[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67512-67550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27417]



[[Page 67511]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, 
and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 67512]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0104; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
RIN 1018-AU88


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, 
and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the 
Georgia pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail 
(Leptoxis foremani), and rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani) as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
We also designate approximately 258 kilometers (km) (160 miles (mi)) of 
stream and river channels as critical habitat for the three species, in 
Cherokee, Clay, Coosa, Elmore, and Shelby Counties, Alabama; Gordon, 
Floyd, Murray, and Whitfield Counties, Georgia; and Bradley and Polk 
Counties, Tennessee.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 2, 2010.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule 
to list as endangered the Georgia pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema 
hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani), and rough 
hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani); and (2) a final rule to designate 
critical habitat for each of these three species.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal actions for these species prior to June 29, 2009 are 
outlined in our proposed rule for these actions (74 FR 31113). 
Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which 
closed on August 28, 2009. We reopened the comment period from February 
10, 2010, through March 12, 2010, in order to announce the availability 
of and receive comments on a draft economic analysis (DEA), and to 
extend the comment period on the proposed listing and designation to 
accommodate a public hearing (75 FR 6613).

Public Comments

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

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the listing and designation of critical habitat for the Georgia pigtoe 
mussel (Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis 
foremani), and rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani). For information 
on our proposed determination, refer to the proposed rule published in 
the Federal Register on June 29, 2009 (74 FR 31113).

Georgia Pigtoe Mussel

    The Georgia pigtoe (Pleurobema hanleyianum) is a freshwater mussel 
in the family Unionidae. It was described in 1852 by Lea as Unio 
hanleyianum from the Coosawattee River in Georgia. The species was 
placed in the genus Pleurobema by Simpson in 1900. The uniqueness of 
the Georgia pigtoe has been verified both morphologically (Williams et 
al. 2008, p. 533) and genetically (Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 719-721).
    The shell of the Georgia pigtoe reaches about 50 to 65 millimeters 
(mm) (2 to 2.5 inches (in)) in length. It is oval to elliptical and 
somewhat inflated. The posterior ridge is low and evenly rounded, when 
evident. The anterior end is rounded, while the posterior margin is 
bluntly pointed below. Dorsal and ventral margins are curved, and the 
beaks rise slightly above the hinge line. The periostracum (membrane on 
the surface of the shell) is yellowish-tan to reddish-brown and may 
have concentric green rings. The beak cavity is shallow, and the shell 
interior is white to dull bluish-white (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 
185; Williams et al. 2008, p. 533).
    Little is known about the habitat requirements or life history of 
the Georgia pigtoe; however, it is found in shallow runs and riffles 
with strong to moderate current and coarse sand-gravel-cobble bottoms. 
Unionid mussels, such as the Georgia pigtoe, filter-feed on algae, 
detritus, and bacteria from the water column. The larvae of most 
unionid mussels are parasitic, requiring a period of encystment on a 
fish host before they can develop into juvenile mussels. The fish hosts 
for glochidia (parasitic larvae) of Georgia pigtoe are currently 
unknown.
    The Georgia pigtoe was historically found in large creeks and 
rivers of the Coosa River drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee 
(Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 106; Williams et al., 2008, p. 534). There 
are historical reports or museum records of the Georgia pigtoe from 
Tennessee (Conasauga River in Polk and Bradley Counties), Georgia 
(Conasauga River in Murray and Whitfield Counties, Chatooga River in 
Chatooga County, Coosa River in Floyd County, and Etowah River in Floyd 
County), and Alabama (Coosa River in Cherokee County, Terrapin Creek in 
Cherokee County, Little Canoe and Shoal Creeks in St. Clair County, 
Morgan Creek in Shelby County, and Hatchet Creek in Coosa County) 
(Florida Museum of Natural History Malacology Database (FLMNH) in litt. 
2006; Gangloff 2003, p. 45). Based on these historical records, the 
range of the Georgia pigtoe included more than 480 km (300 mi) of river 
and stream channels. Additional historical Coosa River tributary 
records credited to Hurd (1974, p. 64) (for example, Big Wills, Little 
Wills, Big Canoe, Oothcalooga, Holly Creeks) have been found to be 
misidentifications of other species (Gangloff in litt. 2006).
    In 1990, the Service initiated a status survey and reviewed the 
molluscan fauna of the Mobile River Basin (Hartfield 1991, p. 1). This 
led to extensive mollusk surveys and collections throughout the Coosa 
River drainage (Bogan and Pierson 1993a, pp. 1-27; Hartfield in litt. 
1990-2001). At all localities surveyed in the Coosa River drainage, the 
freshwater mussel fauna had declined from historical levels, and at all 
but a few localized areas, the fauna proved to be completely eliminated 
or severely reduced due to a variety of impacts, including point and 
nonpoint source pollution, and channel modifications such as 
impoundment.

[[Page 67513]]

Following a review of these efforts and observations, the Service 
reported 14 species of mussels in the genus Pleurobema, including the 
Georgia pigtoe, as presumed extinct, based on their absence from 
collection records, technical reports, or museum collections for a 
period of 20 years or more (Hartfield 1994, p. 1).
    The Service and others continued to conduct surveys in the Coosa 
River drainage for mollusks (Hartfield in litt. 2004; Williams and 
Hughes 1998, pp. 2-6; Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 106; Herod et al. 
2001, pp. i-ii; Gangloff 2003, pp. 11-12; McGregor and Garner 2004, pp. 
1-18; Johnson et al. 2005, p. 1). Several freshly dead and live 
individuals of the Georgia pigtoe were collected during these mussel 
surveys in the Upper Conasauga River, Murray and Whitfield Counties, 
Georgia (Williams and Hughes 1998, p. 10; Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 
106). Gangloff (2003, pp. 11-12, 45) conducted mussel surveys of Coosa 
River tributaries in Alabama, including all known historical collection 
sites for the Georgia pigtoe, without relocating the species. McGregor 
and Garner (2004, p. 8) surveyed the Coosa River dam tailraces for 
mollusks without encountering the Georgia pigtoe.
    The Georgia pigtoe is currently known from a few isolated shoals in 
the Upper Conasauga River in Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia, 
and in Polk County, Tennessee (Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 106; Evans 
2001, pp. 33-34). All recent collection sites occur within a 43-km (27-
mi) reach of the river. Within this reach, the Georgia pigtoe is very 
rare (Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 106), and no population estimates are 
available.

Interrupted Rocksnail

    The interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani) is a small-to-medium-
sized freshwater snail that historically occurred in the Coosa River 
drainage of Alabama and Georgia. The shell grows to approximately 22 mm 
(1 in) in length and may be ornamented by partial costae (folds in the 
surface). The shell is subglobose (not quite spherical); thick, dark 
brown to olive in color; occasionally spotted; and generally covered 
with fine striae (longitudinal ridges). The spire (apex) of the shell 
is very low, and the aperture (opening) is large and subrotund (not 
quite round).
    The interrupted rocksnail, a member of the aquatic snail family 
Pleuroceridae, was described from the Coosa River, Alabama, by Lea in 
1843. Goodrich (1922, p. 13) placed the species in the ``Anculosa 
(=Leptoxis) picta (Conrad 1834) group,'' which also included the 
Georgia rocksnail (Leptoxis downei (Lea 1868)). L. foremani was 
considered to inhabit the Lower Coosa River, with L. downei inhabiting 
the Upper Coosa drainage (Goodrich 1922, pp. 18-19, 21-23). When a 
rocksnail population was rediscovered surviving in the Oostanaula 
River, Georgia, in 1997, it was initially identified as L. downei 
(Williams and Hughes 1998, p. 9; Johnson and Evans 2000, pp. 45-46); 
however, Burch (1989, p. 155) had previously placed L. downei within L. 
foremani as an ecological variant. Therefore, L. downei is currently 
considered an upstream phenotype of the interrupted rocksnail, and L. 
foremani is recognized as the valid name for the interrupted rocksnail 
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 67; Johnson 2004, p. 116).
    Rocksnails live in shoals, riffles, and reefs (bedrock outcrops) of 
small to large rivers. Their habitats are generally subject to moderate 
currents during low flows and strong currents during high flows. These 
snails live attached to bedrocks, boulders, cobbles, and gravel and 
tend to move little, except in response to changes in water level. They 
lay their adhesive eggs within the same habitat (Johnson 2004, p. 116). 
In a hatchery setting, mean clutch size for 2-year-old interrupted 
rocksnails is around 8.83 (3 to 18 eggs per clutch), and clutch size of 
females greater than 3 years is 13.63 (2 to 21 eggs per clutch) 
(Johnson in litt. 2009). Interrupted rocksnails are currently found in 
shoal habitats with sand-boulder substrate, at water depths less than 
50 centimeters (cm) (20 in), and in water currents less than 40 cm/
second (sec) (16 in/sec) (Johnson 2004, p. 116). We know little of the 
life history of pleurocerid snails; however, they generally feed by 
ingesting periphyton (algae attached to hard surfaces) and biofilm 
detritus scraped off of the substrate by the snail's radula (a horny 
band with minute teeth used to pull food into the mouth) (Morales and 
Ward 2000, p. 1). Interrupted rocksnails have been observed grazing on 
silt-free gravel, cobble, and boulders (Johnson 2004, p. 116). They 
have survived as long as 5 years in captivity (Johnson in litt. 2006b).
    The interrupted rocksnail was historically found in colonies on 
reefs and shoals of the Coosa River and several of its tributaries in 
Alabama and Georgia. The range of the rocksnail formerly encompassed 
more than 800 km (500 mi) of river and stream channels, including the 
Coosa River (Coosa, Calhoun, Cherokee, Elmore, Etowah, Shelby, St. 
Clair, and Talladega Counties), Lower Big Canoe Creek (St. Clair 
County), and Terrapin Creek (Cherokee County) in Alabama; and the Coosa 
and Lower Etowah Rivers (Floyd County), the Oostanaula River (Floyd and 
Gordon Counties), the Coosawattee River (Gordon County), and the 
Conasauga River (Gordon, Whitfield, and Murray Counties) in Georgia 
(Goodrich 1922, pp. 19, 21; Johnson 2004, p. 116; FLMNH in litt. 2006).
    Snail surveys conducted within the historical range of the 
interrupted rocksnail (Bogan and Pierson 1993a, pp. 1-27; Williams and 
Hughes 1998, pp. 1-21) resulted in the collection of only a single live 
specimen from the Oostanaula River, Floyd County, Georgia, during 1997 
(Williams and Hughes 1998, p. 9). Intensive surveys of the Oostanaula, 
Coosa, Coosawattee, Etowah, and Conasauga Rivers since 1999 have 
located the species in about 12 km (7.5 mi) of the Oostanaula River 
upstream of the Gordon and Floyd County line (Johnson and Evans 2000, 
pp. 45-46; Johnson and Evans 2001, pp. 2, 25). A captive colony was 
maintained at the Tennessee Aquarium Research Institute (TNARI) from 
2000 through 2005 for study and propagation. In coordination with TNARI 
and the Service, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources (ADCNR) developed a plan and strategy to reintroduce 
interrupted rocksnails from the TNARI colony into the Coosa River above 
Wetumpka, Elmore County, Alabama (ADCNR 2003, pp. 1-4). In 2003, 2004, 
and 2005, approximately 3,200, 1,200, and 3,000 juvenile snails, 
respectively, from the TNARI culture were released into the Lower Coosa 
River (ADCNR 2004, p. 33; Johnson in litt. 2005a). In 2005, ADCNR 
established the Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center (AABC) at the 
Marion State Fish Hatchery for the culture of imperiled mollusk 
species, and the interrupted rocksnail TNARI colony was transferred to 
that facility.
    Following its rediscovery, the interrupted rocksnail population 
size on shoals in the Oostanaula River declined from a high of 10 to 45 
snails per square meter (m\2\) (1.2 square yards (yd\2\)) in 1999 
(Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 22) to only 20 snails found during 6 
search-hours in 2004 (Johnson in litt. 2003, 2004). The cause of 
decline was suspected to be some form of water contamination (Johnson 
in litt. 2003, 2004; Hartfield in litt. 2006). A July 2006 search for 
adults to use as hatchery stock failed to locate any rocksnails in more 
than 2 search-hours (Hartfield in litt. 2006). However, a subsequent 
search in August 2006 under lower flow conditions resulted in the 
location of 89 snails in 4 search-hours at one shoal,

[[Page 67514]]

and 2 rocksnails in 4 search-hours at another shoal (Johnson in litt. 
2007a).
    Since their reintroduction into the Lower Coosa River of Alabama, a 
few of the 2003 hatchery-cultured interrupted rocksnails were observed 
in the vicinity of the release site in 2004 (Johnson in litt. 2005c). 
An alternative site was selected for release in August 2005, and 18 
snails were located 3 months following release (Pierson in litt. 2005). 
During a 40-minute search of this release area in 2006, two interrupted 
rocksnails were found (Johnson in litt. 2007b). Observations of only 
small numbers of reintroduced snails may be due to habitat size and 
dispersal, low fecundity of the species, predation, reproductive 
failure due to dispersal, or habitat disturbance (Johnson in litt. 
2005b).

Rough Hornsnail

    The rough hornsnail's (Pleurocera foremani) shell is elongated, 
pyramidal, and thick. Growing to about 33 mm (1.3 in.) in length, the 
shell has as many as nine yellowish-brown whorls. The aperture is 
elongated, angular, channeled at the base, and usually white inside. 
The presence of a double row of prominent nodules or tubercles on the 
lower whorls above the aperture is the most distinctive feature that 
separates it from other hornsnails (Tryon 1873, p. 53). These 
tubercles, along with the size and shape of the shell, distinguish the 
species from all other pleurocerid snails (Elimia spp., Leptoxis spp., 
Pleurocera spp.) in the Mobile River Basin. In a hatchery setting, 
however, the distinctive double row of tubercules do not appear until 
the second year of life (5 to 7 mm shell width) (Johnson in litt. 
2009).
    The rough hornsnail is a member of the aquatic snail family of 
Pleuroceridae. The species was described in 1843 by Lea as Melania 
foremanii (=foremani) (Tryon 1873, p. 52). It was later placed in the 
genus Pleurocera by Tryon (1873, p. 52), who noted that P. foremani 
closely resembled species of that genus. Goodrich (1935, p. 3) reported 
a variation of a species of Pleurocera in the Cahaba River that 
resembled foremani, but later identified that variant as a ``mutation'' 
or form of brook hornsnail (P. vestitum) (Goodrich 1941, p. 12). This 
variant, however, is no longer extant in the Cahaba River (Bogan and 
Pierson 1993b, p. 12; Sides 2005, pp. 21-22, 28). Goodrich (1944, p. 
43) considered that the Coosa River P. foremani might also be 
eventually found to be simply a variant of smooth hornsnail (P. 
prasinatum), another more widely distributed species in the Coosa 
River.
    In a recent dissertation on the systematics of the Mobile River 
Basin Pleurocera, the rough hornsnail was found to be both 
morphologically and genetically distinct from other species in the 
genus (Sides 2005, pp. 26, 127). This analysis also found that the 
rough hornsnail was genetically more closely allied to a co-occurring 
species in the genus Elimia, and concluded that it should be recognized 
as Elimia foremani (Sides 2005, pp. 26-27). Although the Sides (2005, 
pp. 26-27) study provides some evidence that this species should be 
placed in the genus Elimia, this taxonomic change has not been formally 
peer-reviewed and published. Therefore, for the purposes of this 
action, we will continue to use currently recognized nomenclature for 
the rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani).
    Rough hornsnails are primarily found on gravel, cobble, bedrock, 
and mud in moderate currents. They have been collected at depths of 1 m 
(3.3 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) (Hartfield 2004, p. 132). The species appears 
to tolerate low-to-moderate levels of silt deposition (Sides 2005, p. 
127). Little is known regarding the life-history characteristics of 
this species. Snails in the genus Pleurocera generally lay their eggs 
in a spiral arrangement on smooth surfaces (Sides 2005, pp. 26-27), 
whereas Elimia snails generally lay eggs in short strings (P. Johnson 
pers. comm. 2006). Although some attempts to induce rough hornsnails to 
lay eggs in captivity have been unsuccessful (Sides 2005, p. 27), 
others have observed females laying eggs individually or in short 
``strips'' (3 to 10 eggs) during late April into July (Johnson in litt. 
2009). Cultured rough hornsnails have become reproductively active in 
their second year (Johnson in litt. 2009). Some adult individuals 
collected from the wild have survived in captivity for 3 years, 
suggesting a life span of 4 to 5 years (Garner in litt. 2009, Johnson 
in litt. 2009).
    The rough hornsnail is endemic to the Coosa River system in 
Alabama. Goodrich (1944, p. 43) described the historical range as the 
Coosa River downstream of the Etowah River and at the mouths of a few 
tributaries. The Etowah River enters the Coosa River in Floyd County, 
Georgia; however, there are no known museum or site-specific records of 
the rough hornsnail that validate its range into the State of Georgia 
(Johnson in litt. 2006a). Historical museum records of the rough 
hornsnail in the Coosa River (FLMNH in litt. 2006, and elsewhere) 
indicate that they occurred from Etowah, St. Clair, Shelby, Talladega, 
and Elmore Counties, Alabama, a historical range of approximately 322 
river km (200 river mi). There are also historical museum records of 
this species from nine Coosa River tributaries in Alabama, including 
Big Wills Creek in Etowah County; Kelly, Big Canoe, and Beaver Creeks 
in St. Clair County; Ohatchee Creek in Calhoun County; Choccolocco and 
Peckerwood Creeks in Talladega County; Yellowleaf Creek in Shelby 
County; and Yellow Leaf Creek in Chilton County (FLMNH in litt. 2006).
    The rough hornsnail is currently known to occur at two locations: 
Lower Yellowleaf Creek in Shelby County, Alabama; and the Lower Coosa 
River below Wetumpka Shoals in Elmore County, Alabama (Sides 2005, p. 
40). There are also museum records of the species from Wetumka Shoals 
in the early 1990s (FLMNH in litt. 2006); however, the species has not 
been collected from this shoal reach in recent surveys (Johnson 2002, 
pp. 5-9). Yellowleaf Creek is a moderately sized stream where rough 
hornsnails were, until recently, only known from about a 50-m (55-yd) 
length of the stream. At this location, rough hornsnails occur at 
densities of 8 to 32 per m\2\ (1.2 per yd\2\) (Pierson in litt. 2006). 
Following publication of the proposed rule (74 FR 31113, June 29, 
2009), an intensive survey of Yellowleaf Creek extended the range of 
rough hornsnails in this stream to about 1.6 km (1 mi) above and below 
the previously known site (Powell in litt. 2009). The Lower Coosa River 
is a large river channel where rough hornsnails have recently been 
found in two discrete areas (Hartfield pers. obsv. 2001, Crow in litt. 
2008). No quantitative estimates have been made at these sites; 
however, at one site, rough hornsnail numbers were estimated at 300 to 
400 individuals (Crow in litt. 2008). Searches of unimpounded reaches 
of the Coosa River and the lower portions of tributaries to the Coosa 
River have failed to locate the species elsewhere (Bogan and Pierson 
1993a, pp. 1-27; Garner, pers. comm. 2005; Hartfield in litt. 2006). 
The two known surviving populations are separated by three impoundments 
and about 113 km (70 mi) of unsuitable, impounded channel habitat.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    During the open comment periods for the proposed rule (74 FR 
31113), draft economic analysis, and public hearing (75 FR 6613), we 
requested all interested parties submit comments or information 
concerning the proposed

