61664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

by January 1, 2023. In the final analysis, 

EPA believes that approval of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM will result 

in emission reductions from each 

affected sources that are no less 

stringent than would result from the dry 

cleaning NESHAP. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to grant California the 

authority to implement and enforce its 

amended dry cleaning ATCM in place of 

the dry cleaning NESHAP for area 

sources in the State of California, with 

the exception of the SCAQMD. 

IV. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Because EPA believes California’s 

request meets all the requirements 

necessary to qualify for approval under 

CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91 

and 63.93, we are proposing approval of 

the amended dry cleaning ATCM as a 

substitute for the dry cleaning NESHAP. 

We will accept comments on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final approval action that 

will establish the amended dry cleaning 

ATCM as the federally-enforceable 

regulation in California, with the 

exception of the SCAQMD, for perc dry 

cleaning area sources. Although 

California would have primary 

implementation and enforcement 

responsibility, EPA would retain the 

right, pursuant to CAA section 112(l)(7), 

to enforce any applicable emission 

standard or requirement under CAA 

section 112. If this proposal is finalized, 

the amended dry cleaning ATCM would 

be the federally-enforceable standard in 

California and would be enforceable by 

the Administrator and citizens under 

the CAA. However, any provision of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM that 

allows for the approval of alternative 

means of emission limitations must also 

receive approval from EPA before such 

alternatives can be used (e.g., Section 

93109(d)(27) and (38), and (i)(3)(A)(2)). 

Additionally, this delegation does not 

extend to the provisions regarding 

California’s enforcement authorities or 

its collection of fees as described in 

Sections 93109.1(c) and 93109.2(c) and 

(d), Title 17 of the California Code of 

Regulations. Approval of the amended 

dry cleaning ATCM does not in any way 

limit the enforcement authorities, 

including the penalty authorities, of the 

Clean Air Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a State delegation 

submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7412(l); 

40 CFR 63.90. Thus, in reviewing 

delegation submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve State choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

submitted rule is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the State, 

and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Title III of the Clean Air Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2399. 

Dated: August 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25127 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107] 

[92210 1111 0000-B2] 

RIN 1018-AV88 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

Altamaha Spinymussel and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to list the 

Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio 

spinosa), a freshwater mussel endemic 

to the Altamaha River drainage of 

southeastern Georgia, as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate approximately 240 kilometers 

(149 miles) of mainstem river channel as 

critical habitat in Appling, Ben Hill, 

Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, 

Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne, and 

Wheeler Counties, Georgia. This 

proposed rule, if made final, would 

implement the Federal protections 

provided by the Act. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 6, 2010. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments on 

Docket no. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2008-0107; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61665 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia 

Ecological Services Office, 105 

Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 

30606; telephone 706-613-9493; 

facsimile 706-613-6059. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document consists of: (1) A proposed 

rule to list the Altamaha spinymussel 

(Elliptio spinosa) as endangered; and (2) 

a proposed critical habitat designation 

for this species. 

Previous Federal Action 

The Altamaha spinymussel was first 

identified as a candidate for protection 

under the Act in the May 22, 1984, 

Federal Register (49 FR 21664). As a 

candidate, it was assigned a status 

category 2 designation, which was given 

to those species with some evidence of 

vulnerability, but for which additional 

biological information was needed to 

support a proposed rule to list as 

endangered or threatened. In our 

Notices of Review dated January 6, 1989 

(54 FR 554), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 

58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 

58982), we retained a status category 2 

designation for this species. We 

discontinued assigning categories to 

candidate species in our Notice of 

Review dated February 28, 1996 (61 FR 

7596), and only species for which the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

had sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

issuance of a proposed rule were 

regarded as candidate species. 

On June 13, 2002, we listed the 

Altamaha spinymussel in the Federal 

Register (67 FR 40657) as a candidate 

species with a listing priority number 

(LPN) of 5. Candidate species are 

assigned LPNs based on immediacy and 

the magnitude of threat, as well as their 

taxonomic status. The lower the LPN, 

the higher priority that species is for us 

to determine appropriate action using 

our available resources. In our Notices 

of Review dated May 4, 2004 (69 FR 

24876), and May 11, 2005 (70 FR 

24870), we determined that publication 

of a proposed rule to list the species was 

precluded by our work on higher 

priority listing actions and retained a 

LPN of 5 for this species, in accordance 

with our priority guidance published on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). 

On September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53755), 

we changed the species’ LPN from 5 to 

2. Recent data suggesting declines from 

surveys conducted in the early 1990s 

and information on a new threat from 

deadhead logging justified the change in 

LPN. An LPN of 2 reflects threats that 

are both imminent and high in 

magnitude, as well as the taxonomic 

classification of the Altamaha 

spinymussel as a full species. We have 

retained an LPN of 2 in subsequent 

Notices of Review (72 FR 69033, 

December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75175, 

December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57803, 

November 9, 2009). 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of this species, including the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species. 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of the 

species. 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities, including 

deadhead logging, in the areas occupied 

by the species and possible impacts of 

these activities on this species. 

(5) Which areas would be appropriate 

as critical habitat for the species. 

(6) The reasons why areas should or 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

(7) Comments or information that may 

assist us in identifying or clarifying the 

primary constituent elements. 

(8) Specific information on 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Altamaha spinymussel habitat, 

(b) What areas occupied at the time of 

listing (i.e., currently occupied) and that 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of the species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection we should 

include in the designation and why, and 

(c) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(9) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, in 

particular, any impacts to small entities, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(10) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing as critical habitat should be 

considered for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether benefits 

of potentially excluding any specific 

area outweigh the benefits of including 

that area under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

(11) Information on any quantifiable 

economic costs of the proposed 

designation. 

(12) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on the Altamaha spinymussel, 

and any special management needs or 

protections that may be needed in 

critical habitat areas we are proposing. 

(13) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If your written 

comments provide personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Georgia Ecological Services 

Office, Athens, Georgia (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Species Description 

The Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio 

spinosa) is a freshwater mussel, in the 

family Unionidae, endemic to the 

Altamaha River drainage of southeastern 

Georgia. The Altamaha River is formed 

by the confluence of the Ocmulgee and 

Oconee rivers and lies entirely within 

the State of Georgia. The species was 

described by I. Lea in 1836 from a site 

near the mouth of the Altamaha River in 

Darien, Georgia (Johnson 1970, p. 303). 

This species reaches a shell length of 

approximately 11.0 centimeters (cm) 

(4.3 inches (in)). The shell is 

subrhomboidal or subtriangular in 

outline and moderately inflated. As the 

name implies, the shells of these 

animals are adorned with one to five 

prominent spines. These spines may by 

straight or crooked, reach lengths from 

1.0 to 2.5 cm (0.39 to 0.98 in), and are 

arranged in a single row that is 

somewhat parallel to the posterior ridge. 

In young specimens, the outside layer or 

covering of the shell (periostracum) is 

greenish-yellow with faint greenish 

rays, but as the animals get older, they 

typically become a deep brown, 

although some raying may still be 

evident in older individuals. The 

interior layer of the shell (nacre) is pink 

or purplish (Johnson 1970, p. 303). 

Life History and Habitat 

Adult freshwater mussels are filterfeeders, siphoning phytoplankton, 

diatoms, and other microorganisms from 

the water column. For the first several 

months, juvenile mussels employ pedal 

(foot) feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, 

and detritus from the sediment (Yeager 

et al. 1994, pp. 217–221; Wisniewski 

2008, pers. comm.). 

Although the life history of the 

Altamaha spinymussel has not been 

studied, the life histories of other 

mussels in the Elliptio genus have been. 

Fertilization takes place internally, 

resulting in the release of parasitic 

larvae, termed glochidia. To ensure 

survival, glochidia must come into 

contact with a specific host fish(es) to 

develop into juvenile mussels. Other 

mussels in the genus Elliptio attract host 

fishes with visual cues, luring fish into 

perceiving that their glochidia are prey 

items (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

2004, p. 4). This reproductive strategy 

depends on clear water during the time 

of the year when mussels release their 

glochidia (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, 

p. 375). The Altamaha spinymussel is 

thought to reproduce in late spring and 

ready to release glochidia by May or 

June (Johnson 2009, p. 2). The host fish 

of the Altamaha spinymussel is 

currently unknown. Furthermore, 

juvenile age classes of other mussels are 

commonly found during surveys; 

however, no spinymussel recruitment 

has been evident in surveys conducted 

since 1990 (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.; 

Wisniewski 2008, pers. comm.). 

Research to develop a better 

understanding of the natural history and 

the reasons for a lack of recruitment in 

the species is continuing. 

This spinymussel is known only from 

Georgia in Glynn, Ben Hill, McIntosh, 

Telfair, Tattnall, Long, Montgomery, 

Toombs, Wheeler, Appling, Jeff Davis, 

Coffee, and Wayne Counties. This 

spinymussel is considered a ‘‘big river’’ 

species; is associated with stable, coarse 

to fine sandy sediments of sandbars, 

sloughs, and mid-channel islands; and 

appears to be restricted to swiftly 

flowing water (Sickel 1980, p. 12). 

Johnson (1970, p. 303) reported 

Altamaha spinymussels buried 

approximately 5.1 to 10.2 cm (2.0 to 4.0 

in) below the substrate surface. 

Species Distribution and Status 

The historical range of the Altamaha 

spinymussel was restricted to the 

Coastal Plain portion of the Altamaha 

River and the lower portions of its three 

major tributaries, the Ohoopee, 

Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers (Johnson 

1970, p. 303; Keferl 2001, pers. comm.). 

Large-scale, targeted surveys for the 

mussel have been conducted since the 

1960s (Keferl 1993, p. 299). Recent 

surveys have revealed a dramatic 

decline in recruitment, the number of 

populations, and number of individuals 

within populations throughout the 

species’ historic range. 

Ohoopee River 

In a survey of the Ohoopee River, 

Keferl (1981, pp. 12–14) found at least 

30 live specimens of the Altamaha 

spinymussel at seven of eight collection 

sites, in thinly scattered beds, in the 

lower 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles(mi)) of 

the river. By the early 1990s, however, 

only two live specimens were found at 

the same sites (Keferl 1995, pp. 3–6; 

Keferl 2008 pers. comm.; Wisniewski 

2006, pers. comm.). Stringfellow and 

Gagnon (2001, pp. 1–2) resurveyed these 

sites using techniques similar to those 

used by Keferl (1981, p. 12), but they 

did not find any live Altamaha 

spinymussels in the Ohoopee River. 

Therefore, it is currently either 

extirpated from the system or present in 

such low numbers that it is 

undetectable. 

Ocmulgee River 

The Altamaha spinymussel is known 

from the Ocmulgee River from its 

confluence with the Oconee River 

upstream to Red Bluff in Ben Hill 

County. Early collecting efforts in the 

Ocmulgee River near Lumber City 

yielded many live Altamaha 

spinymussels. In 1962, Athearn made a 

single collection of 40 live spinymussels 

downstream of U.S. Highway 341 near 

Lumber City (Johnson et al. 2008, 

Athearn database). Researchers 

collected 19 and 21 live individuals, 

respectively, during two surveys at Red 

Bluff (Thomas and Scott 1965, p. 67). In 

1986, Stansbery collected 11 live 

individuals at the U.S. Highway 441 

Bridge near Jacksonville, Georgia 

(Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.). 

The lower Ocmulgee River was 

surveyed by Keferl in the mid 1990s, 

during 2000–2001 (Cammack et al. 

2001, p. 11; O’Brien 2002, p. 2), and in 

2004 (Dinkins 2004, pp. 1-1 and 2-1). 

Over 90 sites have been surveyed since 

1993, many of which were repeatedly 

surveyed, resulting in a total of 19 live 

Altamaha spinymussels detected at 10 

sites, distributed from Jacksonville 

downstream to the Oconee River 

confluence. 

Oconee River 

There are few historical records of 

Altamaha spinymussels from the 

Oconee River. Athearn collected 18 

spinymussels, including 5 juveniles, at 

a site in Montgomery County near 

Glenwood in the late 1960s (Johnson 

2008, Athearn database). The species 

has not been collected there since and 

is probably extirpated from the Oconee 

River system (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). 

In 1995, as part of a dam relicensing 

study, 41 sites between Lake Sinclair 

and Dublin were surveyed (EA 

Engineering 1995, pp. 1-1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2, 

and 4-3). One hundred forty-four hours 

of search time yielded 118 live mussels, 

but no Altamaha spinymussels. 

Compared to the other portions of its 

range, the Oconee River has not been 

extensively surveyed, in part because 

the entire mussel fauna of this river 

appears to be sparse. 

Altamaha River 

Most surveys for Altamaha 

spinymussels have been conducted in 

the Altamaha River. Although 

methodological differences preclude 

accurate comparison of mussel 

abundances over time, there is evidence 

that historically higher abundances of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61667 

Altamaha spinymussels occurred in the 

Altamaha River. Early surveys at the 

U.S. Route 301 crossing documented 20 

individuals in 1963, 7 in 1965, and 43 

in 1970. Sickel sampled seven sites 

downstream of the U.S. 1 bridge in 

1967. Sixty spinymussels were collected 

in one 500-square meters (m2) (5382- 

square feet (ft2)) site and an additional 

21 spinymussels were collected in a 

400-m2 (4306-ft2) (Sickel 1967, p. 11; 

Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.) site. 

One site had five live spinymussels, two 

sites had one each, and two sites had no 

Altamaha spinymussels. 

From 1993 to 1996, Keferl surveyed 

164 sites on the mainstem of the 

Altamaha River between the Ocmulgee– 

Oconee River confluence and the 

Interstate 95 crossing near the river’s 

mouth. A total of 63 live Altamaha 

spinymussels were collected from 18 of 

these sites, located between the Oconee 

River and U.S. Route 301; however, no 

Altamaha spinymussels were collected 

below U.S. Route 301, suggesting 

absence or extreme rarity in the reach 

between U.S. Route 301 and the river’s 

mouth (approximately 73 km (45 mi)). 

In addition, 10 of these sites were 

clustered within a 4-km (2-mi) reach 

upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing 

near Jesup; the remaining eight sites 

were isolated by long distances of 

habitat with no or sub-detectable 

numbers of live spinymussels. 

