) Florida. Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa,
Walton, and Washington Counties.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe consist of five components:
(i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation).
(ii) Stable substrates of sand or mixtures of sand with clay or
gravel with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae.
(iii) A hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic
habitats where the species are found, and to maintain connectivity of
rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning
habitat for native fishes.
(iv) Water quality, including temperature (not greater than 32
[deg]C), pH (between 6.0 to 8.5), oxygen content (not less than 5.0
milligrams per liter), hardness, turbidity, and other chemical
characteristics necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages.
(v) The presence of fish hosts. Diverse assemblages of native fish
species will serve as a potential indication of host fish presence
until appropriate host fishes can be identified. For the fuzzy pigtoe
and tapered pigtoe, the presence of blacktail shiner (Cyprinella
venusta) will serve as a potential indication of fish host presence.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, dams, roads, and other paved areas) and
the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries
on November 9, 2012, with the exception of the impoundments created by
Point A and Gantt Lake dams (impounded water, not the actual dam
structures).
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created with USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) GIS data. The
1:100,000 river reach (route) files were used to calculate river
kilometers and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 9.3.1 software was used to determine
longitude and latitude coordinates using decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping all units was Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM), NAD 83, Zone 16 North. The following data sources were
referenced to identify features (like roads and streams) used to
delineate the upstream and downstream extents of critical habitat
units: NHD data, Washington County USFWS National Wetlands Inventory,
1999 Florida Department of Transportation Roads Characteristics
Inventory (RCI) dataset, U.S. Census Bureau 2000 TIGER line waterbody
data, ESRIs World Street Map Service, Florida Department of
Transportation General Highway Maps, DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers, and
USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. The maps in this entry, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's
internet site, http://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0050, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index maps follow (Map 1 for the Alabama pearlshell, and Map 2
for the round ebonyshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered
pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe):

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 61705]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.000

[[Page 61706]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.001

(6) Unit AP1: Big Flat Creek Drainage, Monroe and Wilcox Counties,
AL. This unit is critical habitat for the Alabama pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of Big Flat Creek from State
Route 41 upstream 56 kilometers (km) (35 miles (mi)), Monroe County,
AL; Flat Creek from its confluence with Big Flat Creek upstream 20 km
(12 mi), Monroe County, AL; and Dailey Creek from its confluence Flat
Creek upstream 17 km (11 mi), Monroe and Wilcox Counties, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River drainages, follows:

[[Page 61707]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(7) Unit AP2: Burnt Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River.
Drainages, Escambia and Conecuh Counties, AL. This unit is critical
habitat for the Alabama pearlshell.
(i) The unit includes the mainstem of Burnt Corn Creek from its
confluence with Murder Creek upstream 66 km (41 mi), Conecuh County,
AL; the mainstem of Murder Creek from its confluence with Jordan Creek
upstream 17 km (11 mi) to the confluence of Otter Creek, Conecuh
County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream
12 km (7 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Otter Creek from its confluence with
Murder Creek, upstream 9 km (5.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Hunter Creek
from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the
Navy Outlying Field (NOLF) Evergreen northern boundary, Conecuh County,
AL; Hunter Creek from the NOLF Evergreen southern boundary upstream 3.0
km (1.9 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from County Road 29
upstream 5 km (3.5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; two unnamed tributaries to
Sandy Creek--one from its confluence with Sandy Creek upstream 8.5 km
(5.0 mi) to just above Hagood Road, and the other from it confluence
with the previous unnamed tributary upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to just
above Hagood Road; Little Cedar Creek from County Road 6 upstream 8 km
(5 mi), Conecuh County, AL; Amos Mill Creek from its confluence with
the Sepulga River upstream 12 km (8 mi), Escambia and Conecuh Counties,
AL; Polly Creek from its confluence with Amos Mill Creek upstream 3 km
(2 mi), Conecuh County, AL; and Bottle Creek from its

[[Page 61708]]

confluence with the Sepulga River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County
Road 42, Conecuh County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit AP1, Big Flat Creek Drainage, and Unit AP2, Burnt
Corn Creek, Murder Creek, and Sepulga River Drainages is provided at
paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit GCM1: Lower Escambia River Drainage in Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties, FL, and Escambia, Covington, Conecuh, and Butler
Counties, AL. This unit is critical habitat for the round ebonyshell,
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Escambia-Conecuh River mainstem from the
confluence of Spanish Mill Creek Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, FL,
upstream 204 km (127 mi) to the Point A Lake dam, Covington County, AL;
Murder Creek from its confluence with the Conecuh River, Escambia
County, AL, upstream 62 km (38 mi) to the confluence of Cane Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Burnt Corn Creek from its confluence with Murder
Creek, Escambia County, AL, upstream 59 km (37 mi) to County Road 20,
Conecuh County, AL; Jordan Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to Interstate 65, Conecuh County, AL; Mill
Creek from its confluence with Murder Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to
the confluence of Sandy Creek, Conecuh County, AL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with Mill Creek upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 29,
Conecuh County, AL; Sepulga River from its confluence with the Conecuh
River upstream 69 km (43 mi) to the confluence of Persimmon Creek,
Conecuh County, AL; Bottle Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga
River upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 42, Conecuh County, AL;
Persimmon Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh
County, upstream 36 km (22 mi) to the confluence of Mashy Creek, Butler
County, AL; Panther Creek from its confluence with Persimmon Creek
upstream 11 km (7 mi) to State Route 106, Butler County, AL; Pigeon
Creek from its confluence with the Sepulga River, Conecuh and Covington
Counties, upstream 89 km (55 mi) to the confluence of Three Run Creek,
Butler County, AL; and Three Run Creek from its confluence with Pigeon
Creek upstream 9 km (5.5 mi) to the confluence of Spring Creek, Butler
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM1, Lower Escambia River, follows (to preserve
detail, the map is divided into south and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 61709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.003

[[Page 61710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.004

(9) Unit GCM2: Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs in Covington
County, AL. This unit is critical habitat for the narrow pigtoe.
(i) The unit extends from Point A Dam, Covington County, upstream
21 km (13 mi) to the Covington-Crenshaw County line, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM2, Point A Lake and Gantt Lake Reservoirs,
follows:

[[Page 61711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.005

(10) Unit GCM3: Patsaliga Creek Drainage in Covington, Crenshaw,
and Pike Counties, AL. The Patsaliga Creek drainage is within the
Escambia River basin. This unit is critical habitat for the southern
kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy
pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with
Point A Lake at County Road 59, Covington County, AL, upstream 108 km
(67 mi) to Crenshaw County Road 66-Pike County Road 1, AL; Little
Patsaliga Creek from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 28 km
(17 mi) to Mary Daniel Road, Crenshaw County, AL; and Olustee Creek
from its confluence with Patsaliga Creek upstream 12 km (8 mi) to
County Road 5, Pike County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM3, Patsaliga Creek Drainage follows:

[[Page 61712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.006

(11) Unit GCM4: Upper Escambia River Drainage in Covington,
Crenshaw, Pike, and Bullock Counties, AL. This unit is critical habitat
for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern
sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Conecuh River from its confluence with
Gantt Lake reservoir at the Covington-Crenshaw County line upstream 126
km (78 mi) to County Road 8, Bullock County, AL; Beeman Creek from its
confluence with the Conecuh River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the
confluence of Mill Creek, Pike County, AL; and Mill Creek from its
confluence with Beeman Creek, upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to County Road 13,
Pike County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM 4, Upper Escambia River Drainage, follows:

[[Page 61713]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.007

(12) Unit GCM5: Yellow River Drainage in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and
Walton Counties, FL, and Covington County, AL. This unit is critical
habitat for the Choctaw bean, narrow pigtoe, southern sandshell, and
fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Yellow River mainstem from the confluence
of Weaver River (a distributary located 0.9 km (0.6 mi), downstream of
State Route 87), Santa Rosa County, FL, upstream 157 km (97 mi) to
County Road 42, Covington County, AL; the Shoal River mainstem from its
confluence with the Yellow River upstream 51 km (32 mi) to the
confluence of Mossy Head Branch, Walton County, FL; Pond Creek from its
confluence with the Shoal River upstream 24 km (15 mi) to the
confluence of Fleming Creek, Walton County, FL; and Five Runs Creek
from its confluence with the Yellow River upstream 15 km (9.5 mi) to
County Road 31, Covington County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM5, Yellow River Drainage, follows:

[[Page 61714]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(13) Unit GCM6: Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River Drainages
in Walton, Washington, Bay, Holmes, and Jackson Counties, FL, and
Geneva, Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, Pike, and Barbour Counties, AL.
This unit is critical habitat for the southern kidneyshell, Choctaw
bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell, and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Choctawhatchee River mainstem from the
confluence of Pine Log Creek, Walton County, FL, upstream 200 km (125
mi) to the point the river splits into the West Fork Choctawhatchee and
East Fork Choctawhatchee rivers, Barbour County, AL; Pine Log Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Walton County,
upstream 19 km (12 mi) to Ditch Branch, Washington and Bay Counties,
FL; an unnamed channel forming Cowford Island from its downstream
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 3 km (2 mi) to its
upstream confluence with the river, Washington County, FL; Crews Lake
from its western terminus 1.5 km (1 mi) to its eastern terminus,
Washington County, FL (Crews Lake is a relic channel southwest of
Cowford Island, and is disconnected from the Cowford Island channel,
except during high flows); Holmes Creek from its

[[Page 61715]]

confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Washington County, FL,
upstream 98 km (61 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Alligator
Creek from its confluence with Holmes Creek upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to
County Road 166, Washington County, FL; Bruce Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 25 km (16 mi) to the confluence
of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Sandy Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the
confluence of West Sandy Creek, Holmes and Walton Counties, FL; Blue
Creek from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 7 km (4.5 mi) to
the confluence of Goose Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Sandy Creek
from its confluence with Sandy Creek, upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to the
confluence of an unnamed tributary, Walton County, FL; Wrights Creek
from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Holmes County, FL,
upstream 43 km (27 mi) to County Road 4, Geneva County, AL; Tenmile
Creek from its confluence with Wrights Creek upstream 6 km (3.5 mi) to
the confluence of Rice Machine Branch, Holmes County, FL; West Pittman
Creek from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, upstream 6.5
km (4 mi) to Fowler Branch, Holmes County, FL; East Pittman Creek from
its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 4.5 km (3 mi) to
County Road 179, Holmes County, FL; Parrot Creek from its confluence
with the Choctawhatchee River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to Tommy Lane,
Holmes County, FL; the Pea River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 91 km (57 mi) to the
Elba Dam, Coffee County, AL; Limestone Creek from its confluence with
the Pea River upstream 8.5 km (5 mi) to Woods Road, Walton County, FL;
Flat Creek from the Pea River upstream 17 km (10 mi) to the confluence
of Panther Creek, Geneva County, AL; Eightmile Creek from its
confluence with Flat Creek, Geneva County, AL, upstream 15 km (9 mi) to
the confluence of Dry Branch (first tributary upstream of County Road
181), Walton County, FL; Corner Creek from its confluence with
Eightmile Creek, upstream 5 km (3 mi) to State Route 54, Geneva County,
AL; Natural Bridge Creek from its confluence with Eightmile Creek,
Geneva County, AL, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to the Covington-Geneva
County line, AL; Double Bridges Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream 46 km (29 mi) to the
confluence of Blanket Creek, Coffee County, AL; Claybank Creek from its
confluence with the Choctawhatchee River, Geneva County, AL, upstream
22 km (14 mi) to the Fort Rucker military reservation southern
boundary, Dale County, AL; Claybank Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation northern boundary, upstream 6 km (4 mi) to County Road 36,
Dale County, AL; Steep Head Creek from the Fort Rucker military
reservation western boundary, upstream 4 km (2.5 mi) to County Road
156, Coffee County, AL; Hurricane Creek from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to State Route 52, Geneva
County, AL; Little Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and Houston Counties, upstream 20 km (13 mi)
to the confluence of Newton Creek, Houston County, AL; Panther Creek
from its confluence with Little Choctawhatchee River, upstream 4.5 km
(2.5 mi) to the confluence of Gilley Mill Branch, Houston County, AL;
Bear Creek from its confluence with the Little Choctawhatchee River,
upstream 5.5 km (3.5 mi) to County Road 40 (Fortner Street), Houston
County, AL; West Fork Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the
Choctawhatchee River, Dale County, AL, upstream 54 km (33 mi) to the
fork of Pauls Creek and Lindsey Creek, Barbour County, AL; Judy Creek
from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream 17 km
(11 mi) to County Road 13, Dale County, AL; Sikes Creek from its
confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River Dale County, AL,
upstream 8.5 km (5.5 mi) to State Route 10, Barbour County, AL; Pauls
Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River upstream
7 km (4.5 mi) to one mile upstream of County Road 20, Barbour County,
AL; Lindsey Creek from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee
River upstream 14 km (8.5 mi) to the confluence of an unnamed
tributary, Barbour County, AL; an unnamed tributary to Lindsey Creek
from its confluence with Lindsey Creek upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 1.0
mile upstream of County Road 53, Barbour County, AL; and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River from its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River,
Dale County, AL, upstream 71 km (44 mi) to County Road 71, Barbour
County, AL.
(ii) Map of Unit GCM6, Choctawhatchee River and Lower Pea River
Drainages, follows (to preserve detail, the map is divided into south,
central, and north sections):
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 61716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.009

[[Page 61717]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.010

[[Page 61718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.011

(14) Unit GCM7: Upper Pea River Drainage in Coffee, Dale, Pike,
Barbour, and Bullock Counties, AL. The Pea River drainage is within the
Choctawhatchee River Basin. This unit is critical habitat for the
southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, southern sandshell,
and fuzzy pigtoe.
(i) The unit includes the Pea River mainstem from the Elba Dam,
Coffee County, upstream 123 km (76 mi) to State Route 239, Bullock and
Barbour Counties, AL; Whitewater Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River, Coffee County, upstream 45 km (28 mi) to the confluence of
Walnut Creek, Pike County, AL; Walnut Creek from its confluence with
Whitewater Creek upstream 14 km (9 mi) to County Road 26, Pike County,
AL; Big Creek (Coffee County) from its confluence with Whitewater
Creek, Coffee County, upstream 30 km (18 mi) to the confluence of Smart
Branch, Pike County, AL; Big Creek (Barbour County) from its confluence
with the Pea River upstream 10 km (6 mi) to the confluence of Sand
Creek, Barbour County, AL; Pea Creek from its confluence with the Pea
River upstream 6 km (4 mi) to the confluence of Hurricane Creek,
Barbour County, AL; and Big Sandy Creek from its confluence with the
Pea River upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to County Road 14, Bullock County, AL.

[[Page 61719]]

(ii) Map of Unit GCM7, Upper Pea River Drainage, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC12.012

* * * * *

Dated: September 20, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24161 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P