[[Page 67515]]

listing and designation of critical habitat for the three mollusks. We 
contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment. We also published 
newspaper notices inviting public comment in the following newspapers: 
Cherokee County Herald, Centre, AL; Daily Home, Talladega, AL; The 
Wetumpka Herald, Wetumpka, AL; Chatsworth Times, Chatsworth, GA; Rome 
News Tribune, Rome, GA; The Daily Citizen, Dalton, GA; The Calhoun 
Times, Calhoun, GA; Cleveland Daily Banner, Cleveland, TN; and Polk 
County News, Benton, TN.
    We directly notified and requested comments from all affected 
States. The State of Alabama provided additional records of one 
species. None of the States expressed a position on the actions. During 
the comment periods, we received a total of 16 comments from one State 
agency, two Federal agencies, eight groups, and three individuals. At 
the public hearing, we received three oral comments. A transcript of 
the hearing is available for inspection at the Jackson, Mississippi 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we requested the expert 
opinions of four knowledgeable individuals with expertise on freshwater 
mollusks, the Mobile River Basin, and conservation biology principles. 
The purpose of such review is to ensure that the designation is based 
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including 
input of appropriate experts and specialists.
    We received written responses from three of the peer reviewers. All 
peer reviewers stated that the proposal included a thorough and 
accurate review of the available scientific and commercial data on 
these mollusks and their habitats. One peer reviewer provided 
additional details and minor corrections on the shell descriptions of 
the interrupted rocksnail and rough hornsnail. Two reviewers provided 
information on clutch size and life span of rough hornsnail. One 
reviewer noted the collection of rough hornsnail on mud bottoms, and 
recommended including this in the discussion of the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of that 
species (primary constituent elements (PCEs)). This information 
provided by the reviewers has been incorporated into the appropriate 
sections of this final rule. One peer reviewer suggested additional 
stream reaches that could be designated as critical habitat for each of 
the three species. These suggestions are discussed below.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new 
data regarding the three mollusks, their critical habitats, and the 
draft economic analysis. Written comments and oral statements presented 
at the public hearing and received during the comment periods are 
addressed in the following summary. For readers' convenience, we have 
combined similar comments into single comments and responses.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: The Georgia pigtoe survives in only 3 to 5 miles (4.8 
to 8 kilometers) of the Conasauga River, and has been extirpated from 
more than 99.9 percent of its historic range.
    Our response: Over the past 20 years, the Georgia pigtoe has been 
collected from two localized collection sites on the Conasauga River, 
one at each extreme of a 43-km (27-mi) reach of the river. We have 
considered this entire reach as occupied because of the similarity of 
habitat within this reach, and the potential of the species to occur 
within any portion of the reach.
    (2) Comment: Big Canoe, Choccolocco, and Weogufka Creeks should be 
designated as critical habitat for Georgia pigtoe.
    Our response: While Big Canoe, Choccolocco, and Weogufka Creeks are 
within the geographical range of the Georgia pigtoe and appear to be 
suitable for the species, we are unaware of any verified historical 
records of the species from these three tributaries. Although we have 
not included these areas as critical habitat in this final rule, they 
are within the geographical range of the species and may prove to be 
important in the future to the conservation of the species.
    (3) Comment: Choccolocco, Hatchet, and Terrapin Creeks should be 
designated as critical habitat for the interrupted rocksnail.
    Our response: Choccolocco, Hatchet, and Terrapin Creeks are within 
the geographical area historically occupied by the interrupted 
rocksnail. Most museum specimens and historical records of interrupted 
rocksnail were from the mainstem Coosa River and larger tributaries 
(Oostanaula, Coosawhattee, Conasauga, and Etowah Rivers), and we were 
able to document records of interrupted rocksnail from the lower reach 
of Terrapin Creek. It is also likely that some populations extended 
into the lower reaches of some other tributaries. However, this species 
requires moderate to high stream flow, and the lower reaches of 
Choccolocco and Hatchet Creeks have little flow, due to embayment by 
Coosa River reservoirs. As a result, we did not include these areas as 
critical habitat in this final rule. Lower Terrapin Creek continues to 
experience natural flow, and will be available to colonization if the 
species is successfully reintroduced into Unit IR 1.
    (4) Comment: Recent sampling has extended the range of the rough 
hornsnail in Yellowleaf Creek.
    Our response: Following publication of the proposed rule and 
closure of the first comment period, a snail survey of lower Yellowleaf 
Creek was conducted by biologists from the Service, ADCNR, and Alabama 
Power Company. The rough hornsnail was found at several sites within 
the upper and lower limits of the proposed critical habitat. The 
information that the rough hornsnail currently inhabits all of the area 
within Unit RH 2, Yellowleaf Creek, has been incorporated into the 
Background and Critical Habitat sections of this final rule.
    (5) Comment: Choccolocco Creek, Kelly Creek, and the Coosa River 
below Logan Martin Dam in the vicinity of the confluence of Kelly Creek 
should be included as critical habitat for the rough hornsnail.
    Our response: We identified two areas with greatest conservation 
potential for the rough hornsnail, Lower Coosa River (Unit IR 1) and 
Yellowleaf Creek (Unit IR 2), as both of these units contain unoccupied 
habitat adjacent to occupied areas, with the potential of natural 
dispersal and recolonization. Lower Choccolocco Creek was considered to 
have minimal conservation potential for the species at this time 
because it is embayed by Logan Martin Lake, and is on the Alabama 
303(d) list of impaired waters. Kelly Creek, and the short associated 
reach of the Coosa River, is remote from currently occupied areas. 
Although this area was not included in the critical habitat designation 
for rough hornsnail, it may become important for the conservation of 
the species at some point in the future.

Comments from States

    (6) Comment: There are records of Georgia pigtoe from Kelly, Big 
Canoe, and Choccolocco Creeks that were not acknowledged in the 
historical distribution.
    Our response: It is probable that any large Coosa River tributary 
may have supported historical populations of the Georgia pigtoe at some 
time in the past. We have relied on published records and museum 
specimens to confirm the species' historical presence for purposes

[[Page 67516]]

of this critical habitat designation. Some historical Coosa River 
tributary records, however, have been found to be misidentifications of 
other closely related species, and we were unable to document any 
historical records of Georgia pigtoe from Kelly, Big Canoe, and 
Choccolocco Creeks.

Public Comments

    (7) Comment: The conclusions supporting the proposed designation of 
the critical habitat units are not supported by data or sound science. 
The Act requires the Service to refrain from designating critical 
habitat when the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently 
well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat 
(citing Cape Hatteras Access Preserv. Alliance v. U.S. Dept. Int., 344 
F. Supp. 2nd 108, 123 (D.D.C. 2004)).
    Our response: We determined that, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, sufficient information is available to 
identify physical and biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species and specific areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat (see Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) section).
    In the case cited by the commenter, the Service had not identified 
any features essential to the conservation of the species (primary 
constituent elements (PCEs)) within some portions of a broad critical 
habitat designation for piping plover, but argued that designation was 
proper because PCEs would likely be found in the future. The court 
found that this was ``beyond the pale of the [Act].'' In contrast, in 
both the proposed and this final rule, we identified PCEs within the 
designated habitat (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, and 
Critical Habitat Designation sections). Therefore, we have complied 
with the requirements of the Act.
    (8) Comment: The Service exceeded the statutory basis for proposing 
to designate Units GP2 and IR1 as unoccupied critical habitat by 
including the potential for minimum flows as baseline criteria for the 
establishment of the units. The Act does not provide for special 
management or operational considerations for proposed units that are 
presently unoccupied by target species (citing Cape Hatteras Access 
Preserv. Alliance v. U.S. Dept. Int., 344 F. Supp. 2nd 108, 123 (D.D.C. 
2004)).
    Our response: In the case cited by the commenter, the Service 
included areas that clearly did not contain PCEs within a broad 
critical habitat designation for piping plover. The Court determined 
that the Service must show that PCEs, which may in the future require 
special consideration or management, are found on the areas it 
designated as critical habitat.
    In this designation, when considering areas as critical habitat, we 
assessed whether the areas contained features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species (PCEs) and whether those features may 
require special management considerations or protections. The presence 
of one or more PCE was documented (see Critical Habitat Designation 
section) in all of the stream reaches designated as unoccupied critical 
habitat for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail. We use the language ``* * * one or more * * *'' in 
recognition that all areas essential to the conservation of a species 
may not contain all PCEs, based on the biology of the species. For 
example, a species may require one area for feeding and growing, 
another for reproduction or roosting, and still other areas for passage 
between feeding and growing areas. So while all areas may not contain 
the same constituent elements, they may be important at some life stage 
or during some time of the year and collectively they are essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    Unit GP 2 for the Georgia pigtoe includes the lower reach of 
Terrapin Creek, downstream to its confluence with the Coosa River, and 
the Coosa River from Weiss Dam downstream to a point below the 
confluence of Terrapin Creek in Cherokee County, Alabama (see Critical 
Habitat Designation, Unit GP 2, below). All five PCEs identified for 
Georgia pigtoe are present in Terrapin Creek and in the Coosa River 
portion of Unit GP 2 below the confluence of Terrapin Creek. Unit IR 1 
for the interrupted rocksnail includes the Coosa River channel between 
Weiss Dam to a point below the confluence of Terrapin Creek (see 
Critical Habitat Designation, Unit IR 1, below). All four PCEs 
identified for the interrupted rocksnail are present in the Coosa River 
portion of the Unit below Terrapin Creek. Two of the five PCEs for 
Georgia pigtoe, and two of the four PCEs for interrupted rocksnail, are 
currently present in the Coosa River portion of the units between Weiss 
Dam and the confluence of Terrapin Creek. Minimum flows are projected 
to be released from Weiss Dam as part of a Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission relicensing agreement in the near future that will restore 
the remaining PCEs for both of these species in this portion of the 
reach, but that was not the sole basis for this designation.
    (9) Comment: It is unreasonable to designate unoccupied areas 
adjacent to current populations as critical habitat in light of the 
Service's lack of knowledge of specific habitat requirements.
    Our response: All recent records of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are extremely localized. Because rare 
aquatic snails and mussels can be difficult to locate, where more than 
one occurrence record of a particular species was found within a stream 
reach, we considered the entire reach between the uppermost and 
lowermost locations as occupied habitat. We then considered the 
adequacy of occupied habitat for conservation of the species, and 
determined that designating only occupied habitat would not be 
sufficient to conserve each of these species (see Criteria Used To 
Identify Critical Habitat section). For identification of unoccupied 
areas essential to the conservation of the species, we established six 
criteria for their consideration (see Stream Reaches Not Currently 
Occupied section), including the presence of PCEs. One of these 
criteria prioritized stream reaches adjacent to currently occupied 
areas. These reaches are similar in stream size, geology, and water 
quality to adjacent occupied areas, and we believe that it is 
reasonable and cost effective to protect areas available for natural 
dispersal and reoccupation.
    (10) Comment: Critical habitat designation of currently uninhabited 
areas remote from occupied areas (Units GP 2, GP 3, IR 1, IR 3) is not 
supported by the record, and would be arbitrary and capricious because 
there is no analysis, data, or discussion whether released, captive-
bred stock can become self-sustaining.
    Our response: Many endangered aquatic mollusks are so rare that 
relocations are not an option (National Native Mussel Conservation 
Committee 1997, p. 8). However, freshwater mussels, including 
endangered and threatened species, have been relocated with some 
success from areas of disturbance into new habitats (Cope and Waller 
1995, p. 147; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004, p. 4). Attempts to 
relocate imperiled mollusks from areas of natural abundance into 
historical habitats have also been successful (e.g., Ahlstedt 1991, p. 
141). Aquatic mollusk hatchery husbandry is a relatively new science. 
However, much progress has been made over the past 2 decades and 
hatchery propagation of aquatic mollusks is now a viable conservation 
tool (e.g., Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2006, p. 1-13). 
Reintroduction with hatchery propagules is recognized as a primary 
recovery task for rare aquatic species in the Mobile River Basin 
Aquatic

[[Page 67517]]

Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. 30). 
As noted in the Background, above, the interrupted rocksnail has been 
successfully propagated and produced in sufficient numbers for limited 
releases. Another closely related snail, the plicate rocksnail, has 
been propagated, and attempts to reintroduce the species into 
historical habitat in Alabama have shown success in terms of survival 
and natural recruitment in the reintroduced population (Johnson in 
litt. 2008). The available information indicates that the Georgia 
pigtoe and interrupted rocksnail cannot be conserved without extending 
the species' range into historically occupied areas (see Criteria Used 
To Identify Critical Habitat section). Reintroduction using hatchery 
reared offspring is currently the only option to achieve this 
conservation benchmark.
    (11) Comment: The Act and its application in designating critical 
habitat is unconstitutional in light of the clear limitations on the 
use of Federal power in the property clause of the Constitution's Fifth 
Amendment (``* * * private property [shall not] be taken for public 
use, without just compensation'').
    Our response: The designation of critical habitat, in and of 
itself, has no legal effect on property rights or constitute a physical 
or regulatory ``taking'' of real estate property. Critical habitat does 
not preclude property use; rather, it only affects Federal 
authorization or funding of projects that may adversely modify critical 
habitat. In the event such a finding is made in a section 7 
consultation with the Federal funding or authorizing agency, the 
Service is required to identify reasonable and prudent project 
alternatives. Exemption procedures under the Act provide sufficient 
opportunity to accomplish the Service's statutory mandates without 
precluding compatible use of private property. Therefore, critical 
habitat designation, by itself, does not affect a taking of private 
property.
    (12) Comment: FWS should conduct an analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) prior to 
listing and designating critical habitat.
    Our response: Environmental assessments and environmental impact 
statements, as defined under NEPA, are not required for regulations 
enacted under section 4 of the Act (see 48 FR 49244, October 25, 1983). 
The FWS has determined that, outside of the jurisdiction of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a NEPA analysis is not 
required for critical habitat designation.
    (13) Comment: Interrupted rocksnails in Alabama (Unit IR 3) that 
are covered by the proposal are not wild, naturally occurring species. 
The reintroduced colony is not reproducing and is not viable.
    Our response: Any interrupted rocksnails currently surviving in 
Unit IR 3 are surviving individuals from releases made by ADCNR in 2003 
through 2005, or their offspring. While there is currently no evidence 
that natural recruitment of rocksnails has occurred on the shoal since 
the release, we are unable to confirm their extirpation from the site. 
Including this single shoal in the designation alerts Federal action 
agencies to the species' potential presence.
    (14) Comment: The determination that reintroduction of interrupted 
rocksnail into Units IR 1 and IR 3 is essential to its conservation is 
not supported by the record and is arbitrary and capricious.
    Our response: Under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section, below, we note that the surviving populations of each species 
are small, extremely localized, isolated, and vulnerable to habitat 
modification, toxic spills, progressive degradation from land surface 
runoff, and catastrophic changes to their habitats from flood scour and 
drought. Under the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section, 
we discuss areas currently occupied by the species, the species' 
limited extent, their vulnerability to random events, and the inability 
of these species to naturally recolonize historically occupied areas 
that might now support them. This information was used to determine 
that the designation of unoccupied critical habitat is essential to the 
conservation of the species. Also under the Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat section, we discuss our process for assessing the 
potential of historically occupied stream reaches as unoccupied 
critical habitat, the criteria we used to determine if they were 
essential to the conservation of the species, and the PCEs currently 
present in each stream reach considered for designation as critical 
habitat. Our reasons for designating Units IR 1 and IR 3 as critical 
habitat for the interrupted rocksnail are discussed in some detail in 
the Critical Habitat sections, below. These include the presence of 
PCEs in both units, the presence of species in both units that are 
closely related to the interrupted rocksnail and require similar PCEs, 
improvements in water quality and quantity over the past 2 decades, and 
the potential of these two stream reaches for reoccupation by the 
interrupted rocksnail through reintroduction efforts. Based on this 
analysis, and our review of the best available scientific information, 
all unoccupied stream reaches included in the critical habitat 
designations for each of these three species, including Units IR 1 and 
IR 3, are essential to their conservation. Units IR 1 and IR 3, 
however, are remote and separated by one (Unit IR 1) or more (Unit IR 
3) impoundments from the only surviving population of the interrupted 
rocksnail in the Oostanaula River. Therefore, conservation of the 
interrupted rocksnail will require reintroduction of the species into 
Unit IR 1, and appropriate areas in Unit IR 3.
    (15) Comment: Smaller and more protected tributaries should be 
considered for reintroductions of the interrupted rocksnail.
    Our response: While smaller and more protected tributaries are 
within the historical geographical range of the interrupted rocksnail, 
and may become important to its conservation, we relied on documented 
historically occupied areas for the purposes of preparing this critical 
habitat designation for the reasons discussed above (see our response 
to Comment 6, above).
    (16) Comment: There are no rough hornsnails in the habitat proposed 
to be designated as critical habitat.
    Our response: Rough hornsnails were documented from Unit RH 1, 
Coosa River above the Fall Line during the 1990s (FLMNH in litt. 2006), 
and have most recently been documented from two locations below the 
Fall Line (Hartfield in litt. 2001, Crow in litt. 2008). In Unit RH 2, 
Yellowleaf Creek, rough hornsnails occur throughout the designated 
reach (see Background section).
    (17) Comment: The Service appears to be proposing to designate 
critical habitat on the chance a particular species might move into it 
at some point in the future. What happens to unoccupied critical 
habitat if a species does not naturally repopulate the area?
    Our response: With appropriate management, we hope to conserve the 
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail within 
currently occupied areas and promote natural dispersal into unoccupied 
areas adjacent to occupied reaches. We recognize that there is little 
chance of natural dispersal of the Georgia pigtoe and interrupted 
rocksnail into the designated unoccupied areas that are remote from 
surviving populations due to the presence of multiple dams and large 
areas of impounded (and thus unsuitable) channels. However, newly

[[Page 67518]]

developed information and technology are promising for successful 
reintroductions of hatchery-reared individuals into these areas.
    (18) Comment: What happens to critical habitat if a species becomes 
definitively extinct?
    Our response: The Act requires us to conduct 5-year reviews on the 
status of listed species. If a species is determined to be extinct, it 
can be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
through the formal rulemaking process. If a species is removed from the 
List due to extinction, areas that have been designated as critical 
habitat for that species will no longer be subject to the section 7 
consultation requirements of the Act.
    (19) Comment: The Service did not consider whether the reintroduced 
population of interrupted rocksnail present in Unit IR 3 should be 
designated as experimental under section 10(j) of the Act. Listing and 
designating critical habitat for reintroduced species is bad public 
policy, and is an attempt to circumvent the purposes of section 10(j) 
of the Act.
    Our response: Under section 10(j), the Secretary of the Department 
of the Interior can designate reintroduced populations established 
outside the species' current range, but within its historical range, as 
``experimental.'' Based on the best available information, we must 
determine whether an experimental population is ``essential'' or 
``nonessential'' to the continued existence of the species. 
Experimental populations that are essential to the continued existence 
of the species are treated as a threatened species, and the Secretary 
may promulgate regulations under section 4(d) of the Act. Experimental 
populations that are not essential to the continued existence of the 
species are treated as species proposed for listing. Section 
10(j)(C)(ii) prohibits designation of critical habitat only for 
experimental populations that are not essential to the continued 
existence of the species.
    Within this rule, we reviewed the status of the interrupted 
rocksnail, its historical and current range, the threats affecting the 
conservation of the species, and the areas available for its 
conservation. We used this information to identify Unit IR 3 as an area 
essential for the conservation of the interrupted rocksnail, and we are 
designating it as critical habitat (see Unit IR3: Lower Coosa River, 
Elmore County, Alabama, below).
    (20) Comment: The reintroduction of the interrupted rocksnail into 
Alabama prior to the proposed listing did not allow for consideration 
of the Act's reintroduction provisions, or alert the public to the 
Service's consideration of experimental status.
    Our response: As noted in our response to Comment 13, above, the 
reintroduction of the interrupted rocksnail into the lower Coosa River, 
Alabama, was a State action conducted under State regulations. The 
public was notified by the State through a press release and 
publication of the reintroduction in public media.
    (21) Comment: The Service recognizes (in the 2003 draft, Freshwater 
Mussels and Snails of the Mobile River Basin: Plan for the Controlled 
Propagation, Augmentation, and Reintroduction) that reintroductions of 
hatchery mollusk propagules is experimental in nature. Therefore, they 
should be designated as experimental populations under section 10(j) of 
the Act.
    Our response: The 2003 draft plan for controlled propagation was 
addressed to scientists, institutions, and agencies contemplating 
propagation of mollusks as a management strategy. In 2003, mollusk 
propagation was an emerging science and technology. This was the first 
propagation plan developed for mollusk species, and sought to alert the 
intended audience (i.e., scientists and State and Federal agencies 
contemplating propagation of mollusks) of the need for rigorous 
documentation and monitoring. The use of the term ``experimental'' in 
this document has no direct connection to the term's use under section 
10(j) of the Act, where it is a term used to identify reintroduced 
populations of listed species outside of their geographical range that 
may receive specific exemptions from section 9 of the Act.
    (22) Comment: The lack of experimental population designation for 
interrupted rocksnails (in IR 3) may cause serious negative impacts to 
landowners, businesses, and users of the Coosa River, through limiting 
landowners' ability to manage properties and creating uncertainty for 
landowners and waterway users.
    Our response: Unit IR 3 is occupied by the federally protected 
tulotoma snail and fine-lined pocketbook, which are currently subject 
to the section 7 consultation provisions, as well as the section 9 
prohibitions, of the Act. Apart from limited hydropower flow 
modifications to reduce take of tulotoma snail by the Alabama Power 
Company, we are unaware of any negative impacts to landowners, 
businesses, or users of this reach of the Coosa River due to the 
presence of mollusk species currently protected under the Act. It is 
not anticipated that this listing and the reintroduction of interrupted 
rocksnails will impair legal activities in the unit by landowners and 
waterway users.
    (23) Comment: The proposed critical habitat designation of 
unoccupied habitat for the interrupted rocksnail should be withdrawn.
    Our response: We are required by section 4(a) of the Act to 
designate critical habitat at the time a species is listed, and to 
designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat when we determine that 
the best available scientific data demonstrate that the designation of 
that area is essential to the conservation needs of the species (see 
Critical Habitat section). We determined that Unit IR 1 and unoccupied 
portions of Units IR 2 and IR 3 are essential to the conservation of 
the interrupted rocksnail (see Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat section).
    (24) Comment: The data in the proposed rule relative to released 
captive interrupted rocksnails are not consistent with ADCNR records. 
The proposed rule states that approximately 7,400 interrupted 
rocksnails were released into the Coosa River by the State of Alabama 
2003-2005, while information from ADCNR indicates that 10,476 
rocksnails were released during this same period.
    Our response: The numbers reported in the proposed rule were a 
typographical error. Records provided to us by TNARI and the State of 
Alabama document the release of 7,513 interrupted rocksnails into the 
Coosa River 2003-2005. We intended to state that approximately 7,500 
snails were released. TNARI records indicate around 10,476 snails were 
produced at its hatchery during 2003-2005. These production numbers may 
have been erroneously reported as released snails in a presentation by 
Dr. Paul Johnson (Johnson in litt. 2010).
    (25) Comment: The Service should develop a programmatic safe harbor 
agreement (SHA) to cover future releases of listed aquatic mollusks in 
Alabama.
    Our response: SHAs have been developed as tools to encourage 
private landowners and entities to implement conservation measures that 
maintain existing populations, encourage colonization by listed 
species, or expand existing populations. Programmatic SHAs have been 
developed to envelop multiple landowners under a single agreement, 
encouraging cooperative implementation and greatly reducing paperwork. 
SHAs and programmatic SHAs can be important conservation tools in 
recovering listed species, particularly in situations where the

[[Page 67519]]

cessation of voluntary conservation actions may result in take of 
listed species, and return their numbers to a pre-agreement baseline. 
We are willing to enter into SHAs, where appropriate, and where they 
would result in conservation benefits to the species.
    (26) Comment: Due to the lack of specific information on the 
biology of these species, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
could face operational restrictions (at Carters Reservoir) that have no 
relation to the conservation of the species.
    Our response: Under section 7 of the Act, the Corps will need to 
consult with us should their activities adversely affect the species or 
adversely modify their critical habitats. We have broadly defined 
activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat below 
(see Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard, below), and 
will work with the Corps to ensure that the best available information 
is used when they consult with us. Carters Reservoir is remote from any 
of the areas designated as critical habitat by this rule. The 
Coosawattee River below Carters Reservoir was designated as critical 
habitat for several mussel species in 2004 (see 69 FR 40084, July 1, 
2004). Our final economic analysis (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, 
pp. 3-6--3-10) found that there would only be incremental 
administrative costs associated with this listing and critical habitat 
designation and operations at Carters Reservoir.
    (27) Comment: What is the present need for designation of critical 
habitat and its related administrative costs at a time of severe 
economic difficulty?
    Our response: We are required by the Act to designate critical 
habitat, when prudent and determinable, at the time of listing. 
However, our economic analysis identified relatively small incremental 
costs that will occur due to this critical habitat designation 
(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010). Specifically, incremental costs are 
anticipated to result entirely from the added administrative 
requirements of forecast section 7 consultations, and are estimated to 
be approximately $44,000 annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. 
These administrative costs are unlikely to have a significant effect on 
regional or national economic conditions.
    (28) Comment: The Service should avoid interference with barge 
transportation in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River system.
    Our response: The critical habitat designations in this rule are 
outside of or peripheral to areas used for barge transportation in the 
ACT River system. The economic analysis does not anticipate economic 
effects to barge transportation in the ACT River system as a result of 
this designation.
    (29) Comment: Speculation on future environmental flow releases at 
Carters Reservoir is pre-decisional, as the Corps' Water Control Manual 
update is not complete.
    Our response: The economic analysis draws on publically available 
information, as well as insights from professionals involved in water 
management in the ACT basin, to arrive at reasonable estimates of the 
future economic impacts of species conservation efforts on hydropower 
and other water management activities. The final economic analysis 
includes additional caveats with regard to impacts associated with 
potential environmental flow releases related to Corps facilities 
(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, pp. 3-6--3-10).
    (30) Comment: Critical habitat designation could impact power 
production, increase costs, and potentially have significant impacts to 
municipalities and cooperatives that benefit from hydropower.
    Our response: The potential effects of this designation on power 
production were considered in the economic analysis. The economic 
analysis finds that water managers at four hydroelectric production 
facilities in the ACT Basin are likely to undertake conservation 
efforts for listed species that will benefit the three mollusks, at an 
estimated cost of $8.8 million annually. Specifically, three facilities 
(Carters, Weiss, Jordan) are expected to modify operations to provide 
additional flows for the benefit of downstream aquatic species. 
However, these modifications related to conserving the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are expected to occur absent 
these critical habitat designations, because the areas affected have 
been previously designated as critical habitat for, and are occupied 
by, other listed mollusk species with similar PCEs and habitat needs. 
Incremental economic impacts resulting from these critical habitat 
designations are expected to arise from expected administrative 
requirements of forecast section 7 consultations between Federal 
regulatory agencies and the Service (see our response to Comment 27, 
above).
    (31) Comment: The listing of the interrupted rocksnail and its 
critical habitat could have serious negative impacts on landowners, 
businesses, and users of the Coosa River system because it will require 
take avoidance and section 7 consultations for an activity that may 
affect the population or its critical habitat.
    Our response: The Act does not require analysis of the costs of 
designating species as endangered or threatened. The potential economic 
impacts associated with critical habitat designation for the 
interrupted rocksnail, as well as costs of protective measures for the 
species already expected to occur without proposed critical habitat 
designation, are presented in the economic analysis as baseline costs. 
Specifically, incremental costs are anticipated to result entirely from 
the added administrative requirements of forecast section 7 
consultations, and are estimated to be approximately $44,000 annually, 
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Costs associated with future 
conservation efforts that may benefit the three mollusks in critical 
habitat areas are estimated to be $8.97 million to $9.16 million 
annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Most (96 percent) of 
baseline costs quantified are conservation efforts related to potential 
lost hydropower production value at three facilities.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR part 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 
section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of any of 
five factors, as follows: (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.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting or that are likely to affect Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail snail. The five factors listed under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act and their application to the Georgia pigtoe 
mussel (Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis 
foremani), and rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani) are as follows:

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

    All three species have experienced significant curtailment of their 
occupied habitats (see Background section). The Georgia pigtoe has been 
eliminated from