O’Brien (2002, pp. 3–4) surveyed 30 

sites on the Altamaha River from the 

confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee 

Rivers downstream to U.S. Route 301 

during 2001, including the 18 known 

Altamaha spinymussel sites, reported by 

Keferl, within the reach. She collected 

a total of six live individuals from five 

different sites and freshly dead shells 

from two additional sites. 

In 2003 and 2004, 25 sites were 

surveyed to collect specimens for hostfish trials (Albanese 2005, pers. comm.). 

Live Altamaha spinymussels were 

detected at only four sites. Five of the 

seven sites documented by O’Brien and 

all four sites documented during the 

host-fish surveys were clustered within 

a short reach of the Altamaha River just 

upstream of the U.S. Route 301 crossing 

near Jesup, Georgia. 

To summarize, researchers were able 

to find 60 Altamaha spinymussels at a 

single site on the Altamaha River in 

1967; in contrast, the largest number of 

Altamaha spinymussels observed from a 

single site on the Altamaha River during 

the 1990s or 2000s was nine (Albanese 

2005, pers. comm.). 

Summary of Basin-wide Population 

Estimates 

In 1994, researchers spent 128 searchhours throughout the Altamaha Basin to 

find 41 spinymussels (Keferl 1995, p. 3). 

From 1997 through 2006, researchers 

searched 233 sites throughout the basin 

to document 34 spinymussels in more 

than 550 hours of searching 

(Wisniewski 2006, pers. comm.); from 

2007 to 2009, only 23 spinymussels 

were found from more than 110 sites 

(Wisniewski 2009, pers. comm.). In 

summary, the Altamaha spinymussel is 

considered extirpated from two rivers in 

its historical range, the Ohoopee (15 km 

(9 mi)) and Oconee Rivers (45 km (28 

mi)), as well as the lower 73 km (45 mi) 

of the Altamaha River (Table 1). Since 

1997, despite extensive survey efforts 

made by several different researchers, 

only 57 spinymussels have been 

observed from 7 sites in the Ocmulgee 

(110 km (68 mi)) and 15 sites in the 

upper Altamaha (116 km (72 mi)) 

combined, and while individual 

spinymussels have been found scattered 

throughout this stretch of river, most of 

these sites have been clustered in the 10 

km (6 mi) immediately north of the U.S. 

Route 301 crossing. 

TABLE 1. Decline in range of the Altamaha spinymussel. 

River Reach Historically Occupied 

(linear km/mi) Current habitat 

Percent of 

range 

decline 

Ohoopee 15km/9mi Not seen since 1997 4% 

Oconee 45km/28mi Not seen since 1968 12.5% 

Ocmulgee 110km/68.3mi Widely scattered 0 

Upper Altamaha 116km/72mi Widely scattered individuals 0 

Lower Altamaha 73km/45mi Not seen since 1970 20% 

Total 359km/222 mi 226km/140 mi 36.5% 

Using GDNR’s database, which 

included many of the surveys 

mentioned above, Wisniewski et al. 

(2005, p. 2) conducted a test for a 

temporal change in sites occupied in the 

Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers between 

the early 1990s and the early 2000s. 

Live Altamaha spinymussels were 

detected at 24 of 241 sites (10 percent) 

sampled before 2000 and at 14 of 120 

sites (12 percent) sampled after 2000. 

Although the percentage of sites 

occupied is not indicative of a decline, 

an analysis of 39 sites sampled during 

both time periods, of which the 

spinymussel was initially present in 13 

of the 39 sites, indicated that the 

spinymussel was lost from significantly 

more sites (11 sites) than it colonized (3 

sites) between the early 1990s and early 

2000s (Wisniewski et al. 2005, p. 2). 

This test is imprecise because the failure 

to detect Altamaha spinymussels when 

present could result in both false 

colonizations (species missed during 

early surveys but detected in recent 

survey) and false extirpations (species 

detected during early survey but missed 

during recent survey). Thus, although 

the exact number of extirpations and 

colonizations between the two time 

periods may not be accurate, the much 

higher number of extirpations is 

suggestive of a decline over this time 

period. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors 

are: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Bogan (1993, pp. 599–600 and 603– 

605) linked the decline and extinction 

of bivalves to a wide variety of threats 

including siltation, industrial pollution, 

municipal effluents, modification of 

stream channels, impoundments, 

pesticides, heavy metals, invasive 

species, and the loss of host fish. The 

Altamaha spinymussel lives within a 

large river drainage exposed to a variety 

of landscape uses. Habitat and water 

quality for the Altamaha spinymussel 

face degradation from a number of 

sources. Primary among these are 

threats from sedimentation and 

contaminants within the streams that 

the spinymussel inhabits. 

Sickel (1980, p. 12) characterized the 

habitat of the Altamaha spinymussel as 

course to fine grain sandbars and 

suggested that this may make the 

Altamaha spinymussel susceptible to 

adverse effects from sediment (siltation). 

Sediments deposited on the stable 

sandbars required by the Altamaha 

spinymussel could make sandbars 

unstable, suffocate Altamaha 

spinymussels, or simply change the 

texture of the substrate, making them 

unsuitable for the species. 

Sedimentation, including siltation from 

surface runoff, has been implicated as a 

factor in water quality impairment in 

the United States and has contributed to 

the decline of mussel populations in 

streams throughout the country (Ellis 

1936, pp. 39–41; Coon et al. 1977, p. 

284; Marking and Bills 1979, pp. 209– 

210; Wilber 1983, pp. 25–57; Dennis 

1984, pp. 207–212; Aldridge et al. 1987, 

pp. 25–26; Schuster et al. 1989, p. 84; 

Wolcott and Neves 1991, pp. 1–6; Houp 

1993, p. 96; Bogan 1993, pp. 603–605; 

Waters 1995, pp. 53–77; Richter et al. 

1997, p. 1084). 

Specific impacts on mussels from 

sediments include reduced feeding and 

respiratory efficiency, disrupted 

metabolic processes, reduced growth 

rates, increased substrata instability, 

and the physical smothering of mussels 

(Ellis 1936, pp. 39–41; Stansbery 1970, 

p. 10; Markings and Bills 1979, pp. 209– 

210; Kat 1982, p. 124; Aldridge et al. 

1987, pp. 25–26; Hartfield and Hartfield 

1996, p. 375; Brim Box and Mossa 1999, 

pp. 99–102; TNC 2004, p. 4). Many 

southeastern streams have increased 

turbidity levels due to siltation (van der 

Schalie 1938, p. 56). Since turbidity is 

a limiting factor that impedes the ability 

of sight-feeding fishes to forage 

(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991, pp. 324– 

325), turbidity within the Altamaha 

River basin during the times that 

Altamaha spinymussels attempt to 

attract host fishes may have contributed 

and may continue to contribute to the 

decline of the spinymussel by reducing 

its efficiency at attracting the fish hosts 

necessary for reproduction. In addition, 

sediment can eliminate or reduce the 

recruitment of juvenile mussels (Brim 

Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 101–102), 

interfere with feeding activity (Dennis 

1984, pp. 207–212), and act as a vector 

in delivering contaminants to streams 

(Salomons et al. 1987, p. 28). 

From 1700 to 1970, agriculture 

practices in the Southern Piedmont 

physiographic province resulted in 

extreme soil erosion, removing more 

than 17.8 cm (7 in.) of soil across the 

landscape (Trimble 1974, p. 1). The 

Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers 

all drain through the Piedmont and 

were directly affected by the sediment. 

In 1938, van der Schalie (p. 56) reported 

the Altamaha River to be a yellow color 

due to the large amount of suspended 

silt originating from intensive farming 

and road construction occurring in the 

headwaters. The sediment from this 

practice has moved into stream 

channels and valleys and has covered 

most of the original bottomlands 

(Trimble 1974, p. 26). As a result, 

stream profiles have been dramatically 

altered with unstable sediment deposits 

being dissected and streams being 

incised with entrained sediment 

migrating downstream to be deposited 

in stream channels and floodplains 

(Trimble 1974, pp. 116–121). GDNR, 

Environmental Protection Division (EPD 

2007, p. iii) reported to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

that approximately 74.9 percent of the 

average sediment load in the Altamaha 

River Basin resulted from row crops and 

that it contributed an average sediment 

load of 1.07 tons per acre per year. EPD 

concluded that this sediment is 

probably a legacy of past land use. 

Although it is the historical, 

anthropogenic land use that created the 

sediment, the volume of sediment still 

migrating through the Altamaha River 

Basin is a significant threat to the 

spinymussel. 

Studies of fish population were 

conducted in 2000 by the GDNR 

Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) in 

the Altamaha River Basin. The Index of 

Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index 

of Well-Being (IWB) were used by WRD 

to identify impaired fish populations. 

Using the IBI and IWB values to classify 

the populations as Excellent, Good, Fair, 

Poor, or Very Poor, stream segments 

with fish populations rated as Poor or 

Very Poor were listed as Biota Impacted. 

A lack of fish habitat due to stream 

sedimentation was generally the cause 

of a low IBI score. 

Five Mile Creek (14.5 km/9 mi), 

Bullard Creek (12.8 km/8 mi), and Jacks 

Creek (14.5 km/9 mi) were rated as Very 

Poor and placed on the State of 

Georgia’s 303(d) list of impaired waters 

due to a significant impact on fish (EPD 

2007a, pp. 1-2). These three streams 

eventually feed into the mainstem of the 

Altamaha River via larger channels. As 

this sediment moves through the basin, 

habitat is periodically buried. WRD 

recommends that there be no net 

increase in sediment delivered to the 

impaired stream segments so that these 

streams will recover over time (EPD 

2007a, p. 26). Agriculture and roads 

were the major sources of sediment with 

silviculture, mining sites, grazing, and 

urban development also contributing 

nonpoint sources of sediment (EPD 

2007a, p. 9). Agriculture, including row 

crops, poultry farms, and pastures, 

constitute 15.5 percent of the land cover 

in the Piedmont and 32.7 percent of the 

land cover in the Coastal Plain (GDNR 

2005, pp. 97 and 132). 

In addition to agriculture, there are 

numerous sources of sediment within 

the Altamaha River Basin, including 

silviculture, unpaved roads, kaolin 

mines, and construction sites. A threat 

assessment conducted by TNC (2004, p. 

9) listed sediment from urban, 

industrial, and nonpoint sources (NPSs) 

as a threat to the spinymussel. EPD 

(2007, p. v) reported that while 

historical row crop-based land use 

contributes the majority of sediment in 

the Altamaha River (75 percent) that 

among other sources, approximately 

17.3 percent of the total sediment load 

is from roads; 4.3 percent from grasses 

and wetlands; 1.5 percent from urban 

lands; and 1.0 percent from quarries, 

strip mines, and gravel pits. In addition, 

estimates of the contribution from 

construction could not be obtained, but 

could represent a comparatively high 

sediment load on a per acre basis (EPD 

2007, p. v). 

Industrial forest management is 

practiced on approximately 8,000 

hectares (40,000 acres) or 33 percent of 

the floodplain of the Altamaha River 

(TNC 1997, p. 19). Typical forest 

management regimes in the Altamaha 

River Basin use timber harvest methods 

and conduct other activities that result 

in ground disturbances. These ground 

disturbances can result in transport of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61669 

sediment to streams during and after 

precipitation events. In addition, forest 

management operations often require 

miles of unpaved roads to extract timber 

and to provide access for management 

activities. The majority of sediment 

from forestry occurs from roads and site 

preparation activities (EPD 2007a, p. 

11). These roads, in conjunction with 

existing unpaved county roads that are 

prevalent throughout the Altamaha 

River Basin, contribute to sediment 

loading in streams after precipitation 

events. Through an agreement with 

EPD, the Georgia Forestry Commission 

(GFC) is responsible for implementing 

the use of Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediment 

from activities related to forestry such as 

timber harvest, haul road construction, 

stream crossings, stream side 

management zones, site preparation and 

reforestation. However, the Erosion and 

Sediment Control Act (O.C.G.A. 12-7-1) 

exempts commercial forestry activities 

from the need to acquire permits and 

meet the minimum requirements of that 

act (Georgia’s BMPs for Forestry 2009, p. 

64). Therefore, compliance with BMPs 

is voluntary and is dependent on 

education about BMPs to reduce 

sediment from reaching the Altamaha 

River (EPD 2007a, p. 28). 

Furthermore, a number of kaolin 

mines are located along the Fall Line, a 

geologic land form that separates the 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain 

physiographic provinces, within the 

Oconee and Ocmulgee river basins. The 

operation of these mines and their 

supporting infrastructure, including 

haul roads and settling ponds, have the 

potential to increase downstream 

sediment loads if adequate erosion 

control measures are not maintained to 

stabilize areas subjected to miningassociated ground disturbances (Lasier 

2004, p. 139). 

In addition, sediment can act as a 

vector in delivering contaminants (such 

as heavy metals, ammonia, chlorine, 

numerous organic compounds) to 

streams (Salomons et al. 1987, p. 28; 

TNC 2004, pp. 9). Because spinymussels 

are filter-feeders and bury themselves in 

the substrate, they are exposed to metals 

dissolved in water, contained within 

suspended particles, and deposited in 

bottom substrates (Naimo 1995, p. 341). 

Contaminants contained in point and 

nonpoint discharges can degrade water 

and substrate quality and adversely 

impact, if not destroy, mussel 

populations (Horne and McIntosh 1979, 

pp. 127–132; McCann and Neves 1992, 

pp. 80–87; Havlik and Marking 1987, p. 

14). 

Contaminants associated with 

industrial and municipal effluents may 

cause decreased oxygen, increased 

acidity, and other water chemistry 

changes that may be lethal to mussels, 

particularly during the highly sensitive 

early life stages (Sheehan et al. 1989, pp. 

139–140; Keller and Zam 1991, pp. 541– 

543; Bogan 1993, pp. 603–604; 

Goudreau et al. 1993, pp. 216–227; TNC 

2004, pp. 8–9). Exposure to sublethal 

levels of toxic metals can alter growth, 

filtration efficiency, enzyme activity, 

and behavior (Naimo 1995, pp. 341, 

354). In laboratory experiments, mussels 

suffered mortality when exposed to 2.0 

parts per million (ppm) cadmium, 5.0 

ppm ammonia, 12.4 ppm chromium, 16 

ppm arsenic trioxide, 19 ppm copper, 

and 66 ppm zinc; however, effects 

depend upon the length of exposure and 

mussel life stage (Havlik and Marking 

1987, p. 1). The adults of certain species 

may tolerate short-term exposure (Keller 

1993, p. 701), but low levels of some 

metals may inhibit glochidial 

attachment in others (Huebner and 

Pynn ̈ onen 1992, p. 2353; Jacobson et al. 

