31114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R4–ES–2008–0104; MO 9221050083] 

RIN 1018–AU88 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, 

Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough 

Hornsnail with Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Georgia pigtoe mussel 

(Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted 

rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani), and rough 

hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani), as 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail are endemic to the Coosa 

River drainage within the Mobile River 

Basin of Alabama, Tennessee, and 

Georgia. These three species have 

disappeared from large portions of their 

natural ranges due to extensive 

construction of dams that eliminated or 

reduced water currents and caused 

changes in habitat and water quality. 

The surviving populations are small, 

localized, and highly vulnerable to 

water quality and habitat deterioration. 

We are also proposing to designate 

critical habitat concurrently for the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail under the Act. In 

total, approximately 258 kilometers 

(km) (160 miles (mi)) of stream and river 

channels fall within the boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

for the three species: 153 km (95 mi) for 

the Georgia pigtoe, 101 km (63 mi) for 

the interrupted rocksnail, and 27.4 km 

(17 mi) for the rough hornsnail. The 

proposed critical habitat is located in 

Cherokee, Clay, Coosa, Elmore, and 

Shelby Counties, Alabama; Gordon, 

Floyd, Murray, and Whitfield Counties, 

Georgia; and Bradley and Polk Counties, 

Tennessee. 

These proposals, if made final, would 

implement Federal protection provided 

by the Act. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received on or before August 28, 2009. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by August 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– 

AU88; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cary 

Norquist, Acting Field Supervisor, 

Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office at 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, 

Jackson, MS 39213 (telephone 601–321– 

1122; facsimile 601–965–4340). If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we are seeking comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Any biological, commercial trade, 

or other relevant data concerning any 

threat (or lack thereof) to the Georgia 

pigtoe mussel, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail; 

(2) Any additional information 

concerning the ranges, distributions, 

and population sizes of the species; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on these 

species or proposed critical habitats; 

(4) The reasons 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; 

(5) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of habitat for 

the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail, 

including areas occupied at the time of 

listing and containing the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and areas not occupied at the 

time of listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities, and 

information about the benefits of 

including or excluding any areas that 

exhibit those impacts; and 

(7) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments you send by e-mail or fax or 

to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

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

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Georgia Pigtoe Mussel 

The Georgia pigtoe (Pleurobema 

hanleyianum) is a freshwater mussel in 

the family Unionidae. It was described 

in 1852 by I. Lea as Unio hanleyianum 

from the Coosawattee River in Georgia. 

It 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31115 

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 host and 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, 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) 

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 (M. 

Gangloff in litt. 2006). 

In 1990, the Service initiated a status 

survey and review of 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; P. 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 

non-point source pollution, and channel 

modifications such as impoundment. 

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 (P. Hartfield in 

litt. 1990–2001; 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 plicate (folds in the surface) 

with obscure striations (fine 

longitudinal ridges), subglobose (not 

quite spherical), thick, dark, brown to 

olive in color, and occasionally spotted. 

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 variation. 

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). 

Interrupted rocksnails are currently 

found in shoal habitats with sandboulder 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31116 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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–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; P. 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 (m2) (1.2 square yards (yd2) in 

1999 (Johnson and Evans 2001, p. 22) to 

only 20 snails found during 6 searchhours in 2004 (P. Johnson in litt. 2003, 

2004). The cause of decline was 

suspected to be some form of water 

contamination (P. Johnson in litt. 2003, 

2004; P. 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 (P. 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, 

and 2 rocksnails in 4 search-hours at 

another shoal (P. 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 (M. Pierson in litt. 

2005). During a 40–minute search of this 

release area in 2006, two interrupted 

rocksnails were found (P. 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 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. 

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, and bedrock 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-tomoderate 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 2006). Attempts to induce 

rough hornsnails to lay eggs in captivity 

have been unsuccessful (Sides 2005, p. 

27). 

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 (P. Johnson in litt. 2006a). 

Historical museum records of the rough 

hornsnail in the Coosa River (FLMNH 

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, 

Calhoun County; Choccolocco and 

Peckerwood Creeks in Talladega 

County; Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby 

County; and Yellow Leaf Creek in 

Chilton County (FLMNH 2006). 