[[Page 67520]]

more than 90 percent of its historical range of 480 river km (298 river 
mi). It now inhabits only 43 river km (27 river mi). Interrupted 
rocksnail has been eliminated from 99 percent of its historical range 
of 800 river km (497 river mi), and is now known from 12 river km (7 
river mi). The rough hornsnail has disappeared from more than 99 
percent of its historical range of 321 river km (199 river mi), and now 
occurs in less than 1 river km (0.6 river mi). The primary cause of 
range curtailment for all three species has been modification and 
destruction of river and stream habitats, primarily by the construction 
of large hydropower dams on the Coosa River. This habitat loss was 
compounded by fragmentation and isolation of the remaining free-flowing 
portions of the Coosa River and its tributaries, as well as the 
species' increased vulnerability to local historical events of water 
quality and habitat degradation.
Dams and Impoundments
    Dams eliminate or reduce river flow within impounded areas, trap 
silts and cause sediment deposition, alter water temperature and 
dissolved oxygen levels, change downstream water flow and quality, 
affect normal flood patterns, and block upstream and downstream 
movement of species (Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; McAllister et al. 2000, 
p. iii; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20-21). Within impounded waters, 
decline of freshwater mollusks has been attributed to sedimentation, 
decreased dissolved oxygen, and alteration in resident fish populations 
(Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63-64; Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; Marcinek et 
al. 2005, pp. 9-10). Below dams, mollusk declines are associated with 
changes and fluctuation in flow regime, scouring and erosion, reduced 
dissolved oxygen levels and water temperatures, and changes in resident 
fish assemblages (Williams et al. 1992b, p. 7; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 
63-64; Watters 1999, pp. 261-264; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 20-21). The 
decline and extinction of freshwater snails and mussels in the Mobile 
River Basin has been directly attributed to construction of numerous 
large impoundments in the major river systems (Williams et al. 1992b, 
pp. 1-8; Bogan et al. 1995, pp. 250-251; Lydeard and Mayden 1995, pp. 
803-804; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 62, 64; Marcinek et al. 2005, p. 9).
    The Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are 
all endemic to the Coosa River system. The Coosa River was impounded by 
six major dams constructed between 1928 and 1966. Today, more than 60 
percent of the Coosa River and its 19 largest tributaries are inundated 
or affected by flow regulation (Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 12-16).
    Dam construction on the Coosa River had a secondary effect of 
fragmenting the ranges of aquatic mollusk species, such as the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, leaving relict 
habitats and populations isolated by the structures as well as by 
extensive areas of uninhabitable, impounded waters. Isolated 
populations were left more vulnerable to, and affected by, natural 
events (such as droughts), runoff from common land-use practices (such 
as agriculture, mining, urbanization), discharges (such as municipal 
and industrial wastes), and accidents (such as chemical spills) that 
reduced population levels or eliminated habitat (Neves et al. 1997, pp. 
64-71; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, pp. 14-15). As a result, 
many relict populations became locally extirpated, and many mollusk 
species were driven to extinction (Bogan et al. 1995, pp. 250-251; 
Lydeard and Mayden 1995, pp. 803-804; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 54, 62; 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, pp. 6-9). If conditions 
subsequently improved, the surviving mollusk species were unable to 
naturally recolonize suitable areas, due to impediments created by the 
dams and impounded waters.
    The only known natural population of the interrupted rocksnail 
occurs in the free-flowing Oostanaula River (Williams and Hughes 1998, 
p. 9; Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 25). The Oostanaula River is formed by 
the confluence of the Conasauga and Coosawatee Rivers. The Upper 
Coosawatee is impounded by Carters Dam, a hydropower dam which 
discharges into Carters Re-regulation Dam and from there into the 
Coosawatee River. Hydropower discharges from Carters Dam are believed 
to be implicated in the disappearance of the interrupted rocksnail from 
the Coosawattee River (Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 26). The effects of 
power generation discharges from Carters Dam, including cold water 
temperatures are evident downstream (Williams and Hughes 1998, p. 11), 
even to the shoals on the Oostanaula River where the interrupted 
rocksnail is found (Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 26; Marcinek et al. 
2005, p. 15). A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license was 
issued to construct a hydroelectric facility on the Carters Re-
regulation Dam (FERC 2001, pp. 1-2). A notice of probable termination 
of license has been issued due to failure to commence construction in a 
timely manner (FERC 2005a, pp. 1-2). The applicant appealed the 
termination order (FERC 2005b, p. 1), but was denied (FERC 2006a, pp. 
1-3). However, the applicant has since applied for a preliminary permit 
to proceed with the hydroelectric facility and issued a Notice of 
Intent and related documents to file for a license application at 
Carters Re-Regulation Dam (Fall Line Hydro Company, Inc. 2009).
    Rough hornsnails currently survive in Lower Yellowleaf Creek, at 
the transitional area between the flowing stream and the embayment 
created by Lay Dam, and in a small area of the Coosa River below the 
shoals along the Fall Line near Wetumpka, Alabama. Known from the main 
channel of the Coosa River and the mouths of some of the larger 
tributaries, all historical habitats, including the two where the rough 
hornsnail currently survives, are affected to some degree by impounded 
waters and hydropower releases.
    The Georgia pigtoe historically occurred in the Coosa River and 
many of its major tributaries. As noted above, the Coosa is impounded 
throughout most of its length by major hydropower dams. In addition, 
all historically occupied tributaries are isolated from each other by 
one or more of these dams and extensive reaches of impounded waters. 
The species is currently known to survive only in the Upper Conasauga 
River, far above the influence of the Coosa River impoundments.
Water and Habitat Quality
    The disappearance of shoal populations of rough hornsnail, 
interrupted rocksnail, and Georgia pigtoe from unimpounded relict 
habitats in the Coosa River drainage is likely due to historical 
pollution problems. Pleurocerid snails and freshwater mussels are 
highly sensitive to water and habitat quality (Havlik and Marking 1987, 
pp. 1-15; Neves et al. 1997, pp. 64-69). Historical causes of water and 
habitat degradation in the Coosa River and its tributaries included 
drainage from gold mining activities, industrial and municipal 
pollution events, and construction and agricultural runoff (for 
example, Hurd 1974, pp. 38-40; Lydeard and Mayden 1995, pp. 803-804; 
Freeman et al. 2005, pp. 560-562).
    Prior to the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq., 1972) and the adoption of State water quality regulations and 
criteria, water pollution was a significant factor in the disappearance 
of mollusks from unimpounded river and stream channels in the Mobile 
River Basin (Baldwin 1973, p. 23; Hurd 1974, pp. 38-40, 144-151). Hurd 
(1974, pp. 147-149), for example, noted the extirpation

[[Page 67521]]

of freshwater mussel communities from the Conasauga River below Dalton, 
Georgia, apparently as a result of textile and carpet mill waste 
discharges. He also attributed the disappearance of the mussel fauna 
from the Etowah River and other tributaries of the Coosa River to 
organic pollution and siltation. Baldwin (1973, p. 23) documented the 
loss of mussel diversity in the Cahaba River and identified the primary 
causes as pollution from coalfields and industrial and urban wastes.
    Although Federal and State water quality laws and regulations have 
generally reduced the impacts of point source discharges, nonpoint 
source pollution continues to affect and possibly threaten the 
remaining populations of each of these mollusk species. Nonpoint source 
pollution has been identified as a concern in the Yellowleaf Creek and 
Lower Coosa River watersheds (Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP) 
2005 Chapter 12). These drainages encompass historical habitat for the 
interrupted rocksnail and Georgia pigtoe, currently occupied habitat 
for the rough hornsnail, and a recent reintroduction of the interrupted 
rocksnail. Both Yellowleaf Creek and the eastern watershed of the Lower 
Coosa River have been designated as High Priority Watersheds by the 
ACWP (2005 Chap. 12), due to the high potential of nonpoint source 
pollution associated with expanding human population growth rates and 
urbanization. The headwaters of Yellowleaf Creek are about 5 km (3 mi) 
southeast of the greater metropolitan area surrounding Birmingham, and 
the watershed is highly dissected by county roads. The Lower Coosa 
River is about 16 km (10 mi) north of the Montgomery greater 
metropolitan area and is accessible by a four lane highway. Both 
general areas are experiencing growth due to their proximity to major 
metropolitan areas.
    Nonpoint source pollution and habitat deterioration are also 
problems in the Upper Coosa River Basin, including the Conasauga and 
Oostanaula rivers (Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) 1998, 
pp. 4.27-4.42). In the reaches of the Conasauga River where the Georgia 
pigtoe continues to survive, overall molluscan abundance and diversity 
have experienced a general decline over the past 2 decades that has 
been primarily attributed to water or sediment toxicity and channel 
instability (Johnson and Evans 2000, pp. 171-173; Sharpe and Nichols 
2005, pp. 81-88). Sedimentation has been identified as a potential 
limiting factor for the interrupted rocksnails in the Oostanaula River 
(Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 26). Following its rediscovery, the 
interrupted rocksnail population size in the Oostanaula River has 
declined from a high of 10 to 45 snails per square meter (10.7 sq ft) 
in 1999 (Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 22) to only 20 snails found during 
6 search-hours in 2004 (Johnson in litt. 2003, 2004). The cause of 
decline is suspected to be some form of water contamination (Johnson in 
litt. 2003, 2004; Hartfield in litt. 2006).
    Nonpoint source pollution from land surface runoff originates from 
virtually all land use activities and includes sediments; fertilizer, 
herbicide, and pesticide residues; animal or human wastes; septic tank 
leakage and gray water discharge; and oils and greases (GDNR 1998, pp. 
4.27-4.42; ACWP 2005, Chap. 9). Nonpoint source pollution can cause 
excess sedimentation, nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen 
concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in 
water chemistry that can seriously impact aquatic mollusks. Land use 
types around the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail populations include pastures, row crops, timber, and urban 
and rural communities.
    Excessive sediments are believed to impact riverine mollusks 
requiring clean, stable streams (Ellis 1936, pp. 39-40; Brim Box and 
Mossa 1999, p. 99). Impacts resulting from sediments have been noted 
for many components of aquatic communities. For example, sediments have 
been shown to abrade or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to 
underwater surfaces, upon which snails may feed); affect respiration, 
growth, reproductive success, and behavior of aquatic insects and 
mussels; and affect fish growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters 
1995, pp. 173-175). Potential sediment sources within a watershed 
include virtually all activities that disturb the land surface, and all 
localities currently occupied by these mollusks are affected to varying 
degrees by sedimentation.
    Land surface runoff also contributes nutrients to rivers and 
streams. Excessive nutrient input (for example, nitrogen and phosphorus 
from fertilizers, sewage, and animal manure) can result in effects that 
are detrimental to aquatic species. High levels of nutrients in surface 
runoff can promote excessive filamentous algal growth. Dense algal 
growth covers gravel, cobble, or bedrock substrates and interstices 
(spaces between bottom particles), and can seriously reduce dissolved 
oxygen in waters during dark hours due to algal respiration (Shepard et 
al. 1994, pp. 61-64), which affects feeding, reproduction, and 
respiration in adult and juvenile mussels and snails, and limits access 
to substrate interstices important to juvenile and adult mussels. Algal 
mats also provide cover for invertebrate predators of juvenile mollusks 
(such as flatworms, hydra, and chironomids) and increase their 
vulnerability to such predators. Filamentous algae may also displace 
certain species of fish, or otherwise affect fish-mussel interactions 
essential to recruitment (for example, Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 
373). In hatcheries, filamentous algal growth reduces juvenile mussel 
survival by reducing flow, increasing sedimentation, and causing 
competition with and reduction of the unicellular algal community on 
which the mussels feed (Neves Pers. comm. 2002). Nutrient and sediment 
pollution may have synergistic effects (when the toxic effect of two or 
more pollutants operating together is greater than the sum of the 
effects of the pollutants operating individually) on freshwater 
mollusks, as has been suggested for aquatic insects (Waters 1995, p. 
67).
    Land surface runoff contributes the majority of human-induced 
sediments and nutrients to water bodies throughout the United States. 
The human population is expanding within the areas currently occupied 
by the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, 
increasing the sediment and nutrient input to their riverine habitats, 
and leaving these mollusks vulnerable to progressive water and habitat 
degradation from land surface runoff.
    Accidental spills that may affect water or habitat quality also 
threaten surviving populations of each species. For example, on 
September 12, 2006, a train derailment spilled four tank cars of 
soybeans into a tributary of Yellowleaf Creek (Birmingham News in litt. 
2006). A large rain event flushed the decomposing soybeans into 
Yellowleaf Creek, resulting in a serious decline in dissolved oxygen in 
the stream, killing fishes, mussels (including two endangered species, 
southern pigtoe (Fusconaia cerina) and triangular kidneyshell 
(Ptychobranchus greenii)), and snails (including the endangered 
cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis)) (Johnson 2006). 
Fortunately, the location of the largest surviving population of rough 
hornsnail is in the lowest reaches of Yellowleaf Creek, remote from the 
spill, and no mortality was observed in this population as a result of 
the spill (Johnson 2006).
    In summary, the historical loss of habitat and range is currently, 
and projected to continue to be, a significant

[[Page 67522]]

threat to the rough hornsnail, interrupted rocksnail, and Georgia 
pigtoe. Curtailment of habitat and range also amplifies threats from 
nonpoint source water and habitat quality degradation, accidental 
spills, or violation of permitted discharges. Due to the extremely 
limited extent of habitat currently occupied by each species, and the 
severity and magnitude of this threat, we have determined that the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat and range represents an ongoing and significant threat to the 
rough hornsnail, interrupted rocksnail, and Georgia pigtoe.

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

    The Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are 
not commercially utilized. Each species has been taken for scientific 
and private collections in the past, yet collecting is not considered a 
factor in the decline of these species. While collection is not 
considered a current threat, the desirability of these species in 
scientific and commercial collections may increase as their existence 
and rarity becomes known, and their localized distributions and small 
population sizes leaves them vulnerable to overzealous recreational or 
scientific collecting.

C. Disease or Predation

    Diseases of freshwater mollusks are poorly known and are not 
currently considered to be a threat to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, or rough hornsnail, nor a factor in their decline. Aquatic 
snails and mussels are consumed by various vertebrate predators, 
including fishes, mammals, and possibly birds. Although predation by 
naturally occurring predators is a normal aspect of the population 
dynamics of a species and is not known to be a threat to any of these 
species, changes in water flows, depths, temperatures, and other 
environmental factors within some portions of their ranges may have led 
to increased numbers of native mollusk-eating fish, such as freshwater 
drum (Johnson in litt. 2005b). In addition, the potential now exists 
for the black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), a mollusk-eating Asian 
fish recently introduced into the waters of the United States (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, p. 49280), to eventually enter and 
disperse through the Mobile River Basin via the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway, or by their accidental release from catfish farms or other 
aquaculture facilities.
    In summary, disease in freshwater mollusks is poorly known and is 
not currently considered a threat to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, or rough hornsnail. Although there is no direct evidence at 
this time that predation is detrimentally affecting the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, or rough hornsnail, their small populations and 
limited ranges leaves them vulnerable to threats of predation from 
natural or introduced predators. Therefore, we have concluded that 
predation currently represents a threat of low magnitude, but it could 
potentially become a significant future threat to the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, or rough hornsnail due to their small population 
sizes.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 
currently recognizes the rough hornsnail as a ``Priority 1'' species 
(Highest Conservation Concern) (Mirarchi et al. 2004, p. 117; ADCNR 
2005, p. 302). The interrupted rocksnail is considered ``Extirpated (in 
Alabama)--Conservation Action Underway'' (Mirarchi et al. 2004, p. 
114), and the Georgia pigtoe is listed as ``extinct'' (Mirarchi et al. 
2004, p. 13). While these classifications identify the status of 
imperiled species in the State of Alabama, they convey no legal 
protection. Interrupted rocksnail and Georgia pigtoe currently lack any 
official status recognition by the State of Georgia, but they have been 
nominated for inclusion on the State Protected Species List. The 
Georgia pigtoe is identified as a species of the Greatest Conservation 
Need by the State of Tennessee. NatureServe (2010) identifies the 
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail as G1 
critically imperiled species; however, no State or Federal protection 
is conveyed by these classifications. Without State or Federal 
protection, these three species are not currently given any specific 
special consideration under environmental laws when project impacts are 
reviewed, other than those provided for water quality.
    The mollusk fauna (including the Georgia pigtoe) of the Conasauga 
River and the interrupted rocksnail in the Oostanaula River have 
experienced significant declines in recent years, apparently due to 
water quality or sediment toxicity (Evans 2001, p. 3; Johnson in litt. 
2004; Sharpe and Nichols 2005, pp. 1-4; Konwick et al. 2008, pp. 2016-
2017). There is no specific scientific information on the sensitivity 
of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail or 
their host fish species to common industrial and municipal pollutants, 
and little information on other freshwater mollusks. Current State and 
Federal regulations regarding pollutants are assumed to be protective 
of freshwater mollusks; however, these species may be more susceptible 
to some pollutants than test organisms commonly used in bioassays. For 
example, several recent studies suggest that U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) criteria for ammonia may not be protective of 
freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2571; Augspurger et al. 
2007, p. 2026; Newton et al. 2003, pp. 2559-2560; Newton and Bartsch 
2007, p. 2057; Ward et al. 2007, p. 2075).
    In a review of the effects of eutrophication on mussels, Patzner 
and Muller (2001, p. 329) noted that stenoecious (narrowly tolerant) 
species disappear as waters become more eutrophic. They also refer to 
studies that associate increased levels of nitrate with the decline and 
absence of juvenile mussels (Patzner and Muller 2001, pp. 330-333). 
Other studies also suggest that early life stages of mussels are more 
sensitive to metals and such inorganic chemicals as chlorine and 
ammonia than are common bioassay test organisms (Keller and Zam 1991, 
pp. 543-545; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 221; Naimo 1995, pp. 354-355). 
Therefore, it appears that inadequate research and data prevent 
existing regulations, such as the Clean Water Act (administered by the 
EPA and the Corps), from being fully utilized or effective in the 
management and protection of these species.
    Rough hornsnails currently survive at localized sites in Yellowleaf 
Creek and in the Lower Coosa River below Wetumpka Shoals in Alabama. In 
addition, the interrupted rocksnail was recently reintroduced into 
Wetumpka Shoals. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management 
(ADEM) has designated the water use classification for some portions of 
Yellowleaf Creek as ``Swimming'' (S) and others as ``Fish and 
Wildlife'' (F&W). The F&W designation establishes minimum water quality 
standards that are believed to protect existing species and water uses 
(for example, fishing, recreation, irrigation) within the designated 
area, while the S classification establishes higher water quality 
standards that are protective of human contact with the water. The 
Lower Coosa River below Wetumpka is currently designated as F&W by 
ADEM, and adjacent tributaries are classified as S. Both water bodies 
are currently believed to support their designated