1993, pp. 881–882). Mussel recruitment 

may be reduced in habitats with low but 

chronic heavy metal and other toxicant 

inputs (Yeager et al. 1994, p. 217; Naimo 

1995, pp. 347 and 351–352; Ahlstedt 

and Tuberville 1997, p. 75). Researchers 

found that several heavy metals were 

found to have toxic effects at different 

levels and duration of exposure; 

however, no toxicity studies have been 

conducted specifically on the Altamaha 

spinymussel (Havlik and Marking 1987, 

p. 3; Naimo 1995, p. 341; Keller and 

Lydy 1997, p. 4). Furthermore, 

differences between laboratory and field 

conditions make it difficult to predict 

how contaminants affect wild 

populations (Wisniewski 2008, pers. 

comm.). 

From 2000 to 2008, many stream 

segments in the Altamaha Basin have 

been listed on the State’s 303(d) list of 

impaired waters for a variety of reasons. 

Once a stream segment is listed as 

impaired, the State must complete a 

plan to address the issue causing the 

impairment; this plan is call a Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

Completion of the plan is generally all 

that is required to remove the stream 

segment from the 303(d) list and does 

not mean that water quality has 

changed. Once the TMDL is completed, 

the stream segment may be placed on 

the 305(b) list of impaired streams with 

a completed TMDL. Many of these 

stream segments have appeared 

repeatedly on the 303(d) list. The 

Ohoopee River and Little Ohoopee River 

have been listed on nearly every report 

for almost every violation. Other stream 

segments that have repeatedly showed 

up on the 303(d) list from 2000 until 

2008 include Big Cedar Creek, Doctors 

Creek, Jacks Creek, Milligan Creek, 

Oconee Creek, Pendleton Creek, Rocky 

Creek, Sardis Creek, Swift Creek, Tiger 

Creek, and Yam Gandy Creek. This 

demonstrates a chronic threat, from 

multiple sources of pollution, scattered 

across the basin. 

In 2000, the Altamaha River was 

listed on the 303(d) list of impaired 

waters due to excessive mercury levels 

in fish tissue. In 2002, the EPA Region 

4 established a TMDL for mercury levels 

for the Altamaha River from its 

confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee 

Rivers to Penholoway Creek (149.5 km/ 

92.9 mi) including Appling, Jeff Davis, 

Long, Tattnall, Tombs, and Wayne 

Counties. This river segment is entirely 

within the current or historic range of 

the spinymussel with four National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permitted facilities, including: 

• Rayonier Inc.-Jesup (67 million gallons 

per day (MGD)); 

• Plant Hatch (43.4 MGD); 

• Jesup Water Pollution Control Plant 

(WPCP) (2.5 MGD); and 

• Glennville WPCP (0.88 MGD) (EPA 

2002a, pp. 1-5). 

This 149.5 km (92.9 mi) segment of 

the Altamaha River, from the confluence 

of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to 

Penholloway Creek, was removed from 

the 303(d) list in 2002; it is currently 

listed as a stream supporting its 

designated use (fishing). 

In 2000, EPD added 23 stream 

segments, totaling 411.9 km (256 mi), to 

the 303(d) list for not meeting dissolved 

oxygen standards (EPD 2002, p. 1). All 

of these segments are within tributaries 

to the Altamaha River within the range 

of the spinymussel. Between 2000– 

2001, there were nine NPDES permitted 

discharges with effluent limits for 

oxygen consuming substances identified 

in the Altamaha River Basin watershed 

above the 23 stream segments listed 

(EPD 2002, p. 11). Nonpoint source runoff from natural sources contributed 

oxygen-demanding pollutants (EPD 

2002, p. 12). Upon completion of a 

TMDL in 2002, these river segments 

were removed from the 303(d) list. 

In 2006, EPD listed 18 stream 

segments totaling 280 km (174 mi) as 

impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria 

in excess of water quality standards 

(EPD 2007c, pp. 1-2). All of these stream 

segments are tributaries to the Altamaha 

River within the current or historic 

range of the species. Between 2005– 

2006, there were 10 municipal 

wastewater treatment plants that 

discharged more than 0.1 MGD, along 

with four confined animal feed 

operations that were considered sources 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of fecal coliform. Nonpoint sources 

include wildlife, livestock grazing, 

livestock access to streams, application 

of manure to pastureland and cropland, 

leaking sanitary sewer lines, leaking 

septic systems, land application systems 

(6 in the basin), and landfills (43 in the 

basin) (EPD 2007c, pp. 10-16). Even 

after the completion of the TMDL, six of 

these stream segments remain on the 

303(d) list. 

In 2008, EPD listed 362 stream miles 

of tributaries to the Altamaha River to 

the 305(b)/303(d) list of impaired 

waters, and all of these stream segments 

have completed TMDLs (EPD 2008 pp 

A-130 - A134). The draft 2010 305(b)/ 

303(d) list of impaired waters for the 

Altamaha River included all of the 

stream segments from the 2008 list and 

added an additional 48 km (30 mi). 

These are all tributaries to the Altamaha 

or Ohoopee Rivers within the current or 

historic range of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. These stream segments are 

listed as impaired for a variety of 

reasons (e.g., dissolved oxygen, fecal 

coliform, and mercury levels within fish 

tissue). All of these river segments, such 

as the Ohoopee River (including the 

historic range of the spinymussel), have 

TMDLs but are still considered 

impaired. 

More than 161 km (100 mi) of the 

Ohoopee River and its tributaries were 

added to the 303(d) list in 2000 due to 

excessive mercury levels in fish tissue. 

The primary source of mercury is 

believed to be deposition of atmospheric 

mercury. During 1998–1999, there were 

seven municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities (EPA 2002b, pp. 1–3) and as 

many as 170 sources of air emissions in 

the watershed (EPA 2002b, p. 18). These 

sources of mercury impacted all of the 

extirpated range of the spinymussel on 

the Ohoopee River, which is a major 

tributary to the Altamaha River. A 

TMDL was established in 2002; 

however, based on additional 

information gathered since 2002, EPA 

will begin revising needed load 

reductions in 2011 (EPA 2002b, p. 2). 

These segments of the Ohoopee remain 

on the 303(d) list. 

In 2006, EPD added five stream 

segments, totaling 64.3 km (40 mi), 

within the Ohoopee drainage to the 

303(d) list for not meeting dissolved 

oxygen standards (EPD 2007b, p. 1). All 

of these segments are within the range 

of the spinymussel. During 2004–2005, 

there were eight NPDES permitted 

discharges with effluent limits for 

oxygen-consuming substances identified 

in the Altamaha River Basin watershed 

(EPD 2007b, p. 10). There were four 

animal feeding lots and six wastewater 

land application operations that were 

identified as sources of oxygendemanding nutrients. Nonpoint source 

run-off from forestry, row crop 

agriculture, pastureland, urban 

development, and natural sources also 

contribute oxygen-demanding 

pollutants (EPD 2007b, pp. 13–15). 

Upon completion of a TMDL in 2007, 

these five river segments were removed 

from the 303(d) list. 

In addition, there have been a number 

of recent illegal effluent discharges into 

the Ohoopee that could have impacted 

the Altamaha spinymussel. For 

instance, the wastewater treatment 

discharge from Rogers State Prison 

enters the Ohoopee River approximately 

10 km (6 mi) upstream of the largest 

historical population of Altamaha 

spinymussels known in the Ohoopee 

River. The Altamaha Riverkeeper 

reported fecal coliform discharges from 

the prison that exceeded the prison’s 

NPDES permit (Holland 2002, pers. 

comm.). 

There have also been a number of 

recent illegal effluent discharges into 

the Ocmulgee River that could have 

impacted the Altamaha spinymussel. In 

2001, a court found that Amercord Inc. 

had violated its NPDES permit multiple 

times at its Lumber City tire plant by 

discharging quantities of cyanide, 

copper, zinc, and lead into the 

Ocmulgee River in excess of permit 

limitations (Altamaha Riverkeeper v. 

Amercord, Inc., No. CV 300-042 (S.D. 

Ga) (Order on Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment, Mar. 15, 2001)). In 

a second case, following allegations of 

discharges into the Ocmulgee River 

from Lumber City’s waste treatment 

pond in excess of its NPDES permit, 

Lumber City agreed to implement 

several short- and long-term wastewater 

treatment improvements, which are 

expected to protect a population of 

Altamaha spinymussels (Altamaha 

Riverkeeper v. City of Lumber City, CV300-043 (S.D. Ga)). The Altamaha 

Riverkeeper, a watchdog group that 

works to maintain the quality of the 

Altamaha River system, also discovered 

that from July 1995 to April 2001, the 

City of Cochran’s waste treatment pond 

had discharged in violation of its 

NPDES permit (Altamaha Riverkeepers 

v. City of Cochran, No. CV-447-2) (M.D. 

Ga.). The City had been releasing ferric 

sulfate (used to treat fecal coliform) into 

Jordan Creek, a tributary of the 

Ocmulgee River approximately 80 km 

(50 mi) upstream of known populations 

of Altamaha spinymussels. 

Sediment loads in the Oconee River 

carry toxic loads of heavy metals 

presumably discharged from municipal 

wastewater treatment plants and kaolinmining settling ponds (Lasier 2004, pp. 

139–140,144–151). Wastewater 

treatment plants and kaolin mines often 

employ settling ponds to allow 

pollutants to settle and turbidity to 

decrease. Copper sulfate and aluminum 

sulfate are often used as algaecides, to 

reduce algae blooms, and as flocculants 

to force precipitation of turbid waters 

and, in water treatment processes, to 

improve the sedimentation or 

filterability of small particles. 

Lasier (2004, pp. 150-151) reported 

‘‘abnormally’’ high levels of chromium, 

copper, mercury, and zinc in the lower 

Oconee river that would indicate a 

‘‘significant’’ impact to the quality of 

sediment and pore water (the water in 

contact with the river bottom, and the 

water in which mussels reside). TNC 

(2004, p. 9) found water quality and 

sediment quality reflected ‘‘significant’’ 

inputs of pollution with concentrations 

of heavy metals (including cadmium, 

copper, chromium, lead, and zinc) at 

levels above regional and national 

concentrations. Shoults-Wilson (2008, 

pp. 86-92) sampled sites throughout the 

Altamaha River Basin to evaluate the 

presence of heavy metals in the water 

column and in the sediment and 

compared the bioaccumulation of heavy 

metals by Asian clams to E. 

hopetonensis (an Altamaha River 

endemic). Sampling of sites upstream 

and downstream of potential point 

sources of heavy metals demonstrated 

‘‘significantly’’ elevated bioaccumulation 

of cadmium, copper, and mercury below 

inputs from kaolin processing, as well 

as elevated zinc and chromium below 

Plant Hatch, the Rayonier pulp mill in 

Jesup, Georgia, and the Amercord tire 

facility. Mussels in the Altamaha River 

basin may accumulate trace elements 

from the fine fraction of sediment as 

well as the water column. 

The cumulative effects of effluent 

from wastewater treatment plants and 

kaolin mines on Altamaha spinymussel 

habitat have not been quantified; 

however, mussels appear to be among 

the most intolerant organisms to heavy 

metals (Keller and Zam 1991, p. 545), 

and several heavy metals are lethal, 

even at relatively low levels (Havlik and 

Marking 1987, p. 3). Most metals are 

persistent in the environment, 

remaining available for uptake, 

transportation, and transformation by 

organisms until they are removed from 

the river (Hoover 1978, pp. 28–38; 

Lasier 2004, p. 140) through processes 

such as washing out to sea, leaching 

through the soil, or being taken up by 

an organism that is then removed from 

the river. 

In areas of heavy agricultural use in 

the Southeast, surface run-off can move 

pesticides, including malathion and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61671 

other insecticides, into surface water 

(McPherson et al. 2003, pp. 1–2). Stream 

ecosystems are negatively impacted 

when nutrients are added at 

concentrations that cannot be 

assimilated (TNC 2004, p. 7). The effects 

of pesticides on mussels may be 

particularly profound, potentially 

altering metabolic activities or resulting 

in delayed mortality (Fuller 1974, pp. 

252–253; Havlik and Marking 1987, pp. 

9–11; Moulton et al. 1996, pp. 132–136); 

commonly used pesticides have been 

directly implicated in a North Carolina 

mussel die-off (Fleming et al. 1995, pp. 

877–879). The Oconee, Ocmulgee, and 

Ohoopee River systems contain 

significant acreage in cotton and onion 

farming. Malathion, one of the most 

important pesticides used in cotton 

farming, inhibits physiological activities 

of mussels (Kabeer et al. 1979, pp. 71– 

72) and may decrease the ability of 

mussels to respire and obtain food. 

Some studies have shown that 

malathion is slightly toxic to some very 

pollution-intolerant juvenile mussels 

(Lampsilis straminea claibornensis) at 

minimum concentrations of 22,000 

ppm. Elliptio icterina had slight 

problems with minimum concentrations 

of 30,000 ppm with 96–hour exposure 

periods. 

The operations of the Edwin I. Hatch 

Nuclear Power Plant (Plant Hatch), 

located on the Altamaha River in 

Appling County, may pose a threat to 

the Altamaha spinymussel. On 

September 14, 2001, the Service 

received Joint Public Notice 940003873 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), Savannah District, describing a 

project to expand and maintain Plant 

Hatch’s intake basin within the 

Altamaha River. Implementation of this 

permit authorized annual dredging of 

the plant intake basin and authorized 

removing 33,965 cubic meters (44,424 

cubic yards) of material biannually from 

the intake basin. While the amount of 

material removed annually is generally 

far less than the amount permitted 

(Dodd 2008, pers. comm.), annual 

dredging could negatively impact the 

Altamaha spinymussel by decreasing 

channel stability (creating a potential 

head cut), altering sediment transport 

dynamics, increasing sedimentation and 

turbidity downstream during dredging 

operations, and decreasing habitat 

quality for host fishes. It is unknown 

how far downstream these impacts 

extend. 