The rough hornsnail is currently 

known to occur at two locations: Lower 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31117 

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 2006); however, 

the species has not been collected from 

the shoal reach in recent surveys 

(Johnson 2002, pp. 5–9). Yellowleaf 

Creek is a moderately sized stream 

where rough hornsnails have been 

collected from about a 50-m (55-yd) 

length of the stream. At this location, 

rough hornsnails occur at densities of 8 

to 32 m2 (1.2 yd2) (Pierson in litt. 2006). 

The Lower Coosa River is a large river 

channel where rough hornsnails have 

been found in an area of about 100 m2

(120 yd2) (P. Hartfield 2001). No 

quantitative estimates have been made 

at this site. Searches of unimpounded 

reaches of the Coosa River and the lower 

portions of tributaries to the Coosa have 

failed to locate the species elsewhere 

(Bogan and Pierson 1993a, pp. 1–27; 

Garner, pers. com. 2005; Hartfield in litt. 

2006). The two known surviving 

populations are separated by three 

impoundments and about 113 km (70 

mi) of impounded channel habitat. 

Previous Federal Action 

The interrupted rocksnail and rough 

hornsnail were first identified as 

candidates for protection under the Act 

in the November 21, 1991, Federal 

Register (56 FR 58804). They were 

assigned a category 2 status designation, 

which was given to those species for 

which there was some evidence of 

vulnerability, but for which additional 

biological information was needed to 

support a proposed rule to list as 

endangered or threatened. In the 

November 15, 1994, notice of candidate 

review (59 FR 58982), the rough 

hornsnail was again assigned a category 

2 status, while the status category for 

the interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis 

foremani) was changed to 3A (taxa for 

which the Service has persuasive 

evidence of extinction). 

Assigning categories to candidate 

species was discontinued in 1996 

(Notice of Candidate Review; February 

28, 1996; 61 FR 7596), and only species 

for which the Service has sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to support issuance of a 

proposed rule are now regarded as 

candidate species. Candidate species 

were also assigned listing priority 

numbers based on immediacy and the 

magnitude of threat, as well as their 

taxonomic status (48 FR 43098; Sept. 21, 

1983). Due to a need for taxonomic 

clarification, the rough hornsnail was 

dropped as a candidate species in 1996. 

In 1997, we received reports of a 

small population of the interrupted 

rocksnail surviving in the Ostanaula 

River, Georgia, along with reports of 

Georgia pigtoe collections in the 

Conasauga River of Georgia and 

Tennessee, and their status as 

candidates was reevaluated. In the 1999 

(64 FR 57533), 2001 (66 FR 54808), 2002 

(67 FR 40657), and 2004 (69 FR 24876) 

Federal Register notices of candidate 

review, both the Georgia pigtoe and 

interrupted rocksnail (as Georgia 

rocksnail, Leptoxis downei) were 

identified as listing priority 5 candidate 

species. In the May 11, 2005, Federal 

Register notice of candidate review (70 

FR 24870) the nomenclature was 

corrected for the interrupted rocksnail, 

and the listing priority for both species 

was changed from 5 to 2, based on the 

continued rarity of the Georgia pigtoe 

and a decline in abundance of the 

interrupted rocksnail. The rough 

hornsnail was recognized as a listing 

priority 2 candidate in the September 

12, 2006, Federal Register notice of 

candidate review (71 FR 53756), 

following clarification of its taxonomy, 

along with the interrupted rocksnail and 

Georgia pigtoe. 

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. In 

making this finding, information 

regarding the status and trends of the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail are considered in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Under section 3 of the Act, a species 

is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and is ‘‘threatened’’ 

if it is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The word ‘‘range’’ refers to the range in 

which the species currently exists. 

Range is discussed further below in the 

Conclusion section of this proposed 

rule. 

Foreseeable future is determined by 

the Service on a case-by-case basis, 

taking into consideration a variety of 

species-specific factors such as lifespan, 

genetics, breeding behavior, 

demography, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. 

The average lifespan of the 

interrupted rocksnail in the wild is 

unknown; however, interrupted 

rocksnails have survived in captivity for 

as long as 5 years (Johnson in litt. 

2006b). Heavy-shelled mussels are 

known to have long life spans, with 

many species living from 30 to 70 years 

(Williams et al. 2008, p. 68). For the 

purposes of this analysis, we estimate a 

life span of 30 years for the Georgia 

pigtoe. 