[[Page 67523]]

uses. However, Yellowleaf Creek and the eastern watershed of the Lower 
Coosa have been designated as High Priority Watersheds by the ACWP 
(2005, Chap. 12), due to a lack of monitoring data and the high 
potential of nonpoint source pollution in these drainages associated 
with expanding human population growth rates and urbanization.
    The reach of the Conasauga River at and below the Tennessee-Georgia 
State Line supports the only known surviving population of the Georgia 
pigtoe. This river reach is identified on Georgia's 303(d) list of 
impaired waters as partially supporting its designated use of Fishing-
Drinking Water (GDNR 2006, p. 35). The Georgia 303(d) list identifies 
high levels of fecal coliform bacteria and polychlorinated biphenyls 
(PCBs) as the reasons for this river reach's inclusion on the list; 
nonpoint pollution is identified as the source of pollutants (GDNR 
2006, p. 35). Recent studies also implicate sediment and water toxicity 
in the decline of mollusks in the Conasauga River (Sharpe and Nichols 
2005, pp. 81-88; Konwick et al. 2008, pp. 2016-2017).
    States maintain water-use classifications through issuance of 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to 
industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum limits on 
certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. For water bodies on the 
303(d) list, States are required under the Clean Water Act to establish 
a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutants of concern that 
will bring water quality into the applicable standard. The Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources has identified TMDLs for the Oostanaula 
River to address existing problems of PCBs and fecal coliform loads 
from nonpoint source and urban runoff sources.
    In summary, recent declines in mollusk communities within the 
ranges of each of these species has been attributed to poor water or 
sediment quality. Although regulatory mechanisms are in place to 
protect aquatic species, a lack of specific information on the 
sensitivity of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail and their host fish to common industrial and municipal 
pollutants limits their application. Water and sediment quality is 
believed to currently affect (and is expected to continue to affect) 
the Georgia pigtoe and interrupted rocksnail and has been identified as 
a concern for the rough hornsnail in Yellowleaf Creek. Therefore, we 
determine that inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms are an 
imminent threat of high magnitude to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    As noted under Factor A, above, the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail have been eliminated from 90 percent or 
more of their historical ranges. Surviving populations of each species 
are small, extremely localized, isolated, and vulnerable to habitat 
modification, toxic spills, and progressive degradation from land 
surface runoff (nonpoint source runoff) (see Factor A: Dams and 
Impoundments, Water and Habitat Quality; and Factor D: The inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms). These conditions also leave each 
species vulnerable to catastrophic changes to their habitats that may 
result from natural events such as flood scour or drought.
    There is a growing concern that climate change may lead to 
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (for example, 
Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et 
al. 2004, p. 1015). During 2007 and 2008, a severe drought affected the 
Coosa River watershed in Alabama and Georgia. Streamflow for the 
Conasauga River at Tilton, Georgia, during September 2007, was the 
lowest recorded for any month in 69 years (U.S. Geological Survey 2007, 
pp. 1-2). Although the effects of the drought on the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail have not been quantified, 
mollusk declines as a direct result of drought have been documented 
(for example, Golladay et al. 2004, p. 494; Haag and Warren 2008, p. 
1165). 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).
    Freshwater mussels and snails are capable of moving only short 
distances. As noted previously (see discussion under Factor A: Dams and 
Impoundments), there are numerous obstacles in the Coosa River drainage 
preventing long distance movement of snails, mussels, or the fish hosts 
of mussels between relict patches of historically occupied and 
potentially suitable riverine habitats. Therefore, even if habitat 
conditions improve for the survival of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail in historically occupied stream and 
river habitats, they will be unable to recolonize those areas without 
human assistance. Low numbers of individuals within these isolated 
populations also increase the risks and consequences of inbreeding and 
reduced genetic diversity (Lynch 1996, pp. 493-494).
    The Georgia pigtoe may be adversely affected by the loss or 
reduction in numbers of the fish host(s) essential to its parasitic 
glochidial stage. The specific fish host(s) for the glochidia of the 
Georgia pigtoe is unknown; therefore, specific impacts on this aspect 
of the mussels' life cycle cannot be evaluated. However, other species 
of mussels in the genus Pleurobema are known to parasitize various 
species of chubs, minnows, stonerollers, and other stream fish species.
    In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors, such as 
droughts, storms, and toxic spills, threaten surviving populations of 
the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail due to 
the highly restricted and fragmented nature of their habitats and their 
small population sizes. Other factors, such as inbreeding, reduced 
genetic diversity, and loss or reduction of fish hosts for the Georgia 
pigtoe, may threaten each of the three species; however, the severity 
and magnitude of these threats are not currently known. However, we 
have determined that natural and manmade factors, such as accidental 
spills, floods, and droughts, currently pose an imminent and high 
degree of threat to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and 
rough hornsnail, and the levels of these threats are projected to 
continue or increase in the future.
Conclusion and Determination
    We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. 
Section 3(6) of the Act defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' We find that each of these three species is 
presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range, based on 
the immediacy and magnitude of the threats described above. Based on 
our analysis, we have no reason to believe that population trends for 
any of the three species addressed in this final rule will improve, nor 
will the effects of current threats acting on the species be 
ameliorated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing 
the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail as 
endangered under the Act.

[[Page 67524]]

    Without the protection of the Act, these species are in danger of 
extinction throughout all of their ranges. This could occur within a 
few years, given recurring drought conditions, accidents, or other 
existing threats. Furthermore, because of their curtailed ranges, and 
immediate and ongoing significant threats to each species throughout 
their entire respective ranges, as described above in the five-factor 
analysis, we find that it is unnecessary to analyze whether there are 
any significant portions of ranges for each species that may warrant a 
different determination of status.

Summary of Critical Habitat Changes From Proposed Rule

    We have considered all comments and information received during the 
open comment period for the proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for the Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail. We have included mud as a substrate utilized by the rough 
hornsnail based upon information provided by a peer reviewer, and added 
this descriptor into PCE 4 for the rough hornsnail (see Peer Review, 
above, and rough hornsnail PCE 4, below). We have also modified PCE 3 
for all three species to reflect information under Factors A and D, 
above, that some parameters identified under current water quality life 
criteria established under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) 
are not adequate to sustain normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages of mollusks. We have also defined the upstream and 
downstream limits of the critical habitat units by Universal Transverse 
Mercator (UTM) zone 16, coordinates in the Regulation Promulgation, 
below. No other changes have been made to the proposed designation, 
including the number, extent, and location of the individual units 
designated as critical habitat.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
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 
any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which 
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.
    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) of the Act 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 private landowners. Where a 
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of Section 7(a)(2) may apply. However, even 
in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the 
Federal action agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to 
restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the geographic area occupied by the species must first have the 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. The Service must identify, to the extent known using 
the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are 
found the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs), as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Second, to be included in the designation, the features at 
issue must also be ones that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Under the Act, we can designate 
unoccupied areas as critical habitat only when we determine that the 
best available scientific data demonstrate that the designation of that 
area is essential to the conservation needs 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. 
Furthermore, 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 represent the best scientific data available.
    When determining which areas we should propose 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 the recovery plan for the species, 
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. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine, based on scientific data not now available to the 
Service, are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation should not be interpreted as 
meaning that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may 
not be required for recovery of the species in question.
    Areas that support populations, 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. They are also 
subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) 
jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available 
scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally 
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their 
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings 
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the 
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will 
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation 
planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts 
calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available in determining occupied areas

[[Page 67525]]

that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the 
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, and 
unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail.
    We have reviewed the available information pertaining to historical 
and current distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of 
these 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.

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical 
area occupied at the time of listing are critical habitat, we identify 
the specific PCEs required for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail based on their biological needs. We 
consider the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of each species to be the PCEs laid out in the appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. 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 (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distribution of a species.
    The PCEs required for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 
and rough hornsnail are derived from biological needs of the species as 
described in the Background section of this rule. Unfortunately, little 
is known of the specific habitat requirements of any of these mollusk 
species other than all three require flowing water, stable stream or 
river channels, and adequate water quality. Georgia pigtoe 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 each 
of the species survive, the limited information available on these 
three species and their close relatives, and factors associated with 
the decline and extirpation of these and other aquatic mollusks from 
extensive portions of the Mobile River Basin.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    The Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail were 
all historically associated with stream and river shoals of the Coosa 
River drainage (Goodrich 1922, p. 5; Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 21; 
Williams et al. 2008). The decline of the aquatic mollusk fauna of the 
Mobile River Basin is directly associated with the loss of shoal 
habitats, primarily due to inundation by impounded waters (Bogan et al. 
1995, pp. 250-251; Lydeard and Mayden 1995, pp. 803-804; Neves et al. 
1997, pp. 63-64; Marcinek et al. 2005, pp. 7-10, 20-21). Shoals are 
defined as discrete areas that are of lower depth, greater slope, 
higher velocity flows, and coarser bed materials relative to other 
channel segments. Shoals include areas that are also referred to as 
riffles, gravel bars, and reefs. Shoals generally have substrates 
composed of bedrock, cobble, boulder, and gravel interspersed with 
sands, and sufficient current velocities to remove finer sediments and 
maintain interstitial habitats (Marcinek et al. 2005, p. 4). The 
interrupted rocksnail and rough hornsnail are found clinging to gravel, 
cobble, and boulders in moderate to strong currents in shoals, while 
Georgia pigtoe mussels are found imbedded in sand-gravel substrates 
within shoals. Rough hornsnails are also found in pools with mud or 
silt bottoms below shoals. Shoals and associated pools not only provide 
space for these three mollusks, but also provide cover and shelter and 
sites for breeding, reproduction, and growth of offspring.
    Shoal-pool habitats are formed and maintained by water quantity, 
channel slope, and sediment input to the system. Changes in one or more 
of these parameters can result in channel degradation or channel 
aggradation, with serious effects to mollusks. Therefore, we believe 
that stream channel stability is essential to the conservation of the 
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail.

Food

    The interrupted rocksnail and rough hornsnail generally feed by 
ingesting periphyton and biofilm detritus scraped off the substrate by 
the snail's radula (Morales and Ward 2000, p. 1). Unionid mussels, such 
as the Georgia pigtoe, filter algae, detritus, and bacteria from the 
water column (Williams et al. 2008, p. 67). Food availability and 
quality for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail in shoal habitats are affected by habitat stability, water 
flow, and water quality.

Water

    The Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are 
riverine-adapted species that depend upon adequate water flow (Williams 
et al. 2008, p. 534; Goodrich 1922, p. 5) and are not found in ponds or 
lakes. Continuously flowing water is a habitat feature associated with 
all surviving populations of the three species. Flowing water maintains 
the stream bottom and shoal habitats where these species are found, 
transports food items to the sedentary juvenile and adult life stages 
of the Georgia pigtoe, supports the periphyton and biofilm ingested by 
the interrupted rocksnail and rough hornsnail, removes wastes, and 
provides oxygen for respiration for each of the three species.
    The ranges of standard physical and chemical water quality 
parameters (such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity) 
that define suitable habitat conditions for the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail have not been investigated. 
However, as relatively sedentary animals, aquatic snails and mussels 
must tolerate the full range of such parameters that occur naturally 
within the streams where they persist. Both the amount (flow) and the 
physical and chemical conditions (water quality) where each of the 
three species currently exist vary widely according to season, 
precipitation events, and seasonal human activities within the 
watershed. Conditions across their historical ranges vary even more due 
to watershed size, geology, geography, and differences in human 
population densities and land uses. In general, each of the species 
survives in areas where the magnitude, frequency, duration, and 
seasonality of water flow are adequate to maintain stable shoal 
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 Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. We 
currently believe that most numeric standards for pollutants and water 
quality parameters

[[Page 67526]]

(for example, dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy metals) that have been 
adopted by the States under the Clean Water Act represent levels that 
are essential to the conservation of each of these three mollusks. 
However, some States' standards may not adequately protect mollusks, or 
are not being appropriately measured, monitored, or achieved in some 
reaches (see Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, Water and Habitat 
Quality; and Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
above). The Service is currently in consultation with the EPA to 
evaluate the protectiveness of criteria approved in EPA's water quality 
standards for endangered and threatened species and their critical 
habitats as described in the Memorandum of Agreement that our agencies 
signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201, February 22, 2001). Other factors that can 
potentially alter water quality are droughts and periods of low flow, 
nonpoint source runoff from adjacent land surfaces (for example, 
excessive amounts of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment), and random 
spills or unregulated discharge events. This could be particularly 
harmful during drought conditions when flows are depressed and 
pollutants are more concentrated. Therefore, adequate water quality is 
essential for normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life 
stages of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing

    Pleurocerid snails require clean hard surfaces, such as gravel, 
cobble, boulder, or bedrock, for laying eggs and for survival of 
juveniles (Bogan et al. 1995, p. 251). Excessive fine sediments or 
dense growth of filamentous algae can restrict or eliminate spawning 
sites and expose juveniles to entrainment (being swept away) or 
predation. Geomorphic instability may result in entrainment and loss of 
eggs by scouring currents or burial of eggs by excessive deposition. 
Therefore, stable shoals with low amounts of filamentous algae are 
essential to the conservation of the interrupted rocksnail and rough 
hornsnail.
    Freshwater mussels require a host fish for transformation of larval 
mussels (glochidia) to juvenile mussels (Williams et al. 2008, p. 68), 
and presence of the appropriate host fish is essential to the 
conservation of the Georgia pigtoe. The specific fish host(s) for the 
Georgia pigtoe is currently unknown. However, other species of mussels 
in the genus Pleurobema are known to parasitize various species of 
chubs, minnows, stonerollers, and other stream-adapted fish species 
(Haag and Warren 2003, p. 85).
    Juvenile Georgia pigtoe mussels require interstitial shoal habitats 
for growth and survival. Excessive sediments or dense growth of 
filamentous algae can expose juvenile mussels to entrainment or 
predation and be detrimental to the survival of juvenile mussels 
(Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 373). Geomorphic instability can 
result in the loss of interstitial habitats and juvenile mussels due to 
scouring or deposition (e.g., Hartfield 1993, pp. 132-139). Therefore, 
stable shoals with low to moderate amounts of filamentous algae growth 
are essential to the conservation of the Georgia pigtoe.

PCEs for the Georgia pigtoe, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail

    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species, we have determined that 
the Georgia pigtoe's PCEs are:
    (1) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (2) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species is found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occurs 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (3) Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, 
oxygen content, and chemical characteristics necessary for normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (4) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrates with low 
to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous algae.
    (5) The presence of fish host(s) for the Georgia pigtoe (currently 
unknown). Diverse assemblages of native chubs, minnows, stonerollers, 
and other stream-adapted fish species will serve as a potential 
indication of presence of host fish.
    The PCEs required for the interrupted rocksnail are:
    (1) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (2) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species is found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occurs 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (3) Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, 
oxygen content, and chemical characteristics necessary for normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (4) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrates with low 
to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous algae.
    The PCEs required for the rough hornsnail are:
    (1) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (2) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species are found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occur 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (3) Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, 
oxygen content, and chemical characteristics necessary for normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (4) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock, or mud substrates with 
low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous 
algae.
    This critical habitat designation is designed for the conservation 
of the physical and biological features essential to the life-history 
functions that were the basis for the determination of endangered 
status and the areas containing those features (that is, the PCEs in 
the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity). Because not all life 
history functions require all the PCEs, not all PCEs may be present 
throughout the critical habitat units.
    Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to 
support at least one of the species' life history functions. Some areas 
contain all PCEs and support multiple life processes, while some areas 
may contain only a portion of the PCEs necessary to support the 
species' particular use of that habitat.