Impacts to aquatic fauna through 

entrainment of potential host fishes and 

thermal discharges may also occur. 

Plant Hatch takes in water to create 

steam, and then uses the steam to 

generate electricity. Following a cooling 

process, the water is returned to the 

river, and although it has been cooled, 

the water temperature is warmer than 

the ambient temperature of the river. 

Plant Hatch has made substantial efforts 

to reduce thermal discharges through 

the construction of cooling towers that 

have significantly reduced the thermal 

plume. However, thermal discharges 

could still negatively impact the 

Altamaha spinymussel from heat stress; 

higher water temperatures can increase 

the sensitivity of mussels to certain 

pollutants (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 

2574). These effects would be 

exacerbated during years of low rainfall, 

when less water would be available to 

dissipate the heat of the Plant Hatch 

effluent. Plant Hatch also monitors fish 

entrainment, so if the host fish of the 

spinymussel was known, management 

efforts could be made to reduce the 

potential of this impact. 

In summary, the loss and 

modification of habitat is a significant 

threat to the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Degradation from sedimentation and 

contaminants threatens the habitat and 

water quality necessary to support the 

Altamaha spinymussel. Sediment from 

unpaved roads, kaolin mines, past and 

current agriculture practices, 

silviculture, and construction sites 

within the Altamaha River basin can 

suffocate Altamaha spinymussels and 

make stable sandbars required by 

Altamaha spinymussels unstable or 

change the texture of the substrate, 

rendering them unsuitable for the 

species. Contaminants associated with 

industrial and municipal effluents (e.g., 

heavy metals, ammonia, chlorine, 

numerous organic compounds) may 

cause decreased oxygen, increased 

acidity, and other water chemistry 

changes that are lethal to mussels, 

particularly the highly sensitive early 

life stages of mussels; exposure to 

sublethal levels of toxic metals can alter 

growth, filtration efficiency, enzyme 

activity, and behavior. As a result we 

have determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Altamaha 

spinymussel’s habitat or range are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Altamaha spinymussel throughout its 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The Altamaha spinymussel is not a 

commercially valuable species, nor are 

the streams that it inhabits subject to 

commercial mussel harvesting activities. 

However, this species has been actively 

sought for scientific and private 

collections (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.); 

such activity may increase if the species 

becomes more rare. Overcollection may 

have been a localized factor in the 

decline of this species, particularly in 

the Ohoopee River where a 1986 

collection consisted of at least 30 live 

individuals (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). 

Although the GDNR can regulate the 

number of mussels collected with a 

Scientific Collection Permit, the 

localized distribution and small size of 

known populations renders them 

extremely vulnerable to overzealous 

recreational or scientific collecting. 

However, we have no specific 

information indicating that 

overcollection is currently a threat or 

that overcollecting may occur in the 

future. 

Therefore, we find that overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes is not a threat 

to the Altamaha spinymussel at this 

time. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Diseases of freshwater mussels are 

poorly known, and we have no specific 

information indicating that disease 

occurs within Altamaha spinymussel 

populations or poses a threat. Juvenile 

and adult mussels are preyed upon by 

some invertebrate species (particularly 

as newly metamorphosed juveniles), 

parasites (for example, nematodes, 

trematodes, and mites), and a few 

vertebrate species (for example, otter, 

raccoon, and turtles). However, we have 

no evidence of any specific declines in 

the Altamaha spinymussel due to 

predation. 

In summary, diseases and predation 

of freshwater mussels remains largely 

unstudied and are not considered a 

threat to the Altamaha spinymussel. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Altamaha spinymussel is listed as 

a high priority species by the State of 

Georgia (GDNR 2005, p. 135) and has 

recently been listed as Endangered 

under Georgia’s Endangered Wildlife 

Act (EWA). Under the EWA, it is 

unlawful to intentionally harm, disturb 

or sell a protected animal, unless 

authorized, or to cause the destruction 

of habitat of protected animals on Stateowned lands. The EWA specifically 

states, however, that rules and 

regulations promulgated under the EWA 

shall not impede construction of any 

nature. Thus, protection under the EWA 

prevents unlawful capture or killing of 

the listed species, but does not prevent 

habitat changes that lead to population 

loss. 

Sources of nonpoint source pollution 

include timber clearcutting, clearing of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

riparian vegetation, urbanization, road 

construction, and other practices that 

allow sediment to enter streams (TNC 

2004, p. 13). Although BMPs for 

sediment and erosion control are often 

recommended or required by local 

ordinances for construction projects, 

compliance, monitoring, and 

enforcement of these recommendations 

are often poorly implemented. 

Furthermore, Georgia’s Erosion and 

Sediment Control Act exempts 

commercial forestry activities from the 

need to acquire permits and meet the 

minimum requirements of the Erosion 

and Sediment Control Act (Georgia’s 

BMPs for Forestry 2009, p. 64). 

Therefore, compliance with BMPs is 

voluntary and is dependent on 

education on proper implementation of 

BMPs to reduce sediment from reaching 

the Altamaha River (EPD 2007a, p. 28). 

Although historical row crop-based land 

use contributes the majority of sediment 

to the Altamaha River, other sources 

continue to contribute to the total 

sediment load (See discussion under 

Factor A). 

Point source discharges within the 

range of the Altamaha spinymussel have 

been reduced since the inception of the 

Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq.), but this may not provide 

adequate protection for filter-feeding 

organisms that can be impacted by 

extremely low levels of contaminants. 

Municipal wastewater plants continue 

to discharge large amounts of effluent 

and, in some circumstances, in excess of 

permitted levels (see discussion under 

Factor A). There is no specific 

information on the sensitivity of the 

Altamaha spinymussel to common 

industrial and municipal pollutants, 

and very little information on other 

freshwater mollusks. Current State and 

Federal regulations regarding pollutants 

are assumed to be protective of 

freshwater mollusks; however, this 

species may be more susceptible to 

some pollutants than test organisms 

commonly used in bioassays. For 

example, several recent studies have 

suggested that EPA’s criteria for 

ammonia may not be protective of 

freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al. 

2003, p. 2571; Newton et al. 2003, pp. 

2559–2560; Mummert et al. 2003, pp. 

2548–2552). In a review of the effects of 

eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and 

Muller (2004, p. 329) noted that 

stenoecious (narrowly tolerant) species 

disappear as waters become more 

eutrophic. They also refer to studies that 

associate increased levels of nitrate with 

the decline and absence of juvenile 

mussels (Patzner and Muller 2004, pp. 

330–333). Other studies have also 

suggested that early life stages of 

mussels are sensitive to inorganic 

chemicals such as chlorine, metals, and 

ammonia (Keller and Zam 1991, pp. 

543–545; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 221; 

Naimo 1995, pp. 354–355). Therefore, it 

appears that a lack of adequate research 

and data prevents existing regulations, 

such as the Clean Water Act 

(administered by the EPA and the 

Corps), from being fully utilized or 

effective. 

In summary, some regulations exist 

that protect the species and its habitat; 

however, these regulations enforced by 

the State provide little direct protection 

of Altamaha spinymussel and only if 

protection of the spinymussel will not 

inhibit economic development. 

Nonpoint source pollution is not 

regulated, and the Clean Water Act does 

not adequately protect the habitat from 

degradation caused by point source 

pollutants. As described under Factor A, 

there have been a number of recent 

illegal effluent discharges into the 

Altamaha River basin, in excess of 

permit limits, that may have impacted 

the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Furthermore, The Altamaha Riverkeeper 

has several pending investigations 

pertaining to illegal discharges; they are 

working with violators and pursuing 

legal settlements when necessary. Thus, 

existing regulations are not effective at 

protecting the spinymussel and its 

habitat from sedimentation and lethal 

contaminants. Therefore we find the 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the Altamaha spinymussel 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Withdrawal of surface water within 

the Altamaha Basin for thermoelectric 

power generation, public water 

supplies, commercial industrial uses, 

and agriculture has a dramatic effect on 

flow rates (TNC 2004, p. 8). No major 

dams are located on the Altamaha River 

system within the known historical 

range of the Altamaha spinymussel; 

however, the dams that form Sinclair 

Reservoir on the Oconee River and 

Jackson and Tobesofkee Reservoirs in 

the Ocmulgee River basin can influence 

downstream mussels and their 

populations through changes in flows 

that result from electrical power 

generation and water storage (TNC 2004, 

p. 6). Within the Altamaha River basin, 

1,149 MGD was withdrawn for 

thermoelectric power generation in 1990 

(Marella and Fanning 1990, pp. 14–17). 

Such removals can cause drastic flow 

reductions and alterations that may 

strand mussels on sandbars, resulting in 

mortality of individuals and harm to 

populations. Laurens County, Georgia, 

which includes the City of Dublin, 

withdrew 2.64 MGD for public water 

supplies, 12.79 MGD for commercial 

industrial use, and 5.57 MGD for 

agricultural uses in 1990 (Marella and 

Fanning 1990, p. 16) In 1990, the total 

amount of surface water withdrawn 

from the Altamaha River basin was 

1,315.88 MGD (Marella and Fanning 

1990, p. 61). As development pressures 

continue to grow, water withdrawals are 

expected to increase. 

Drought conditions were prevalent in 

Georgia between 1998 and 2002, and 

again in 2007 and 2008, which may 

have negatively affected the Altamaha 

spinymussel. Georgia averages 127 cm 

(50 in) of precipitation annually (U.S. 

Geological Survey 1986, p. 195; GDNR 

2005, p. 41) but received less than 102 

cm (40 in) of precipitation annually 

during recent droughts in 2000, 2002, 

and 2007 (Knaak and Joiner 2007, pp. 1- 

2). The Ohoopee River and many other 

streams in the basin suffered reduced 

flow rates, and the Ohoopee River was 

reported to have low water levels with 

an estimated average depth of 15 cm (6 

in) in the main channel during summer 

surveys (Stringfellow and Gagnon 2001, 

p. 3). Normally, mussels will bury 

themselves in the river bottom as a 

mechanism to survive a drought, but 

many mussels may have died from 

desiccation during this prolonged 

drought (Keferl 2008, pers. comm.). 

Although the effects of the drought on 

the Altamaha spinymussel have not 

been quantified, mussel declines as a 

direct result of drought have been 

documented ( Golladay et al. 2004, p. 

494; Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1165). 

Furthermore, there is a growing concern 

that climate change may lead to 

increased frequency of severe storms 

and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 

504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; 

Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). Reduction in 

local water supplies due to drought is 

also compounded by increased human 

demand and competition for surface and 

ground water resources for power 

production, irrigation, and consumption 

(Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504). 

In addition, low flow conditions 

provide access to the river margins and 

channels for all-terrain vehicles (ATV) 

and four-wheel drive vehicles (TNC 

2004, p. 12; Stringfellow and Gagnon 

2001, p. 3). During a survey in 2001, 

Stringfellow and Gagnon (2001, p. 3) 

observed heavy ATV and four-wheel 

drive vehicle traffic and high levels of 

erosion near bridges and homes. They 

encountered several groups of ATV 

users, 2 to 12 persons per group, riding 

in the river channel. Because water 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61673 

levels were so low, ATV use of the 

stream extended to all portions of the 

channel, including pools, runs, and 

dried sandbars. Observations on the 

Ohoopee River during low flow in 

October of 2006 revealed extensive ATV 

traffic that destroyed mussel beds 

(Rickard 2006, personal observation). 

These vehicles may directly crush 

mussels and may also destabilize stream 

banks and increase sedimentation rates, 

burying mussels or impairing feeding, 

respiration, metabolism, and 

reproductive success (Stringfellow and 

Gagnon 2001, p. 3). 

Nonindigenous species such as the 

flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) and 

the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) 

have been introduced to the Altamaha 

Basin and may be adversely affecting 

the Altamaha spinymussel. Flathead 

catfish are fast-growing fish that are 

dominant predators in river systems and 

are usually exclusively piscivorous in 

their adult stage (Bourret et al. 2008, p. 

413; Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867). Since 

its introduction outside its native range, 

the flathead catfish has altered the 

composition of native fish populations 

through predation (Bourett et al. 2008, 

p. 413; Sakaris et al. 2006, p. 867; Sea 

Grant, 2006, p. 2; Pine et al. 2005, p. 

902). Flatheads were introduced to the 

Altamaha Basin in the 1970s (USGS 

2009, unpaginated). Although the host 

fish or fishes of the Altamaha 

spinymussel have not been identified, 

in other native freshwater mussels, 

various centrachids (sunfish), ictalurids 

(catfish), and catostomids (suckers) have 

been identified as hosts of the larvae. 

Other species of mussels in the genus 

Elliptio are known to parasitize various 

species of Etheostoma and Percina 

(darters), and other stream-adapted fish 

species (Haag and Warren 2003, p. 80). 

Flatheads introduced in the Altamaha 

River eliminated bullhead catfish 

(Ameiurus sp.) and caused an 80 

percent decline in redbreast sunfish 

(Lepomis auritus) (Sea Grant 2006, p. 2); 

centrarchids and ictalurids were 

dominant prey items (Sakaris 2006, p. 

867). Other potential centrachid host 

fish such as the largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill (L. 

macrochirus) have all suffered 

population declines (Harrison 2001, 

pers. comm.), as well as the robust 

redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), and shad (Alosa 

sapidissima) (TNC 2004, p. 5). If one or 

more of these species is the host fish for 

the Altamaha spinymussel, the 

spinymussel’s breeding success and 

recruitment could be reduced (Keferl 

2001, pers. comm). 

Asian clams (Corbicula) were 

observed in the Altamaha River in 1971, 

and are believed to have been 

introduced in the Ocmulgee River in 

1968 or 1969 (Gardner 1976, p. 117). 

Surveys have found large numbers of 

Asian clams (Corbicula) in the Altamaha 

Basin for more than 25 years (Gardner 

et al. 1976, pp. 118–124; Stringfellow 

and Gagnon 2001, p. 2; O’Brien, pers. 

comm., 2001). The invasion of Corbicula 

in the Altamaha River has been 

accompanied by drastic declines in 

populations of native mussels (Gardner 

1976, p. 124). Asian clams may pose a 

direct threat to native species through 

competition for available resources 

(space, minerals, or food), resulting in a 

decline or local extinction of native 

mussels (Williams et al. 1993, p. 7; 

Bogan 1993, p. 605). 