Some percentage of rocksnails 

cultured in captivity have been 

observed ovipositing in their first year, 

but all are believed to become sexually 

mature in their second year. Less is 

known about the rough hornsnail; 

however, some pleurocerid snails in the 

genus Elimia may live up to 5 years 

(Dillon 1988, p. 113). It is also believed 

that most pleurocerid snails may begin 

reproducing within 1 year post-hatch, 

depending upon habitat and 

productivity (Johnson 2008). 

The age of sexual maturity for the 

Georgia pigtoe is unknown and varies 

widely among the genera of freshwater 

mussels. In general, thin-shelled species 

reach sexual maturity earlier and have 

shorter lifespans than heavier-shelled 

species. In the Mobile River Basin, age 

at sexual maturity for mussels has been 

shown to vary from 1 to 2 years for the 

thin-shelled southern pocketbook 

(Lampsilis ornata), and 3 to 9 years for 

the heavy-shelled Alabama orb 

(Quadrula asperata) (Haag and Staton 

2003, pp. 2122–2123). The Georgia 

pigtoe is similar in shell size and 

thickness to the Alabama orb, so we are 

estimating sexual maturity for the 

Georgia pigtoe at age 5 years, and a 

generational time span of 5 years. 

Heavy-shelled mussels are also known 

to have long life spans, with many 

species living from 30 to 70 years 

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

Threat projection timeframes for the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail include specific 

activities that can arise at any time 

(such as permitted discharges, 

construction activities, channel 

modifications, or random accidents and 

spills of toxic substances) and periodic 

weather events (such as droughts and 

floods). 

The following analysis examines all 

five factors currently affecting or that 

are likely to affect Georgia pigtoe, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 (Lea 

1852)), interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis 

foremani (Lea 1843)), and rough 

hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani (Lea 

1843)) 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’’ above). The 

Georgia pigtoe has been eliminated from 

about 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 a 

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 a 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 was 

compounded by fragmentation and 

isolation of the remaining free-flowing 

portions of the Coosa River and its 

tributaries, as well as their 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, 

leaving relict habitats and populations 

isolated by the structures as well as by 

extensive areas of uninhabitable, 

impounded waters. These isolated 

populations were left more vulnerable 

to, and affected by, natural events (such 

as droughts), runoff from common landuse 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, 

along with 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). An appeal to the 

termination order was made (FERC 

2005b, p. 1) but denied (FERC 2006a, 

pp. 1–3). However, the applicant has 

since applied for a preliminary permit 

to proceed with the hydroelectric 

facility (FERC 2006b, pp. 1–3). 

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 those 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). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31119 

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 

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 two 

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 (P. 

Johnson in litt. 2003, 2004). The cause 

of decline is suspected to be some form 

of water contamination (P. Johnson in 

litt. 2003, 2004; P. 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 (R. Neves 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 and 

triangular kidneyshell), and snails 

(including the endangered cylindrical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

lioplax) (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 

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, and rough 

hornsnail, or 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 molluskeating Asian fish recently introduced 

into the waters of the United States 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002), 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 not 

currently considered a threat. 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 (2006) 

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 have 

suggested 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 have also 

suggested 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 U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers), 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31121 

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 

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 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 Fish Consumption 

Guidance (FCG) due to polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) as the reasons for this 

river reach’s inclusion on the list, and 

nonpoint pollution is identified as the 

source of pollutants (GDNR 2006, p. 35). 

Recent studies have also implicated 

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 have determined that the 

threat of inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms is 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 (non-point 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 and 

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– 

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). 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 to 

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 increases 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 stages. 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. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

other 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. 

Proposed Determination 

We have 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.’’ Based on the severity and 

magnitude of the threats currently 

affecting each of these species, we 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

propose to list them as endangered 

species under the Act. 

The most significant historical factor 

affecting the current status of the 

interrupted rocksnail, rough hornsnail, 

and Georgia pigtoe was the extreme 

curtailment of their habitat and range, as 

discussed in Factor A (above). 

Curtailment of habitat and range, along 

with small population sizes, amplifies 

existing or impending threats from 

nonpoint source water and habitat 

quality degradation, accidental spills, 

violation of permitted discharges, 

inadequate knowledge to implement 

existing regulatory measures, floods, or 

droughts (described under Factors A, D, 

and E). These threats are imminent and 

high in magnitude (applicable to the 

entire range) for each species. As 

described in Factor C and E above, small 

populations are also at increased threat 

due to predation from natural or 

introduced predators, genetic isolation, 

and inbreeding depression; however, 

these threats are not currently known to 

be imminent. 