[[Page 67527]]

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 protections. All of the critical habitat units 
identified for these three species below, with the exception of a 
portion of Unit RH 1, have been designated as critical habitat for 
other mollusk species that are already listed under the Act. None of 
the areas are presently under special management or protection provided 
by a legally operative management plan or agreement for the 
conservation of the interrupted rocksnail, rough hornsnail, or Georgia 
pigtoe. Various activities in or adjacent to each of the critical 
habitat units described below may affect one or more of the PCEs. Some 
of these activities include, but are not limited to, those discussed in 
the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, above. For example, three 
of the units described below (Units IR 1, IR 2, and RH 1 (which 
includes IR 3)) may require special management considerations due to 
detrimental effects of hydropower generation or lack of minimum flow 
releases from dams (see Factor A: Dams and Impoundments, above). 
Features in all of the critical habitat units may require special 
management due to threats posed by land-use runoff and point- and 
nonpoint-source water pollution (see Factor A: Water and Habitat 
Quality, and Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
above). Other activities that may affect PCEs in the critical habitat 
units include those listed in the Effects of Critical Habitat 
Designation section as Federal Activities that may affect critical 
habitat and require consultation, below.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are designating as critical habitat all stream channels that are 
currently occupied by the species, as well as some specific areas not 
currently occupied but that were historically occupied, because we have 
determined that these additional areas are essential for the 
conservation of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail, and that designating only occupied habitat is not sufficient 
to conserve each of these species.
    When identifying critical habitat boundaries, we make every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands usually lack PCEs for 
endangered or threatened species. Areas identified as critical habitat 
for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, 
below, include only stream channels within the ordinary high water line 
and do not contain any developed areas or structures.
Occupied Stream Reaches Designated as Critical Habitat
    We have defined occupied habitat as those stream reaches known to 
be currently occupied by the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or 
rough hornsnail. We used information from surveys and reports prepared 
by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Alabama Department of Conservation 
and Natural Resources, the Tennessee Aquarium, Alabama Geological 
Survey, Auburn University, University of Alabama, and Service field 
records to identify the specific locations occupied by the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or rough hornsnail.
    Currently, occupied habitat for each of the three species is 
extremely limited and isolated. The Georgia pigtoe persists only in a 
restricted series of shoals in the Conasauga River (Johnson and Evans 
2000, p. 106). The interrupted rocksnail naturally survives in a short 
reach of the Oostanaula River in Gordon and Floyd Counties, Georgia, 
and population reintroductions have been attempted into a shoal of the 
Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama (ADCNR 2004, p. 33). The 
rough hornsnail is known from two small, localized, and isolated 
populations: Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby County, Alabama, and a short 
reach of the Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama (Sides 2005, p. 
40). We believe that all currently occupied areas contain features 
essential to the conservation of these species. With such limited 
distribution, each of these species is at a high risk of extinction and 
highly susceptible to stochastic events.
Unoccupied Stream Reaches Designated as Critical Habitat
    The streams not currently occupied that we are designating as 
critical habitat were all historically occupied. We believe that the 
designation of additional areas not known to be currently occupied by 
the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or rough hornsnail is 
essential for their conservation because:
    (1) The range of each species has been severely curtailed, occupied 
habitats are limited and isolated, and population sizes are extremely 
small for each species. While occupied units provide habitat for 
current populations, they are at high risk of extirpation and 
extinction from stochastic events, whether periodic natural events or 
existing or potential human-induced events (see Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species). The inclusion of essential unoccupied areas 
will provide habitat for population reintroduction and will decrease 
the risk of extinction for each species.
    (2) The essential unoccupied areas may offer habitat that is 
superior to that in the occupied units (the potential viability of the 
mollusks in unoccupied units may be higher) because the essential 
unoccupied areas may be faced with fewer and more easily treated 
threats than the occupied units (see discussion under Factor A: Dams 
and Impoundments).
    (3) The protection of PCEs in currently occupied areas is directly 
related to conditions in adjacent unoccupied stream reaches (such as 
the Oostanaula and Lower Coosa Rivers).
    Based on the best scientific data available, we believe that areas 
that are not currently occupied by the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, or rough hornsnail are essential for their conservation.
Length of Occupied Stream Reaches
    Following the identification of occupied stream reaches, the next 
step was to delineate the length of upstream and downstream reaches of 
known occupied areas to determine the length of stream reaches that are 
needed for the conservation of the populations for each species. All 
known occurrences for each species are extremely localized, and rare 
aquatic snails and mussels can be difficult to locate. In addition, 
creek and river habitats are highly dependent upon upstream and 
downstream channel habitat conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, 
where more than one occurrence record of a particular species was found 
within a stream reach, we considered the entire reach between the 
uppermost and lowermost locations as occupied habitat, as discussed 
below.
Georgia pigtoe
    The Georgia pigtoe is currently known to survive only in a 52-km 
(32-mi) reach of the Upper Conasauga River extending from Polk County, 
Tennessee, downstream into Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia 
(Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 106; Evans 2001, pp. 33-34). The Georgia 
pigtoe has been recently collected from three shoals within this reach: 
one located at each end of the reach, and one additional site in the 
lower third of the reach. Other shoals

[[Page 67528]]

within the reach continue to be inhabited by a diverse mussel 
community, including the federally endangered triangular kidneyshell 
and southern pigtoe and the threatened fine-lined pocketbook. These 
species historically co-occurred in the same shoal habitats with the 
Georgia pigtoe, and their persistence indicates the presence of PCEs 
for the pigtoe throughout the reach. Therefore, we consider the entire 
52-km (32-mi) reach between the uppermost and lowermost recent 
collection sites for the Georgia pigtoe as occupied habitat. In the 
area identified as critical habitat below, boundaries extend from the 
nearest downstream landmark at both ends of the reach.
Interrupted rocksnail
    The interrupted rocksnail is known to survive in several shoals 
along a 12-km (7.4-mi) reach of the Oostanaula River between Ship 
Island and the confluence of Armuchee Creek, Gordon and Floyd counties, 
Georgia (Johnson and Evans 2000, pp. 45-46; Johnson and Evans 2001, pp. 
2, 25). Although rocksnails live attached to the stream bottom, they 
are small and often difficult to locate when their population numbers 
are low. Therefore, we consider the reach of the Oostanaula River 
between Ship Island and the confluence of Armuchee Creek as habitat 
occupied by interrupted rocksnail. Attempts to reintroduce the species 
into the Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama, have also been made 
by the ADCNR. ADCNR attempted to reintroduce the interrupted rocksnail 
into Gray Island Shoals in the Lower Coosa River, about 3.2 km (2 mi) 
below Jordan Dam, Elmore County, Alabama. Although we do not yet know 
if this reintroduced population is viable, it is within the historical 
range of the interrupted rocksnail, and we are considering the 1-km 
(0.6-mi) reach encompassing Gray Island Shoals in the Lower Coosa River 
as occupied habitat.
Rough hornsnail
    The rough hornsnail is known to survive at only two locations, 
Yellowleaf Creek and the Lower Coosa River. At the time we proposed 
these areas as critical habitat (74 FR 31113) for the rough hornsnail, 
we considered only a 3.2-km (2-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby 
County, Alabama, as occupied by the species. A snail survey conducted 
by a Service biologist and others (Powell in litt. 2009) has since 
found the species throughout the designated area. Therefore, we 
consider the entire designated 6.4-km (4-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek 
as occupied by the rough hornsnail.
    Collections during the 1990s from the Lower Coosa River, Elmore 
County, Alabama, show the rough hornsnail extended from the shoals 
below Jordan Dam, downstream to just below the Fall Line at Wetumpka, 
Alabama (FLMNH in litt. 2006). Therefore, we consider this 14-km (8-mi) 
reach as habitat occupied by the rough hornsnail.

Stream Reaches Not Currently Occupied

    In identifying unoccupied stream reaches that are essential to the 
conservation of each species (Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 
and rough hornsnail), we first considered the availability of potential 
habitat throughout their historical ranges that may be suitable for the 
survival and persistence of each species. A large proportion of the 
streams that formerly supported each species have been modified by dams 
and their impounded waters, and we eliminated these areas from 
consideration, because none of these species can survive under the 
modified conditions (see Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) section, 
above). We also eliminated from consideration free-flowing streams 
without any historical records of occurrence. We eliminated from 
consideration other streams with historical occurrence records because 
of limited habitat availability, isolation, degraded habitat, or low 
management value or potential (such as Coosawattee River and Etowah 
River).
    All of the areas identified as critical habitat that are currently 
not known to be occupied meet one or more of the following criteria:
    (1) The stream habitat contains sufficient PCEs (for example, such 
characteristics as geomorphically stable channels, perennial water 
flows, adequate water quality, and appropriate benthic substrates) to 
support life-history functions of the mollusks (all unoccupied critical 
habitat units);
    (2) The stream supports diverse aquatic molluscan communities, 
including the presence of closely related species requiring PCEs 
similar to the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail (all unoccupied critical habitat units);
    (3) The stream reaches are adjacent to currently occupied areas 
where there is potential for natural dispersal and reoccupation by the 
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or rough hornsnail (Oostanaula 
River, Lower Coosa River, and Yellowleaf Creek);
    (4) The stream reaches lack major anthropogenic disturbance 
(Hatchet Creek);
    (5) Areas are remote from currently occupied areas and have 
experienced improvements in water quality or quantity during the past 
decades due to implementation of minimum flows below dams, changes in 
adjacent land uses, or implementation of the Clean Water Act (Coosa 
River below Weiss Dam and Jordan Dam, Terrapin Creek, and Hatchet 
Creek); and
    (6) The stream reaches have potential for reoccupation by the 
species through future reintroduction efforts (all unoccupied critical 
habitat units).
    Based on the above factors, all unoccupied stream reaches included 
in the critical habitat designations for each of these three species 
are essential to their conservation.
Georgia Pigtoe
    We identified 101 km (63 mi) of habitat in two stream reaches that 
are currently unoccupied by the Georgia pigtoe and that meet several of 
the criteria for designation as critical habitat. Historical records of 
Georgia pigtoe occur from the Coosa River near the present location of 
Weiss Dam and from Terrapin Creek, from its confluence with the Coosa 
River upstream to the vicinity of Alabama Highway 9. Terrapin Creek 
flows into the Coosa River approximately 11 km (7 mi) below Weiss Dam 
in Cherokee County, Alabama. Together these two confluent stream 
reaches encompass 35 km (22 mi) of stream habitat that meet Criteria 1, 
2, 5, and 6 listed above in this section. Terrapin Creek and this short 
reach of the Coosa River support diverse mollusk and fish communities. 
Water quality in Terrapin Creek meets current State criteria for Fish 
and Wildlife. The Mobile River Basin Mollusk Restoration Committee 
(2009, p. 22) recognizes this reach of the Coosa River and Terrapin 
Creek as an appropriate reintroduction site for the Georgia pigtoe. 
Based on the information we have to date, which does not necessarily 
suggest there is an increased probability of Georgia pigtoe 
conservation in specific areas within the reach, we are designating the 
entire reach of Terrapin Creek and the Coosa River as critical habitat.
    Historical records of Georgia pigtoe occur from an approximately 
66-km (41-mi) reach of Hatchet Creek between Clay County Road 4 
downstream to the confluence with Swamp Creek in Coosa County, Alabama. 
This stream reach meets Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 listed above in this 
section and has been identified by the Mobile River Basin Mollusk 
Restoration Committee (2008, p. 40) as having high conservation 
potential for the reintroduction of imperiled mollusks. Hatchet Creek 
supports diverse mollusk and fish communities and has been designated

[[Page 67529]]

as an Outstanding Alabama Water, the highest protective classification 
assigned by the State. Based on the information we have to date, which 
does not necessarily suggest there is an increased probability of 
Georgia pigtoe conservation in specific areas within the reach, we are 
designating the entire reach of Hatchet Creek as critical habitat.
Interrupted Rocksnail
    We identified 88 km (55 mi) of habitat in three stream reaches that 
are currently unoccupied by the interrupted rocksnail and that meet 
several of the criteria for designation as unoccupied habitat. The 
Coosa River from Weiss Dam to just below the confluence of Terrapin 
Creek (11 km (7 mi)) is within the historical range of the interrupted 
rocksnail, and meets Criteria 1, 2, 5, and 6 listed above in this 
section. Several mollusk species requiring similar PCEs currently 
inhabit a portion of the reach. Projected minimum flows (Weiss Bypass 
Working Group 2005, pp. 6-8) will improve PCEs in the remainder of the 
reach, and reservoir-stored water will provide protection from nonpoint 
source pollution and reduce the potential of stochastic threats. The 
Mobile River Basin Mollusk Restoration Committee (2008, p. 53) 
recognizes this reach of the Coosa River as an appropriate 
reintroduction site for interrupted rocksnail.
    The interrupted rocksnail is currently known to inhabit shoals 
along a 12-km (7.4-mi) reach of the Oostanaula River between Ship 
Island and the Confluence of Armuchee Creek, Gordon and Floyd Counties, 
Georgia. However, appropriate habitat extends approximately 49 km (30 
mi) above Ship Island to the Conasuaga-Coosawattee confluence in Gordon 
County, Georgia, and approximately 16 km (10 mi) below the confluence 
of Armuchee Creek to the Georgia Highway 1 Loop in Floyd County, 
Georgia. This unoccupied area encompasses an additional 65 km (40 mi) 
of river habitat that meets Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 listed above in 
this section. The unoccupied upstream and downstream reaches of the 
Oostanaula River contain one or more of the PCEs required by the 
species, including geomorphically stable channels and natural flows. 
They are adjacent to areas currently occupied by interrupted rocksnail, 
and there is potential for natural dispersal and re-occupation by the 
interrupted rocksnail. These areas are also currently occupied by other 
mollusk species with similar habitat requirements.
    The Lower Coosa River below Jordan Dam is within the historical 
range of the interrupted rocksnail, and a small population of the 
species has been reintroduced into a shoal there (ADCNR, p. 33). 
Apparently suitable habitat extends approximately 13 km (8 mi) from the 
tailwaters of Jordan Dam to Alabama Highway 111 in Elmore County, 
Alabama. This reach meets Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 listed above in 
this section. The steep river gradient below the dam to the Fall Line 
at Alabama Highway 111 in Wetumpka results in the presence of numerous 
high-quality and stable shoals and pools characteristic of habitats 
formerly inhabited by the interrupted rocksnail. The reach is occupied 
by other species of pleurocerid snails, as well as a diverse mussel 
fauna, indicating the presence of PCEs in this reach. Minimum flows 
that have been established from Jordan Dam have eliminated historical 
threats, such as seasonal loss of flow and low dissolved oxygen levels. 
The Mobile River Basin Mollusk Restoration Committee (2008, p. 53) 
recognizes this reach of the Coosa River as an appropriate 
reintroduction site for interrupted rocksnail, and the ADCNR has 
initiated attempts to reintroduce the species to the reach.
Rough Hornsnail
    We identified 7 km (4 mi) of habitat that is unoccupied by the 
rough hornsnail and that meets Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 listed above in 
this section. The species inhabits a 14-km (8-mi) reach of the Lower 
Coosa River below Jordan Dam; however, appropriate habitat extends an 
additional 7 km (4 mi) downstream of currently occupied areas. This 
stream reach is available for natural recolonization and contains one 
or more of the PCEs required by the rough hornsnail, including a 
geomorphically stable channel and adequate water quality and substrate, 
as indicated by the presence of closely related pleurocerids and other 
mollusk species with similar habitat requirements.

Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating three units as critical habitat for the Georgia 
pigtoe (GP 1, GP 2, and GP 3), three units for interrupted rocksnail 
(IR 1, IR 2, and IR 3), and two units for rough hornsnail (RH 1 and RH 
2). The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of areas that currently meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail. Table 1 identifies the units for each species; shows the 
occupancy of the units, the approximate extent designated as critical 
habitat for the Georgia pigtoe (GP), interrupted rocksnail (IR), and 
rough hornsnail (RH); and provides information on the ownership of 
lands within the designated units. Critical habitat includes only the 
stream channel within the ordinary high water line. In Alabama and 
Georgia, the State owns navigable stream bottoms within the ordinary 
high water line, and all designated units in Alabama and Georgia are 
considered navigable. In Tennessee, the riparian landowner owns the 
stream bottom to the middle of the channel.