The linear nature of the Altamaha 

spinymussel’s habitat, reduced range, 

and very small population size make 

this species vulnerable to random 

detrimental or catastrophic events. 

Small, isolated populations may 

experience decreased demographic 

viability (population birth and death 

rates, immigration and emigration rates, 

and sex ratios), increased susceptibility 

of extinction from stochastic 

environmental factors (e.g., weather 

events, disease), and an increased threat 

of extinction from genetic isolation and 

subsequent inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. Surviving populations of 

spinymussels are small, extremely 

localized, and vulnerable to habitat 

modification, toxic spills, progressive 

degradation from contaminants (see 

discussions under Factors A and D), and 

natural catastrophic changes to their 

habitats (for example, flood scour and 

drought). Low numbers of individuals 

may also increase inbreeding and 

reduce genetic diversity (Lynch 1996, 

pp. 493–494). 

In summary, a variety of natural and 

manmade factors currently threatens the 

Altamaha spinymussel. Withdrawal of 

surface water within the Altamaha 

Basin for thermoelectric power 

generation, public water supplies, 

commercial industrial uses, and 

agriculture can cause drastic flow 

reductions and alterations that may 

strand mussels on sandbars, resulting in 

mortality of individuals and harm to 

populations. Recurring drought and 

water withdrawal, combined with 

impacts of off-road vehicles, has 

reduced flows and destabilized stream 

banks required to support this mussel. 

Nonindigenous species, such as flathead 

catfish and the Asian clam, have 

potentially adversely impacted 

populations of the spinymussel’s host 

fish, thereby affecting recruitment, and 

may directly impact the spinymussel 

through competition for resources. 

Lastly, because the Altamaha 

spinymussel population is so small and 

isolated, any factor (i.e., habitat change 

or natural and manmade factors) that 

results in a decline in habitat or 

individuals may be problematic for the 

long-term recovery of this species. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

other natural and manmade factors are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Altamaha spinymussel throughout its 

range. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Altamaha 

spinymussel. Section 3 of the Act 

defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any 

species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ As 

described in detail above, the species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D), and other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence (Factor E). This 

species’ extremely low and isolated 

populations make it particularly 

susceptible to extinction at any time due 

to threats described under Factors A, D, 

and E. 

The Altamaha spinymussel has only 

been observed at 22 sites since 2000, 

despite extensive survey efforts made by 

several different researchers. Most of 

these sites are clustered geographically 

within short reaches of the lower 

Ocmulgee River and the Altamaha River 

upstream of U.S. Route 301, and there 

are long reaches with no or undetectable 

numbers of Altamaha spinymussels 

separating these groups of sites. Recent 

surveys of the Ohoopee River and the 

analysis presented by Wisniewski et al. 

(2005) suggest that the species may still 

be declining. Finally, the comparatively 

low numbers of Altamaha spinymussels 

collected during recent surveys of the 

Altamaha and Ocmulgee Rivers further 

suggests that this species has declined 

from historical levels. To summarize, 

researchers were able to find 60 

Altamaha spinymussels at a single site 

on the Altamaha River in 1967; in 

contrast, the largest number of Altamaha 

spinymussels observed from a single 

site on the Altamaha River during the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1990s or 2000s was nine (Albanese 

2005, pers. comm.). 

The remaining small spinymussel 

populations are threatened by a variety 

of factors that are expected to persist 

indefinitely and impact, or have the 

potential to impact, remaining 

spinymussel habitat. These factors 

include siltation, industrial pollution, 

municipal effluents, modification of 

stream channels, pesticides, heavy 

metals, invasive species, loss of host 

fish, water withdrawal, recurring 

drought, and loss of genetic viability. In 

addition, as described under Factor D, 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the Altamaha spinymussel 

and its habitat. We believe the 

remaining small, isolated populations of 

spinymussels are not large enough to be 

resilient against any of the above factors 

acting on the species itself or its habitat. 

Furthermore, we believe these threats, 

particularly the threats to populations 

resulting from habitat degradation, 

small population size, and drought, are 

current and are projected to continue 

into the future. If the present trends that 

negatively affect the species and its 

limited and restricted habitat continue, 

the Altamaha spinymussel is in 

immediate danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we propose to list the 

Altamaha spinymussel as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. Furthermore, because we find 

that the Altamaha spinymussel is 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

there is no reason to consider its status 

in a significant portion of its range. 

Consequently, we are proposing to list 

the Altamaha spinymussel as an 

endangered species under the Act. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

non-Federal landowners. Where a 

landowner seeks or requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act would apply, but even in the event 

of a destruction or adverse modification 

finding, Federal action agency’s and the 

applicant’s obligation is not to restore or 

recover the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the physical 

and biological features (PBFs) essential 

for the conservation of the species). 

Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, we can designate critical habitat 

in areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed only when we determine that 

those areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species and that 

designation limited to those areas 

occupied at the time of listing would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

we should designate as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. In particular, we recognize that 

climate change may cause changes in 

the arrangement of occupied habitat 

river reaches. Climate change may lead 

to increased frequency and duration of 

severe storms and droughts (Golladay et 

al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, 

p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). 

Drought conditions in 2000–2001 and 

2007–2008 greatly reduced the habitat 

of the spinymussel in the Ohoopee 

River and rendered the populations 

vulnerable to anthropogenic 

disturbances, such as water extraction 

and vehicles within the riverbed (Keferl 

2008, pers. comm.; Stringfellow and 

Gagnon 2001, p. 3). 

The information currently available 

on the effects of global climate change 

and increasing temperatures does not 

make sufficiently precise estimates of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61675 

the location and magnitude of the 

effects. Nor are we currently aware of 

any climate change information specific 

to the habitat of the Altamaha 

spinymussel that would indicate what 

areas may become important to the 

species in the future. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine what additional 

areas, if any, may be appropriate to 

include in the proposed critical habitat 

for this species; however, we 

specifically request information from 

the public on the currently predicted 

effects of climate change on the 

Altamaha spinymussel and its habitat. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas we may 

eventually determine, based on 

scientific data not now available to the 

Service, that are necessary for the 

recovery of the species. For these 

reasons, a critical habitat designation 

does not signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. These 

areas are also subject to the regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined 

on the basis of the best available 

scientific information at the time of the 

agency action. Federally funded or 

permitted projects affecting listed 

species outside their designated critical 

habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 

findings in some cases. Similarly, 

critical habitat designations made on the 

basis of the best available information at 

the time of designation will not control 

the direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available to these planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12), require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, the 

Secretary designate critical habitat at the 

time the species is determined to be 

endangered or threatened. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent when one or both of the 

following situations exist: (1) The 

species is threatened by taking or other 

activity and the identification of critical 

habitat can be expected to increase the 

degree of threat to the species; or (2) the 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species. 

As we have discussed above under 

the Factor B analysis, there is currently 

no imminent threat of take attributed to 

collection or vandalism for this species. 

Moreover, we have no information to 

indicate that identification of critical 

habitat is expected to initiate such a 

threat to the species. Critical habitat 

designation identifies those physical 

and biological features of the habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

Altamaha spinymussel that may require 

special management and protection. 

Accordingly, this designation will 

provide information to individuals, 

local and State governments, and other 

entities engaged in activities or longrange planning in areas essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel and essential features of its 

habitat will require habitat management, 

protection, and restoration, which will 

be facilitated by knowledge of habitat 

locations and the physical and 

biological features of the habitat. Based 

on this information, we believe critical 

habitat would be beneficial to this 

species. Therefore, we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for the Altamaha spinymussel is 

prudent. 

We have reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the historical 

distribution of the Altamaha 

spinymussel, and the characteristics of 

the habitat in which it currently 

survives. This and other information 

represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available and lead us 

to conclude that we have sufficient 

information necessary to identify 

specific areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat. Therefore, we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat is determinable for the 

Altamaha spinymussel. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific data 

available in determining occupied areas 

that contain the features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

Altamaha spinymussel, and unoccupied 

areas that are essential for the 

conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

We have reviewed the available 

information pertaining to historical and 

current distribution, life history, and 

habitat requirements of this species. Our 

sources included: Peer-reviewed 

scientific publications; unpublished 

survey reports; unpublished field 

observations by the Service, State, and 

other experienced biologists; and notes 

and communications from qualified 

biologists or experts. 

Physical and Biological Features 

In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) 

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing of offspring; and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distribution of a species. 

We consider the physical and 

biological features to be the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential for the 

conservation of the species. We derive 

the PCEs from the biological needs of 

the species as described in the 

Background section of this proposal. 

Unfortunately, little is known of the 

specific habitat requirements for the 

Altamaha spinymussel other than that 

they require flowing water, stable river 

channels, and adequate water quality. 

Altamaha spinymussel mussel larvae 

also require a currently unknown fish 

host for development to juvenile 

mussels. To identify the physical and 

biological needs of the species, we have 

relied on current conditions at locations 

where the species survive, the limited 

information available on this species 

and its close relatives, and factors 

associated with the decline and 

extirpation of these and other aquatic 

mollusks from extensive portions of the 

Altamaha River Basin. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

The Altamaha spinymussel is 

historically associated with the main 

stem of the Altamaha River and its 

larger tributaries (greater than 500 cubic 

feet per second (cfs) Mean Monthly 

Discharge (MMD)), and does not occur 

in smaller tributaries. Spinymussels are 

generally associated with stable, coarse 

to fine sandy sediments of sandbars, 

sloughs, and mid-channel islands, and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

they appear to be restricted to swiftly 

flowing water (Sickel 1980, p. 12). 

Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel 

islands provide space for the 

spinymussel and also provide cover, 

shelter, and sites for breeding, 

reproduction, and growth of offspring. 

Sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel 

islands are dynamic habitats formed and 

maintained by water quantity, channel 

slope, and sediment input to the system 

through periodic flooding, which 

maintains connectivity and interaction 

with the flood plain. Changes in one or 

more of these parameters can result in 

channel degradation or channel 

aggradation, with serious effects to 

mollusks. Therefore, we believe that 

stream channel stability and floodplain 

connectivity are essential to the 

conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

Water 

The Altamaha spinymussel is a 

riverine-adapted species that depends 

upon adequate water flow and is not 

found in ponds or lakes. Continuously 

flowing water is a habitat feature 

associated with all surviving 

populations of this species. Flowing 

water maintains the river bottom, 

sandbars, sloughs, and mid-channel 

islands habitat where this species is 

found, transports food items to the 

sedentary juvenile and adult life stages 

of the Altamaha spinymussel, removes 

wastes, and provides oxygen for 

respiration for this species. 

The ranges of standard physical and 

chemical water quality parameters (such 

as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

and conductivity) that define suitable 

habitat conditions for the Altamaha 

spinymussel have not been investigated. 

However, as relatively sedentary 

animals, mussels must tolerate the full 

range of such parameters that occur 

naturally within the streams where they 

persist. Both the amount (flow) and the 

physical and chemical conditions (water 

quality) where this species currently 

exists vary widely according to season, 

precipitation events, and seasonal 

human activities within the watershed. 

Conditions across their historical ranges 

vary even more due to geology, 

geography, and differences in human 

population densities and land uses. In 

general, the species survives in areas 

where the magnitude, frequency, 

duration, and seasonality of water flow 

is adequate to maintain stable sandbar, 

slough, and mid-channel island habitats 

(for example, sufficient flow to remove 

fine particles and sediments without 

causing degradation), and where water 

quality is adequate for year-round 

survival (for example, moderate to high 

levels of dissolved oxygen, low to 

moderate input of nutrients, and 

relatively unpolluted water and 

sediments). Therefore, adequate water 

flow and water quality (as defined 

below) are essential to the conservation 

of the Altamaha spinymussel. 

A natural flow regime that includes 

periodic flooding and maintains 

connectivity and interaction with the 

flood plain is critical for the exchange 

of nutrients, spawning activities for 

potential host fish, and sand bar 

maintenance. In 2007, persistent severe 

drought conditions throughout the 

southeastern United States created 

record low discharges (streamflow) in 

the Altamaha River at the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) gauge station 

in Doctortown, Georgia. During the 

driest portions of the 2006–2009 

drought period, the lowest discharges 

observed were 25 percent of the MMD 

for the 77–year period of record for the 

Doctortown gauge. Despite record low 

flows, native unionids (mussels) 

appeared to persist and thrive 

throughout most of the Lower Altamaha 

River Basin. 

The numeric standards for pollutants 

and water quality parameters (for 

example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy 

metals) that have been adopted by the 

State of Georgia under the Clean Water 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) represent 

levels that were established for human 

protection. Some of these standards 

(particularly organic and heavy metal 

contaminates) may not adequately 

protect Altamaha spinymussels, or are 

not being appropriately measured, 

monitored, or achieved in some reaches 

(see discussions under Factors A and D). 

While, Georgia’s pH criterion is a range 

of 6.0 to 8.5 under the adopted State 

standards, data compiled by the GDNR 

indicate that pH at 159 sites in the 

Altamaha River Basin averaged 6.9 and 

ranged from 4.9 to 9.1, which means 

many sites are outside of the range 

adopted by the State. Potential 

contaminants such as ammonia may be 

more lethal at pH levels at the edges of 

the observed range. Therefore, we 

removed outliers from this data set by 

generating the 10th and 90th percentiles 

for pH, which were 6.1 to 7.7 standard 

units. These levels are likely more 

representative of natural pH levels 

associated with the Altamaha River 

Basin and would likely reduce lethal 

contaminant associations between other 

chemicals in the watershed. 

Current Georgia TMDLs for waters 

supporting warm-water fishes require a 

daily average dissolved oxygen (DO) 

concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a 

minimum of 4.0 mg/l. The mean DO 

concentration of 217 measurements 

made in known spinymussel sites 

throughout the Altamaha River basin 

was 8.7 mg/l and ranged from 0.42 mg/ 

l to 33.1 mg/l. The 10th and 90th

percentiles for DO were 4.5 and 10.7 

mg/l, which are similar to the 

observations of Golladay et al. (2004, 

pp. 501-503). A daily average DO 

concentration of 5.0 mg/l and a 

minimum DO concentration of 4.5 mg/ 

l should provide adequate protection for 

the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Other factors that can potentially alter 

water quality are droughts and periods 

of low flow, nonpoint source run-off 

from adjacent land surfaces (for 

example, excessive amounts of 

nutrients, pesticides, and sediment), 

and random spills or unregulated 

discharge events. This could be 

particularly harmful during drought 

conditions when flows are depressed 

and pollutants are more concentrated. 