Only single, localized populations are 

known to exist of the interrupted 

rocksnail and Georgia pigtoe, and only 

two extremely localized populations of 

the rough hornsnail are known. Each 

species is faced with a tenuous future 

even with only the random variation of 

natural environmental factors. However, 

the additional threats of water and 

habitat quality degradation or 

destruction further threaten each 

species and this trend is expected to 

continue or increase. 

We believe that, when combining the 

effects of historical, current, and 

projected habitat loss and degradation, 

historical and ongoing drought, and the 

exacerbating effects of small population 

sizes and isolation, the interrupted 

rocksnail, rough hornsnail, and Georgia 

pigtoe are in danger of extinction 

throughout all of their ranges, as defined 

in the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species’’ above. We believe these 

threats, particularly the threats resulting 

from habitat loss and fragmentation, 

small population sizes, and random 

natural or human induced events, are 

current and are projected to continue. 

We have determined that these threats 

are operating on each species and their 

respective habitats with a high degree of 

imminence, magnitude, and severity 

(rangewide), as discussed above. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we 

propose to list the Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail as endangered species under 

the Act. 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 fivefactor 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. 

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 area 

occupied by the species must first have 

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 (areas on which are 

found the Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs), as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

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. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

we should 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31123 

Service, are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designations does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

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. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, we 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be endangered 

or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent when one 

or both of the following situations exist: 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other activity and the identification 

of critical habitat can be expected to 

increase the degree of threat to the 

species; or (2) the designation of critical 

habitat would not be beneficial to the 

species. There is currently no imminent 

threat of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism under Factor B for each of 

these species, and identification of 

critical habitat is not expected to initiate 

such a threat to each of the species. 

Critical habitat designation identifies 

the physical and biological features of 

the habitat essential to the conservation 

of the interrupted rocksnail, rough 

hornsnail, and Georgia pigtoe, which 

may require special management and 

protection. As such, these designations 

will provide information to individuals, 

local and State governments, and other 

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

conservation of the species. 

Conservation of the 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. 

Based on this information, we believe 

critical habitat would be beneficial to 

each of the species. Therefore, we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat for the interrupted 

rocksnail, rough hornsnail, and Georgia 

pigtoe is prudent. 

We have reviewed the available 

information pertaining to historical 

distribution of the Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail, and the habitat 

characteristics where they currently 

survive. This and other information 

represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available and lead us 

to conclude that we have sufficient 

information necessary to identify 

specific areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat. Therefore, we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat is both prudent and 

determinable for the Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available in determining occupied areas 

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 to propose as 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 proposal. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 is affected by habitat stability, 

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 

(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 threatened and 

endangered species and their critical 

habitats as described in the 

Memorandum of Agreement that our 

agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201). 

Other factors that can potentially alter 

water quality are droughts and periods 

of low flow, non-point source runoff 

from adjacent land surfaces (for 

example, excessive amounts of 

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). 

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). Geomorphic instability 

can result in the loss of interstitial 

habitats and juvenile mussels due to 

scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993). 

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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31125 

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 

constituents) that meets or exceeds the 

current aquatic life criteria established 

under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251–1387). 

(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 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 

constituents) that meets or exceeds the 

current aquatic life criteria established 

under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251–1387). 

(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 

constituents) that meets or exceeds the 

current aquatic life criteria established 

under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251–1387). 

(4) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or 

bedrock substrates with low to moderate 

amounts of fine sediment and attached 

filamentous algae. 

This proposed designation is designed 

for the conservation of the physical and 

biological features essential to the life 

history functions that were the basis for 

the proposal 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 

proposed 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. 

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 proposed 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 proposed are 

presently under special management or 

protection provided by a legally 

operative management plan or 

agreement for the conservation of either 

the interrupted rocksnail, rough 

hornsnail, or Georgia pigtoe. Various 

activities in or adjacent to each of the 

critical habitat units described in this 

proposed rule may affect one or more of 

the PCEs. Some of these activities 

include, but are not limited to, those 

discussed in the ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species,’’ above. 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 proposed 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 

proposed critical habitat units include 

those listed in the ‘‘Effects of Critical 

Habitat’’ section as ‘‘Federal Activities 

that May Affect Critical Habitat and 

Require Consultation,’’ below. 

Criteria Used to Identify Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

We are proposing to designate 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 proposed 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 

proposed for 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 Proposed 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 are at 

a high risk of extinction and highly 

susceptible to stochastic events. 