 Table 1--Occupancy and Ownership of Critical Habitat Units for Georgia
    Pigtoe (GP), Interrupted Rocksnail (IR), and Rough Hornsnail (RH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Private       State
                                                 ownership    ownership
   Unit         Location          Occupancy        river        river
                                                 kilometers   kilometers
                                                  (miles)      (miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GP 1......  Conasauga River.  Occupied........        5 (3)      47 (29)
GP 2......  Terrapin Creek    Unoccupied......            0  \1\ 35 (22)
             and Coosa River.
GP 3......  Hatchet Creek...  Unoccupied......            0      66 (41)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Total                            5 (3)     148 (92)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IR 1......  Coosa River.....  Unoccupied......            0   \1\ 11 (7)
IR 2......  Oostanaula River  Occupied........            0     12 (7.4)
                              Unoccupied......            0    65 (40.6)

[[Page 67530]]

 
IR 3......  Lower Coosa       Occupied........            0   \2\1 (0.6)
             River.
                              Unoccupied......            0       \2\ 12
                                                                   (7.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Total                                0     101 (63)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH 1......  Lower Coosa       Occupied........            0   \2\ 14 (9)
             River.
                              Unoccupied......            0        7 (4)
RH 2......  Yellowleaf Creek  Occupied........            0      6.4 (4)
                              Unoccupied......            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Total                                0    27.4 (17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IR 1 overlaps in part with GP 2.
\2\ IR 3 overlaps in part with RH 1. See Unit descriptions, below.

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

Unit GP 1: Conasauga River, Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee, and 
Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia

    Unit 1 for the Georgia pigtoe includes 52 km (32 mi) of the Upper 
Conasauga River from the confluence of Minnewaga Creek near Willis 
Springs, Polk County, Tennessee, downstream to U.S. Highway 76 in 
Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia. Critical habitat includes the 
stream channel within the ordinary high water line only. In Tennessee, 
the riparian landowner owns the stream bottom to the middle of the 
channel. Therefore, 5 km (3 mi) of GP 1 in Tennessee is privately 
owned. In Georgia, the State owns navigable stream bottoms within the 
ordinary high water line, and the Conasauga River is considered 
navigable. Therefore, the State of Georgia owns 47 km (29 mi) of Unit 
GP 1.
    The Georgia pigtoe has been collected from three shoals within the 
reach of the Conasauga River identified as GP 1, one located at each 
end of the reach and one site in between (Johnson and Evans 2000, p. 
106; Evans 2001, pp. 33-34). Therefore, we consider the entire reach of 
the Conasauga River that composes GP 1 as occupied. Other shoals within 
the reach continue to be inhabited by a diverse mussel community, 
including the endangered triangular kidneyshell and southern pigtoe and 
the threatened fine-lined pocketbook. These species historically co-
occurred in the same shoal habitats with the Georgia pigtoe, they have 
similar habitat requirements, and their persistence indicates the 
presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the Georgia pigtoe. The persistence 
of the Georgia pigtoe within three shoals of this reach also indicates 
the presence of an appropriate fish host (PCE 5). This small population 
of Georgia pigtoe is at a high risk of extinction due to changes in 
flow, habitat or water quality, and stochastic events such as drought. 
Threats to the Georgia pigtoe and its habitat that may require special 
management of the PCEs include the potential of anthropogenic 
activities (such as channelization, impoundment, and channel 
excavation) that could cause aggradation or degradation of the channel 
bed elevation or significant bank erosion; the potential of significant 
changes in the existing flow regime due to such activities as 
impoundment, water diversion, or water withdrawal; the potential of 
significant alteration of water chemistry or water quality; and the 
potential of significant changes in stream bed material composition and 
quality by activities such as construction projects, livestock grazing, 
timber harvesting, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed and 
floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the 
water.

Unit GP 2: Terrapin Creek and Coosa River, Cherokee County, Alabama

    Unit 2 for the Georgia pigtoe includes 24 km (15 mi) of Terrapin 
Creek from Alabama Highway 9 downstream to its confluence with the 
Coosa River, and 11 km (7 mi) of the Coosa River from Weiss Dam 
downstream to approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) below the confluence of 
Terrapin Creek in Cherokee County, Alabama. The State of Alabama owns 
navigable stream bottoms within the ordinary high water line, and both 
Lower Terrapin Creek and the Coosa River are considered navigable 
streams.
    The Georgia pigtoe is not currently known to occur in Terrapin 
Creek or the Coosa River. However, Unit 2 is essential to the 
conservation of the Georgia pigtoe due to the high potential for 
stochastic events in the Conasauga River (the only extant population of 
Georgia pigtoe), and the need to re-establish the species within other 
portions of its historical range in order to reduce threats from 
stochastic events.
    Lower Terrapin Creek and the Coosa River are within the species' 
historical range, and we consider them to be essential to the 
conservation of the Georgia pigtoe. Terrapin Creek flows into the Coosa 
River below Weiss Dam. Terrapin Creek continues to support a diverse 
mollusk assemblage, including the endangered southern pigtoe, a closely 
related species that co-occurs with the Georgia pigtoe in the Conasauga 
River, indicating the presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The

[[Page 67531]]

endangered southern clubshell, the threatened fine-lined pocketbook, 
and other mussel and snail species requiring PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 
similar to the Georgia pigtoe continue to survive in the Coosa River 
just below the confluence of Terrapin Creek. Additionally, a diverse 
fish fauna, including potential fish hosts for the Georgia pigtoe (PCE 
5), is known from Terrapin Creek and Coosa River.
    Minimum flows from Weiss Dam into the Coosa River will be 
implemented upon completion of the Alabama Power Company Coosa River 
hydropower relicensing process with FERC (Weiss Bypass Working Group 
2005, pp. 6-8), which is currently in progress. These minimum flows 
will improve the PCEs necessary for the survival of the Georgia pigtoe 
in the Coosa River, particularly above the confluence with Terrapin 
Creek. Because the minimum flows will originate from the large 
reservoir impounded by Weiss Dam, there is little threat of nonpoint 
source pollution and reduced potential of stochastic threats, such as 
drought and spills. ADCNR recognizes this reach of the Coosa River as 
having high conservation potential for imperiled mollusks in Alabama 
and is planning to reintroduce imperiled mollusks, including the 
Georgia pigtoe, following implementation of minimum flows. Over the 
past few decades, changes in land uses, use of best management 
practices for agriculture and forestry activities in the watershed, and 
implementation of State water quality standards resulted in improved 
water quality and shoal habitats in Terrapin Creek. The Mobile River 
Basin Mollusk Restoration Committee (2008, p. 40) recognizes Terrapin 
Creek as an appropriate reintroduction opportunity for the Georgia 
pigtoe.

Unit GP 3: Hatchet Creek, Coosa and Clay Counties, Alabama

    Unit 3 for the Georgia pigtoe includes approximately 66 km (41 mi) 
of Hatchet Creek, extending from Clay County Road 4, Clay County, 
downstream to the confluence of Swamp Creek at Coosa County Road 29, 
Coosa County, Alabama. The State of Alabama owns navigable stream 
bottoms within the ordinary high water line, and Hatchet Creek is 
considered navigable.
    The Georgia pigtoe does not currently occupy Hatchet Creek. 
However, historical records of the species show its presence in this 
stream from the stream's confluence with the Coosa River, Coosa County, 
upstream into Clay County, Alabama. An extensive reach of Hatchet Creek 
is occupied by the threatened fine-lined pocketbook, along with other 
mollusk species that currently or historically co-occur with Georgia 
pigtoe, indicating the presence of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4. A diverse fish 
fauna, including several potential fish hosts for the pigtoe (PCE 5), 
is also known to inhabit Hatchet Creek. Water quality and shoal 
habitats in this stream have improved relative to past historical 
conditions due to changes in land uses, implementation of best 
management practices in agriculture and forestry activities in the 
watershed, and implementation of State water quality standards. Due to 
these improvements, Hatchet Creek has been designated as an Outstanding 
Alabama Water, which also provides for increased water quality 
protections. The Mobile River Basin Mollusk Restoration Committee 
(2008, p. 40) recognizes Hatchet Creek as having high conservation 
potential for reintroduction of the Georgia pigtoe.
    Re-establishing Georgia pigtoe in Hatchet Creek will significantly 
reduce the level of stochastic threats to the species' survival and is 
essential to the conservation of the species. We do not know which 
specific shoals or reaches of Hatchet Creek may be capable of 
supporting the Georgia pigtoe. Therefore, we have designated all 
apparently suitable habitat within the historical range of the species 
in Hatchet Creek as critical habitat essential to the conservation of 
Georgia pigtoe.

Unit IR 1: Coosa River, Cherokee County, Alabama (overlaps in part with 
GP 2, described above)

    Unit 1 for the interrupted rocksnail includes approximately 11 km 
(7 mi) of the Coosa River extending from Weiss Dam downstream to about 
1.6 km (1 mi) below the confluence of Terrapin Creek, Cherokee County, 
Alabama. The State of Alabama owns navigable stream bottoms within the 
ordinary high water line, and the Coosa River is considered navigable.
    The interrupted rocksnail historically inhabited the Coosa River in 
Cherokee County. Although the species does not currently occupy the 
area, Unit 1 is essential to the conservation of the interrupted 
rocksnail due to the high degree of stochastic threats to the single 
surviving population in the Ostanaula River and the need to re-
establish the species within other portions of its historical range. 
The presence of the endangered southern clubshell, the threatened fine-
lined pocketbook, and other mussel and snail species in the Coosa River 
at and below the confluence of Terrapin Creek indicates the presence of 
PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the interrupted rocksnail.
    Minimum flows from Weiss Dam into the Coosa River will be 
implemented upon completion of the Alabama Power Company Coosa River 
hydropower relicensing process with FERC (Weiss Bypass Working Group 
2005, pp. 6-8) currently in progress. These minimum flows will improve 
the PCEs necessary for the survival of the interrupted rocksnail in 
about 11 km (7 mi) of the Coosa River, between Weiss Dam downstream to 
the confluence with Terrapin Creek. Implementation of minimum flows 
from Weiss Dam (Weiss Bypass Working Group 2005, pp. 6-8) will improve 
PCEs necessary for the survival of the interrupted rocksnail. The 
majority of flow into the reach above the confluence of Terrapin Creek 
originates from Weiss Dam. Therefore, there is little threat of 
nonpoint source pollution, and reduced potential of stochastic threats 
such as drought and spills. ADCNR recognizes this reach as having high 
conservation potential for imperiled mollusks in Alabama and is 
planning to reintroduce imperiled mollusk species, including the 
interrupted rocksnail, into the reach following initiation of minimum 
flows. Re-establishing the interrupted rocksnail into the Coosa River 
will significantly reduce stochastic threats to the survival of the 
species and is essential to its conservation.

Unit IR 2: Oostanaula River, Gordon and Floyd Counties, Georgia

    Unit 2 for the interrupted rocksnail includes approximately 77 km 
(48 mi) of the Oostanaula River from the Conasauga-Coosawattee 
confluence in Gordon County, downstream to Georgia Highway 1 loop in 
Floyd County, Georgia. The State of Georgia owns navigable stream 
bottoms within the ordinary high water line, and the Oostanaula River 
is considered navigable.
    The interrupted rocksnail occupies shoals along a 12-km (7.4-mi) 
reach of the Oostanaula River, extending from the confluence of Johns 
Creek in Gordon and Floyd Counties, downstream to the confluence of 
Armuchee Creek in Floyd County, Georgia. Threats to the interrupted 
rocksnail and its habitat in the Oostanaula River that may require 
special management of the PCEs include the potential of activities 
(such as channelization, impoundment, and channel excavation) that 
could cause aggradation or degradation of the channel bed elevation or 
significant bank erosion; the potential of significant changes in the 
existing flow regime due to activities such as impoundment, hydropower 
generation, water diversion, or water withdrawal; the potential of 
significant alteration of water chemistry or water quality; and the 
potential of significant changes in

[[Page 67532]]

stream bed material composition and quality by activities such as 
construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, off-road 
vehicle use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that 
release sediments or nutrients into the water.
    Although there are no recent collections of the species from shoal 
habitats above and below the currently inhabited reach, these currently 
unoccupied areas contain three of the PCEs required by the species, 
including geomorphically stable stream channels, natural flows, and 
appropriate substrates (PCEs 1, 2, and 4). The presence of other 
mollusk species with similar habitat requirements as the interrupted 
rocksnail in this reach, including the endangered triangular 
kidneyshell, along with more common species of pleurocerid snails, also 
indicates the potentially suitable presence of appropriate water 
quality (PCE 3). Shoals within the 65 km (40.6 mi) of currently 
unoccupied reaches of the Oostanaula River are available to natural 
recolonization of the species. Expanding the range of the interrupted 
rocksnail into adjacent shoals in the river would greatly reduce the 
degree of threat from stochastic events, and is essential to the 
conservation of the interrupted rocksnail.

Unit IR 3: Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama

    Unit 3 for the interrupted rocksnail includes 13 km (8 mi) of the 
Lower Coosa River between Jordan Dam and Alabama Highway 111 in Elmore 
County, Alabama. The State of Alabama owns navigable stream bottoms 
within the ordinary high water line, and the Coosa River is considered 
navigable.
    The Lower Coosa River is within the historical range of the 
species, and a small population of the interrupted rocksnail has been 
reintroduced into a 1-km (0.6-mi) portion of a shoal there (ADCNR 2004, 
p 33). However, this reintroduced population will likely require 
augmentations over several years before population size can reach self-
sustainable levels. The remaining 12 km (7.4 mi) of this reach, from 
Jordan Dam downstream to the Fall Line at Wetumpka, contains numerous 
high-quality shoals and pools characteristic of the large river 
habitats historically occupied by the species. Several other species of 
pleurocerid snails, the endangered tulotoma snail, and a diverse mussel 
fauna are currently found throughout the reach, indicating the presence 
and suitability of PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the interrupted rocksnail in 
this reach. Historical threats, including seasonal loss of flow and low 
dissolved oxygen, were eliminated in 1990 by implementation of minimum 
flows from Jordan Dam by the Alabama Power Company. As noted, ADCNR 
recognizes the Lower Coosa River as an appropriate location for 
imperiled mollusk reintroductions and has begun efforts to reestablish 
the interrupted rocksnail into this reach. Due to the extremely limited 
distribution of the interrupted rocksnail and the high degree of 
stochastic threats to the single natural population, reestablishing the 
species in the Lower Coosa River is essential to the conservation of 
the interrupted rocksnail.

Unit RH 1: Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama (overlaps in part 
with IR 3, described above)

    Unit 1 for the rough hornsnail includes 21 km (13 mi) of the Lower 
Coosa River extending from Jordan Dam, downstream to the confluence of 
the Tallapoosa River in Elmore County, Alabama. The State of Alabama 
owns navigable stream bottoms within the ordinary high water line, and 
the Coosa River is considered navigable. We believe PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 
to be suitable throughout the reach, due to the presence of rough 
hornsnail colonies or other closely related pleurocerid snail species 
that are known to co-occur with the hornsnail and have similar habitat 
requirements.
    Early 1990 records of rough hornsnail from the reach of the Coosa 
River between Jordan Dam and the Fall Line (FLMNH in litt. 2006), and 
more recent records of the hornsnail extending 2 km (1.2 mi) below the 
Fall Line (Hartfield pers. obsv. 2001; Crow in litt. 2008), indicate an 
occupied range of 14 km (9 mi) in the Lower Coosa River. An additional 
7-km (4-mi) channel reach extending downstream to the confluence of the 
Tallapoosa River is not currently occupied. This downstream unoccupied 
area is available for natural recolonization, and contains PCEs 1, 2, 
3, and 4, including a geomorphically stable channel, and adequate flow, 
water quality, and substrate, as indicated by the presence of closely 
related pleurocerids and other mollusk species with similar habitat 
requirements. Expanding the range of rough hornsnail into the currently 
unoccupied downstream habitat would reduce the level of stochastic 
threats to the species, and is essential to its conservation.
    Threats to the rough hornsnail and its habitat in the Coosa River 
that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential 
of activities (such as channelization, impoundment, and channel 
excavation) that could cause aggradation or degradation of the channel 
bed elevation or significant bank erosion; the potential of significant 
changes in the existing flow regime due to such activities as 
hydropower generation, water diversion, or water withdrawal; the 
potential of significant alteration of water chemistry or water quality 
due to discharges or land use activities; and the potential of 
significant changes in stream bed material composition and quality by 
activities such as construction projects, livestock grazing, timber 
harvesting, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that 
release sediments or nutrients into the water.

Unit RH 2: Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby County, Alabama

    Unit 2 for the rough hornsnail includes approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) 
of the Yellowleaf Creek channel from the confluence of Morgan Creek, 
downstream to 1.6 km (1 mi) below the Alabama Highway 25 crossing in 
Shelby County, Alabama. The State of Alabama owns navigable stream 
bottoms within the ordinary high water line, and the lower reach of 
Yellowleaf Creek is considered navigable.
    The rough hornsnail has been found to occupy this entire reach 
(Powell in litt. 2009). This reach of Yellowleaf Creek is characterized 
by a stable channel, natural flows, and appropriate water quality and 
substrates (PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4). Threats to the rough hornsnail and 
its habitat in Yellowleaf Creek that may require special management of 
PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 4 include the potential of activities (such as 
channelization, impoundment, and channel excavation) that could cause 
aggradation or degradation of the channel bed elevation or significant 
bank erosion; the potential of significant changes in the existing flow 
regime due to such activities as water diversion or water withdrawal; 
the potential of significant alteration of water chemistry or water 
quality due to discharges or nonpoint source pollution; and the 
potential of significant changes in stream bed material composition and 
quality by activities such as construction projects, livestock grazing, 
timber harvesting, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that 
release sediments or nutrients into the water.

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

[[Page 67533]]

habitat. Decisions by the courts of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth 
Circuits 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, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing 
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. Under the 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 the current ability for the PCEs to be 
functionally established) 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. 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 the Service 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(a)(2) 
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(a)(2) consultations.
    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:
    <bullet> Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
    <bullet> Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    <bullet> Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    <bullet> 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.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, 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 
PCEs to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of 
critical habitat for each species (the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail).
    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 each species (Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail) include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the geomorphology of stream and river 
habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, and 
discharge of fill materials. These activities could cause aggradation 
or degradation of the channel bed elevation or significant bank erosion 
and result in entrainment or burial of these mollusks, and could cause 
other direct or cumulative adverse effects to these species and their 
life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow 
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
impoundment, water diversion, water withdrawal, 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 affects to the species and their life cycles.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material 
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or 
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, construction projects, livestock grazing, timber harvest, 
off-road vehicle use, and other watershed 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

[[Page 67534]]

filamentous algal growth can cause reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen 
levels through respiration, cover the hard substrates required by 
aquatic snails for egg deposition, and prevent mussel glochidia from 
settling into stream sediments.

Exemptions and Exclusion

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

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

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

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

Economic Analysis (EA)

    We prepared an economic analysis that is consistent with the ruling 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in New 
Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
248 F.3d 1277 (2001), and that was available for public review and 
comment during the comment period for the proposed rule. The final 
economic analysis is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. The final EA (Industrial Economics 2009) considers 
the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation 
of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, 
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and 
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It 
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as 
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat 
conservation for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail in essential habitat areas. The EA considers both economic 
efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (for example, lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use).
    The final economic analysis states that costs associated with 
future conservation efforts that may benefit the three mollusks in 
critical habitat areas are estimated to be $8.97 million to $9.16 
million annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Most (96 percent) 
of baseline costs quantified in this analysis are conservation efforts 
related to lost hydropower production value at

[[Page 67535]]

three facilities. The remaining 4 percent of potential future baseline 
costs are related to transportation activities, water quality 
management activities, and National Forest management activities.
    However, extensive actions are already currently planned within 
most of the critical habitat areas designated for these three species, 
on behalf of 11 other listed mollusk species for which the areas have 
been previously designated as critical habitat (69 FR 40083, July 1, 
2004). Only 5 river miles (8 river kilometers) of this critical habitat 
designation do not overlap habitat for the 11 mussels, and no known 
projects are planned within, or which may affect, critical habitat in 
those areas. As such, incremental costs are anticipated to result 
entirely from the added administrative requirements of forecast section 
7 consultations, and are estimated to be approximately $44,000 
annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
    Based on the best available information, including the prepared 
economic analysis, we believe that all of the eight units are essential 
for the conservation of these species. Critical habitat aids in the 
conservation of the species specifically by protecting the primary 
constituent elements on which the species depends. It can also result 
in benefits by providing information to the public, local and State 
governments, Federal agencies, and other entities engaged in activities 
or long-range planning in areas essential to the conservation of the 
species. Conservation of the interrupted rocksnail, rough hornsnail, 
and Georgia pigtoe and essential features of their habitats will 
require habitat management, protection, and restoration, which will be 
facilitated by knowledge of habitat locations and the physical and 
biological features of those habitats. We conclude that these benefits 
of inclusion outweigh the above-described costs of designation for all 
areas we are designating as critical habitat in this rule.
Available Conservation Measures
    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies; groups; 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal activities that may affect the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail 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 the species have been protected and the project objectives have 
been met.
    Listing the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail initiates the development and implementation of rangewide 
recovery plans for each species. These plans will bring together 
Federal, State, and local agency efforts for the conservation of these 
species. Recovery plans will establish a framework for agencies to 
coordinate their recovery efforts. The plans will set recovery 
priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to accomplish 
the priorities. They also will 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 three 
species; 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 non-Federal lands and 
activities 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 when the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail are listed. The intent of this policy is to increase public 
awareness as to the effects of these listings on future and ongoing 
activities within a species' range. We believe, based on the best 
available information, that the following actions will not result in a 
violation of the provisions of section 9 of the Act, provided these 
actions are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and 
permit requirements:
    (1) Possession, delivery, or movement, including interstate 
transport that does not involve commercial activity, of specimens of 
these species that were legally acquired prior to the addition of these 
three mollusks to the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened 
Wildlife;
    (2) Discharges into waters supporting the Georgia pigtoe, 
interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, 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) Agricultural and silvicultural activites or development and 
construction activities designed and

[[Page 67536]]

implemented under State and local water quality regulations and 
implemented using approved best management practices; and
    (4) Any actions that may affect the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail 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, include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing, 
killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including interstate 
and foreign commerce, or harming, or attempting any of these actions, 
of the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail;
    (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 any 
of these species;
    (3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit that 
results in harm or death to any of these species or that results in 
degradation of their 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 Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail that kills or injures these species, or 
otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining requirements, such as 
reproduction, food, or shelter.
    Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may 
be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider 
these lists to be exhaustive and provides them 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 
Jackson, Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests for 
copies of regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, GA 30345 (phone 404-679-7313; fax 404-679-7081).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

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

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

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

[[Page 67537]]

activities (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard 
section).
    In our final economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of the three mollusks and the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with 
the proposed rulemaking as described in Sections 2 through 6 and 
Appendix B of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic 
impacts related to: (1) Water management; (2) water quality; and (3) 
other activities (dredging, general construction, bridge construction, 
and natural gas pipeline).
    According to the final economic analysis, impacts on small entities 
due to this rule are expected to be modest because the incremental 
costs of the rule are estimated to be administrative in nature. The 
only incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking are 
administrative costs of consultation under section 7 of the Act, which 
are expected to be approximately $44,000 annually, using a 7 percent 
discount rate. The average of such costs to a small business over the 
next 20 years, discounted at 7 percent, is estimated to range from $0 
to $18,300. The annualized incremental impacts, discounted at 7 
percent, are expected to be distributed among specific activities as 
follows: 42 percent transportation/construction, 33 percent water 
quality, 18 percent National Forest activities, and 7 percent water 
management.
    In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we 
concluded that this rule will not result in a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for the three 
mollusks will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

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

    Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use,'' issued May 18, 2001, Federal agencies must prepare and submit a 
``Statement of Energy Effects'' for all ``significant energy actions.'' 
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all Federal agencies 
``appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal 
Government's regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of 
energy.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided guidance for 
implementing E.O. 13211 that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute 
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory 
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat are the 
subject of the analysis under Executive Order No. 13211. The potential 
effects of this designation on power production were considered in the 
economic analysis. The economic analysis finds that water managers at 
four hydroelectric production facilities in the ACT Basin are likely to 
undertake conservation efforts for listed species that will benefit the 
three mollusks, at an estimated cost of $8.8 million annually. 
Specifically, three facilities (Carters, Weiss, Jordan) are expected to 
modify operations to provide additional flows for the benefit of 
downstream aquatic species. However, these modifications related to 
conserving the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 
hornsnail are expected to occur absent these critical habitat 
designations, because the areas affected have been previously 
designated as critical habitat for, and are occupied by, other listed 
mollusk species with similar PCEs and habitat needs. Incremental 
impacts incurred from this critical habitat designation are all 
expected to be administrative in nature, and the designation of 
critical habitat for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and 
rough hornsnail is not expected to lead to any of the adverse outcomes 
specified in the OMB guidance. As such, this final designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use, and a Statement of Energy Effects is 
not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), 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 have determined that the designation of critical habitat for 
the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or

[[Page 67538]]

rough hornsnail will significantly or uniquely affect small governments 
because these mollusk species occur primarily in State-owned river 
channels, or in remote privately owned stream channels. As such, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

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 Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 
rocksnail, and rough hornsnail in a takings implications assessment. 
The takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of 
critical habitat for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and 
rough hornsnail does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment 
is not required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, 
we requested information from, and coordinated development of this 
critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies 
in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The critical habitat designation 
may have some benefit to these governments 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) of the Act 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--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, 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 have designated critical habitat for the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated areas to 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the Georgia 
pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted under section 4(a) 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 
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was 
upheld by the Circuit Court of the United States 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, 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. One parcel of land adjacent to Unit 
RH-1 is owned by the Poarch Creek Band of Indians, and the Creek Indian 
Enterprises, a small entity, runs a small casino on the site. We 
contacted the Poarch Creek Band regarding our proposed listing and 
critical habitat designation, and the draft economic analysis. As of 
the publication date of this rule, we have not received any concerns 
from, or been contacted by, the Poarch Creek Band regarding the 
designation of critical habitat adjacent to their lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Field Supervisor, Jackson Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is Paul Hartfield of the Jackson 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) as follows:
0
a. Add ``Pigtoe, Georgia'' in alphabetical order under CLAMS; and
0
b. Add ``Hornsnail, rough'' and ``Rocksnail, interrupted'' in 
alphabetical order under SNAILS, to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

[[Page 67539]]

Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                    Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------                         population
                                                                                       where                                      Critical     Special
                                                                 Historic range      endangered       Status       When listed    habitat       rules
            Common name                  Scientific name                                 or
                                                                                     threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
               Clams
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Pigtoe, Georgia....................  Pleurobema hanleyianum  U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN)..           NA  E                         777     17.95(f)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
               Snails
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Hornsnail, rough...................  Pleurocera foremani...  U.S.A. (AL)..........           NA  E                         777     17.95(f)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rocksnail, interrupted.............  Leptoxis foremani.....  U.S.A. (AL, GA)......           NA  E                         777     17.95(f)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(f) by adding entries for ``Georgia pigtoe 
(Pleurobema hanleyianum)'', ``Interrupted Rocksnail (Leptoxis 
foremani)'', and ``Rough Hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani)'' at the end 
of the paragraph to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *

Georgia Pigtoe (Pleurobema hanleyianum)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cherokee, Coosa, and 
Clay Counties, Alabama; Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia; and 
Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for 
the Georgia pigtoe are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species is found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occurs 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (iii) Water quality (including temperature, pH, hardness, 
turbidity, oxygen content, and chemical constituents) that meets or 
exceeds the current aquatic life criteria established under the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
    (iv) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrates with low 
to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous algae.
    (v) The presence of fish host(s) for the Georgia pigtoe (species 
currently unknown). Diverse assemblages of native fish will serve as a 
potential indication of presence of host fish.
    (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' 
quadrangles. Critical habitat unit upstream and downstream limits were 
then identified by longitude and latitude using decimal degrees and 
converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 16, coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Georgia 
pigtoe follows:

[[Page 67540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    (6) Unit 1 for Georgia pigtoe (GP 1): Conasauga River, Bradley and 
Polk Counties, Tennessee; Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit GP 1 includes the channel of the Conasauga River from the 
confluence of Minnewaga Creek (710752.23E, 3875891.03N), Polk County, 
Tennessee, downstream to U.S. Highway 76 (694611.06E, 3851057.36N), 
Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (GP 1) for Georgia pigtoe (Conasauga 
River) follows:

[[Page 67541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.001

    (7) Unit 2 for Georgia pigtoe (GP 2), Terrapin Creek and Coosa 
River, Cherokee County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit GP 2 includes the channel of Terrapin Creek from Alabama 
Highway 9 (628065.76E, 3770007.078N), downstream to the confluence with 
the Coosa River (621001.27E, 3777441.03N), Cherokee County, Alabama; 
and the Coosa River channel from Weiss Dam (614866.54E, 3781969.16N), 
downstream to a point 1.6 km (1 mi) below the confluence of Terrapin 
Creek (619751.69E, 3776654.79N), Cherokee County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (GP 2) for Georgia pigtoe (Terrapin Creek, 
Coosa River) follows:

[[Page 67542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.002

    (8) Unit 3 for Georgia pigtoe (GP 3): Hatchet Creek, Coosa and Clay 
Counties, Alabama.
    (i) Unit GP 3 includes the channel of Hatchet Creek from Clay 
County Road 4 (588215.16E, 3666038.46N), Clay County, downstream to the 
confluence of Swamp Creek at Coosa County Road 29 (561904.90E, 
3636065.37N), Coosa County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (GP 3) for Georgia pigtoe (Hatchet Creek) 
follows:

[[Page 67543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.003


Interrupted Rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cherokee and Elmore 
Counties, Alabama, and Gordon and Floyd Counties, Georgia, on the maps 
below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for 
the interrupted rocksnail are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species is found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occurs 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (iii) Water quality (including temperature, pH, hardness, 
turbidity, oxygen content, and chemical constituents) that meets or 
exceeds the current aquatic life criteria established under the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
    (iv) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrates with low 
to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous algae.
    (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' 
quadrangles. Critical habitat unit upstream and downstream limits were 
then identified by longitude and latitude using decimal degrees and 
converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 16, coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the interrupted 
rocksnail follows:

[[Page 67544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.004

    (6) Unit 1 for interrupted rocksnail (IR 1): Coosa River, Cherokee 
County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit IR 1 includes the Coosa River channel from Weiss Dam 
(614866.53E, 3781969.15N), downstream to a point 1.6 km (1 mi) below 
the confluence of Terrapin Creek (619751.694E, 3776654.79N), Cherokee 
County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (IR 1) for interrupted rocksnail (Coosa 
River) follows:

[[Page 67545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (7) Unit 2 for interrupted rocksnail (IR 2): Oostanaula River, 
Gordon and Floyd Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit IR 2 includes the primary channel of the Oostanaula River 
from the confluence of the Conasauga and Coosawattee Rivers 
(692275.90E, 3824562.96N), Gordon County, downstream to Georgia Highway 
1 Loop (668358.62E, 3792574.63N), Floyd County, Georgia.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (IR 2) for interrupted rocksnail 
(Oostanaula River) follows:

[[Page 67546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.006

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    (8) Unit 3 for interrupted rocksnail (IR 3): Lower Coosa River, 
Elmore County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit IR 3 includes the Coosa River channel from Jordan Dam 
(569930.28E, 3609212.67N), downstream to Alabama Highway 111 Bridge 
(574324.83E, 3600042.81N), Elmore County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (IR 3) for interrupted rocksnail (Lower 
Coosa River) follows:

[[Page 67547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.007


Rough Hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Elmore and Shelby 
Counties, Alabama, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for 
the rough hornsnail are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks 
(channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation).
    (ii) A hydrologic flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic 
habitats where the species is found. Unless other information becomes 
available, existing conditions at locations where the species occurs 
will be considered as minimal flow requirements for survival.
    (iii) Water quality (including temperature, pH, hardness, 
turbidity, oxygen content, and chemical constituents) that meets or 
exceeds the current aquatic life criteria established under the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
    (iv) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock, or mud substrates with 
low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous 
algae.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing 
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of 
the primary constituent elements, 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' 
quadrangles. Critical habitat unit upstream and downstream limits were 
then identified by longitude and latitude using decimal degrees and 
converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 16, coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the rough 
hornsnail follows:

[[Page 67548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.008

    (6) Unit 1 for rough hornsnail (RH 1): Lower Coosa River, Elmore 
County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit RH 1 includes the Coosa River channel from Jordan Dam 
(569930.28E, 3609212.67N), downstream to the confluence of the 
Tallapoosa River (568995.14E, 3597805.93N), Elmore County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (RH 1) for rough hornsnail (Coosa River) 
follows:

[[Page 67549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.009

    (7) Unit 2 for rough hornsnail (RH 2): Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby 
County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit RH 2 includes the channel of Yellowleaf Creek from the 
confluence of Morgan Creek (550285.41E, 3682865.13N), downstream to 1.6 
km (1 mi) below Alabama Highway 25 (552296.38E, 3679287.87N), Shelby 
County, Alabama.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (RH 2) for rough hornsnail (Yellowleaf 
Creek) follows:

[[Page 67550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02NO10.010

* * * * *

    Authority: The authority for this section is section 4 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: October 15, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-27417 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C