Adequate water quality is essential for 

normal behavior, growth, and viability 

during all life stages of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

Food 

Unionid mussels, such as the 

Altamaha spinymussel, filter algae, 

detritus, and bacteria from the water 

column (Williams et al. 2008, p. 67). 

Although the life history of the 

Altamaha spinymussel has not been 

studied, the life histories of other 

mussels in the Elliptio genus indicate 

that adult freshwater mussels are filterfeeders, siphoning phytoplankton, 

diatoms, and other microorganisms from 

the water column. For the first several 

months, juvenile mussels employ pedal 

(foot) feeding, extracting bacteria, algae, 

and detritus from the sediment (Yeager 

et al. 1994, pp. 217–221; Wisniewski 

2008, pers. comm.). Food availability 

and quality for the Altamaha 

spinymussel in sandbars, sloughs, and 

mid-channel island habitats are affected 

by habitat stability, floodplain 

connectivity, flow, and water quality. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing 

Freshwater mussels require a host fish 

for transformation of larval mussels 

(glochidia) to juvenile mussels 

(Williams et al. 2008, p. 68); therefore, 

presence of the appropriate host fish is 

essential to the conservation of the 

Altamaha spinymussel. The specific fish 

host(s) for the Altamaha spinymussel is 

currently unknown; however, other 

species of mussels in the genus Elliptio 

are known to parasitize various species 

of Etheostoma, Percina, and other 

stream-adapted fish species (Haag and 

Warren 2003, p. 80). Eighty-five fish 

species representing 22 families are 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61677 

native to the Altamaha River Basin. Five 

families account for 65 percent of the 

native fish species in the Altamaha 

River Basin. The family Cyprinidae 

comprises 20 percent of the fish species, 

while Centrarchidae, Catostomidae, 

Ictaluridae, and Percidae comprise 15 

percent, 12 percent, 11 percent, and 8 

percent of the species, respectively. 

These families are known to be suitable 

hosts for most unionids in North 

America. All 85 species native to the 

Altamaha River Basin are still present 

within the basin. 

Juvenile Altamaha spinymussels 

require stable sandbar, slough, and midchannel island habitats for growth and 

survival. Excessive sediments or dense 

growth of filamentous algae can expose 

juvenile mussels to entrainment or 

predation and be detrimental to the 

survival of juvenile mussels (Hartfield 

and Hartfield 1996, pp. 372–374). 

Geomorphic instability can result in the 

loss of interstitial habitats and juvenile 

mussels due to scouring or deposition 

(Hartfield 1993, pp. 372–373). 

Therefore, stable sandbar, slough, and 

mid-channel island habitats with low to 

moderate amounts of filamentous algae 

growth are essential to the conservation 

of the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Periodic floodplain connectivity that 

occurs during wet years provides 

habitats for spawning and foraging 

activities to fishes requiring floodplain 

habitats for successful reproduction and 

recruitment to adulthood. Barko et al. 

(2006, pp. 252–256) found several fish 

species benefited from the resource 

exploitation of floodplain habitats that 

were not typically available for use 

during hydrologically normal years. 

Furthermore, Kwak (1988, pp. 243–247) 

and Slipke et al. (2005, p. 289) indicated 

that periodic inundation of floodplain 

habitats increased successful fish 

reproduction, which leads to increased 

availability of native host fishes for 

unionid reproduction. However, Rypel 

et al. (2009, p. 502) indicated that 

unionids tended to exhibit minimal 

growth during high flow years. 

Therefore, optimal flooding of these 

habitats would not be too frequent and 

should occur at similar frequencies to 

that of the natural hydrologic regime of 

the Altamaha River. 

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) 

for the Altamaha Spinymussel 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species, we 

have determined that the Altamaha 

spinymussel’s PCEs are: 

(1) Geomorphically stable river 

channels and banks (channels that 

maintain lateral dimensions, 

longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity 

patterns over time without an aggrading 

or degrading bed elevation) with stable 

sandbar, slough, and mid-channel 

island habitats of course to fine sand 

substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and attached 

filamentous algae. 

(2) A hydrologic flow regime (the 

magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species are found. To 

maintain connectivity of rivers with the 

floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for sand bar 

maintenance, food availability, and 

spawning habitat for native fishes. 

(3) Water quality necessary for normal 

behavior, growth, and viability of all life 

stages, including specifically 

temperature (less than 32.6°C (90.68 °F) 

with less than 2°C (3.6 °F) daily 

fluctuation)), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen 

content (daily average DO concentration 

of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0 mg/ 

l), Ammonia: 1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L 

(normalized to pH 8 and 25°C (77°F)) 

and other chemical characteristics. 

(4) The presence of fish hosts 

(currently unknown) necessary for 

recruitment of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. The continued occurrence 

of diverse native fish assemblages 

currently occurring in the basin will 

serve as an indication of host fish 

presence until appropriate host fishes 

can be identified for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

This proposed designation is designed 

to conserve those areas containing the 

PCEs in the appropriate spatial 

arrangement and quantity essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

at least one of the species’ life history 

functions. In this proposed designation, 

all areas contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and whether 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. None of the critical habitat 

units proposed for this species have 

been designated as critical habitat for 

other species under the Act. Large areas 

of upland habitat adjacent to the 

proposed critical habitat are currently 

protected or receive special 

management; 13.4 km (8.4 mi.) on both 

sides of the river and 75.9 km (47.0 mi) 

on one side of the river only are 

managed as conservation properties. 

However, approximately 150.8 km (93.7 

mi) have no protection. Various 

activities in or adjacent to each of the 

critical habitat units described in this 

proposed rule may affect one or more of 

the PCEs and may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Some of these activities 

include, but are not limited to, those 

discussed in the ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species,’’ above. Features 

in all of the proposed critical habitat 

units may require special management 

due to threats posed by land-use runoff 

and point- and nonpoint-source water 

pollution (see discussion under Factor 

A and Factor D). Other activities that 

may affect PCEs in the proposed critical 

habitat units include those listed in the 

‘‘Effects of Critical Habitat’’ section 

below. 

In summary, we find that the areas we 

are proposing as critical habitat that 

were occupied at the time of listing 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel, and that these features 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. Special 

management consideration or protection 

may be required to eliminate, or to 

reduce to negligible levels, the threats 

affecting each unit and to preserve and 

maintain the essential features that the 

proposed critical habitat units provide 

to the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Additional discussions of threats facing 

individual sites are provided in the 

individual unit descriptions. 

Criteria Used to Identify Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species that contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel (see above), and areas 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied by the species that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. We are proposing to designate 

as critical habitat all river channels that 

are currently occupied by the species. 

We are also proposing to designate a 

specific area not currently occupied but 

that was historically occupied, because 

we have determined (1) that the area is 

essential for the conservation of the 

Altamaha spinymussel, and (2) that 

designating only occupied habitat is not 

sufficient to conserve this species. 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we make every effort 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to avoid including developed areas such 

as lands covered by buildings, 

pavement, and other structures because 

such lands usually lack PCEs for 

endangered or threatened species. Areas 

proposed for critical habitat for the 

Altamaha spinymussel include only 

stream channels within the ordinary 

high water line, and do not contain any 

developed areas or structures. The 

ordinary high water line defines the 

stream channel and is the point on the 

stream bank where water is continuous 

and leaves some evidence such as 

erosion or aquatic vegetation. 

Occupied Stream Reaches Proposed as 

Critical Habitat 

We have defined occupied habitat as 

those stream reaches known to be 

currently occupied by the Altamaha 

spinymussel. We used information from 

surveys and reports prepared by the 

GDNR, private contractors, and Service 

field records to identify the specific 

locations occupied by the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

Currently, the limited occupied 

habitat for this species is extremely 

scattered and isolated. The Altamaha 

spinymussel persists in scattered 

portions of the Altamaha and Ocmulgee 

Rivers (see Population Estimates and 

Status above). We have determined that 

all occupied areas contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

River habitats are highly dependent 

upon upstream and downstream 

channel habitat conditions for their 

maintenance. Therefore, where one 

occurrence record was known from a 

river reach, we considered the entire 

reach between the uppermost and 

lowermost locations as occupied 

habitat, as discussed below. 

The Altamaha spinymussel is 

currently known to survive in scattered 

populations along 223 km (138 mi) of 

the Ocmulgee and upper Altamaha 

Rivers extending from Telfair and Ben 

Hill Counties to Long and Wayne 

Counties, Georgia, except for a 2.7-km 

(1.7-mi) reach of river in the vicinity of 

the Plant Hatch facility. From 1997 

through 2009, researchers searched 336 

sites throughout the basin and 

documented 57 Altamaha spinymussels, 

with all occurrences widely scattered 

throughout its current range. There are 

no known barriers to movement in this 

range; therefore, we consider the entire 

223-km (138-mi) reach between the 

uppermost and lowermost collection 

sites for the Altamaha spinymussel as 

occupied habitat. In the area proposed 

for critical habitat, boundaries extend 

from the nearest downstream landmark 

at both of ends of the reach. 

Unoccupied Stream Reaches Proposed 

as Critical Habitat 

The unoccupied stream reach we are 

proposing as critical habitat was 

historically occupied (i.e., prior to 1997; 

see Table 1). We believe that this reach 

is essential for Altamaha spinymussel 

conservation because the range of the 

Altamaha spinymussel has been 

severely curtailed, occupied habitats are 

limited and isolated, and population 

sizes are extremely small, and the area 

meets the selection criteria identified 

below. Furthermore, the occupied 

habitats are contiguous, placing them at 

high risk of extirpation and extinction 

from stochastic events. The inclusion of 

essential unoccupied areas, in a separate 

tributary, will provide habitat for 

population reintroduction, reduce the 

level of stochastic threats to the species’ 

survival, and decrease the risk of 

extinction for this species. 

The area proposed as critical habitat 

that is not known to be currently 

occupied meets all of the following 

criteria: 

(1) It contains sufficient PCEs (for 

example, such characteristics as 

geomorphically stable channels, 

perennial water flows, and appropriate 

benthic substrates) to support life 

history functions of the Altamaha 

spinymussel; 

(2) It supports diverse aquatic mollusk 

communities, including the presence of 

closely related species requiring PCEs 

similar to the Altamaha spinymussel; 

and 

(3) It is adjacent to currently occupied 

areas where there is potential for natural 

dispersal and reoccupation by the 

Altamaha spinymussel. 

In identifying unoccupied river 

reaches that could be essential for the 

conservation of the Altamaha 

spinymussel, we first considered the 

availability of potential habitat 

throughout the historical range that may 

be suitable for the survival and 

persistence of the species. We also 

eliminated from consideration freeflowing rivers or river segments without 

any historical records of occurrence 

(that is the Little Ocmulgee River and 

the upper portions of the Oconee and 

Ocmulgee Rivers). We eliminated the 

lower Oconee River and the lower 

portion of the Altamaha River from 

consideration because of poor water 

quality and limited habitat availability. 

We have identified 14.4 km (9 mi) of 

habitat in the Ohoopee River that is 

currently unoccupied by the Altamaha 

spinymussel and that meets the criteria 

for designation as critical habitat. 

Historical records of Altamaha 

spinymussel occurred in the lower 

portions of the Ohoopee River. Keferl 

(1981, p. 15) referred to the Ohoopee as 

a possible refugia for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. However, extreme drought 

and all-terrain vehicle disturbance 

appear to have extirpated the species 

from otherwise suitable habitat. This 

river habitat meets criteria (1), (2), and 

(3) identified above and is therefore 

considered essential to the conservation 

of the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing four units, totaling 

approximately 240 km (149 mi), as 

critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. Georgia owns navigable 

stream bottoms within the ordinary high 

water line. All proposed units are 

considered navigable and, as stated 

more fully below, critical habitat is 

proposed for the stream channel within 

the ordinary high water line only; 

accordingly, the State of Georgia owns 

the stream bottoms within all of the 

areas proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Lands adjacent to 

critical habitat units are either in private 

ownership or are conservation lands. 

Table 2 identifies the proposed units, 

occupancy of the units, and the 

approximate extent proposed as critical 

habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. It 

also provides information on the 

ownership of lands adjacent to the river 

within the proposed unit. 

TABLE 2. Occupancy and ownership of lands adjacent to proposed critical habitat units for Altamaha spinymussel. 

Unit Location Occupancy Total Length 

km (mi) 

Private 

km (mi) 

Conservation/ 

Private 

km (mi) 

Conservation 

km (mi) 

1 Ocmulgee River Occupied 110 (68.3) 89.2 (55.4) 14.3 (8.8) 6.4 (4.0) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61679 

TABLE 2. Occupancy and ownership of lands adjacent to proposed critical habitat units for Altamaha 

spinymussel.—Continued 

Unit Location Occupancy Total Length 

km (mi) 

Private 

km (mi) 

Conservation/ 

Private 

km (mi) 

Conservation 

km (mi) 

2A Upper Altamaha 

River A 

Occupied 31.4 (19.5) 2.7 (1.7) 21.6 (13.4) 7.1 (4.4) 

2B Upper Altamaha 

River B 

Occupied 30.7 (19.1) 22.9 (14.2) 7.8 (4.9) 0 (0) 

3 Middle Altamaha 

River 

Occupied 50.9 (31.6) 18.8 (11.7) 32.1 (19.9) 0 (0) 

4 Lower Ohoopee 

River 

Unoccupied 14.4 (9.0) 14.4 (9.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Total 240.2 (149.3) 150.8 (93.7) 75.9 (47) 13.4 (8.4) 

*Ownership is categorized by private ownership on both banks of the river (Private), conservation area on one bank and private on the other 

(Conservation/Private), and conservation area on both banks (Conservation). 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Altamaha spinymussel. The proposed 

critical habitat units include the river 

channels within the ordinary high water 

line. As defined in 33 CFR 329.11, the 

ordinary high water mark on nontidal 

rivers is the line on the shore 

established by the fluctuations of water 

and indicated by physical 

characteristics, such as a clear, natural 

line impressed on the bank; shelving; 

changes in the character of soil; 

destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the 

presence of litter and debris; or other 

appropriate means that consider the 

characteristics of the surrounding areas. 