Unoccupied Stream Reaches Proposed 

as Critical Habitat 

The streams not currently occupied 

that we are proposing 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 

within the reach continue to be 

inhabited by a diverse mussel 

community, including the federally 

endangered triangular kidneyshell and 

southern pigtoe and the threatened finelined 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 

proposed for critical habitat below, 

boundaries extend from the nearest 

downstream landmark at both of 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–Floyd 

County, 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. Although we 

do not yet know if this population is 

viable, it is within the range of the 

interrupted rocksnail as proposed in 

this listing; therefore, we are 

considering the 1-km (0.6-mi) localized 

area in the Lower Coosa River, where 

the species was reintroduced, as 

occupied habitat. 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 as proposed in 

this listing, 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. One of 

these consists of a population known 

from only a few hundred meters of 

stream in Yellowleaf Creek near 

Alabama Highway 25, Shelby County, 

Alabama, and we consider Yellowleaf 

Creek 1.6 km (1.0 mi) above and 1.6 km 

(1.0 mi) below Alabama Highway 25 as 

habitat occupied by the rough hornsnail. 

In addition, collections in the 1990s in 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31127 

modified conditions (see ‘‘Primary 

Constituent Elements’’ 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 proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed 

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 

proposed unoccupied critical habitat 

units). 

Based on the above factors, all 

unoccupied stream reaches included in 

the proposed designations for each of 

these three species are essential to their 

conservation. 

Georgia pigtoe 

We have 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, 6, and 7 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 (2008, 

p. 36) 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 propose to designate 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, 6, and 7 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 

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 propose to designate the 

entire reach of Hatchet Creek as critical 

habitat. 

Interrupted rocksnail 

We have 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, 6, 

and 7 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 reservoirstored 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 sites 

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, 6, and 7 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 Georgia pigtoe. 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, 6, and 7 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 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 have identified 8.5 km (7 mi) of 

habitat in two stream reaches that are 

unoccupied by the rough hornsnail but 

that meet Criteria 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 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 (5 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. 

The rough hornsnail currently 

inhabits a small area in Yellowleaf 

Creek near Alabama Highway 25 in 

Shelby County, Alabama. A 3.5-km (2- 

mi) reach upstream of this area is 

available for natural recolonization. 

This reach is currently inhabited by 

closely related pleurocerids and other 

mollusk species with similar habitat 

requirements and contains one or more 

of the PCEs required by the rough 

hornsnail, including a geomorphically 

stable channel, a natural hydrograph, 

and adequate water quality and 

substrate. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing three units as 

critical habitat for the Georgia pigtoe 

(GP 1, 2, and 3), three units for 

interrupted rocksnail (IR 1, 2, and 3), 

and two units for rough hornsnail (RH 

1 and 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 proposed units for each species; 

shows the occupancy of the units, the 

approximate extent proposed 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 proposed unit. Critical 

habitat is proposed for the stream 

channel within the ordinary high water 

line only. In Alabama and Georgia, the 

State owns navigable stream bottoms 

within the ordinary high water line, and 

all proposed 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 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR GEORGIA PIGTOE (GP), 

INTERRUPTED ROCKSNAIL (IR), AND ROUGH HORNSNAIL (RH) 

Unit Location Occupancy Private Ownership River 

Kilometers (Miles) 

State Ownership River 

Kilometers (Miles) 

GP 1 Conasauga River Occupied 5 (3) 47 (29) 

GP 2 Terrapin Creek and Coosa 

River 

Unoccupied 0 35 (22)1

GP 3 Hatchet Creek Unoccupied 0 66 (41) 

Total 5 (3) 148 (92) 

IR 1 Coosa River Unoccupied 0 11 (7)1

IR 2 Oostanaula River Occupied 0 12 (7.4) 

Unoccupied 0 65 (40.6) 

IR 3 Lower Coosa River Occupied 0 1 (0.6)2

Unoccupied 0 12 (7.4)2 

Total 0 101 (63) 

RH 1 Lower Coosa River Occupied 0 14 (9)2 

Unoccupied 0 7 (4) 

RH 2 Yellowleaf Creek Occupied 0 3.2 (2) 

Unoccupied 0 3.2 (2) 

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 proposed critical 

habitat units include the creek and river 

channels within the ordinary high water 

line. For this purpose, we have applied 

the definition found at 33 CFR 329.11, 

and consider the ordinary high water 

line on nontidal rivers to be the line on 

the shore established by the fluctuations 

of water and indicated by physical 

characteristics, such as a clear, natural 

line impressed on the bank; shelving; 

changes in the character of soil; 

destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the 

presence of litter and debris; or other 

appropriate means that consider the 

characteristics of the surrounding areas. 

For each stream reach proposed as a 

critical habitat unit, the upstream and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31129 

downstream boundaries are described 

generally below; more precise estimates 

are provided in the Proposed Regulation 

Promulgation section at the end of this 

proposed 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 is proposed for 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 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 proposed 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 

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 degree of 

stochastic threats to the single surviving 

population in the Conasauga River, 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 

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) 

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 initiation of minimum flows. 

Over the past few decades, changes in 

land uses, implementation of best 

management practices for agriculture 

and forestry activities in the watershed, 

and implementation of State water 

quality standards have 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 

their presence in this stream from its 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 propose to designate 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 

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 highquality 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31131 

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 2006), and more recent records 

of the hornsnail extending 2 km (1.2 mi) 

below the Fall Line (J. Garner and P. 

Hartfield pers. obsv. 2001), 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 occupies a 3.2- 

km (2-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek 

above and below Alabama Highway 25. 

We are also proposing a 3.2-km (2-mi) 

reach of currently unoccupied habitat 

above this reach. This upstream reach is 

characterized by a stable channel, 

natural flows, and appropriate water 

quality and substrates (PCEs 1, 2, 3, and 

4). The shoals and pools within the 

unoccupied reach are inhabited by the 

endangered triangular kidneyshell, 

southern clubshell, and cylindrical 

lioplax snail, as well as other more 

common species of mussels and snails 

that require similar PCEs as the 

hornsnail. Increasing the range and 

numbers of the rough hornsnail into this 

currently unoccupied area will decrease 

the vulnerability of this population and 

the species to stochastic threats, and is 

essential to its conservation. 

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; and the potential of 

significant alteration of water chemistry 

or water quality due to discharges or 

nonpoint source pollution; 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 

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. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action that is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a species proposed for listing or result 

in destruction or adverse modification 

of proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only, as any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

The primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to allow a Federal agency 

to maximize its opportunity to 

adequately consider species proposed 

for listing and proposed critical habitat 

and, if we list the proposed species or 

designate proposed critical habitat, to 

avoid potential delays in implementing 

their proposed action because of the 

section 7(a)(2) compliance process. We 

may conduct conferences either 

informally or formally. We typically use 

informal conferences as a means of 

providing advisory conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that the proposed 

action may cause. We typically use 

formal conferences when we or the 

Federal agency believes the proposed 

action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species 

proposed for listing or adversely modify 

proposed critical habitat. 

We generally provide the results of an 

informal conference in a conference 

report, while we provide the results of 

a formal conference in a conference 

opinion. We typically prepare 

conference opinions on proposed 

species or critical habitat in accordance 

with procedures contained at 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed species were 

already listed or the proposed critical 

habitat was already designated. We may 

adopt the conference opinion as the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

biological opinion when the species is 

listed or the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). 

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: 

•Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

•Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s legal 

authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

•Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

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 their stream and river 

habitats. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, instream 

excavation or dredging, impoundment, 

channelization, and discharge of fill 

materials. These activities could cause 

aggradation or degradation of the 

channel bed elevation or significant 

bank erosion and result in entrainment 

or burial of these 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 

(non-point 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, offroad vehicle use, and other watershed 

and floodplain disturbances that release 

sediments or nutrients into the water. 

These activities could eliminate or 

reduce habitats necessary for the growth 

and reproduction of these mollusks by 

causing excessive sedimentation and 

burial of the species or their habitats, or 

nutrification leading to excessive 

filamentous algal growth. Excessive 

filamentous algal growth can cause 

reduced 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31133 

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 proposed critical habitat designation 

for any of the three species. 

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

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

the Secretary must designate or make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which 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-togovernment 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. 

This discussion of the potential 

economic and other impacts of critical 

habitat designation is separate from and 

has not been considered in the proposed 

listing rule. The inclusion of this 

information in the proposed rule is 

solely for the purpose of soliciting 

public comments on the proposed 

critical habitat designation, not the 

proposed listing. 

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 preparing this proposed rule, we 

have determined that the lands within 

the proposed 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 HCPs for the Georgia 

pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail; and the proposed designation 

does not include any tribal lands or 

trust resources. At this time, we have 

not identified areas for which the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion; therefore, we are 

not identifying any specific proposed 

exclusions for the designation of critical 

habitat for interrupted rocksnail, rough 

hornsnail, or Georgia pigtoe. 

Economics 

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

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat for economic reasons if the 

Secretary determines that the benefits of 

such exclusion exceed the benefits of 

designating the area as critical habitat. 

However, this exclusion cannot occur if 

it will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. 

We are evaluating the economic 

impacts of proposing critical habitat for 

the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis as soon as it is 

completed, at which time we will seek 

public review and comment. At that 

time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by contacting 

the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). We may exclude areas from 

the final rule based on the information 

in the economic analysis. 

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. Federal agencies are required to 

confer with us informally on any action 

that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a proposed species, or 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of proposed critical 

habitat. If a species is listed 

subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such a species or to destroy 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with the 

Service. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail include, but are not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonFederal 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 

otherwiseprohibited activities involving 

endangered wildlife species under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are set forth at 50 

CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are 

available for scientific purposes, to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, and for incidental take in 

connection with otherwise lawful 

activities. 

Under the Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Endangered Species Act 

Section 9 Prohibitions, published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), we identify to the maximum 

extent practicable those activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if the 

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 

proposed 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 on the Federal 

Register of 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) Development and construction 

activities designed and implemented 

under State and local water quality 

regulations and implemented using 

approved best management practices; 

and 

(4) Any actions that may affect the 

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 if these species 

become listed, 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 should these mollusks 

become listed. 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 Mississippi Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 

copies of regulations regarding listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits should be addressed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Division, 1875 

Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 

(phone 404–679–7313; fax 404–679– 

7081). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

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

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our proposed actions are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

listing and designation of critical 

habitat. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31135 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing within 45 days 

of the publication of this proposal (see 

DATES and ADDRESSES sections). We 

will schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings in the Federal Register 

and local newspapers at least 15 days 

prior to the first hearing. 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to attend and 

participate in the public hearings 

should phone Connie Dickard at 601– 

321–1121 as soon as possible. To allow 

sufficient time to process requests, 

please call no later than one week before 

the hearing date. Information regarding 

the proposal is available in alternative 

formats upon request. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

currently have some information 

available but have not evaluated it for 

the three species. At this time, we lack 

the economic information necessary to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. This includes 

information on hydroelectric generation, 

transportation, mining, permitted 

discharges, as well as other economic 

factors within the Coosa River Basin. 

We will evaluate that information and 

solicit additional information, if needed, 

to determine potential economic 

impacts of the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our draft economic analysis will 

provide updated and more complete 

information to enable us to verify or 

change this initial finding as to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for each species. Upon completion of 

the draft economic analysis, we will 

announce availability of the draft 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation in the Federal Register and 

reopen the public comment period for 

the proposed designation. We will 

include with this announcement, as 

appropriate, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities accompanied 

by the factual basis for that 

determination. 

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 do not believe that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 

rocksnail, or 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and revise this 

assessment if appropriate. 

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 

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 proposed 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 

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 

proposed designating critical habitat for 

the Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

PCEs within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the 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 have 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)). 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), 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. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands occupied at the time of listing 

contain the features essential for the 

conservation and no tribal lands that are 

unoccupied areas that are essential for 

the conservation of the Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail. Therefore, designation of 

critical habitat for the Georgia pigtoe, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail has not been proposed on 

Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. We do not expect the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, or 

rough hornsnail to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Although two of the proposed units are 

below hydropower reservoirs, current 

and proposed operating regimes have 

been deemed adequate for the species, 

and therefore their operations will not 

be affected by the proposed listing or 

designation of critical habitat. All other 

proposed units are remote from energy 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31137 

supply, distribution, or use activities. 

Therefore, we have determined that this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. However, we will further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis, and review and 

revise this assessment as warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

Paul Hartfield (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 

U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; 

Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless 

otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) as follows: 

a. Add ‘‘Pigtoe, Georgia’’ in 

alphabetical order under ‘‘CLAMS;’’ and 

b. Add ‘‘Rocksnail, interrupted’’ and 

‘‘Hornsnail, rough’’ in alphabetical 

order under ‘‘SNAILS,’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

*******

CLAMS 

*******

Pigtoe, Georgia Pleurobema 

hanleyianum 

U.S.A. (AL, 

GA, TN) 

NA E 17.95(f) NA 

*******

SNAILS 

*******

Hornsnail, rough Pleurocera 

foremani 

U.S.A. (AL) NA E 17.95(f) NA 

*******

Rocksnail, interrupted Leptoxis 

foremani 

U.S.A. (AL, 

GA) 

NA E 17.95(f) NA 

*******

3. Amend § 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: 

§ 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 are found. Unless 

other information becomes available, 

existing conditions at locations where 

the species occur 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps 

were developed from USGS 7.5’ 

quadrangles, and critical habitat unit 

upstream and downstream limits were 

then identified by longitude and 

latitude using decimal degrees. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the Georgia pigtoe follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.000</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31139 

(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 

(longitude 84.690540, latitude 

35.003703), Polk County, Tennessee, 

downstream to U.S. Highway 76 

(longitude 84.873083, latitude 

34.783154), Murray/Whitfield County, 

Georgia. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (GP 1) for 

Georgia pigtoe (Conasauga River) 

follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.001</GPH><FNP>
31140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 (longitude 85.612250, latitude 

34.062972), downstream to the 

confluence with the Coosa River 

(longitude 85.687750, latitude 

34.13084), Cherokee County, Alabama; 

and the Coosa River channel from Weiss 

Dam (longitude 85.753667, latitude 

34.172361), downstream to a point 1.6 

km (1 mi) below the confluence of 

Terrapin Creek (longitude 85.701407, 

latitude 34.123895), Cherokee County, 

Alabama. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (GP 2) for 

Georgia pigtoe (Terrapin Creek and 

Coosa River) follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31141 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.002</GPH><FNP>
31142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

(longitude 86.054306, latitude 

33.129472), Clay County, downstream to 

the confluence of Swamp Creek at Coosa 

County Road 29 (longitude 86.338361, 

latitude 32.860944), Coosa County, 

Alabama. 

(ii)Note: Map of Unit 3 (GP 3) for 

Georgia pigtoe (Hatchet Creek) follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.003</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31143 

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 are found. Unless 

other information becomes available, 

existing conditions at locations where 

the species occur 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, and critical habitat unit 

upstream and downstream limits were 

then identified by longitude and 

latitude using decimal degrees. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the interrupted rocksnail 

follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

31144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.004</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31145 

(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 (longitude 

85.753667, latitude 34.172361), 

downstream to a point 1.6 km (1 mi) 

below the confluence of Terrapin Creek 

(longitude 85.701407, latitude 

34.123895), Cherokee County, Alabama. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (IR 1) for 

interrupted rocksnail (Coosa River) 

follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.005</GPH><FNP>
31146 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 (longitude 

84.904611, latitude 34.544833), Gordon 

County, downstream to Georgia 

Highway 1 Loop (longitude 85.171417, 

latitude 34.260694), Floyd County, 

Georgia. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (IR 2) for 

interrupted rocksnail (Oostanaula River) 

follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.006</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31147 

(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 (longitude 

86.254611, latitude 32.618250), 

downstream to Alabama Highway 111 

Bridge (longitude 86.208500, latitude 

32.535250), Elmore County, Alabama. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (IR 3) for 

interrupted rocksnail (Lower Coosa 

River) follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.007</GPH><FNP>
31148 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 are found. Unless 

other information becomes available, 

existing conditions at locations where 

the species occur 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 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, and critical habitat unit 

upstream and downstream limits were 

then identified by longitude and 

latitude using decimal degrees. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the rough hornsnail follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31149 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.008</GPH><FNP>
31150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 (longitude 

86.254611, latitude 32.618250), 

downstream to the confluence of the 

Tallapoosa River (longitude 86.265417, 

latitude 32.515417), Elmore County, 

Alabama. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (RH 1) for 

rough hornsnail (Lower Coosa River) 

follows: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.009</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31151 

(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 (longitude 86.459972, 

latitude 33.283667), downstream to 1.6 

km (1 mi) below Alabama Highway 25 

(longitude 86.438583, latitude 

33.251306), Shelby County, Alabama. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (RH 2) for 

rough hornsnail (Yellowleaf Creek) 

follows: 

Dated: May 27, 2009 

Jane Lyder 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks 

[FR Doc. E9–15236 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP29JN09.010</GPH>