For each stream reach proposed as a 

critical habitat unit, the upstream and 

downstream boundaries are described 

generally below. More precise 

definitions are provided in the Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation section at the 

end of this proposed rule. 

Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill, 

Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff Davis Counties 

Unit 1 includes 110 km (68.3 mi) of 

the lower Ocmulgee River from the 

confluence of House Creek with the 

Ocmulgee River at Red Bluff Landing in 

Ben Hill and Telfair Counties, 

downstream to the Altamaha River (at 

the confluence of the Oconee and 

Ocmulgee Rivers, Jeff Davis and Telfair 

Counties). Live Altamaha spinymussels 

have been collected from 11 sites within 

proposed Unit 1, the uppermost near 

Red Bluff (Thomas and Scott 1965, p. 

67). Surveys conducted since 1997 on 

the Ocmulgee River have yielded 19 

Altamaha spinymussels from seven sites 

(Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O’Brien 

2002, p. 2; Dinkins 2004, pp. 1-1 and 2- 

1). The entire reach of the Ocmulgee 

River that composes proposed Unit 1 is 

occupied. This unit contains all of the 

PCEs. 

The Altamaha spinymussel and its 

habitat may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

changes in the existing flow regime due 

to activities such as impoundment, 

water diversion, or water withdrawal; 

alteration of water chemistry or water 

quality; and changes in streambed 

material composition and quality from 

activities that would release sediments 

or nutrients into the water, such as 

deadhead logging (instream log salvage), 

construction projects, livestock grazing, 

timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle 

use. 

Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River, Wheeler, 

Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff Davis, 

Appling, and Tatnall Counties 

Unit 2 includes a total of 62.1 km 

(38.6 mi) of the Altamaha River from the 

confluence of the Ocmulgee and Oconee 

Rivers (Wheeler and Jeff Davis Counties) 

downstream to the confluence of the 

Altamaha and Ohoopee Rivers (Appling 

and Tattnall Counties). 

Unit 2A includes 31.4km (19.5mi) of 

the Altamaha River from the confluence 

of the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers to 

the Route 1. 

Unit 2B includes 30.7km (19.1mi) of 

the Altamaha River from the upstream 

boundary of Moody forest to the 

confluence of the Altamaha and 

Ohoopee Rivers. 

However, we are not including in this 

critical habitat designation a stretch of 

the Altamaha River from U.S. Route 1 

downstream to the State-owned 

property of Moody Forest (2.7 km (1.7 

mi)), which includes Plant Hatch. This 

area does not contain the PCEs 

necessary for the Altamaha spinymussel 

due to: 

(1) Dredging for intake pipes at Plant 

Hatch, which destabilizes the river 

channel and banks, sandbar, slough, and 

mid-channel island habitats and 

disrupts the movement of course to fine 

sand substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment; and 

(2) Thermal discharges from Plant 

Hatch that reduce water quality. 

In the upper Altamaha River, historic 

surveys collected Altamaha 

spinymussels from 15 sites, while recent 

surveys have collected live Altamaha 

spinymussels from only two sites; dead 

shells have been collected from an 

additional 14 sites (Sickel 1967; Keferl 

1995, p. 3; Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11, 

O’Brien 2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009, 

pers. comm.). The entire reach of the 

Altamaha River that composes proposed 

Unit 2 is occupied. This unit contains 

all of the PCEs. 

The Altamaha spinymussel and its 

habitat may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

changes in the existing flow regime due 

to activities such as impoundment, 

water diversion, or water withdrawal; 

alteration of water chemistry or water 

quality; and changes in streambed 

material composition and quality from 

activities that would release sediments 

or nutrients into the water, such as 

deadhead logging (instream log salvage), 

construction projects, livestock grazing, 

timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle 

use. 

Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River, 

Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and Long 

Counties 

Unit 3 includes approximately 50.9 

km (31.6 mi) of the Altamaha River from 

the confluence with the Ohoopee 

(Tattnall and Appling Counties) 

downstream to U.S. Route 301 (Wayne 

and Long Counties). Historic and recent 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61680 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

surveys of the middle Altamaha River 

have yielded live Altamaha 

spinymussels from 26 sites. Dead shells 

were found at an additional 13 sites 

(Keferl 1981, p. 14; Keferl 1995, p. 3; 

Cammack et al. 2001, p. 11; O’Brien 

2002, p. 2; Wisniewski 2009, pers. 

comm.). The entire reach of the 

Altamaha River that composes proposed 

Unit 3 is occupied. This unit contains 

all of the PCEs. 

The Altamaha spinymussel and its 

habitat may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

changes in the existing flow regime due 

to such activities as impoundment, 

water diversion, or water withdrawal; 

alteration of water chemistry or water 

quality; and changes in streambed 

material composition and quality from 

activities that would release sediments 

or nutrients into the water, such as 

deadhead logging (instream log salvage), 

construction projects, livestock grazing, 

timber harvesting, and off-road vehicle 

use. 

Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River, Tattnall 

County 

Unit 4 includes the lower 14.4 km (9 

mi) of the Ohoopee River, from 2.2 km 

(1.3 mi) upstream of Tattnall County 

Road 191, downstream to the 

confluence of the Ohoopee and the 

Altamaha River in Tattnall County, 

Georgia. 

The Altamaha spinymussel 

historically occupied this stretch of the 

Ohoopee River but has not been found 

here since the mid-1990s (Stringfellow 

and Gagnon 2001, pp. 1–2) and is 

considered extirpated. Historic 

collections were made from seven sites 

(Keferl 1981, p. 14). Keferl (1981, p. 15) 

considered the Ohoopee to contain 

excellent habitat that would serve as a 

refuge for declining mussel populations. 

This stretch of the Ohoopee River 

contains PCEs I, III and IV for the 

Altamaha spinymussel, and continues 

to support four species commonly 

associated with the presence of the 

Altamaha spinymussel: Elliptio 

dariensis (75 percent of sites with E. 

spinosa), E. hopetonensis (93 percent), 

E. shepardiana (80 percent), and 

Lampsilis dolabraeformis (90 percent). 

Lampsilis splendida was found at 72 

percent of sites (Wisniewski 2009, pers. 

comm.). The Ohoopee does not meet 

state water quality standards for 

mercury, however, EPA will begin 

revising needed load reductions in 2011 

(EPA 2002b, p. 2). 

Proposed critical habitat units 1, 2, 

and 3 are contiguous, making them very 

vulnerable to a catastrophic event that 

could eliminate all known occupied 

habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. 

Therefore, we believe that the stream 

segment within this unit is essential to 

the conservation of the species.because 

re-establishing the Altamaha 

spinymussel on a separate tributary 

such as the Ohoopee River would 

significantly reduce the level of 

stochastic threats to the species’ 

survival. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the courts of 

appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits 

Court of Appeals have invalidated our 

definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th

Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F. 3d 

434, 442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not 

rely on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those physical and biological 

features that relate to the ability of the 

area to periodically support the species) 

to serve its intended conservation role 

for the species. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, 

• Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and technologically 

feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, avoid 

jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Altamaha spinymussel or its designated 

critical habitat require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from us under section 10 of 

the Act) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions on State, Tribal, local, or private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7 consultations. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61681 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standard 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following listing and 

designation of critical habitat, the 

Service applies an analytical framework 

for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily 

on the importance of core area 

populations to the survival and recovery 

of the species. The section 7(a)(2) 

analysis is focused not only on these 

populations but also on the habitat 

conditions necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the species in a qualitative 

fashion without making distinctions 

between what is necessary for survival 

and what is necessary for recovery. 

Generally, if a proposed Federal action 

is incompatible with the viability of the 

affected core area population(s), 

inclusive of associated habitat 

conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the PCEs to be functionally 

established. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical and 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for the Altamaha spinymussel include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would alter the 

geomorphology of their stream and river 

habitats. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, instream 

excavation or dredging, impoundment, 

channelization, and discharge of fill 

materials. These activities could cause 

aggradation or degradation of the 

channel bed elevation or significant 

bank erosion, result in entrainment or 

burial of these mollusks, and cause 

other direct or cumulative adverse 

effects to these species and their life 

cycles. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter the existing flow regime. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, impoundment, water 

diversion, water withdrawal, and 

hydropower generation. These activities 

could eliminate or reduce the habitat 

necessary for growth and reproduction 

of these mollusks. 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

alter water chemistry or water quality 

(for example, temperature, pH, 

contaminants, and excess nutrients). 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, hydropower discharges, 

or the release of chemicals, biological 

pollutants, or heated effluents into 

surface water or connected groundwater 

at a point source or by dispersed release 

(nonpoint source). These activities 

could alter water conditions that are 

beyond the tolerances of these mollusks 

and result in direct or cumulative 

adverse effects to the species and their 

life cycles. 

(4) Actions that would significantly 

alter stream bed material composition 

and quality by increasing sediment 

deposition or filamentous algal growth. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, construction projects, 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, offroad vehicle use, 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 mollusks 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 night-time dissolved oxygen 

levels through respiration and prevent 

mussel glochidia from settling into 

stream sediments. 

Exemptions 

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

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108- 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed integrated 

natural resources management plan 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

Exclusions 

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate or 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 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, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

and any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If, based on this 

analysis, we determine that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we can exclude the area only 

if such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we are preparing an analysis of 

the probable economic impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and related factors. 

We will announce the availability of 

the draft economic analysis as soon as 

it is completed, at which time we will 

seek public review and comment. At 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61682 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by contacting 

the Georgia Ecological Services Office 

directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). During the development of a 

final designation, we will consider 

economic impacts, public comments, 

and other new information, and as an 

outcome of our analysis of this 

information, we may exclude areas from 

the final critical habitat designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

National Security Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where a national security 

impact might exist. In preparing this 

proposal, we have determined that the 

lands within the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel are not owned or managed 

by the DOD, and therefore, we 

anticipate no impact to national 

security. 

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 landowners have developed 

any conservation plans or other 

management plans for the area, or 

whether there are conservation 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion of lands 

from, critical habitat. In addition, we 

look at any Tribal issues, and consider 

the government-to-government 

relationship of the United States with 

tribal entities. We also consider any 

social impacts that might occur because 

of the designation. 

In preparing this proposed rule, we 

have determined that there are currently 

no conservation plans or other 

management plans for the species, and 

the proposed designation does not 

include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. We anticipate no impact to 

Tribal lands, partnerships, or 

management plans from this proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

Notwithstanding these decisions, as 

stated under ‘‘Public Comments’’ above, 

we are seeking specific comments on 

whether any areas we are proposing for 

designation should be excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing encourages 

and results in conservation actions by 

Federal, State, and private agencies; 

groups; and individuals. The Act 

provides for possible land acquisition 

and cooperation with the States and 

requires that recovery actions be carried 

out for all listed species. The protection 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against taking are 

discussed, in part, below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is proposed or listed as endangered 

or threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is being or has 

been designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Federal 

agencies are required to confer with us 

informally on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

proposed species, or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

must enter into formal consultation with 

the Service. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Altamaha spinymussel include, but are 

not limited to, the carrying out or the 

issuance of permits for reservoir 

construction, stream alterations, 

discharges, wastewater facility 

development, water withdrawal 

projects, pesticide registration, mining, 

and road and bridge construction. It has 

been the experience of the Service, 

however, that nearly all section 7 

consultations have been resolved so that 

species have been protected and the 

project objectives have been met. 

Listing the Altamaha spinymussel 

initiates the development and 

implementation of a rangewide recovery 

plan for the species. This plan will bring 

together Federal, State, and local agency 

efforts for the conservation of this 

species. Recovery plans establish a 

framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts. The plans set 

recovery priorities and estimate the 

costs of the tasks necessary to 

accomplish the priorities. They also 

describe the site-specific actions 

necessary to achieve conservation and 

survival of each species. 

Listing also will require us to review 

any actions on Federal lands and 

activities under Federal jurisdiction that 

may affect the Altamaha spinymussel; 

allow State plans to be developed under 

section 6 of the Act; encourage scientific 

investigations of efforts to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; and 

promote habitat conservation plans on 

non-Federal lands under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 

forth a series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to all endangered 

wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

take (includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt any of these), 

import or export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It also is illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any wildlife that has been taken 

illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 

agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

Permits may be issued to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife species 

under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits are set 

forth at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such 

permits are available for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. 

Under the Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Endangered Species Act 

Section 9 Prohibitions, published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), we identify to the maximum 

extent practicable those activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if the 

Altamaha spinymussel is listed. The 

intent of this policy is to increase public 

awareness as to the effects of this 

proposed listing on future and ongoing 

activities within a species’ range. We 

believe, based on the best available 

information, that the following actions 

will not result in a violation of the 

provisions of section 9 of the Act, 

provided these actions are carried out in 

accordance with existing regulations 

and permit requirements: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61683 

(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, 

including interstate transport that does 

not involve commercial activity, of 

specimens of these species that were 

legally acquired prior to the addition of 

the Altamaha spinymussel to the 

Federal List of Endangered or 

Threatened Wildlife; 

(2) Discharges into waters supporting 

the Altamaha spinymussel, provided 

these activities are carried out in 

accordance with existing regulations 

and permit requirements (e.g., activities 

subject to section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and discharges regulated under the 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES)); 

(3) Development and construction 

activities designed and implemented 

under State and local water quality 

regulations and implemented using 

approved best management practices; 

and 

(4) Any actions that may affect the 

Altamaha spinymussel that are 

authorized, funded, or carried out by a 

Federal agency (such as bridge and 

highway construction, pipeline 

construction, hydropower licensing), 

when the action is conducted in 

accordance with the consultation 

requirements for listed species under 

section 7 of the Act. 

Potential activities that we believe 

will likely be considered a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if this species 

becomes listed, include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Unauthorized possession, 

collecting, trapping, capturing, harming, 

killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or 

movement, including interstate and 

foreign commerce, or attempting any of 

these actions, with the Altamaha 

spinymussel; 

(2) Unlawful destruction or alteration 

of their habitats (such as unpermitted 

instream dredging, impoundment, 

channelization, or discharge of fill 

material) that impairs essential 

behaviors, such as breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering, or results in killing or 

injuring the Altamaha spinymussel; 

(3) Violation of any discharge or water 

withdrawal permit that results in harm 

or death to any individuals of this 

species or that results in degradation of 

its occupied habitat to an extent that 

essential behaviors such as breeding, 

feeding and sheltering are impaired; and 

(4) Unauthorized discharges or 

dumping of toxic chemicals or other 

pollutants into waters supporting the 

Altamaha spinymussel that kills or 

injures or otherwise impairs essential 

life-sustaining requirements, such as 

reproduction, food, or shelter. 

Other activities not identified above 

will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis 

to determine if a violation of section 9 

of the Act may be likely to result from 

such activity should we list the 

Altamaha spinymussel as endangered. 

The Service does not consider the 

description of future and ongoing 

activities provided above to be 

exhaustive; we provide them simply as 

information to the public. 

If you have questions regarding 

whether specific activities will likely 

violate the provisions of section 9 of the 

Act, contact the Georgia Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 

copies of regulations regarding listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits should be addressed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Division, 1875 

Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 

(phone 404-679-7313; fax 404-679- 

7081). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our proposed rule is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding our proposal to 

list the Altamaha spinymussel as 

endangered and our decision regarding 

critical habitat for this species. We will 

consider all comments and information 

received during the comment period on 

this proposed rule during preparation of 

a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the 

final decision may differ from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires 

us to hold at least one public hearing on 

this proposal, if properly requested. 

Requests for public hearings must be 

made in writing within 45 days of the 

publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register (see DATES). We will 

schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings in the Federal Register 

and local newspapers at least 15 days 

prior to the first hearing. 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to attend and 

participate in the public hearings 

should phone James Rickard at (706) 

613-9493 as soon as possible. To allow 

sufficient time to process requests, 

please call no later than one week before 

the hearing date. Information regarding 

the proposal is available in alternative 

formats upon request. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review — 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effects of the 

rule on small entities (small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of the agency certifies the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The SBREFA 

amended the RFA to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61684 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

At this time, we lack the specific 

information necessary to provide an 

adequate factual basis for determining 

the potential incremental regulatory 

effects of the designation of critical 

habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel to 

either develop the required RFA finding 

or provide the necessary certification 

statement that the designation will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. On the basis of the 

development of our proposal, we have 

identified certain sectors and activities 

that may potentially be affected by a 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Altamaha spinymussel. These sectors 

include industrial development and 

urbanization along with the 

accompanying infrastructure associated 

with such projects such as road, 

stormwater drainage, bridge and culvert 

construction and maintenance. We 

recognize that not all of these sectors 

may qualify as small business entities. 

However, while recognizing that these 

sectors and activities may be affected by 

this designation, we are collecting 

information and initiating our analysis 

to determine (1) which of these sectors 

or activities are or involve small 

business entities and (2) what extent the 

effects are related to the Altamaha 

spinymussel being listed as an 

endangered species under the Act 

(baseline effects) or whether the effects 

are attributable to the designation of 

critical habitat (incremental). We 

believe that the potential incremental 

effects resulting from a designation will 

be small. As a consequence, following 

an initial evaluation of the information 

available to us, we do not believe that 

there will be a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities resulting from this designation 

of critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. However, we will be 

conducting a thorough analysis to 

determine if this may in fact be the case. 

As such, we are requesting any specific 

economic information related to small 

business entities that may be affected by 

this designation and how the 

designation may impact their business. 

Therefore, we defer our RFA finding on 

this proposal designation until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and E.O. 12866. 

As discussed above, this draft 

economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, we will announce 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation in 

the Federal Register and reopen the 

public comment period for the proposed 

designation. We will include with this 

announcement, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. We conclude that 

deferring the RFA finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis is necessary to meet the 

purposes and requirements of the RFA. 

Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that we make a 

sufficiently informed determination 

based on adequate economic 

information and provide the necessary 

opportunity for public comment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)-(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species, or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat under section 7. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would listing these 

species or designating critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the 

Altamaha spinymussel only occurs in 

navigable waters in which the river 

bottom is owned by the State of Georgia. 

However, the adjacent upland 

properties are owned by private entities, 

the State, or Federal partners (see Table 

2). As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. We will, 

however, further evaluate this issue as 

we conduct our economic analysis and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61685 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel in 

a takings implications assessment. The 

takings implications assessment 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel does not pose significant 

takings implications. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in Georgia. The critical habitat 

designation may have some benefit to 

this government in that the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the PCEs of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the species are specifically identified. 

While making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We are proposing designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This proposed 

rule uses standard property descriptions 

and identifies the PCEs within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

Altamaha spinymussel. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Also, it is our position that, outside 

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not 

need to prepare environmental analyses 

as defined by NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

position was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F. 3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing that contain the features essential 

for the conservation, and no tribal lands 

that are unoccupied areas that are 

essential for the conservation, of the 

Altamaha spinymussel. Therefore, we 

have not proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Altamaha 

spinymussel on Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. We do not expect this 

rule to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Although 

two of the proposed units are below 

hydropower reservoirs, current and 

proposed operating regimes have been 

deemed adequate for the species, and 

therefore their operations will not be 

affected by the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. All other proposed units 

are remote from energy supply, 

distribution, or use activities. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. However, we will 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Georgia Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

staff of the Georgia Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1.The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding 

‘‘Spinymussel, Altamaha’’ in 

alphabetical order under CLAMS to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife, to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

*******

CLAMS 

*******

Spinymussel, 

Altamaha 

Elliptio spinosa U.S.A. (GA) NA E 17.95(f) NA 

*******

3. Amend § 17.95(f) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Altamaha spinymussel 

(Elliptio spinosa)’’ in the same order that 

the species appears in the table at § 

17.11(h), to read as set forth below: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) Clams and Snails. 

* * * * * 

Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, 

Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, 

Toombs, Wayne and Wheeler Counties, 

Georgia, on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

(PCEs) of critical habitat for the 

Altamaha spinymussel are the habitat 

components that provide: 

(i) Geomorphically stable river 

channels and banks (channels that 

maintain lateral dimensions, 

longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity 

patterns over time without an aggrading 

or degrading bed elevation) with stable 

sandbar, slough, and mid-channel 

island habitats of course to fine sand 

substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and attached 

filamentous algae. 

(ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the 

magnitude, frequency, duration, and 

seasonality of discharge over time) 

necessary to maintain benthic habitats 

where the species are found. To 

maintain connectivity of rivers with the 

floodplain, allowing the exchange of 

nutrients and sediment for sand bar 

maintenance, food availability, and 

spawning habitat for native fishes. 

(iii) Water quality necessary for 

normal behavior, growth, and viability 

of all life stages, including specifically 

temperature (less than 32.6°C (90.68 °F) 

with less than 2°C (3.6 °F) daily 

fluctuation)), pH (6.1 to 7.7), oxygen 

content (daily average DO concentration 

of 5.0 mg/l and a minimum of 4.0 mg/ 

l), Ammonia: 1.5 mg N/L, 0.22 mg N/L 

(normalized to pH 8 and 25°C (77°F)) 

and other chemical characteristics. 

(iv) The presence of fish hosts 

(currently unknown) necessary for 

recruitment of the Altamaha 

spinymussel. The continued occurrence 

of diverse native fish assemblages 

currently occurring in the basin will 

serve as an indication of host fish 

presence until appropriate host fishes 

can be identified for the Altamaha 

spinymussel. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one or more of the PCEs, 

such as buildings, bridges, aqueducts, 

airports, and roads, and the land on 

which such structures are located. 

(4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps 

were developed from USGS 7.5 minute 

quadrangles, and critical habitat unit 

upstream and downstream limits were 

then identified by longitude and 

latitude using decimal degrees. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the Altamaha spinymussel 

follows: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61687 

(6) Unit 1: Ocmulgee River, Ben Hill, 

Telfair, Coffee, and Jeff Davis Counties, 

Georgia. 

(i) Unit 1 includes the channel of the 

Ocmulgee River from the confluence of 

House Creek with the Ocmulgee at Red 

Bluff Landing (longitude -83.18, latitude 

31.85), Ben Hill and Telfair Counties, 

Georgia, downstream to Altamaha River 

(longitude -82.54, latitude 31.96), at the 

confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee 

Rivers, Jeff Davis and Telfair Counties, 

Georgia. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Ocmulgee 

River) follows: 

(7) Unit 2: Upper Altamaha River, 

Wheeler, Toombs, Montgomery, Jeff 

Davis, Appling, and Tattnall Counties, 

Georgia. 

(i) Unit 2 includes the channel of the 

Altamaha River from the confluence of 

the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers 

(longitude -82.54, latitude 31.96), 

Wheeler and Jeff Davis Counties, 

Georgia, downstream to the US 1 

crossing (longitude -82.36, latitude 

31.94), and from the western edged or 

Moody Forest (longitude -82.33, latitude 

31.93) downstream to the confluence of 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06OC10.007</GPH> EP06OC10.008</GPH>
61688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Altamaha and Ohoopee Rivers 

(longitude -82.11, latitude 31.90), 

Appling and Tattnall Counties, Georgia. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Upper 

Altamaha River) follows: 

(8) Unit 3: Middle Altamaha River, 

Tattnall, Appling, Wayne, and Long 

Counties, Georgia. 

(i) Unit 3 includes the channel of 

Altamaha River, extending from the 

confluence with the Ohoopee (longitude 

-82.11, latitude 31.90), Tattnall and 

Appling Counties, Georgia, downstream 

to U.S. Route 301 (longitude -81.84, 

latitude 31.67), Wayne and Long 

Counties, Georgia. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Middle 

Altamaha River) follows: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06OC10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61689 

(9) Unit 4: Lower Ohoopee River, 

Tattnall County, Georgia. 

(i) Unit 4 includes the channel of the 

Ohoopee River, starting 2.2 km (1.3 mi) 

upstream of Tattnall County Road 191 

(longitude -82.14, latitude 31.98), 

Tattnall County, Georgia, downstream to 

the confluence of the Ohoopee River 

with the Altamaha River (longitude 

-82.11, latitude 31.90), Tattnall County, 

Georgia. 

(ii)Note: Map of Unit 4 (Lower 

Ohoopee River) follows: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06OC10.010</GPH> EP06OC10.011</GPH>
61690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 12, 2010. 

Jane Lyder, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25026 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 226 

[Docket No. 100924467–0467–02] 

RIN 0648–XZ26 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Designating Critical Habitat for the 

Endangered North Atlantic Right 

Whale 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding, and notice of 12-month 

determination. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce our 

90-day finding and 12-month 

determination on how to proceed with 

a petition to revise critical habitat for 

the North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). The petition seeks to 

revise the existing critical habitat 

designation by expanding the areas 

designated as critical feeding and 

calving habitat areas for the North 

Atlantic right whale. Additionally, the 

petition seeks to include a migratory 

corridor as part of the critical habitat 

designation for the North Atlantic right 

whale. Our 90-day finding is that the 

petition, in conjunction with the 

information readily available in our 

files, presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the 

requested revision may be warranted. 

Our 12-month determination on how to 

proceed with the petition is that we 

intend to continue our ongoing 

rulemaking process with the expectation 

that a proposed critical habitat rule for 

the North Atlantic right whale will be 

submitted to the Federal Register for 

publication in the second half of 2011. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on October 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/ 

com.html. Supporting documentation 

used to prepare this finding is available 

for public inspection by appointment 

during normal business hours at the 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930, by telephone at 978–281–9328; 

or by facsimile at 978–281–9394. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

NMFS, Northeast Regional Office; by 

mail (see ADDRESSES): by telephone at 

978–281–9328; or facsimile at 978–281– 

9394; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, at 

301–713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 1, 2009, we received a petition 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD), Defenders of Wildlife, Humane 

Society of the United States, Ocean 

Conservancy, and the Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society (the 

Petitioners) to revise the designated 

critical habitat of the North Atlantic 

right whale (CBD et al., 2009). On 

October 27, 2009, we sent a letter to the 

petitioners acknowledging receipt of the 

petition. 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined under 

section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as: ‘‘(i)The 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the Act, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (III) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

areas occupied by the species at the 

time it is listed, upon a determination 

that such areas are essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us 

to designate and make revisions to 

critical habitat for listed species on the 

basis of the best scientific data available 

and after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and any other relevant 

impact, of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. The Secretary may 

exclude any particular 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 

that the failure to designate such areas 

as critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. The 

ESA provides that NMFS may revise 

critical habitat from time-to-time as 

appropriate (section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii)). 

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA 

requires that, to the maximum extent 

practicable, within 90 days after 

receiving a petition to revise critical 

habitat, the Secretary make a finding as 

to whether a petition presents 

substantial scientific information 

indicating that the revision may be 

warranted. Our implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define 

‘‘substantial information’’ as the ‘‘amount 

of information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted.’’ Our regulations provide 

further that, in making a 90-day finding 

on a petition to revise critical habitat, 

we shall consider whether a petition 

includes substantial information 

indicating that: (i) Areas contain 

physical and biological features 

essential to, and that may require 

special management to provide for the 

conservation of the species; or (ii) areas 

designated as critical habitat do not 

contain resources essential to, or do not 

require special management to provide 

for, the conservation of the species. In 

determining whether substantial 

information exists, we take into account 

several factors, including information 

submitted with, and referenced in, the 

petition and all other information 

readily available in our files. To the 

maximum extent practicable, this 

finding is to be made within 90 days of 

the receipt of the petition, and the 

finding is to be published promptly in 

the Federal Register. If we find that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that the revision 

may be warranted, within 12 months 

after receiving the petition, we are 

required to determine how we intend to 

proceed with the requested revision and 

promptly publish notice of such 

intention in the Federal Register. The 

statute says nothing more about options 

or considerations regarding the 

Secretary’s 12-month determination, nor 

does it prescribe any procedures or 

timelines for acting on petitions beyond 

the 12-month finding. See ESA Section 

4(b)(3)(D)(ii). 

Listing and Designated Critical Habitat 

History 

In 1970, right whales, Eubalaena spp. 

were listed as endangered (35 FR 18319; 

December 2, 1970). We consider this 

listing to have included two species of 

right whales, the northern right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) and the southern 

right whale (Eubalaena australis) (71 FR 

at 77706; December 27, 2006). Until the 

listing was changed in 2008, we 

considered the northern right whale 

species (Eubalaena glacialis) to consist 

of two populations—one occurring in 

the North Atlantic Ocean and the other 

in the North Pacific Ocean. In 1994, we 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS