Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: March 26, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14751-14832]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr03-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI73

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight
Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose
designation of critical habitat for three threatened (fine-lined
pocketbook, orange-nacre mucket, and Alabama moccasinshell) and eight
endangered freshwater mussels (Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell,
southern clubshell, dark pigtoe, southern pigtoe, triangular
kidneyshell, southern acornshell, and upland combshell), listed in 1993
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We propose
to designate 26 river and stream segments (units) in the Mobile River
Basin as critical habitat for these 11 mussel species. These units
encompass a total of approximately 1,760 kilometers (km) (1,093 miles
(mi)) of river and stream channels. Proposed critical habitat includes
portions of the Tombigbee River drainage in Mississippi and Alabama;
portions of the Black Warrior River drainage in Alabama; portions of
the Alabama River drainage in Alabama; portions of the Cahaba River
drainage in Alabama; portions of the Tallapoosa River drainage in
Alabama and Georgia; and portions of the Coosa River drainage in
Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to
the conservation of a listed species, and that may require special
management considerations or protection. If this proposal is made
final, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure
that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. State or private actions, with no Federal
involvement, are not affected.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider the economic and other
relevant impacts of specifying any area as critical habitat. We hereby
solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this
proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the
designation. We will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of
designating these areas as critical habitat prior to a final
determination. That economic analysis will be conducted in a manner
that is consistent with the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
in N.M. Cattle Growers Ass'n v. USFWS. When the draft economic analysis
is completed, we will announce its availability with a notice in the
Federal Register. With publication of the notice of availability, a
comment period will be opened for a minimum of 30 days to allow for
public comments on the draft economic analysis and proposed rule
concurrently.

DATES: We will consider comments received by June 24, 2003. We must
receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown
in the ADDRESSES section by May 12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to submit comments and information, you may
submit your comments and information by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway,
Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address, or fax your
comments to 601/965-4340.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to paul_
hartfield@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Hartfield at the above address
(telephone 601/321-1125, facsimile 601/965-4340).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This proposed rule addresses 11 bivalve mollusks or mussels
(possessing a soft body enclosed by 2 shells) in the family Unionidae
that are native to the Mobile River basin. The mussels addressed in
this rule are the threatened fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis),
orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis), and Alabama moccasinshell
(Medionidus acutissimus), and the endangered Coosa moccasinshell
(Medionidus parvulus), southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum), dark
pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum), southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum),
ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), triangular kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus greeni), upland combshell (Epioblasma metastriata), and
southern acornshell (Epioblasma othcaloogensis). Unionid mussels, in
general, live embedded in the bottom (sand, gravel, and/or cobble
substrates) of rivers, streams, and other bodies of water. These
mussels siphon water into their shells and across four gills that are
specialized for respiration and food collection. Sexes in unionid
mussels are usually separate. Males release sperm into the water; the
sperm are then taken in by the females through their siphons during
feeding and respiration. Eggs are held in the gills of the female where
they come into contact with the sperm. Once eggs are fertilized,
females retain them in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully
develop. The change (metamorphosis) of the larvae of most unionid
species into juvenile mussels requires that the larvae undergo a stage
of parasitism on the fins, gills, or skin of a fish. Mature mussel
glochidia are released into the water and they must find and attach to
a suitable host fish species in order to develop into a juvenile
mussel. Glochidia may be released separately or in masses termed
conglutinates. The duration of the parasitic stage varies with water
temperature, mussel species, and, perhaps, host fish species. Developed
juvenile mussels normally detach from their fish host and sink to the
stream bottom, where they continue to develop, provided they land in a
suitable substrate with correct water conditions. Because of the
dependence on this life stage and transport/dispersal process, unionid
mussels usually only parasitize one or a few suitable host fish species
that occupy similar habitats as the mussels. Consequently, the presence
of suitable host fish species is considered an essential element in the
life cycle of unionid mussels.
These 11 mussel species are historically native to portions of the
Mobile River Basin (Basin). The Basin is composed of seven major river
systems (Mobile, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Alabama, Cahaba, Coosa, and
Tallapoosa) and drains portions of the states of Alabama, Mississippi,
Georgia, and Tennessee. Biological factors relevant to these freshwater
mussels' habitat requisites are discussed in the Primary Constituent
Elements portion of this proposed rule.

[[Page 14753]]

Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution

Fine-Lined Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis (Conrad 1834))

The fine-lined pocketbook is a medium-sized mussel, suboval in
shape, and rarely exceeds 100 millimeters (mm) (4 inches (in)) in
length. The ventral margin (bottom) of the shell is often angled
posteriorly in females, resulting in a pointed posterior margin. The
periostracum (skin of the shell) is yellow-brown to blackish and has
fine rays on the posterior half. The nacre (shell interior) is white,
becoming iridescent posteriorly.
Gravid females (females with larvae) have been observed March
through June. Fine-lined pocketbooks have also been observed releasing
glochidia in a single large conglutinate (Haag et al., 1999), termed a
superconglutinate (Haag et al., 1995). Redeye bass (Micropterus coosa),
spotted bass (M. puctulatus), largemouth bass (M. salmoides), and green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) have been identified as suitable hosts
(Haag et al., 1999).
The fine-lined pocketbook was historically reported from the
Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Tallapoosa, and Coosa Rivers
and many of their tributaries in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and
Tennessee. The species has apparently disappeared from the Tombigbee
and Alabama River drainages, and possibly from the Black Warrior River
drainage. Since publication of the final rule listing the fine-lined
pocketbook, this mussel continues to survive in the upper Cahaba River
and the Little Cahaba River (Jefferson/Shelby/Bibb Counties, Alabama);
Coosa River (Cherokee County, Alabama) and its tributaries, including
Duck Creek (Walker County, Georgia), Euharlee Creek (Bartow County,
Georgia), Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia; Polk
County, Tennessee), and Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia), Terrapin
Creek, and South Fork Terrapin Creek (Cleburne County, Alabama);
Yellowleaf Creek and its tributary Muddy Prong (Shelby County,
Alabama); Kelly Creek and its tributary Shoal Creek (Shelby/St. Clair
County, Alabama), Choccolocco Creek (Calhoun County, Alabama) and its
tributaries Cheaha Creek (Talladega/Clay County, Alabama), Shoal Creek
(Cleburne County, Alabama), Hatchet Creek (Coosa/Clay County, Alabama),
and Tallasahatchee Creek (Talladega County, Alabama); and the
Tallapoosa River and tributaries, including Uphapee Creek (Macon
County, Alabama), Choctafaula Creek (Macon/Lee County, Alabama),
Chewacla Creek (Macon/Lee County, Alabama), Opintlocco Creek (Macon
County, Alabama), Cane and Little Cane Creeks (Cleburne County,
Alabama), Muscadine Creek (Cleburne County, Alabama), Big Creek
(Haralson County, GA), and McClendon Creek (Paulding County, Georgia).
Populations are small and localized within these streams (Dodd et al.,
1986; Evans, 2001; Feminella and Gangloff, 2000; Haag et al., 1999;
Herod et al., 2001; E. Irwin, U.S. Geological Survey, in litt. 2000;
Irwin et al., 1998; Johnson and Evans, 2000; L. McDougal, U.S. Forest
Service, in litt. 1994; McGregor, M. 1993; McGregor et al. 2000;
Pierson, 1991a, 1992b, 1993; Shepard et al., 1994; Williams and Hughes
1998).
Orange-nacre Mucket (Lampsilis perovalis (Conrad 1834))
The orange-nacre mucket is a medium-sized mussel, 50 to 90 mm (2.0
to 3.6 in) in length. The shell is oval in shape, moderately thick, and
inflated. The posterior margin of the shell of mature females is
obliquely truncate (shortened). The nacre is usually colored orange,
rose, pink, or occasionally white. The periostracum varies from yellow
to dark reddish brown, and with or without green rays.
The orange-nacre mucket expels mature glochidia in a single
superconglutinate (Haag et al. 1995). Discharge of superconglutinates
has been observed between March and June, with releases appearing
concentrated in early April (Hartfield and Butler 1997). Redeye bass,
spotted bass, and largemouth bass have been identified as suitable host
fish for the orange-nacre mucket (Haag and Warren 1997).
The orange-nacre mucket was historically known from the Alabama,
Tombigbee, Black Warrior, and Cahaba Rivers and their tributaries in
Alabama and Mississippi. The species has disappeared from the mainstem
Tombigbee, Black Warrior, and Alabama Rivers, but continues to survive
in Tombigbee tributaries, including the Buttahatchee River (Lowndes/
Monroe County, Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama), and East Fork
Tombigbee River (Itawamba/Monroe County, Mississippi), Luxapalila Creek
and tributaries Yellow Creek (Monroe County, Mississippi; Lamar County,
Alabama) and Cut Bank Creek (Lamar County, Alabama), Sipsey River
(Greene/Pickens/Tuscaloosa County, Alabama), Coalfire, Lubbub, and
Trussels Creeks (Pickens County, Alabama); Black Warrior River
tributaries, including North River (Tuscaloosa/Fayette County, Alabama)
and its tributary Clear Creek (Fayette County, Alabama), Locust and
Blackburn Forks of the Black Warrior River (Blount County, Alabama),
Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama) and
tributaries Thompson, Flannagin, and Borden Creeks (Lawrence County,
Alabama), and Caney, North Fork Caney, Brushy, Capsey, Rush, Brown, and
Beech Creeks (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama); Cahaba River (Bibb/
Jefferson/Shelby County, Alabama) and Little Cahaba River (Bibb/Shelby
County, Alabama); and Alabama River tributaries Limestone Creek (Monroe
County, Alabama) and Bogue Chitto Creek (Dallas County, Alabama). The
orange-nacre mucket is locally common in the Sipsey Fork and several of
its tributaries. All other populations are small and localized (Alabama
Malacological Research Center, in litt., 1996; Dodd et al. 1986; Haag
and Warren 2001; Hartfield and Bowker 1992; Hartfield and Jones 1989,
1990; Jones 1991; Jones and Majure 1999; McGregor 1992; McGregor et al.
1996; McGregor 2000; McGregor et al. 2000; McGregor and Pierson 1999;
McGregor and Haag in prep.; Miller 2000; MS Museum of Natural Science
collection records 1989-1999; Pierson 1991a, b, 1992a; Shepard et al.
1998; Vittor and Associates 1993; Warren and Haag 1994; Yokley 2001).
Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus (Lea 1831))
The Alabama moccasinshell is a small, delicate species,
approximately 30 mm (1.2 in) in length. The shell is narrowly
elliptical, and thin, with a well-developed acute posterior ridge that
terminates in an acute point on the posterior ventral margin. The
posterior slope is finely corrugated. The periostracum is yellow to
brownish yellow, with broken green rays across the entire surface of
the shell. The thin nacre is translucent along the margins and salmon-
colored in the umbos (beak cavity).
Alabama moccasinshell females are gravid from October to June. This
species lives completely embedded in stream bottoms for most of the
year. Gravid females migrate to the surface of the stream bottom
between March and June, anchor themselves to gravel by a bysal thread
(protein thread), and lie exposed, displaying a black mantle lure
apparently to attract potential host fish (P. Hartfield pers. obs.
1994; Haag and Warren 2001). Blackspotted topminnows (Fundulus
olivaceus), Tuskaloosa darter (Etheostoma douglasi), redfin darter (E.
whipplei), blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofaciata), naked sand darter

[[Page 14754]]

(Ammocrypta beani), southern sand darter (A. meridiana), johnny darter
(E. nigrum), speckled darter (E. stigmaeum), saddleback darter (Percina
vigil), and logperch (P. caprodes) have been identified as suitable
host fish (Haag and Warren 1997, 2001).
The Alabama moccasinshell was historically known from the Alabama,
Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers and their
tributaries in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee. The
species has disappeared from the mainstems of all of these rivers, but
continues to survive in Tombigbee River tributaries, including Bull
Mountain Creek (Itawamba County, Mississippi), Luxapalila Creek
(Lowndes County, Mississippi) and tributary Yellow Creek (Lowndes
County, Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama), Buttahatchee River
(Lowndes/Monroe County, Mississippi, Lamar County, Alabama), and
tributary Sipsey Creek (Monroe County, Mississippi), Lubbub Creek
(Pickens County, Alabama), and Sipsey River (Greene/Pickens County,
Alabama); Black Warrior River tributaries, including the Sipsey Fork
and tributaries (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama); and Holly Creek
(Murray County, Georgia) in the Coosa River drainage (Dodd et al.1986;
Evans 2001; Hartfield and Bowker 1992; Hartfield and Jones 1989, 1990;
Johnson and Evans 2000; Jones 1991; Jones and Majure 1999; McGregor
1992; McGregor et al. 1996; McGregor 2000; McGregor et al. 2000; MS
Museum of Natural Science collection record 1984-2001; Pierson 1991a,
b; Warren and Haag 1994; Yokley 2001). Except for the Sipsey Fork,
populations are small and localized. Highest densities observed during
field surveys have been from the Sipsey Fork and its headwater
tributaries in Bankhead National Forest, where quantitative samples
from selected sites estimated Alabama moccasinshells densities from 0
to 2.8/10 m2 (Warren and Haag 1994).
Coosa Moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus (Lea 1860))
The Coosa moccasinshell is a small species occasionally exceeding
40 mm (1.6 in) in length. The shell is thin and fragile, elongate and
elliptical to rhomboidal in outline. The posterior ridge is inflated
and smoothly rounded, terminating in a broadly rounded point; the
posterior slope is finely corrugated. The periostracum is yellow-brown
to dark brown and has fine green rays. The nacre is blue, occasionally
with salmon-colored spots.
Coosa moccasinshells are usually completely buried in the stream
bottom. Because this species is apparently closely related to the
Alabama moccasinshell, gravid females of this species likely migrate to
the surface of the stream bottom during spring glochidial release
periods, as do gravid Alabama moccasinshell females. Coosa
moccasinshell glochidia are known to use blackbanded darters as hosts;
however, other species of darters are also likely to be used (P.
Johnson, Tennessee Aquarium Research Institute, pers. comm. 2002).
The Coosa moccasinshell has been historically reported from the
Cahaba River, the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, and the Coosa
River, and their tributaries, in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Since
the species was listed, its presence has been confirmed only in the
Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia; Bradley County,
Tennessee), and its tributary, Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia)
(Johnson and Evans, 2000, Williams and Hughes 1998). It has apparently
been eliminated from the Cahaba and Black Warrior River drainages, as
well as from the Coosa River and many of its tributaries.
Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum (Conrad 1834))
The ovate clubshell is a small to medium-sized mussel that rarely
exceeds 50 mm (2.0 in) in length. The shell is oval to elliptical in
shape, and has nearly terminal, inflated umbos. The posterior ridge is
well-developed, broadly rounded, and often concave. The posterior slope
is produced well beyond the posterior ridge. Periostracum color varies
from yellow to dark brown, and occasionally has broad green rays that
may cover most of the umbo and posterior ridge. The nacre is white.
Gravid females of this species have been observed in June and July.
Glochidia are released in well formed, white conglutinates (W.R. Haag
unpublished data). Host fishes for this species are unknown.
The ovate clubshell was historically distributed in the Tombigbee,
Black Warrior, Alabama, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers and their tributaries
in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee; and in Chewacla,
Uphapee and Opintlocco Creeks in the Tallapoosa River drainage,
Alabama. It has disappeared from the Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Alabama
River drainages, as well as the mainstem Tombigbee River and Uphapee
and Opintlocco Creeks. Currently, the species is known to survive in
several Tombigbee River tributaries, including Buttahatchee River
(Lowndes/Monroe County, Mississippi), Luxapalila Creek and its
tributary Yellow Creek (Lowndes County, Mississippi), Sipsey River
(Greene/Pickens/Tuscaloosa County, Alabama), Sucarnoochee River (Sumter
County, Alabama), and Coalfire Creek (Pickens County, Alabama); and
Chewacla Creek (Macon County, Alabama) in the Tallapoosa River
drainage; and a short reach of the Coosa River below the mouth of
Terrapin Creek (Cherokee County, Alabama) (Dodd et al. 1986, Feminella
and Gangloff 2000, Hartfield and Bowker 1992, Hartfield and Jones 1990,
Jones 1991, McGregor 1992, McGregor 1993, McGregor et al. 1996,
McGregor 2000, McGregor and Haag in prep., Miller 2000, Pierson, 1991a,
b; Yokley 2001). Populations are small and localized.
Southern Clubshell (Pleurobema decisum (Lea 1831))
The southern clubshell is a medium sized mussel about 70 mm (2.8
in) long, with a thick shell, and heavy hinge plate and teeth. The
shell outline is roughly rectangular, produced posteriorly with the
umbos terminal with the anterior margin, or nearly so. The posterior
ridge is moderately inflated and ends abruptly with little development
of the posterior slope at the dorsum of the shell. The periostracum is
yellow to yellow-brown with occasional green rays or spots on the umbo
in young specimens.
Gravid southern clubshell females with mature glochidia have been
collected in June and July. Glochidia are released in well formed
conglutinates orange or white in coloration (Haag and Warren 2001).
Blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), Alabama shiner (C. callistia),
and tricolor shiner (C. trichroistia) have been identified as fish host
(Haag and Warren 2001, P. Johnson pers. comm. 2002).
With the exception of the Tensas/Mobile River, the southern
clubshell was formerly known from every major river system in the
Mobile River Basin, including the Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior,
Cahaba, Tallapoosa, and Coosa Rivers and many of their tributaries in
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. This species has
disappeared from the Cahaba River drainage, the main channels of the
Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers, and from a number of tributaries in
all of the drainages. Southern clubshell continues to inhabit the East
Fork Tombigbee River (Itawamba/Monroe County, Mississippi), Bull
Mountain Creek (Itawamba County, Mississippi), Buttahatchee River
(Monroe/Lowndes County, Mississippi), Luxapalila and Yellow Creeks
(Lowndes County, Mississippi), Lubbub Creek (Pickens County, Alabama),
and Sipsey River

[[Page 14755]]

(Greene/Pickens/Tuscaloosa County, Alabama) in the Tombigbee drainage;
a short reach of the Alabama River and Bogue Chitto Creek (Dallas
County, Alabama); Chewacla Creek (Macon County, Alabama) in the
Tallapoosa drainage; Coosa River (Dead River) below Weiss Dam (Cherokee
County, Alabama) and tributaries Kelly Creek (Shelby County, Alabama),
Big Canoe Creek (St. Clair County, Alabama), Terrapin Creek (Cherokee
County, Alabama), and Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County,
Georgia) (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service collection records, 1998, 1999; Evans 2001;
Feminella and Gangloff 2000; Hartfield and Bowker 1992; Hartfield and
Jones 1989, 1990; Herod et al. 2001; Jones 1991; Jones and Majure 1999;
McGregor 1993, 1999; McGregor et al. 1996; Miller 2000; Miller and
Hartfield, 1988; Pierson, 1991a, b; Yokley 2001). The southern
clubshell is relatively common in localized reaches of the Buttahatchee
and Sipsey Rivers. Average density at four sites in the Coosa River
below Weiss Dam was 0.19/square meter (Herod et al. 2001). It is rare
to uncommon in other occupied streams.
Dark Pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum (Conrad 1834))
The dark pigtoe is a small to medium-sized mussel, occasionally
reaching 60 mm (2.4 in) in length. The shell is oval in outline, and
moderately inflated. Beaks are located in the anterior portion of the
shell. The posterior ridge is abruptly rounded and terminates in a
broadly rounded, subcentral, posterior point. The periostracum is dark,
reddish brown with numerous and closely spaced, dark growth lines. The
hinge plate is wide and the teeth are heavy and large, especially in
older specimens. The nacre approaches white in the umbos, and is highly
iridescent on the posterior margin. This species is gravid in June and
releases glochidia in peach to pink-colored conglutinates (Haag and
Warren 1997). The largescale stoneroller (Campostoma oligolepis),
Alabama shiner, blacktail shiner, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
and blackspotted topminnow have been confirmed as suitable hosts (Haag
and Warren 1997).
The historic distribution of the dark pigtoe was probably
restricted to the Black Warrior River system above the fall line
(natural contour that marks a drop in land level). Since listing, the
presence of the dark pigtoe has been confirmed in the Black Warrior
River drainage from Sipsey Fork and its tributaries Caney, Brown, Rush,
and Capsey Creeks (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama); and from the
North River and its tributary Clear Creek (Fayette County, Alabama)
(Alabama Malacological Research Center, in litt., 1996; Dodd et al.
1986; McGregor 1992; Pierson 1992a; Shepard et al. 1998; Vittor and
Associates 1993; Warren and Haag 1994). Badly weathered shells have
also been found in the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River near the
Jefferson-Blount County line. Populations are small and localized.
Highest densities measured during field surveys have been from the
Sipsey Fork and its headwater tributaries in Bankhead National Forest,
where quantitative samples from selected sites estimated dark pigtoe
densities from 0 to 4.8/10 m2 (Warren and Haag 1994).
Southern Pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum (Lea 1841))
The southern pigtoe is a small to medium-sized mussel occasionally
exceeding 60 mm (2.4 in) in length. The shell is elliptical to oval in
outline and somewhat compressed. The posterior slope is smoothly
rounded. The pseudocardinal teeth (protrusions on the dorsal interior
surface of the shell) are small but well-developed, and the nacre is
white. The periostracum is yellow to yellow-brown. Growth lines are
numerous and may be dark brown. Small specimens may have green spots at
the growth lines along the posterior ridge and near the umbo. Host fish
are Alabama shiner, blacktail shiner, and tricolor shiner (P. Johnson
pers. comm. 2002).
The historic range of the southern pigtoe included the Coosa River
and its tributaries in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The species is
currently known to survive in the Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield
County, Georgia, Bradley County, Tennessee), Holly Creek (Murray
County, Georgia), Shoal Creek (Cleburne County, Alabama), Big Canoe
Creek (St. Clair County, Alabama), and Cheaha Creek (Talladega County,
Alabama) (Evans 2001, Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Johnson and Evans,
2000; Pierson 1992b, 1993; Williams and Hughes 1998). Populations are
small and localized.
Triangular Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greeni (Conrad 1834))
The triangular kidneyshell is oval to elliptical in outline, and
may approach 100 mm (4.0 in) in length. The shell is generally
compressed, and may be flattened ventral to the umbos. The posterior
ridge is broadly rounded and terminates in a broad round point post-
ventrally. The pseudocardinal teeth are heavy, and the laterals are
heavy, gently curved and short. The periostracum is straw-yellow in
young specimens, but becomes yellow-brown in older ones. It may have
fine and wavy, or wide and broken, green rays anterior to the posterior
ridge.
Gravid triangular kidneyshell females were observed in March 1994
and April 1996. Glochidia are packaged into conglutinates that mimic
small aquatic fly larvae (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996) or fish eggs
(Haag and Warren 1997). Suitable fish hosts have been identified as
Warrior darter (Etheostoma bellator), Tuskaloosa darter, blackbanded
darter and logperch (Haag and Warren 1997).
The historic range of the triangular kidneyshell included the Black
Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, and Coosa Rivers and tributaries in Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee. The species has disappeared from the Alabama
River, and from the primary channels of the Black Warrior and Coosa
Rivers. Triangular kidneyshell is currently known to inhabit the Sipsey
Fork and tributaries (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama) and Locust Fork
(Blount County, Alabama) of the Black Warrior; Cahaba River (Bibb
County, Alabama); and Coosa tributaries Shoal Creek (Cleburne County,
Alabama), Kelly Creek (Shelby County, Alabama), Big Canoe Creek (St.
Clair County, Alabama), Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County,
Georgia, Bradley County, Tennessee), Holly Creek (Murray County,
Georgia), Coosawattee River (Gordon County, Georgia), and Oostanaula
River (Floyd/Gordon County, Georgia). Populations are small and
localized (Dodd et al. 1986, Evans 2001, Feminella and Gangloff 2000,
Haag and Warren 1997, Johnson and Evans 2000, McGregor 1992, McGregor
et al. 2000, Shepard et al. 1994, 1998; Warren and Haag 1994, Williams
and Hughes 1998).
Southern Acornshell (Epioblasma othcaloogensis (Lea 1857))
The southern acornshell is a small mussel that may grow up to 30 mm
(1.2 in) in shell length. The shells are round to oval in outline and
sexually dimorphic, with a swollen posterior ridge in females. The
periostracum is smooth, shiny, and yellow in color. Life history and
host fish are unknown.
Historically, the southern acornshell occurred in the upper Coosa
River system and the Cahaba River above the fall line in Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee. The most recent records for the southern
acornshell were from tributaries of the Coosa River in the early 1970s,
and the Cahaba in the 1930s (58 FR 14330). It was our determination at
the time of listing, with

[[Page 14756]]

consensus of the malacological (mollusk research) community, that this
species was likely to persist in low numbers in the upper Coosa River
drainage, and possibly in the Cahaba River. Surveys of Coosa River
tributaries have been conducted by Service biologists, as well as Bogan
and Pierson (1993a), Evans (2001), Feminella and Gangloff (2000),
Johnson and Evans (2000), Pierson (1993, pers. comm. 1994), Williams
and Hughes (1998), and others. Surveys of the Cahaba River have been
conducted by Service biologists, Bogan and Pierson (1993b), McGregor et
al. (2000), Shepard et al. (1994, 1998), and others. Despite these
repeated surveys of historic habitat in the Coosa and Cahaba River
drainages, no living animals or fresh shells of this species have been
located in recent years (Evans 2001, Feminella and Gangloff 2000,
Johnson and Evans 2000, McGregor et al. 2000, Pierson 1993, Shepard et
al. 1994, 1998, Williams and Hughes 1998). Not withstanding the results
of these surveys, this species' historic range includes thousands of
miles of river and stream habitat in the Mobile River Basin, and there
are many miles of stream which have not been adequately surveyed.
Mussels are cryptic species, living buried in the stream bottom under
water, and rare mussels are difficult to locate.
Upland Combshell (Epioblasma metastriata (Conrad 1838))
The upland combshell is a bivalve mollusk that rarely exceeds 60 mm
(2.4 in) in length. The shells are rhomboidal to quadrate in outline
and are sexually dimorphic. Males are moderately inflated with a
broadly curved posterior ridge. Females are considerably inflated, with
a sharply elevated posterior ridge that swells broadly post-ventrally
forming a well-developed sulcus (the groove anterior to the posterior
ridge). The posterior margin of the female is broadly rounded and comes
to a point anterior to the posterior extreme. Periostracum color varies
from yellowish-brown to tawny, and may or may not have broken green
rays or small green spots. Hinge teeth are well-developed and heavy.
This species likely releases glochidia during late spring or early
summer (Service 2000). The host fish for this species have not been
identified.
The historic range of the upland combshell included portions of the
Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers of the Mobile River Basin and
some of their tributaries in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The most
recent records for the upland combshell were from the Conasauga River,
Georgia, in 1988, and from the Cahaba River, Alabama, in the early
1970s (58 FR 14330). When listed, the species was believed to be
restricted to the Conasauga River in Georgia, and possibly portions of
the upper Black Warrior and Cahaba River drainages. Surveys of Coosa
River tributaries have been conducted by Service biologists, as well as
Bogan and Pierson (1993a), Evans (2001), Feminella and Gangloff (2000),
Johnson and Evans (2000), Pierson (1993, pers. comm. 1994), Williams
and Hughes (1998), and others. Surveys of the Cahaba River have been
conducted by Service biologists, Bogan and Pierson (1993b), McGregor et
al. (2000), Shepard et al. (1994), and others. Surveys in the upper
Black Warrior drainage have been done by Service biologists, Alabama
Malacological Research Center, (in litt. 1996), Sheppard et al. (1998),
Vittor and Associates (1993), Warren and Haag (1994), and others.
However, these surveys of the Conasauga River and other historic
habitat in the Coosa, Cahaba, and Black Warrior River drainages since
the mussel was listed have failed to locate any evidence of the upland
combshell (Evans 2001, Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Johnson and Evans
2000, McGregor 1992, McGregor et al. 2000, Pierson 1991a, Shepard et
al. 1994, 1998, Vittor and Associates 1993, Warren and Haag 1994,
Williams and Hughes 1998). Not withstanding the results of these
surveys, this species' historic range includes thousands of miles of
river and stream habitat in the Mobile River Basin, and there are many
miles of stream which have not been adequately surveyed. Mussels are
cryptic species, living buried in the stream bottom under water, and
rare mussels are difficult to locate.
The summary of these 11 mussel species, presented above, represents
our current understanding of their historic and current range and
distribution. There has been some confusion in species identification
in recent reports. For example, some survey reports have identified
mussel populations from Black Warrior River tributaries, Cahaba River,
and Bogue Chitto Creek as fine-lined pocketbook, while others have
identified the same populations as orange-nacre mucket. Although there
may be some overlap in these species' current ranges, we believe that
this confusion originated from collectors unfamiliar with one or both
species. There is also some confusion surrounding recently rediscovered
populations of clubshell in the Coosa River drainage. Some biologists
believe these populations may include painted clubshell (Pleurobema
chattanoogaense), a form that we considered the same as southern
clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) in the March 17, 1993, final rule
listing for these 11 mussels (58 FR 14330). There is some morphological
evidence that recognition of painted clubshell as a species may be
warranted, however, recent genetic studies were unable to discriminate
between the 2 forms. Therefore, at this time, we consider populations
of clubshell in the Coosa River drainage to be southern clubshell. The
distributions presented above, are based upon shell morphology as
described and currently recognized in the scientific literature.
Therefore, we will consider these species' current ranges as outlined
above, until presented with new information.

Summary of Decline and Threats to Surviving Populations

The disappearance of these 11 mussel species from significant
portions of their ranges is primarily due to changes in river and
stream channels caused by dams, dredging, or mining, and historic or
episodic pollution events (58 FR 14330). More than 1,700 km (1,100 mi)
of large and small river habitat in the Basin have been impounded by
dams for navigation, flood control, water supply, and/or hydroelectric
production purposes. None of the 11 species are known to survive in
impounded waters. Riverine mussels are killed during construction of
dams, they may be suffocated by sediments that accumulate behind the
dams; and the reduced water flow behind dams limits food and oxygen
available to mussels. Many fish species that serve as hosts to mussel
larvae are also eliminated by dams and impounded waters.
Other forms of habitat modification--such as channelization,
channel clearing and desnagging (woody debris removal), and gold and
gravel mining--caused stream bed scour and erosion, increased
turbidity, reduction of groundwater levels, and sedimentation, often
resulting in severe local impacts to, and even extirpation of, mussel
species. Sedimentation may also eliminate or reduce recruitment of
juvenile mussels (Negus 1966), and suspended sediments can also
interfere with feeding (Dennis 1984).
Water pollution from coal mines, carpet mills, fabric dying mills,
large industrial plants, inadequately treated sewage, and land surface
runoff also contributed to the demise of the species in certain
portions of their historic ranges. Freshwater mussels, especially in
their early life stages, are extremely

[[Page 14757]]

sensitive to many pollutants (e.g., chlorine, ammonia, heavy metals,
high concentrations of nutrients) commonly found in municipal and
industrial wastewater effluents (Havlik and Marking 1987, Goudreau et
al. 1988, Keller and Zam 1991). Stream discharges from these sources
may result in decreased dissolved oxygen concentration, increased
acidity and conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry, which
may impact mussels or their host fish.
The historic activities discussed above, especially dam
construction, had a second major impact on mussel species by isolating
surviving populations within limited portions of the Basin's major
drainages. The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) recognized habitat fragmentation as one
of the primary threats to the Basin's imperiled aquatic species. Small
isolated mussel populations are more vulnerable to natural random
events, such as droughts or floods, as well as to changes in human
activities and land use practices that impact aquatic habitats (Neves
et al. 1997). A number of the Basin's imperiled mussel populations that
became restricted to small tributaries or river segments eventually
disappeared because of individual or cumulative impacts of land uses
such as urbanization, industrialization, mining, and certain
agricultural activities and practices that resulted in sedimentation,
eutrophication (an aquatic condition in which the increase in mineral
and organic nutrients reduces dissolved oxygen producing an environment
that favors plant life over animal life), or other negative effects to
stream and river habitats (58 FR 14330, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2000).
Human populations and associated needs for housing, commerce,
recreation, water, electricity, forest and agricultural products, waste
disposal, and mineral exploitation continue to increase in the Basin
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Currently surviving populations
of endangered and threatened mussels remain vulnerable to habitat loss,
population isolation, and the cumulative effects of these land use
activities on aquatic environments (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2000). More detailed information on threats to these species can be
found in the March 17, 1993, final listing determination (58 FR 14330)
and in the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Previous Federal Actions

Federal actions began when the orange-nacre mucket was included as
a category 2 species (May 22, 1984, 49 FR 21675). We applied category 2
designations to those species for which some evidence of vulnerability
existed, but for which we needed additional biological information to
support a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened. In the
January 6, 1989, Notice of Review (54 FR 578-579), this species was
again included as a category 2 species. In the same Notice of Review,
the upland combshell, southern acornshell, and fine-lined pocketbook
were additionally included as category 2 species. A status review
completed in 1991 for these four species, and seven other mussels
endemic to the Basin, recommended listing the upland combshell,
southern acornshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern clubshell, dark
pigtoe, southern pigtoe, ovate clubshell, and triangular kidneyshell as
endangered species, and the fine-lined pocketbook, orange-nacre mucket,
and Alabama moccasinshell as threatened species (Hartfield 1991).
We proposed the 11 mussel species for protection under the Act on
November 19, 1991 (56 FR 58339). In that proposed rule, we stated that
critical habitat was not prudent because of the threat of illegal
commercial harvest. Legal notices announcing the proposal and
requesting public comments were published in The Clarion-Ledger
(Jackson, Mississippi) on December 6, 1991; the Mobile Press Register
(Mobile, Alabama) on December 7, 1991; and The Atlanta Constitution
(Atlanta, Georgia), the Commercial Dispatch (Columbus, Mississippi),
and the Montgomery Advertiser (Montgomery, Alabama) on December 8,
1991. We published a final rule on March 17, 1993 (58 FR 14330),
listing the fine-lined pocketbook, orange-nacre mucket, and Alabama
moccasinshell as threatened species, and the Coosa moccasinshell, ovate
clubshell, southern clubshell, dark pigtoe, southern pigtoe, triangular
kidneyshell, upland combshell, and southern acornshell as endangered
species.
New mussel harvest regulations adopted by the State of Alabama, and
other information received in public comments during the open comment
period, removed our concerns about illegal commercial harvest, and in
the final rule, we determined that critical habitat was prudent but not
determinable for the 11 mussel species. The not determinable finding
was because of insufficient information on distribution and the
biological needs of these species. Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the Act
provides that a concurrent critical habitat determination is not
required with a final regulation implementing endangered or threatened
status and that the final designation may be postponed for 1 additional
year beyond the period specified in section 4(b)(6)(A), if a prompt
determination of endangered or threatened status is essential to the
conservation of the species, or if critical habitat is not then
determinable. We found that prompt determination of status was
essential to the conservation of these species and stated that we would
attempt to evaluate critical habitat needs through research and
recovery actions.
In late 1994, a Technical/Agency draft Mobile River Basin Aquatic
Ecosystem Recovery Plan that included recovery objectives for the 11
mussels, among other listed species, was released for public review and
comment. High levels of interest in details of the plan were expressed
by the State of Alabama, certain environmental groups, and a number of
water- and timber-related industries. As a result of a series of
discussions sponsored by the Alabama Department of Economic and
Community Affairs, a Mobile River Basin Coalition composed of various
governmental, environmental, and industry representatives was organized
for the purpose of reviewing, revising, and eventually implementing the
recovery plan. A revised Technical/Agency draft was subsequently
released for public review in 1998, and the final Mobile River Basin
Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan was published in 2000 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2000).
On October 12, 2000, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee against the Service, the Director of the Service, and the
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, challenging our not
determinable findings regarding critical habitat for 9 listed mussels.
These 9 mussels represent 9 of the 11 Mobile River Basin mussels that
were listed in 1993, and are listed as follows: upland combshell,
southern acornshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern clubshell, southern
pigtoe, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell, fine-lined pocketbook,
and Alabama moccasinshell. On November 8, 2001, the District Court
issued an order directing us to make a proposed critical habitat
designation for these 11 Mobile River Basin mussels no later than March
17, 2003, and the final designation by March 17, 2004.

[[Page 14758]]

This proposal is the product of our reexamination of our 1993 not
determinable finding for 11 mussels in the Mobile River drainage. The
2000 lawsuit did not include the dark pigtoe or the orange-nacre
mucket, but we are considering them because they were a part of the
original 1993 listing, they overlap in range with some of the other 9
species, and they occupy similar habitats within that range. It
reflects our interpretation of the recent judicial opinions on critical
habitat designation and the standards placed on us for making a
prudency determination. If additional information becomes available on
these species' biology, distribution, or threats to the species, we may
reevaluate this proposal to propose additional critical habitat,
propose boundary refinements that substantially changes existing
proposed critical habitat, or withdraw our proposal to designate
critical habitat. If boundary refinements of existing proposed critical
habitat are required for a single unit or on a similar small scale
based on additional information, we will allow additional time for
public comment within the constraints of our court order.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as (i)
the specific areas within the geographic 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 (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographic 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'' is defined in section 3(3) of the Act as the
use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the point at which listing under
the Act is no longer necessary.
In order for habitat to be included in a critical habitat
designation, the habitat features must be ``essential to the
conservation of the species.'' Such critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available,
habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species
(i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as
defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) define special management
considerations or protection to mean any methods or procedures useful
in protecting the physical and biological features of the environment
for the conservation of listed species. If any areas containing the
primary constituent elements are currently being managed to address the
conservation needs of these mussel species, they may not require
special management or protection, and, therefore, may not meet the
definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
When we designate critical habitat, we may not have the information
necessary to identify all habitat areas which are essential for the
conservation of the species. Nevertheless, we are required to designate
those areas we consider to be essential, using the best information
available to us.
Within the geographic area of the species, we will designate only
currently known essential areas. We will not speculate about what areas
might be found to be essential if better information became available,
or what areas may become essential over time. If the information
available at the time of designation does not show that an area
provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area will
not be included in the critical habitat designation. Our regulations
state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas
outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when
a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 424.12(e)).
Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require designation of
critical habitat outside of occupied areas, we will not designate
critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the
species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. It requires that our biologists, to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
and commercial data available, use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, information
that should be considered includes the listing package for the species,
the recovery plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation
plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys,
studies, and biological assessments, unpublished materials, and expert
opinion or personal knowledge.
Section 4 of the Act generally requires that we designate critical
habitat at the time of listing and based on what we know at the time of
designation. If we make a not determinable finding regarding critical
habitat at the time of listing, section 4(b)(6)(C) of the Act requires
that the Service publish a final regulation by not more than 1
additional year, based on such data as may be available at that time,
designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat. There are
several thousands of miles of perennial streams in the Mobile River
Basin. Most of these flow through private property, and may not have
been adequately surveyed for mussels. Mussels are cryptic species,
living buried in the stream bottom under water, and rare mussels are
difficult to locate. We recognize that additional small, limited
populations for some of these species could exist in some of these
streams and may be discovered over time. Furthermore, we recognize that
designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat
areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the
recovery of the species. Therefore, critical habitat designations do
not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may
not be required for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat
designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that
may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and the take prohibitions pursuant to section 9 of the Act, as
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time
of the action. It is possible that federally funded or assisted
projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical
habitat areas could jeopardize those species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning and recovery efforts if new

[[Page 14759]]

information available to these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.

Methods Used To Identify Proposed Critical Habitat for 11 Mussel
Species

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), we used the best scientific and commercial
information available to determine critical habitat areas that contain
the physical and biological features that are essential for the
conservation of the Coosa moccasinshell, southern clubshell, dark
pigtoe, southern pigtoe, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell,
southern acornshell, upland combshell, fine-lined pocketbook, orange-
nacre mucket, and Alabama moccasinshell. We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the historic and current distributions, life
histories, host fishes, and habitats of, and threats to these species.
The information used in the preparation of this proposed designation
includes: Our own site-specific species and habitat information;
unpublished survey reports, notes, and communications with other
qualified biologists or experts; peer reviewed scientific publications;
the final listing rule for 11 mussels in the Mobile River Basin (58 FR
14330); and the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). In determining the areas that
are essential to the conservation of the 11 mussels we considered all
streams currently or historically known to be occupied by one or more
of the species (see ``Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution''
above). It is likely that other occupied stream or stream segments
exist that may be essential to the survival and conservation of these
mussels, but we do not currently know where these are, and therefore
cannot include them in this proposed critical habitat designation.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose
as critical habitat, we are required to base critical habitat
determinations on the best scientific data available and to focus on
those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements)
that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection. Such
requirements include, but are not limited to, space for individual and
population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring;
and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative
of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a
species.
Based on the best available information, primary constituent
elements essential for the conservation of these 11 mussel species
include the following:
1. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks;
2. A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts
in the river environment;
3. Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity,
oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for
normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
4. Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment, low amounts of attached filamentous algae,
and other physical and chemical characteristics necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
5. Fish hosts with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas
for them; and,
6. Few or no competitive nonnative species present.
In considering and identifying primary constituent elements, we
have taken into account the dynamic nature of riverine systems. We
recognize that riparian areas and floodplains are integral parts of the
stream ecosystem, important in maintaining channel geomorphology, and
providing nutrient input, and buffering from sediments and pollution;
and that side channel and backwater habitats may be important in the
life cycle of fish that serve as hosts for mussel larvae.

Analysis Used To Delineate Critical Habitat

Currently, the greatest general threat to the survival and recovery
of these 11 Mobile River Basin mussel species is the small size,
extent, and isolation of their remaining populations. With the
exception of the dark pigtoe, which is believed to be naturally
restricted to streams and rivers in the Black Warrior drainage, these
mussel species were once widespread in the Basin, found in a continuum
of small streams to large rivers in 2 or more major drainages. As
discussed under the ``Summary of Decline and Threats to Surviving
Populations,'' and the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery
Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), 30 major dams were
constructed in the Basin during the 20th century. These dams and their
impounded waters present physical barriers to the natural dispersal of
mussels (they prevent emigration (dispersal) of host fishes), and
effectively isolate surviving mussel populations in limited portions of
the Basin's major drainages. Small isolated aquatic populations are
subject to natural random events (droughts, floods), and to changes in
human activities and land use practices (urbanization,
industrialization, mining, certain agricultural activities and
practices, etc.), that may severely impact aquatic habitats (Neves et
al. 1997). Without avenues of emigration to less affected watersheds,
mussel populations gradually disappear where land use activities result
in deterioration of aquatic habitats. Local random events, and changes
in human activities within the Basin's unimpounded watersheds are
believed to have caused or contributed to the disappearance of mollusks
from significant portions of isolated stream habitats, resulting in the
extinction of as many as 13 mussels, as well as a number of freshwater
snail species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).
Most of the 11 mussel species considered in this proposed
designation are currently represented by one or more small, restricted,
and isolated populations. These surviving populations have been
isolated from one another by dams and impounded reaches for 20 to 50
years, and remain vulnerable to the progressive degradation of their
habitats from land surface runoff or random natural events such as
droughts. In many of these surviving populations, there is also
evidence of local population decline during the same time period (e.g.,
Evans 2001, Hartfield and Jones 1990, Williams and Hughes, 1998,
McGregor et al. 2000).
The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2000), recognized the complexity of conserving the
Basin's imperiled species, and considered that downlisting or delisting
these 11 mussels was unlikely in the foreseeable future because of the
extent of their decline, the fragmentation and isolation of their
habitats, and continuing impacts upon their habitats. Compounding these
problems is a lack of information on specific habitat and life history
requirements of these species, or on the physical threats that confront
them (e.g., sediment, nutrient, and other pollutant sensitivities,
etc.). Threats compounded by habitat fragmentation and isolation

[[Page 14760]]

can be reduced by increasing the number, expanding the range, and
increasing the density of populations. Preventing the extinction of
those species listed as endangered, and arresting the continued decline
of those species listed as threatened are the recovery objectives
outlined in the recovery plan for these 11 mussels. The recovery plan
emphasizes: (1) Protection of surviving populations of these mussels
and their stream and river habitats; (2) enhancement and restoration of
habitats; (3) and population management, including augmentation and
reintroduction of the 11 mussels into portions of their historic ranges
to obtain these recovery objectives. In determining which areas to
propose as critical habitat for these 9 mussels, we considered the
factors discussed in the recovery plan, as well as the mussels'
historical distributions and the extent of current occupied habitats
and their management potential.
We began our analysis by considering the historic ranges of the 11
mussel species. A large proportion of the Basin's streams and rivers
that historically supported these mussels has been modified by existing
dams and their impounded waters. Therefore, extensive portions of the
upper Tombigbee River, Black Warrior River, Tallapoosa River, Alabama
River, and Coosa River cannot be considered essential to the
conservation of these species because they no longer provide the
physical and biological features that are essential for their
conservation (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section).
Free-flowing river segments and their tributaries peripheral to the
known historic range of the 11 mussels, and without any records of the
species also cannot be considered to be essential to the conservation
of these species (e.g., Mobile/Tensas River, lower Tombigbee River,
etc.) and so were not considered further. Several streams with single
site occurrence records of a single species were also not considered
essential because of limited habitat availability, isolation, degraded
habitat, and/or low management value or potential (e.g., Etowah River,
Big Wills Creek, Little River, Armuchee Creek, Euharlee Creek,
Limestone Creek, etc.).
We then evaluated streams and rivers within the historic ranges of
these 11 species which had evidence that these mussels had occurred
there at some point (i.e., collection records). We eliminated from
consideration areas from which there have been no collection records
for several decades and/or are remote from currently occupied areas
(e.g., portions of the lower Alabama River, lower Cahaba River,
Mulberry Fork, Noxubee River, Talladega Creek, and others). In
evaluating streams for the upland combshell and southern acornshell,
specifically, we considered their historic ranges (Black Warrior,
Cahaba, and Coosa River drainages). We selected those areas which have
the best potential for and we believe are essential to the conservation
of these two mussels based on collection history, surviving mussel
species assemblages, and habitat conditions.
This analysis resulted in the identification of 25 of the 26 stream
or river reaches within the Basin (habitat units) occupied by 1 or more
of the 11 species and that contain the primary constituent elements as
indicated by the presence and persistence of one or more of the listed
mussels (Figure 1, Units 1 to 25). We believe that these areas also
support darters, minnows, and other fishes that have been identified as
hosts or potential hosts for one or more of the mussels, as evidenced
by fish collection records (Mettee et al. 1996), the persistence of the
mussels over extended periods of time, or field evidence of recruitment
(Evans 2001, Hartfield and Jones 1990, and Herod et al. 2001, etc.). We
consider all of these 25 of the 26 reaches essential for the
conservation of these species. As discussed in the Recovery Plan, long-
term conservation of these 11 mussels is unlikely in their currently
reduced and fragmented state. Therefore, at a minimum, it is essential
to include in this designation the reaches within the historic range
that still contain mussels and the primary constituent elements of the
habitat.
We then considered whether this essential area was adequate for the
conservation of each of the 11 mussel species. Given that threats to
the species are compounded by their limited distribution and isolation,
it is unlikely that currently occupied habitat is adequate for the
conservation of all 11 species. Conservation of these species requires
expanding their ranges into currently unoccupied portions of their
historic habitat because small, isolated, aquatic populations are
subject to chance catastrophic events and to changes in human
activities and land use practices that may result in their elimination.
Larger, more contiguous populations can reduce the threat of extinction
due to habitat fragmentation and isolation.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14761]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Because portions of the historic range of each of the 11 mussels
were shared with 4 or more of the other mussel species, there is
considerable overlap between species' current and historical
distributions within 25 of the 26 habitat units. This offers
opportunities to increase each species' current range and number of
extant populations into units currently occupied by other listed
species included in this designation. For

[[Page 14762]]

example, the Alabama moccasinshell historically inhabited 16 of the
units, and currently inhabits 7; fine-lined pocketbook was known from
12 of the units, and currently inhabits 10; orange-nacre mucket
historically occupied 15 units, and is currently found in 12; and Coosa
moccasinshell historically occupied 9 of the units, but is currently
found in only 1. Successful reintroduction of the species into units
that they historically occupied (and that are currently occupied by 1
or more of the 11 species) would expand the number of populations,
thereby reducing threat of extinction. Each of the 25 of the 26 habitat
units (Units 1-25) are currently occupied by 1 or more of the listed
mussels. Only two occupied habitat units and one unoccupied habitat
unit are proposed for the dark pigtoe because its range was naturally
restricted to the Black Warrior drainage, and we are unable to identify
any other unoccupied habitat units in the drainage that provide
constituent elements.
As noted above, conservation of these species requires expanding
their ranges into unoccupied portions of historic habitat. Therefore,
in addition to these 25 habitat units, we also propose to designate the
Coosa River below Jordan Dam (Unit 26) as critical habitat for 9 of the
11 mussel species. Shells of the fine-lined pocketbook were last
collected from this reach in 1989 (Pierson 1991a), and it is also
within the historic range of 8 other species. This is the only unit
currently not occupied by at least 1 of the 11 species (Johnson 2002).
This area has recently been identified as presenting high potential for
the successful reintroduction of imperiled mussels in the Coosa River
drainage (Johnson 2002). In 1990, the Alabama Power Company initiated a
2000 cubic feet per second minimum flow into the Coosa River below
Jordan Dam (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1990), greatly
improving aquatic habitat quality. The lower Coosa River not only
offers high-quality riverine habitat, but due to local geology it is
relatively protected from non-point runoff, a major threat to all
existing populations of these species. There are historic records of
fine-lined pocketbook and southern clubshell from this 13 km (8 mi)
reach of river (Johnson 2002, Pierson 1991a), and it is within the
historic range of Alabama moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate
clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern
acornshell, and upland combshell. As noted above, threats to these
species can be reduced by expanding their current ranges through
reintroduction into suitable habitats. Since the Coosa River below
Jordan Dam is recognized as presenting the best opportunity for
reestablishing populations of 9 of the 11 species and is viewed by
experts as a high-quality example of remaining mussel habitat in the
Basin, we believe it is also essential for their conservation, and
propose to designate it as unoccupied habitat for these 9 mussel
species.
As a result, we have defined 26 habitat units encompassing
approximately 1,760 km (1,093 mi) of stream and river channels in
Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee, for these 11 mussel
species (Figure 1). Although this represents only a small proportion of
each species' historic range, these habitat units include a significant
proportion of the Basin's remaining, highest quality, free-flowing
rivers and streams, and reflect the variety of small stream to large
river habitats historically occupied by each species. Because mussels
are naturally restricted by certain physical conditions within a stream
or river reach (i.e., flow, substrate), they may be unevenly
distributed within these habitat units. Uncertainty on upstream and
downstream distributional limits of some populations may have resulted
in small areas of occupied habitat excluded from, or areas of
unoccupied habitat included in the designation.
We recognize that both historic and recent collection records upon
which we relied are incomplete, and that there are river segments or
small tributaries not included in this proposed designation that may
harbor small, limited populations of one or more of the 11 species
considered in this proposed designation, or that others may become
suitable in the future. The exclusion of such areas does not diminish
their potential individual or cumulative importance to the conservation
of these species. However, we believe that with proper management each
of the 26 habitat units are capable of supporting 1 or more of these 11
species, and will serve as source populations for artificial
reintroduction into designated stream units, as well as assisted or
natural migration into adjacent undesignated streams within the Basin.
At this time, the habitat areas contained within the units
described below constitute our best evaluation of areas needed for the
conservation of these species. Proposed critical habitat may be revised
for any or all of these species should new information become available
prior to the final rule, and existing critical habitat may be revised
if new information becomes available after the final rule.

Need for Special Management Consideration or Protection

An area designated as critical habitat contains one or more of the
primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of
the species (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section), and that
may require special management considerations or protection. Various
activities in or adjacent to each of the critical habitat units
described in this proposed rule may affect one or more of the primary
constituent elements that are found in the unit. These activities
include, but are not limited to, those listed in the ``Effects of
Critical Habitat'' section as ``Federal Actions That May Affect
Critical Habitat and Require Consultation.'' None of the proposed
critical habitat units is presently under special management or
protection provided by a legally operative plan or agreement for the
conservation of these mussels. Therefore, we have determined that the
proposed units may require special management or protection.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

The areas that we are proposing for designation as critical habitat
for the 11 mussel species provide one or more of the primary
constituent elements described above. In accordance with the Mobile
River Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (2000), protection of the habitat
in these units and their surviving populations is essential to the
conservation of these 11 mussel species. All of the proposed areas
require special management considerations to ensure their contribution
to the conservation of these mussels. For each stream reach proposed as
a critical habitat unit, the up- and downstream boundaries are
described in general detail below; more precise estimates are provided
in the Regulation Promulgation of this rule.

Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions

The critical habitat units described below include the stream and
river channels within the ordinary high water line. As defined in 33
CFR 329.11, the ordinary high water line on nontidal rivers is the line
on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by
physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the
bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of
terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other
appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas. We are proposing the following areas for

[[Page 14763]]

designation as critical habitat for the 11 mussel species (Refer to
Table 1 for the location and extent of proposed critical habitat for
each species and more specifically to Sec. 17.95, Critical habitat-
fish and wildlife, at the end of this rule).

Table 1.--Approximate River Distances, by Drainage, for Occupied and Unoccupied Proposed Critical Habitat for
the 9 Mussel Species *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Occupied Currently Unoccupied
Species, Status, Critical Habitat Unit, and State ---------------------------------------------------
Kilometers Miles Kilometers Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama moccasinshell

THREATENED
1. East Fork Tombigbee River, MS............................ ........... ........... 26 16
2. Bull Mountain Creek, MS.................................. 34 21 ........... ...........
3. Buttahatchee River, MS, AL............................... 110 68 ........... ...........
4. Luxapalila Creek, MS, AL................................. 29 18 ........... ...........
5. Coalfire Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 32 20
6. Lubbub Creek, AL......................................... 31 19 ........... ...........
7. Sipsey River, AL......................................... 90 56 ........... ...........
8. Trussels Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 21 13
9. Sucarnoochee River, AL................................... ........... ........... 90 56
10. Sipsey Fork, AL......................................... 147 91 ........... ...........
11. North River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 47 29
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... ........... ........... 102 63
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ ........... ........... 124 77
15. Bogue Chitto Creek, AL.................................. ........... ........... 52 32
25. Oostanuala complex, GA, TN.............................. 16 10 191 119
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 457 283 698 433
==============
Fine-lined pocketbook

THREATENED
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ 124 77 ........... ...........
16. Tallapoosa River, AL, GA................................ 161 100 ........... ...........
17. Uphapee complex, AL..................................... 74 46 ........... ...........
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... 78 48 ........... ...........
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... 66 41 ........... ...........
20. Shoal Creek, AL......................................... 26 16 ........... ...........
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... 34 21 ........... ...........
22. Cheaha Creek, AL........................................ 27 17 ........... ...........
23. Yellowleaf Creek, AL.................................... 39 24 ........... ...........
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... ........... ........... 29 18
25. Oostanaula complex, GA, TN.............................. 115 71 92 57
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 744 461 134 83
==============
Orange-nacre mucket

THREATENED
1. East Fork Tombigbee River, MS............................ 26 16 ........... ...........
2. Bull Mountain Creek, MS.................................. ........... ........... 34 21
3. Buttahatchee River, MS, AL............................... 87 54 23 14
4. Luxapalila Creek, MS, AL................................. 29 18 ........... ...........
5. Coalfire Creek, AL....................................... 32 20 ........... ...........
6. Lubbub Creek, AL......................................... 31 19 ........... ...........
7. Sipsey River, AL......................................... 90 56 ........... ...........
8. Trussels Creek, AL....................................... 21 13 ........... ...........
9. Sucarnoochee River, AL................................... ........... ........... 90 56
10. Sipsey Fork, AL......................................... 147 91 ........... ...........
11. North River, AL......................................... 47 29 ........... ...........
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... 102 63 ........... ...........
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ 124 77 ........... ...........
14. Alabama River, AL....................................... ........... ........... 73 45
15. Bogue Chitto Creek, AL.................................. 52 32 ........... ...........
--------------
Total................................................... 788 480 220 136
==============
Coosa moccasinshell
ENDANGERED
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 78 48
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
20. Shoal Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 26 16
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 34 21
22. Cheaha Creek, AL........................................ ........... ........... 27 17
23. Yellowleaf Creek, AL.................................... ........... ........... 39 24

[[Page 14764]]

24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... ........... ........... 29 18
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. 115 71 92 57
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 115 71 404 250
==============
Dark pigtoe
ENDANGERED
10. Sipsey Fork, AL......................................... 147 91 ........... ...........
11. North River, AL......................................... 47 29 ........... ...........
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... ........... ........... 102 63
--------------
Total................................................... 194 120 102 63
==============
Ovate clubshell
ENDANGERED
1. East Fork Tombigbee River, MS............................ ........... ........... 26 16
2. Bull Mountain Creek, MS.................................. ........... ........... 34 21
3. Buttahatchee River, MS, AL............................... 87 54 23 14
4. Luxapalila Creek,MS, AL.................................. 29 18 ........... ...........
5. Coalfire Creek, AL....................................... 32 20 ........... ...........
6. Lubbub Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 31 19
7. Sipsey River, AL......................................... 90 56 ........... ...........
8. Trussels Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 21 13
9. Sucarnoochee River, AL................................... 90 56 ........... ...........
10. Sipsey Fork, AL......................................... ........... ........... 147 91
11. North River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 47 29
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... ........... ........... 102 63
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ ........... ........... 124 77
17. Uphapee complex, AL..................................... 74 46 ........... ...........
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... 18 11 60 37
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 34 21
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... ........... ........... 29 18
25. Oostanaula complex, GA, TN.............................. ........... ........... 206 128
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 420 261 963 596
==============
Southern clubshell

ENDANGERED
1. East Fork Tombigbee River, MS............................ 26 16 ........... ...........
2. Bull Mountain Creek, MS.................................. 34 21 ........... ...........
3. Buttahatchee River, MS, AL............................... 87 54 23 14
4. Luxapalila Creek, MS AL.................................. 29 18 ........... ...........
5. Coalfire Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 32 20
6. Lubbub Creek, AL......................................... 31 19 ........... ...........
7. Sipsey River, AL......................................... 90 56 ........... ...........
8. Trussels Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 21 13
9. Sucarnoochee River, AL................................... ........... ........... 90 56
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ ........... ........... 124 77
14. Alabama River, AL....................................... 73 45 ........... ...........
15. Bogue Chitto Creek, AL.................................. 52 32 ........... ...........
17. Uphapee Complex, AL..................................... 74 46
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... 71 44 7 4
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... 26 16 8 5
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... 29 18 ........... ...........
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. 15 9 130 120
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 637 394 577 358
==============
Southern pigtoe

ENDANGERED
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 78 48
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
20. Shoal Creek, AL......................................... 26 16 ........... ...........
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 34 21

[[Page 14765]]

22. Cheaha Creek, AL........................................ 27 17 ........... ...........
23. Yellowleaf Creek,....................................... ........... ........... 39 24
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... 29 18 ........... ...........
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. 115 71 92 57
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 197 122 322 199
==============
Triangular kidneyshell

ENDANGERED
10. Sipsey Fork, AL......................................... 147 91 ........... ...........
11. North River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 47 29
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... 102 63 ........... ...........
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ 105 65 19 12
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 78 48
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
20. Shoal Creek, AL......................................... 26 16 ........... ...........
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... 26 16 8 5
22. Cheaha Creek, AL........................................ ........... ........... 27 17
23. Yellowleaf Creek, AL.................................... ........... ........... 39 24
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... 29 18 ........... ...........
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. 206 128 ........... ...........
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... 641 397 297 184
==============
Southern acornshell

ENDANGERED
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ ........... ........... 124 77
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 78 48
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 34 21
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... ........... ........... 29 18
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. ........... ........... 205 128
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... ........... ........... 549 341
==============
Upland combshell

ENDANGERED
12. Locust Fork, AL......................................... ........... ........... 102 63
13. Cahaba River, AL........................................ ........... ........... 124 77
18. Coosa River, AL......................................... ........... ........... 78 48
19. Hatchet Creek, AL....................................... ........... ........... 66 41
21. Kelly Creek, AL......................................... ........... ........... 34 21
24. Big Canoe Creek, AL..................................... ........... ........... 29 18
25. Oostanaula Complex, GA, TN.............................. ........... ........... 205 128
26. Lower Coosa River, AL................................... ........... ........... 13 8
--------------
Total................................................... ........... ........... 651 404
==============
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table 1 refers to the location and extent of proposed critical habitat for each species. For more detail,
refer to Sec. 17.95. Table 1 will reflect totals on a species level only, because units are listed under
each species as appropriate.

Upper Tombigbee River Drainage, Alabama, Mississippi

The Tombigbee River and several of its tributaries above the
confluence of the Black Warrior River historically supported robust
populations of the orange-nacre mucket, Alabama moccasinshell, southern
clubshell, and ovate clubshell. Construction of navigation dams has
eliminated these species from the mainstem river, and the dams and
impounded waters isolate all surviving tributary populations from each
other.

Unit 1. East Fork Tombigbee River, Monroe, Itawamba Counties,
Mississippi

Unit 1 encompasses 26 km (16 mi) of the East Fork Tombigbee River
channel in Mississippi extending from Mississippi Highway 278, Monroe
County, upstream to the confluence of Mill Creek, Itawamba County,
Mississippi. This reach of the East Fork Tombigbee River continues to
support the southern clubshell and orange-nacre mucket (Hartfield and
Jones 1989, Miller and Hartfield 1988, Mississippi Museum of Natural
Science (MMNS) mussel collections 1984-2001). This unit is within the
historic range of the

[[Page 14766]]

Alabama moccassinshell and ovate clubshell.

Unit 2. Bull Mountain Creek, Itawamba County, Mississippi

Unit 2 encompasses 34 km (21 mi) of the Bull Mountain Creek stream
channel in Mississippi extending from Mississippi Highway 25, upstream
to U.S. Highway 78, Itawamba County, Mississippi. Bull Mountain Creek
supports the southern clubshell and Alabama moccasinshell (Jones and
Majure 1999). This unit is within the historic range of the orange-
nacre mucket (records are from the early 1980's (MMNS mussel
collections)) and the ovate clubshell.

Unit 3. Buttahatchee River and Tributary, Lowndes/Monroe County,
Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama

Unit 3 encompasses 110 km (68 mi) of river and stream channel in
Mississippi and Alabama, including 87 km (54 mi) of the Buttahatchee
River, extending from the confluence with Tombigbee River, Lowndes/
Monroe County, Mississippi, upstream to the confluence of Beaver Creek,
Lamar County, Alabama; and 23 km (14 mi) of Sipsey Creek, extending
from its confluence with the Buttahatchee River, upstream to the
Mississippi/Alabama State Line, Monroe County, Mississippi. The
Buttahatchee River continues to support and provide habitat for the
southern clubshell, orange-nacre mucket, ovate clubshell, and Alabama
moccasinshell (Haag and Warren 2001, Hartfield and Jones 1989, Jones
1991, McGregor 2000). The current distribution of the Alabama
moccasinshell also extends into its tributary Sipsey Creek (McGregor
2000).

Unit 4. Luxapalila Creek and Tributary, Lowndes County, Mississippi;
Lamar County, Alabama

Unit 4 encompasses 29 km (18 mi) of stream channel, including 15 km
(9 mi) of Luxapalila Creek, extending from Waterworks Road, Columbus,
Mississippi, upstream to approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) above Steens
Road, Lowndes County, Mississippi; and 15 km (9 mi) of Yellow Creek
extending from its confluence with Luxapalila Creek, upstream to the
confluence of Cut Bank Creek, Lamar County, Alabama. Luxapalila and
Yellow Creeks support and provide habitat for the southern clubshell,
orange-nacre mucket, ovate clubshell, and Alabama moccasinshell
(Hartfield and Bowker 1992, McGregor 2000, Miller 2000, Yokley 2001).

Unit 5. Coalfire Creek, Pickens County, Alabama

Unit 5 encompasses 32 km (20 mi) of the Coalfire Creek stream
channel extending from the confluence with the Aliceville Lake
(Tombigbee River), upstream to U.S. Highway 82, Pickens County,
Alabama. Coalfire Creek supports the orange-nacre mucket and ovate
clubshell (P. Hartfield, Service field records 1991; McGregor 2000).
The creek is in the historic range of the southern clubshell and
Alabama moccasinshell.

Unit 6. Lubbub Creek, Pickens County, Alabama

Unit 6 encompasses 31 km (19 mi) of the Lubbub Creek stream channel
extending from its confluence with the impounded waters of Gainesville
Lake (Tombigbee River), upstream to the confluence of Little Lubbub
Creek, Pickens County, Alabama. This stream supports the southern
clubshell, orange-nacre mucket, and Alabama moccasinshell (P.
Hartfield, Service field records 1991, McGregor 2000, Pierson 1991a).
It is in the historic range of the ovate clubshell.

Unit 7. Sipsey River, Greene/Pickens, Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama

Unit 7 encompasses 90 km (56 mi) of the Sipsey River channel from
the confluence with Gainesville Lake (Tombigbee River), Greene/Pickens
County, upstream to Alabama Highway 171 crossing, Tuscaloosa County,
Alabama. This small river supports and provides some of the best
remaining habitat for the southern clubshell, orange-nacre mucket,
ovate clubshell, and Alabama moccasinshell (Haag and Warren 1997,
McCullagh et al. in press, McGregor 2000, MMNS Mussel Collection,
Pierson, 1991 a, b).

Unit 8. Trussels Creek, Greene County, Alabama

Unit 8 encompasses 21 km (13 mi) of creek channel extending from
its confluence with the Tombigbee River, upstream to Alabama Highway
14, Greene County, Alabama. The orange-nacre mucket continues to
survive in Trussels Creek, and it is in the historic range of the ovate
clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and southern clubshell (P. Hartfield
field records 1993, McGregor 2000).

Unit 9. Sucarnoochee River, Sumter County, Alabama

Unit 9 encompasses 90 km (56 mi) of the Sucarnoochee River channel
in Alabama, extending from its confluence with the Tombigbee River,
upstream to the Mississippi/Alabama State Line, Sumter County, Alabama.
The ovate clubshell continues to survive in the Sucarnoochee River
(McGregor et al. 1996). The river is within the historic range of the
southern clubshell, orange-nacre mucket, and Alabama moccasinshell.

Black Warrior River Drainage, Alabama

The Black Warrior River and its tributaries historically supported
populations of the orange-nacre mucket, Alabama moccasinshell, Coosa
moccasinshell, southern clubshell, ovate clubshell, dark pigtoe,
triangular kidneyshell, and upland combshell. There are also records of
the fine-lined pocketbook from the drainage. Dam construction for
navigation and hydropower and episodic water pollution resulted in the
extirpation of the Coosa moccasinshell, southern clubshell, ovate
clubshell, and upland combshell from this drainage. Three tributary
drainages continue to support two or more endangered and threatened
mussels. Dams and impounded waters currently isolate these drainages
from each other.

Unit 10. Sipsey Fork Drainage, Winston, Lawrence Counties, Alabama

Unit 10 encompasses 147 km (91 mi) of stream channel in Alabama,
including: Sipsey Fork, 31 km (19 mi), from section 11/12 line, T10S
R8W, Winston County, upstream to the confluence of Hubbard Creek,
Lawrence County, Alabama; Thompson Creek, 8 km (5 mi), from confluence
with Hubbard Creek, upstream to section 2 line, T8S R9W, Lawrence
County, Alabama; Brushy Creek, 35 km (22 mi), from the confluence of
Glover Creek, Winston County, Alabama, upstream to section 9, T8S R7W,
Lawrence County, Alabama; Capsey Creek, 15 km (9 mi), from confluence
with Brushy Creek, Winston County, upstream to the confluence of Turkey
Creek, Lawrence County, Alabama; Rush Creek, 10 km (6 mi), from
confluence with Brushy Creek, upstream to Winston/Lawrence County Line,
Winston County, Alabama; Brown Creek, 5 km (3 mi), from confluence with
Rush Creek, Winston County, upstream to section 24 line, T8S R7W
Lawrence County, Alabama; Beech Creek, 3 km (2 mi), from confluence
with Brushy Creek, to confluence of East and West Forks, Winston
County, Alabama; Caney Creek and North Fork Caney Creek, 13 km (8 mi),
from confluence with Sipsey Fork, upstream to section 14 line, Winston
County, Alabama; Borden Creek, 18 km (11 mi), from confluence with
Sipsey Fork, Winston County, Alabama,

[[Page 14767]]

upstream to the confluence of Montgomery Creek, Lawrence County,
Alabama; Flannagin Creek, 10 km (6 mi), from confluence with Borden
Creek, upstream to confluence of Dry Creek, Lawrence County, Alabama.
The upper Sipsey Fork drainage currently supports the most robust and
extensive populations of the dark pigtoe, orange-nacre mucket, Alabama
moccasinshell, and triangular kidneyshell (Haag and Warren 1997; Haag
et al. 1995; Hartfield 1991; Hartfield and Butler 1997; Hartfield and
Hartfield 1996; McGregor 1992, Warren and Haag 1994). Ovate clubshell
have been reported from this drainage (Dodd 1986).

Unit 11. North River and Tributary, Tuscaloosa, Fayette Counties,
Alabama

Unit 11 encompasses 47 km (29 mi) of river and stream channel in
Alabama, including: North River, 42 km (26 mi) extending from
Tuscaloosa County Road 38, Tuscaloosa County, upstream to confluence of
Ellis Creek, Fayette County, Alabama; Clear Creek, 5 km (3 mi), from
its confluence with North River, to Bays Lake Dam, Fayette County,
Alabama. Small numbers of the dark pigtoe and orange-nacre mucket
continue to survive in the North River and Clear Creek (McGregor and
Pierson 1999, Pierson 1992a, Vittor and Associates 1993). This area is
in the historic range of the Alabama moccasinshell, triangular
kidneyshell, and ovate clubshell.

Unit 12. Locust Fork and Tributary, Jefferson, Blount Counties, Alabama

Unit 12 encompasses 102 km (63 mi) of river and stream channel in
Alabama, including: Locust Fork, 94 km (58 mi) extending from U.S.
Highway 78, Jefferson County, upstream to the confluence of Little
Warrior River, Blount County, Alabama; Little Warrior River, 8 km (5
mi), from its confluence with the Locust Fork, upstream to the
confluence of Calvert Prong and Blackburn Fork, Blount County, Alabama.
Scattered collections of the orange-nacre mucket and triangular
kidneyshell suggest an enduring population of these species in the
Locust Fork (P. Johnson pers. comm. 2002, Hartfield 1991, Shepard et
al. 1988). This stream is also in the historic range of the dark
pigtoe, Alabama moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, and upland combshell.

Cahaba River Drainage, Alabama

The Cahaba River and tributaries historically supported the orange-
nacre mucket, fine-lined pocketbook, Alabama moccasinshell, southern
clubshell, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell, upland combshell,
and southern acornshell. Episodic and persistent pollution events have
caused the decline of the mussel community throughout the drainage, as
well as the extirpation of five of the listed mussels.

Unit 13. Cahaba River and Tributary, Jefferson, Shelby, Bibb Counties,
Alabama

Unit 13 encompasses 124 km (77 mi) of river channel in Alabama,
including: Cahaba River, 105 km (65 mi) extending from U.S. Highway 82,
Centerville, Bibb County, upstream to Jefferson County Road 143,
Jefferson County, Alabama; Little Cahaba River, 19 km (12 mi), from its
confluence with the Cahaba River, upstream to the confluence of Mahan
and Shoal Creeks, Bibb County, Alabama. Scattered individuals of
triangular kidneyshell, orange-nacre mucket, and fine-lined pocketbook
continue to be collected from the Cahaba drainag (R. Haddock, Cahaba
River Society, pers. comm. 2002; McGregor et al. 2000, Shepard et al.
1994). The river is historic habitat for the Alabama moccasinshell,
southern clubshell, ovate clubshell, upland combshell, and southern
acornshell.

Alabama River Drainage, Alabama

The Alabama River mollusc community has been reduced due to the
effects of historic pollution events and impoundment for navigation.
Historical records from this river include the Alabama moccasinshell,
orange-nacre mucket, fine-lined pocketbook, triangular kidneyshell, and
southern clubshell.

Unit 14. Alabama River, Autauga, Lowndes, Dallas Counties, Alabama

Unit 14 encompasses 73 km (45 mi) of the Alabama River channel,
extending from the confluence of the Cahaba River, Dallas County,
upstream to the confluence of Big Swamp Creek, Lowndes County, Alabama.
The southern clubshell is known to occur within this reach (Hartfield
and Garner 1998). This area may become suitable for reintroduction of
the orange-nacre mucket.

Unit 15. Bogue Chitto Creek, Dallas County, Alabama

Unit 15 encompasses 52 km (32 mi) of the Bogue Chitto Creek channel
in Alabama, extending from its confluence with the Alabama River,
Dallas County, upstream to U.S. Highway 80, Dallas County, Alabama.
This stream continues to support the southern clubshell and orange-
nacre mucket (McGregor et al. 1996; P. Hartfield field notes, 1984;
Pierson 1991a). The habitat offers potential for the Alabama
moccasinshell.

Tallapoosa River Drainage, Alabama, Georgia

Historical and recent records indicate that the Tallapoosa River
drainage supported a diverse mussel community, although numbers of all
mussel species have apparently always been low in this system. This
river drainage currently contains 2 extensive areas of contiguous
habitat supporting three of the listed mussel species.

Unit 16. Tallapoosa River and Tributary, Cleburne County, Alabama and
Haralson and Paulding Counties, Georgia

Unit 16 encompasses 161 km (100 mi) of river and stream channel in
Alabama and Georgia, including: Tallapoosa River, 137 km (85 mi)
extending from U.S. Highway 431, Cleburne County, Alabama, upstream to
the confluence of McClendon and Mud Creeks, Paulding County, Georgia;
and Cane Creek, 24 km (15 mi), from confluence with Tallapoosa River,
upstream to Section 33/4 Line (T15S, R11E), Cleburne County, Alabama.
This extensive area of main channel and tributary habitat supports
scattered, small numbers of the fine-lined pocketbook (Devris 1997,
Irwin et al. 1998, Irwin pers. comm. 2000). There have been site
collections of fine-lined pocketbook in the extreme lowest reaches of
several small tributaries to the Tallapoosa Unit, including Little Cane
Creek, Big Creek, McClendon Creek, and Muscadine Creek, and there are
likely to be others. We believe these small populations are dependent
upon the main stem Tallapoosa River for recruitment.

Unit 17. Uphapee/Choctafaula/Chewacla Creeks, Macon, Lee Counties,
Alabama

Unit 17 encompasses 74 km (46 mi) of stream channel in Alabama,
including: Uphapee Creek, 18 km (11 mi) of river channel extending from
Alabama Highway 199, upstream to confluence of Opintlocco and Chewacla
Creeks, Macon County, Alabama; Choctafaula Creek, 11 km (7 mi), from
confluence with Uphapee Creek, upstream to Macon County Road 54, Macon
County, Alabama; Chewacla Creek, 29 km (18 mi), from confluence with
Opintlocco Creek, Macon County, Alabama, upstream to Lee County Road
159, Lee County, Alabama; Opintlocco Creek, 16 km (10 mi), from
confluence with Chewacla Creek, upstream to Macon County Road 79, Macon
County, Alabama. This stream network supports small and localized
populations of the

[[Page 14768]]

fine-lined pocketbook, ovate clubshell, and southern clubshell (M.
Gangloff, Auburn University, in litt. 2001; Gangloff 2002, McGregor
1993, Pierson 1991a).

Coosa River Drainage, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee

Extensive impoundment for hydropower during the 20th century along
with episodic pollution events severely reduced one of the most diverse
endemic freshwater molluscan communities in the world. Listed mussels
in the drainage are now restricted to one small portion of the main
channel Coosa River, one large tributary complex, and several small
isolated tributaries.

Unit 18. Coosa River (Old River Channel) and tributary, Cherokee,
Calhoun, Cleburne Counties, Alabama

Unit 18 encompasses 78 km (48 mi) of river channel in Alabama,
including: Coosa River, 18 km (11 mi) extending from the powerline
crossing southeast of Maple Grove, Alabama, upstream to Weiss Dam,
Cherokee County, Alabama; Terrapin Creek, 53 km (33 mi) extending from
its confluence with the Coosa River, Cherokee County, upstream to
Cleburne County Road 49, Cleburne County, Alabama; South Fork Terrapin
Creek, 7 km (4 mi) from its confluence with Terrapin Creek, upstream to
Cleburne County Road 55, Cleburne County, Alabama. The short reach of
the Coosa River continues to support a fairly robust population of the
southern clubshell, and a few individuals of the ovate clubshell and
fine-lined pocketbook (Herod et al. 2001). The fine-lined pocketbook
and southern clubshell have also been recently collected from Terrapin
Creek (Feminella and Gangloff 2000). This area is within the range of
the Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell,
upland combshell, and southern acornshell.

Unit 19. Hatchet Creek, Coosa, Clay Counties, Alabama

Unit 19 encompasses 66 km (41 mi) of the Hatchet Creek channel in
Alabama, extending from the confluence of Swamp Creek at Coosa County
Road 29, Coosa County, Alabama, upstream to Clay County Road 4, Clay
County, Alabama. The fine-lined pocketbook occurs within this reach
(Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Pierson 1992b). Hatchet Creek is within
the historic range of the Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, ovate
clubshell, southern clubshell, triangular kidneyshell, upland
combshell, and southern acornshell.

Unit 20. Shoal Creek, Calhoun, Cleburne Counties, Alabama

Unit 20 encompasses 26 km (16 mi) of stream channel in Alabama,
extending from the headwater of Whitesides Mill Lake, Calhoun County,
Alabama, upstream to the tailwater of Coleman Lake Dam, Cleburne
County, Alabama. The fine-lined pocketbook, southern pigtoe, and
triangular kidneyshell survive in Shoal Creek (Haag et al. 1999,
Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Gangloff in litt. 2001, Pierson, 1992b).
Shoal Creek is within historic range of the Coosa moccasinshell.

Unit 21. Kelly Creek and Tributary, Shelby, St. Clair Counties, Alabama

Unit 21 encompasses 34 km (21 mi) of stream channel in Alabama,
including: Kelly Creek, 26 km (16 mi) extending from the confluence
with the Coosa River, upstream to the confluence of Shoal Creek, St.
Clair County, Alabama; Shoal Creek, 8 km (5 mi), from confluence with
Kelly Creek, St. Clair County, Alabama, upstream to St. Clair/Shelby
County Line, St. Clair County, Alabama. Kelly/Shoal Creeks continue to
support scattered individuals of the fine-lined pocketbook, and the
southern clubshell and triangular kidneyshell survive in Kelly Creek
(Pierson pers comm. 1995, Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Gangloff in
litt. 2001). This stream complex is historic habitat for the southern
pigtoe, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, upland combshell, and
southern acornshell.

Unit 22. Cheaha Creek, Talladega, Clay Counties, Alabama

Unit 22 encompasses 27 km (17 mi) of the Cheaha Creek channel,
extending from its confluence with Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County,
Alabama, upstream to the tailwater of Chinnabee Lake, Clay County,
Alabama. The fine-lined pocketbook and southern pigtoe survive within
this reach (Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Gangloff in litt. 2001,
Pierson 1992b, 1993). Cheaha Creek is in the historic range of the
Coosa moccasinshell and triangular kidneyshell.

Unit 23. Yellowleaf Creek and Tributary, Shelby County, Alabama

Unit 23 encompasses 39 km (24 mi) of stream channel, including:
Yellowleaf Creek, 32 km (20 mi), extending from Alabama Highway 25,
upstream to Shelby County Road 49; Muddy Prong, 7 km (4 mi), extending
from confluence with Yellowleaf Creek, upstream to U.S. Highway 280,
Shelby County, Alabama. Yellowleaf and Muddy Prong Creeks are currently
inhabited by the fine-lined pocketbook (Feminella and Gangloff 2000,
Gangloff in litt., 2001, Pierson in litt. 2000). Yellowleaf Creek is in
the historic range of the Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and
triangular kidneyshell.

Unit 24. Big Canoe Creek, St. Clair County, Alabama

Unit 24 encompasses 29 km (18 mi) of the Big Canoe Creek channel,
extending from its confluence with Little Canoe Creek at the St. Clair/
Etowah County line, St. Clair County, upstream to the confluence of
Fall Branch, St. Clair County, Alabama. The southern clubshell,
southern pigtoe, and triangular kidneyshell are surviving in low
numbers in Big Canoe Creek (Feminella and Gangloff 2000, Gangloff in
litt. 2001). This stream is also historic habitat for the fine-lined
pocketbook, ovate clubshell, Coosa moccasinshell, upland combshell, and
southern acornshell.

Unit 25. Oostanaula River/Coosawattee River/Conasauga River/Holly
Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties, Georgia; Bradley,
Polk Counties, Tennessee

Unit 25 encompasses 206 km (128 mi) of river and stream channel in
Georgia and Tennessee, including: Oostanaula River, 77 km (48 mi)
extending from its confluence with the Etowah River, Floyd County,
upstream to the confluence of the Conasauga and Coosawattee River,
Gordon County, Georgia; Coosawattee River, 15 km (9 mi), from
confluence with the Conasauga River, upstream to Georgia State Highway
136, Gordon County, Georgia; Conasauga River, 98 km (61 mi), from
confluence with the Coosawattee River, Gordon County, Georgia, upstream
through Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee, to the Murray County Road
2, Murray County, Georgia; Holly Creek, 16 km (10 mi), from confluence
with Conasauga River, upstream to the confluence of Rock Creek, Murray
County, Georgia. This extensive riverine reach continues to support
small and localized populations of fine-lined pocketbook, southern
pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and Coosa
moccasinshell. The triangular kidneyshell survives throughout this
unit, while the fine-lined pocketbook, southern pigtoe, and Coosa
moccasinshell appear to be currently restricted to the Conasauga River
and Holly Creek and the southern clubshell appears restricted to a
small 15 km (9 mi) reach of the Conasauga River (Evans 2001, Johnson
and Evans, 2000, Pierson in litt. 1993, Williams and Hughes

[[Page 14769]]

1998). The Alabama moccasinshell is currently known to survive only in
the Holly Creek portion of this Unit (Evans 2001, Johnson and Evans
2000). The Oostanaula/Coosawattee/Conasauga Unit also contains historic
habitat for the southern clubshell, ovate clubshell, upland combshell,
and southern acornshell.

Unit 26. Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama

Unit 26 encompasses 13 km (8 mi) of the Lower Coosa River channel,
extending from Alabama State Highway 111 bridge, upstream to Jordan
Dam, Elmore County, Alabama. This river reach is within the historic
range of fine-lined pocketbook, southern clubshell, Alabama
moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern pigtoe,
triangular kidneyshell, upland combshell, and southern acornshell.
(Johnson 2002, Pierson 1991a).

Land Ownership

States were granted ownership of lands beneath navigable waters up
to the high water mark upon achieving statehood (Pollard v. Hagan, 44
U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)). Prior sovereigns or the States may have made
grants to private parties which include lands below mean high waters of
some navigable waters included in this proposal. However, we believe
that most navigable waters included in this rule are owned by the
States of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Most non-
navigable streams and riparian lands bordering navigable streams are in
private ownership. Table 2 summarizes primary riparian landowners in
each of the proposed critical habitat units by private, State, or
Federal ownership. Approximately 82 percent, 1447 km (897 mi), of
stream channels proposed as critical habitat are bordered by private
lands.

Table 2.--Adjacent Riparian Land Ownership (km/mi) in Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Threatened and
Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Private State Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. East Fork Tombigbee River.................... 19/12 .............. 6/4 26/16
2. Bull Mountain Creek.......................... 34/21 .............. .............. 34/21
3. Buttahatchee River........................... 110/68 .............. .............. 110/68
4. Luxapalila Creek............................. 29/18 .............. .............. 29/18
5. Coalfire Creek............................... 32/20 .............. .............. 32/20
6. Lubbub Creek................................. 31/19 .............. .............. 31/19
7. Sipsey River................................. 74/46 16/10 .............. 90/56
8. Trussels Creek............................... 21/13 .............. .............. 21/13
9. Sucarnoochee River........................... 90/56 .............. .............. 90/56
10. Sipsey Fork................................. 15/9 .............. 132/82 147/91
11. North River................................. 47/29 .............. .............. 47/29
12. Locust Fork................................. 102/63 .............. .............. 102/63
13. Cahaba River................................ 92/57 26/16 6/4 124/77
14. Alabama River............................... 73/45 .............. .............. 73/45
15. Bogue Chitto................................ 52/32 .............. .............. 52/32
16. Tallapoosa River............................ 161/100 .............. .............. 161/100
17. Uphapee complex............................. 56/35 .............. 18/11 74/46
18. Coosa River................................. 63/39 .............. 15/9 78/48
19. Hatchet Creek............................... 55/34 .............. 11/7 66/41
20. Shoal Creek................................. .............. .............. 26/16 26/16
21. Kelly Creek................................. 34/21 .............. .............. 34/21
22. Cheaha Creek................................ 16/10 .............. 11/7 27/17
23. Yellowleaf Creek............................ 39/24 .............. .............. 39/24
24. Big Canoe Creek............................. 29/18 .............. .............. 29/18
25. Oostanaula Complex.......................... 188/117 .............. 18/11 206/128
26. Lower Coosa River........................... 13/8 .............. .............. 13/8
-----------------
Total....................................... 1,475/914 42/26 243/151 1,760/1,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public lands adjacent to proposed critical habitat units consist of
approximately 288 km (179 mi) of riparian lands, including Canal
Section Wildlife Management Area in Unit 1 (6 km (4 mi)); Sipsey River
Natural Area in Unit 7 (16 km (10 mi)); William B. Bankhead National
Forest in Unit 10 (134 km (83 mi)); Cahaba River National Wildlife
Refuge (6 km (4 mi)) and Cahaba River Wildlife Management Area (28 km
(17 mi)) in Unit 13; Tuskegee National Forest in Unit 17 (16 km (10
mi)); Talladega National Forest in Unit 18 (15 km (9 mi)), Unit 19 (11
km (7 mi)), Unit 20 (27 km (17mi)), and Unit 22 (11 km (7 mi)); and
Chattahoochee National Forest in Unit 25 (18 km (11 mi)).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Relationship to Section 7 of the Act

The regulatory effects of a critical habitat designation under the
Act are triggered through the provisions of section 7 of the Act, which
applies only to activities conducted, authorized, or funded by a
Federal agency (Federal actions). Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and
other non-Federal entities are not affected by the designation of
critical habitat unless their actions occur on Federal lands, require
Federal authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including us,
to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. This requirement is met
through a consultation under section 7 of the Act. Our regulations
define ``jeopardize the continued existence'' as to engage in an action
that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a

[[Page 14770]]

listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). ``Destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat'' is defined as a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of the
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the species (50
CFR 402.02). Such alterations include, but are not limited to, adverse
changes to the physical or biological features, i.e., the primary
constituent elements, that were the basis for determining the habitat
to be critical.
The relationship between a species' survival and its recovery has
been a source of confusion to some in the past. We believe that a
species' ability to recover depends on its ability to survive into the
future when its recovery can be achieved; thus, the concepts of long-
term survival and recovery are intricately linked. However, in a March
15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d
434), the Court found our definition of destruction or adverse
modification as currently contained in 50 CFR 402.02 to be invalid. In
response to this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition
of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.

Conference for Proposed Critical Habitat

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. The regulations for
interagency cooperation regarding proposed critical habitat are
codified at 50 CFR 402.10. During a conference on the effects of a
Federal action on proposed critical habitat, we make non-binding
recommendations on ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects of the
action. We document these recommendations and any conclusions reached
in a conference report provided to the Federal agency and to any
applicant involved.
If requested by the Federal agency and deemed appropriate by us,
the conference may be conducted in accordance with the procedures for
formal consultation under 50 CFR 402.14. We may adopt an opinion issued
at the conclusion of the conference as our biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated by final rule, but only if new
information or changes to the proposed Federal action would not
significantly alter the content of the opinion.

Consultation for Designated Critical Habitat

If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its designated
critical habitat, the action agency must initiate consultation with us
(50 CFR 402.14). Through this consultation, we will advise the agency
whether the action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both. The
Services' Consultation Handbook states that the destruction or adverse
modification analysis focuses on the entire critical habitat area
designated unless the critical habitat rule identifies another basis
for the analysis, such as discrete units or groups of units necessary
for different life cycle phases or units representing distinctive
habitat characteristics or gene pools, or units fulfilling essential
geographic distribution requirements. The extent of the 11 mussels'
decline, the fragmentation and isolation of their habitats and
continuing impacts upon their habitats, and the importance of every
unit to the recovery of the species suggests that individual units or
groups of units that are used by populations which fulfill essential
geographic distribution requirements are the appropriate scale for the
analysis. In accordance with the Mobile River Aquatic Ecosystem
Recovery Plan (2000), protection of the habitat in these units and
their surviving populations is essential to the conservation of these
11 mussel species. An action occurring only within one unit may
appreciably reduce the value of the critical habitat for the recovery
of the species and therefore trigger an adverse modification
determination.
When we issue a biological opinion that concludes that a specific
action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat, we must provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the action, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and
prudent alternatives are actions identified during consultation that
can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of
the originally proposed action, are consistent with the scope of the
action agency's authority and jurisdiction, are economically and
technologically feasible, and would likely avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat (50 CFR 402.02).

Reinitiation of Prior Consultations

A Federal agency may request a conference with us for any
previously reviewed action that is likely to destroy or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat and over which the agency retains
discretionary involvement or control, as described above under
``Conference for Proposed Critical Habitat.'' Following designation of
critical habitat, regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require a Federal agency
to reinitiate consultation for previously reviewed actions that may
affect critical habitat and over which the agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control.

Federal Actions That May Destroy or Adversely Modify 11 Mussels
Critical Habitat

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us, in any proposed or final
rule designating critical habitat, to briefly describe and evaluate
those activities that may adversely modify such habitat, or that may be
affected by such designation.
Federal actions that, when carried out, funded or authorized by a
Federal agency, may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for
the 11 mussels include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the minimum flow or the existing flow
regime to a degree that appreciably reduces the value of the critical
habitat for both the long-term survival and recovery of the species.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, impoundment,
channelization, water diversion, and hydropower generation.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or
temperature to a degree that appreciably reduces the value of the
critical habitat for both the long-term survival and recovery of the
species. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release
of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the
surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by
dispersed release (non-point).
(3) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within the stream channel to a degree that appreciably reduces the
value of the critical habitat for both the longterm survival and
recovery of the species. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road
construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed
and floodplain disturbances.
(4) Actions that would significantly increase the filamentous algal
community within the stream channel to a degree that appreciably
reduces the value of the critical habitat for both the longterm
survival and recovery of the species. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, release of

[[Page 14771]]

nutrients into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point
source or by dispersed release (non-point).
(5) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or
geometry to a degree that appreciably reduces the value of the critical
habitat for both the longterm survival and recovery of the species.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, destruction of
riparian vegetation.
(6) Actions that would introduce, spread, or augment nonnative
aquatic species into critical habitat to a degree that appreciably
reduces the value of the critical habitat for both the longterm
survival and recovery of the species. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, stocking for sport, biological control, or
other purposes; aquaculture; and construction and operation of canals.

Previous Section 7 Consultations

Federal actions that we have reviewed since these 11 mussel species
received protection under the Act include Federal land management
plans, Federal land acquisition and disposal, road and bridge
maintenance and construction, water diversion, timber harvest on
Federal land, channelization, flood control, channel maintenance, water
quality standards, dam construction and operation, and issuance of
permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Federal agencies
involved with these activities included the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Highway Administration.
Since the original listing of these 11 mussel species, seven formal
consultations have been conducted. None of these resulted in a finding
that the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of
any of the 11 species.
In each of the biological opinions resulting from these
consultations, we included discretionary conservation recommendations
to the action agency. Conservation recommendations are activities that
would avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action on a
listed species or its critical habitat, help implement recovery plans,
or develop information useful to the species' conservation.
Previous biological opinions also included nondiscretionary
reasonable and prudent measures, with implementing terms and
conditions, which are designed to minimize the proposed action's
incidental take of these 11 mussels. Section 3(18) of the Act defines
the term take as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' Harm is further defined in our regulations (50 CFR 17.3) to
include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in
death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Conservation recommendations and reasonable and prudent measures
provided in previous biological opinions for these mussels have
included maintaining State water quality standards, maintaining
adequate stream flow rates, minimizing work in the wetted channel,
restricting riparian clearing, monitoring channel morphology and mussel
populations, installing signage, protecting buffer zones, avoiding
pollution, using cooperative planning efforts, minimizing ground
disturbance, using sediment barriers, relocating recreational trails,
using best management practices to minimize erosion, and funding
research useful for mussel conservation. In reviewing past formal
consultations, we find that only one may need to be reinitiated as a
result of this proposed designation.
On October 3, 1994, we presented a Biological Opinion to the COE
and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) concluding that the proposed
construction and operation of the Tom Bevill Reservoir on the North
River, Fayette County, Alabama, would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the dark pigtoe and orange-nacre mucket (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1994). The dam site lies within proposed critical
habitat Unit 11. This dam has not been constructed. If the applicants
determine to proceed with, construction plans, this dam may adversely
modify critical habitat in the North River (Unit 11), and consultation
should be reinitiated.
The designation of critical habitat will have no impact on private
landowner activities that do not require Federal funding or permits.
Designation of critical habitat is only applicable to activities
approved, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities would
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, you may contact
the following Service offices:

Alabama--Daphne, FWS Ecological Services Office (251/441-5181)
Georgia-Athens, FWS Ecological Services Office (706/613-9493)
Mississippi--Jackson, FWS Ecological Services Office (601/965-4900)
Tennessee-Cookeville, FWS Ecological Services Office (931/528-6481)

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, and that we consider the economic and other relevant impacts
of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude
areas from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species. We will conduct an analysis of the economic
impacts of designating these areas as critical habitat prior to a final
determination. That economic analysis will be conducted in a manner
that is consistent with the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
in N.M. Cattle Growers Ass'n v. USFWS. When the draft economic analysis
is completed, we will announce its availability with a notice in the
Federal Register. With publication of the notice of availability, a
comment period will be opened for a minimum of 30 days to allow for
public comments on the draft economic analysis and proposed rule
concurrently.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be
as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. We are particularly interested in
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any area should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act and 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), including whether the benefits of designation will
outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of habitat
for these 11 mussel species, population numbers, and what habitat is
essential to their conservation and why;
(3) Whether areas within proposed critical habitat are currently
being managed to address conservation needs of these mussel species;
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject areas and their
possible impacts on proposed critical habitats;
(5) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in

[[Page 14772]]

particular, any impacts on small entities;
(6) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for these mussels, such as those derived from nonconsumptive
uses (e.g., hiking, camping, wildlife-watching, enhanced watershed
protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, ``existence
values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Electronic comments (e-mail) should
avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include
``Attn: [RIN 1018-AI73]'' and your name and return address in your e-
mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that
we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling
our Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their home
addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent
allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would
withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us
to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently
at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider
anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we
will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Service's Fish and Wildlife in Jackson, Mississippi (see ADDRESSES
section).

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 critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers
copies of this proposed rule 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 designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period 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 must be filed within 45 days of the date of this
proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and should be addressed
to the Field Supervisor, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Written comments submitted during the comment
period receive equal consideration with those comments presented at a
public hearing. 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.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make proposed rules easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does
the format of the proposed rule (e.g., grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule?
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
Execsec@ios.doi.gov.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The Service is preparing a draft economic analysis of
this proposed action, and will use this analysis to meet the
requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the economic
consequences of designating the specific areas as critical habitat and
excluding any area from critical habitat if it is determined that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
areas as part of the critical habitat, unless failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will lead to the extinction of any of these 11
mussel species. This analysis will be made available for public comment
before finalizing this designation.

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 (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended 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. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification
statement. We are hereby certifying that this proposed rule will not
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and

[[Page 14773]]

agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000.
SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis
considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit
margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur
a ``significant economic impact.'' Only small entities that are
expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in
this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several
judicial opinions related to the scope of the RFA (Mid-Tex Electric Co-
Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. and America Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA.).
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We applied
the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of
small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies;
non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. Federal
agencies are already required to consult with the Services under
section 7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement
that may affect the federally listed mussels discussed herein.
If this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies
must also consult with us if their activities may affect designated
critical habitat. However, in areas where the mussel species are
present, we believe this will result in only minimal additional
regulatory burden on Federal agencies or their applicants because
consultation would already be required due to the presence of the
listed mussel species. Consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process and trigger only minimal additional
regulatory impacts beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species.
In the area below Jordan Dam (lower Coosa River, Unit 26) where the
mussel species are not present, we also believe designation of critical
habitat will result in only minimal additional regulatory burden on
Federal agencies or their applicants because consultations have been
required, since 1991, due to the presence of the listed Tulotoma snail
(56 FR 797, January 9, 1991).
Since the 11 mussels were listed (March 17, 1993, 58 FR 14330), we
have conducted 7 formal consultations involving 1 or more of these 11
species. Four of the formal consultations involved Federal projects,
including a flood control project by the COE, a horse trail system on
the Talladega National Forest, programmatic activities by the Forest
Service, and administration of the Clean Water Act in Alabama by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Another formal consultation
involved a COE permit to construct water withdrawal and discharge
facilities for a gas powered electrical generating facility. These 5
consultations resulted in non-jeopardy opinions, and had no economic
effects on small entities. The other 2 consultations involved COE
permits to small entities to construct dams; one on a stream that was
occupied habitat of the fine-lined pocketbook, and the other on a river
that was occupied by the orange-nacre mucket and dark pigtoe.
Biological Opinions prepared by us for these consultations concluded
the actions were ``not likely to jeopardize'' the species, and
identified reasonable and prudent measures to reduce take of the
species affected by the projects. In reviewing these 2 consultations in
light of proposed critical habitat, we recognize that with critical
habitat present, our analysis would also include a determination of
whether the action would destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat. One of these dams has not been constructed, and reinitiation
of consultation may be necessary if construction plans proceed, after
this designation is finalized (see ``Previous Section 7 Consultations''
above).
We also reviewed approximately 300 informal consultations that have
been conducted since these 11 species were listed involving private
businesses and industries, counties, cities, towns, or municipalities.
At least 200 of these were with entities that likely met the definition
of small entities. These informal consultations concerned activities
such as excavation or fill, docking facilities, bridges, transmission
lines, pipe lines, quarries, mines, housing developments, road and
utility development, etc., authorized by COE, FERC, or EPA, or review
of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applications
to State water quality agencies by developers, municipalities, mines,
businesses, and others. Informal consultations on Federal activities
also included campground improvements, burning programs, and southern
pine beetle control by the Forest Service. Informal consultations
regarding the mussels usually resulted in recommendations to employ
Best Management Practices for sediment control, relied on current State
water quality standards for protection of water quality, and resulted
in little to no modification of the proposed activities. In reviewing
these past informal consultations and the activities involved in light
of proposed critical habitat, we do not believe the outcomes would have
been different in areas designated as critical habitat.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities and find that it would not. Informal consultations on
approximately 300 activities in the Basin by businesses and
governmental jurisdictions that might affect these species and their
habitats resulted in little to no economic effect on small entities. In
the decade since the 11 mussels were listed, there have been only 2
formal consultations regarding actions by small entities, both of which
culminated in findings which allowed the projects to go forward. Our
review indicates that even if the outcomes of these 2 formal
consultations had been quite different, in light of critical habitat
designation, less than 1 percent of small entities affected by a
designation would have experienced a significant economic impact. This
does not meet the definition of ``substantial.'' In addition, there is
no indication that the types of activities we review under section 7 of
the Act will change significantly in the future. There would be no
additional section 7 consultations resulting from this rule as 25 of
the proposed critical habitat units are currently occupied by 1 or more
listed mussels, and the lower Coosa River (Unit 26) is currently
occupied by the endangered tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica), so the
consultation requirement has already been triggered. Future
consultations are not likely to affect a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would result in major project modifications only
when proposed activities with a Federal nexus would destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it is not
expected to occur frequently enough to affect a substantial

[[Page 14774]]

number of small entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the
proposed designation of critical habitat for these 11 mussels will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. This determination will be revisited after the close of the
comment period and revised, if necessary, in the final rule.
This discussion is based upon the information regarding potential
economic impact that is available to us at this time. This assessment
of economic effect may be modified prior to final rulemaking based upon
development and review of the draft economic analysis prepared pursuant
to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This analysis is for the
purposes of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and does not
reflect our position on the type of economic analysis required by New
Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 248 F.3d
1277 (10th Cir. 2001).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2))

In the draft economic analysis, we will determine whether
designation of critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions, or (c) any significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.) the Service will use the economic analysis to further evaluate
this situation.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule does not have significant takings implications. A
takings implication assessment is not required. As discussed above, the
designation of critical habitat affects only Federal agency actions.
Since the proposed critical habitat includes only aquatic areas that
are generally held in public trust, we believe that little or no
private property is included in the proposed designation. Based on
current public knowledge of the species protection and the prohibition
against take of the species both within and outside of the designated
areas, we do not anticipate that property values will be affected by
the critical habitat designation. Additionally, critical habitat
designation does not preclude development of habitat conservation plans
and issuance of incidental take permits.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from, and
coordinated development of this critical habitat proposal with,
appropriate State resource agencies in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
and Georgia, as well as during the listing process. The impact of the
proposed designation on State and local governments and their
activities is not believed to be significant, but this will be more
fully examined in the economic analysis of the proposal, on which we
will seek public comment. The designation may have some benefit to
these governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent
elements of the habitat necessary to the survival 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.

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 does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The rule
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary
constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public
in understanding the habitat needs of these 11 mussels.

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

This proposed rule does not contain new or revised information
collection for which Office of Management and Budget approval is
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Information collections
associated with certain permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
are covered by an existing OMB approval, and are assigned clearance No.
1018-0094, with an expiration date of July 31, 2004. Detailed
information for Act documentation appears at 50 CFR part 17. The
Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to 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).

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 the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of the 11
mussels. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the 11 mussels
has not been proposed on Tribal lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon

[[Page 14775]]

request from the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).

Author

The primary author of this notice is Paul Hartfield (see ADDRESSES
section), 601/321-1125.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons outlined in the preamble, we propose to amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

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. In section 17.11(h), revise each of the entries here listed, in
alphabetical order under ``CLAMS'', to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

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

* * * * * * *
Clams

* * * * * * *
Acornshell, southern............. Epioblasma U.S.A. (AL,GA,TN).. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
othcaloogensis.

* * * * * * *
Clubshell, ovate................. Pleurobema U.S.A. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
perovatum. (AL,TN,GA,MS).

* * * * * * *
Clubshell, southern.............. Pleurobema decisum. U.S.A. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
(AL,TN,GA,MS).

* * * * * * *
Combshell, upland................ Epioblasma U.S.A. (AL,GA,TN).. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
metastriata.

* * * * * * *
Kidneyshell, triangular.......... Ptychobranchus U.S.A. (AL,GA,TN).. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
greenii.

* * * * * * *
Moccasinshell, Alabama........... Medionidus U.S.A. (AL,GA,MS).. NA T 495 17.95 (f) NA
acutissimus.

* * * * * * *
Moccasinshell Coosa,............. Medionidus parvulus U.S.A. (AL,GA,TN).. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA

* * * * * * *
Mucket, orange-nacre............. Lampsilis perovalis U.S.A. (AL,MS)..... NA T 495 17.95 (f) NA

* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, dark..................... Pleurobema furvum.. U.S.A. (AL)........ NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA

* * * * * * *
Pigtoe, southern................. Pleurobema U.S.A. (AL,GA,TN).. NA E 495 17.95 (f) NA
georgianum.
* * * * * * *
Pocketbook, fine-lined........... Lampsilis altilis.. U.S.A. (AL,GA)..... NA T 495 17.95 (f) NA

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

3. In Sec. 17.95, at the end of paragraph (f), add an entry for 11
Mobile River Basin mussel species to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(f) Clams and snails. * * *
Eleven Mobile River Basin mussel species: southern acornshell
(Epioblasma othcaloogensis), ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum),
southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum), upland combshell (Epioblasma
metastriata), triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greeni), Alabama
moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus), Coosa moccasinshell (Medionidus
parvulus), orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis), dark pigtoe
(Pleurobema furvum), southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum), and fine-
lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis)
(1) The primary constituent elements essential for the conservation
of the southern acornshell (Epioblasma

[[Page 14776]]

othcaloogensis), ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), southern
clubshell (Pleurobema decisum), upland combshell (Epioblasma
metastriata); triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greeni), Alabama
moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus), Coosa moccasinshell (Medionidus
parvulus), orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis), dark pigtoe
(Pleurobema furvum), southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum), and fine-
lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) are those habitat components that
support feeding, sheltering, reproduction, and physical features for
maintaining the natural processes that support these habitat
components. The primary constituent elements include:
(i) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks;
(ii) A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts
in the river environment;
(iii) Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness,
turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics,
necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages;
(iv) Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment, low amounts of attached filamentous algae,
and other physical and chemical characteristics necessary for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
(v) Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas
for them; and
(vi) Few or no competitive nonnative species present.
(2) Critical habitat unit descriptions and maps.
(i) Index map. The index map showing critical habitat units in the
States of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee for the 11
Mobile River Basin mussel species follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 14777]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.001

(ii) Table of protected species and critical habitat units. A table
listing the protected species, their respective critical habitat units,
and the States which contain those habitat units follows. Detailed
critical habitat unit descriptions and maps appear below the table.

[[Page 14778]]

Table of Eleven Mobile River Basin Mussel Species, Their Critical
Habitat Units, and States Containing Those Critical Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Critical habitat units States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern acornshell (Epioblasma Units 13, 18, 19, 21, 24, AL,
othcaloogensis). 25, 26. GA,
TN.
Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AL,
perovatum). 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, GA,
18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26. MS,
TN.
Southern clubshell (Pleurobema Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AL,
decisum). 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, GA,
19, 21, 24, 25, 26. MS,
TN.
Upland combshell (Epioblasma Units 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, AL,
metastriata). 24, 25, 26. GA,
TN.
Triangular kidneyshell Units 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, AL,
(Ptychobranchus greeni). 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, GA,
25, 26. TN.
Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AL,
acutissimus). 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, GA,
25, 26. MS,
TN.
Coosa moccasinshell (Medionidus Units 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, AL,
parvulus). 23, 24, 25, 26. GA,
TN.
Orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AL, MS
perovalis). 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15.
Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum).... Units 10, 11, 12........... AL
Southern pigtoe (Pleurobema Units 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, AL,
georgianum). 23, 24, 25, 26. GA,
TN.
Fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis Units 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, AL,
altilis). 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. GA,
TN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Unit 1. East Fork Tombigbee River, Monroe, Itawamba County,
Mississippi. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate clubshell,
southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 1 includes the East Fork Tombigbee River main stem from
Mississippi Highway 278 (T13S R7E S3), Monroe County, upstream to the
confluence of Mill Creek (T11S R8E S24), Itawamba County, Mississippi.
(B) Map of Unit 1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14779]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(iv) Unit 2. Bull Mountain Creek, Itawamba County, Mississippi.
This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate

[[Page 14780]]

clubshell, southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre
mucket.
(A) Unit 2 includes the main stem of Bull Mountain Creek from
Mississippi Highway 25 (T11S R9E S30), upstream to U.S. Highway 78
(T10S R10E S6), Itawamba County, Mississippi.
(B) Map of Unit 2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14781]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(v) Unit 3. Buttahatchee River and Sipsey Creek, Lowndes/Monroe
County, Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama. This is a critical habitat
unit for the

[[Page 14782]]

ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and
orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 3 includes the Buttahatchee River main stem from its
confluence with the Tombigbee River (T16S R19W S23), Lowndes/Monroe
County, Mississippi, upstream to the confluence of Beaver Creek (T13S
R15W S17), Lamar County, Alabama; and Sipsey Creek, from its confluence
with the Buttahatchee River (T14S R17W S2), upstream to the
Mississippi/Alabama State Line (T12S R10E S21), Monroe County,
Mississippi.
(B) Map of Unit 3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14783]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(vi) Unit 4. Luxapalila Creek and Yellow Creek, Lowndes County,
Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for
the

[[Page 14784]]

ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and
orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 4 includes the Luxapalila Creek main stem from Waterworks
Road (T18S R18W S11), Columbus, Mississippi, upstream to approximately
1.0 km (0.6 mi) above Steens Road (T17S R17W S27), Lowndes County,
Mississippi; and the Yellow Creek main stem from its confluence with
Luxapalila Creek (T17S R17W S21), Lowndes County, Mississippi, upstream
to the confluence of Cut Bank Creek (T16S R16W S30), Lamar County,
Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 4 follows:
BILLIING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14785]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.005
BILLIING CODE 4310-55-C
(vii) Unit 5. Coalfire Creek, Pickens County, Alabama. This is a
critical habitat unit for the ovate clubshell,

[[Page 14786]]

southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 5 includes the Coalfire Creek main stem from its
confluence with Aliceville Lake (Tombigbee River, T20S R17W S26),
upstream to U.S. Highway 82 (T19S R15W S15), Pickens County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 5 follows:
BILLIING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14787]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.006
BILLIING CODE 4310-55-C
(viii) Unit 6. Lubbub Creek, Pickens County, Alabama. This is a
critical habitat unit for the ovate clubshell,

[[Page 14788]]

southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 6 includes the main stem of Lubbub Creek from its
confluence with Gainesville Lake (Tombigbee River, T24N R2W S11),
upstream to the confluence of Little Lubbub Creek (T21S R1W S34),
Pickens County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 6 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14789]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.007
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(ix) Unit 7. Sipsey River, Greene/Pickens, Tuscaloosa Counties,
Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate clubshell,
southern clubshell,

[[Page 14790]]

Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 7 includes the Sipsey River main stem from its confluence
with Gainesville Lake (Tombigbee River, T24N R1W S30), Greene/Pickens
County, upstream to Alabama Highway 171 crossing (T18S R12W S34),
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14791]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(x) Unit 8. Trussels Creek, Greene County, Alabama. This is a
critical habitat unit for the ovate clubshell,

[[Page 14792]]

southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 8 includes the Trussels Creek main stem from its
confluence with the Tombigbee River (T21N R2W S15), upstream to Alabama
Highway 14 (T22N R1E S4), Greene County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 8 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14793]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.009
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xi) Unit 9. Sucarnoochee River, Sumter County, Alabama. This is a
critical habitat unit for the ovate

[[Page 14794]]

clubshell, southern clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre
mucket.
(A) Unit 9 includes the Sucarnoochee River main stem from its
confluence with the Tombigbee River (T17N R1W S26), upstream to the
Mississippi/Alabama State Line (T19N R4W S15), Sumter County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 9 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14795]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xii) Unit 10. Sipsey Fork and tributaries, Winston, Lawrence
Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate
clubshell,

[[Page 14796]]

triangular kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell, orangenacre mucket, and
dark pigtoe.
(A) Unit 10 includes the Sipsey Fork main stem from the section 11/
12 line (T10S R8W), Winston County, Alabama, upstream to the confluence
of Hubbard Creek (T8S R9W S27), Lawrence County, Alabama; Thompson
Creek, from its confluence with Hubbard Creek (T8S R9W S27), upstream
to section 2 line (T8S R9W) Lawrence County; Brushy Creek, from the
confluence of Glover Creek (T10S R7W S11), Winston County, upstream to
section 9 (T8S R7W), Lawrence County; Capsey Creek, from confluence
with Brushy Creek (T9S R7W S23), Winston County, upstream to the
confluence of Turkey Creek (T8S R6W S33), Lawrence County; Rush Creek,
from confluence with Brushy Creek (T9S R7W S15), upstream to Winston/
Lawrence County Line (T9S R7W S1), Winston County; Brown Creek, from
confluence with Rush Creek (T9S R7W S2), Winston County, upstream to
section 24 line (T8S R7W), Lawrence County; Beech Creek, from
confluence with Brushy Creek (T9S R7W S8), to confluence of East and
West Forks (T9S R7W S6), Winston County; Caney Creek and North Fork
Caney Creek, from confluence with Sipsey Fork (T9S R8W S28), upstream
to section 14 line (T9S R9W), Winston County; Borden Creek, from
confluence with Sipsey Fork (T8S R8W S5), Winston County, upstream to
the confluence of Montgomery Creek (T8S R8W S10), Lawrence County; and
Flannagin Creek, from confluence with Borden Creek (T8S R8W S28),
upstream to confluence of Dry Creek (T8S R8W S4), Lawrence County.
(B) Maps of Unit 10 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14797]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.011
[[Page 14798]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.012
[[Page 14799]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.013
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xiii) Unit 11. North River and Clear Creek, Tuscaloosa, Fayette
Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate
clubshell, triangular

[[Page 14800]]

kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell, orangenacre mucket, and dark
pigtoe.
(A) Unit 11 includes the main stem of the North River from
Tuscaloosa County Road 38 (T18S R10W S16), Tuscaloosa County, upstream
to confluence of Ellis Creek (T16S R10W S6), Fayette County, Alabama;
and Clear Creek from its confluence with North River (T16S R11W S13) to
Bays Lake Dam (T16S R11W S2), Fayette County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 11 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14801]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.014
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xiv) Unit 12. Locust Fork and Little Warrior Rivers, Jefferson,
Blount Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate
clubshell,

[[Page 14802]]

upland combshell, triangular kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell,
orangenacre mucket, and dark pigtoe.
(A) Unit 12 includes the Locust Fork main stem from U.S. Highway 78
(T15S R4W S30), Jefferson County, upstream to the confluence of Little
Warrior River (T13S R1W S3), Blount County, Alabama; and Little Warrior
River from its confluence with the Locust Fork (T13S R1W S3), upstream
to the confluence of Calvert Prong and Blackburn Fork (T13S R1W S12),
Blount County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 12 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14803]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.015
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xv) Unit 13. Cahaba River and Little Cahaba River, Jefferson,
Shelby, Bibb Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the
southern acornshell,

[[Page 14804]]

ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, upland combshell, triangular
kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell, orangenacre mucket, and fine-lined
pocketbook.
(A) Unit 13 includes the Cahaba River from U.S. Highway 82 (T23N
R9E S26), Centerville, Bibb County, upstream to Jefferson County Road
143 (T18S R1E S33), Jefferson County, Alabama; and the Little Cahaba
River from its confluence with the Cahaba River (T24N R10E S21),
upstream to the confluence of Mahan and Shoal Creeks (T24N R11E S14),
Bibb County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 13 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14805]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.016
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xvi) Unit 14. Alabama River, Autauga, Lowndes, Dallas Counties,
Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit

[[Page 14806]]

for the southern clubshell and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 14 includes the Alabama River from the confluence of the
Cahaba River (T16N R10E S32), Dallas County, upstream to the confluence
of Big Swamp Creek (T15N R12E S1), Lowndes County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 14 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14807]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.017
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xvii) Unit 15. Bogue Chitto Creek, Dallas County, Alabama. This is
a critical habitat unit for the southern

[[Page 14808]]

clubshell, Alabama moccasinshell, and orangenacre mucket.
(A) Unit 15 includes the Bogue Chitto Creek main stem from its
confluence with the Alabama River (T14N R8E S24), Dallas County,
upstream to U.S. Highway 80 (T17N R7E S24), Dallas County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 15 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14809]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.018
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xviii) Unit 16. Tallapoosa River, Cleburne County, Alabama, and
Paulding, Haralson Counties, Georgia; Cane Creek, Cleburne County,
Alabama.

[[Page 14810]]

This is a critical habitat unit for the fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 16 includes the main stem Tallapoosa River from U.S.
Highway 431 (T17S R10E S31), Cleburne County, Alabama, upstream to the
confluence of McClendon and Mud Creeks (33 [deg]50' 43''N 85
[deg]00'45'' W), Paulding County, Georgia; and Cane Creek from its
confluence with Tallapoosa River (T16S R10E S24), upstream to section
33/4 Line (T15S, R11E), Cleburne County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 16 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14811]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.019
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xix) Unit 17. Uphapee, Choctafaula, and Chewacla Creeks, Macon,
Lee Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the ovate
clubshell,

[[Page 14812]]

southern clubshell, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 17 includes the mainstem of Uphapee Creek from Alabama
Highway 199 (T17N R23E S3), upstream to the confluence of Opintlocco
and Chewacla Creeks (T17N R24E S26), Macon County, Alabama; Choctafaula
Creek, from confluence with Uphapee Creek (T17N R24E S8), upstream to
Macon County Road 54 (T18N R 25E S31), Macon County, Alabama; Chewacla
Creek, from confluence with Opintlocco Creek (T17N R24E S26), Macon
County, Alabama, upstream to Lee County Road 159 (T18N R26E S18), Lee
County, Alabama; Opintlocco Creek, from confluence with Chewacla Creek
(T17N R24E S26), upstream to Macon County Road 79 (T16N R25E S25) Macon
County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 17 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14813]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.020
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xx) Unit 18. Coosa River (Old River Channel) and Terrapin Creek,
Cherokee, Calhoun, Cleburne Counties, Alabama. This is a critical
habitat unit for the

[[Page 14814]]

southern acornshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, upland
combshell, triangular kidneyshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern
pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 18 includes the Coosa River main stem from the power line
crossing southeast of Maple Grove, Alabama (T10S R8E S35), upstream to
Weiss Dam (T10S R8E S13), Cherokee County, Alabama; Terrapin Creek, 53
km (33 mi) extending from its confluence with the Old Coosa River
channel (T10S R9E S28), Cherokee County, upstream to Cleburne County
Road 49 (T13S R11E S15), Cleburne County, Alabama; South Fork Terrapin
Creek, 7 km (4 mi), from its confluence with Terrapin Creek (T13S R11E
S18), upstream to Cleburne County Road 55 (T13S R11E S30), Cleburne
County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 18 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14815]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.021
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxi) Unit 19. Hatchet Creek, Coosa, Clay Counties, Alabama. This
is a critical habitat unit for the southern acornshell, ovate
clubshell, southern

[[Page 14816]]

clubshell, upland combshell, triangular kidneyshell, Coosa
moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 19 includes the main stem of Hatchet Creek from the
confluence of Swamp Creek at Coosa County Road 29 (T22N R17E S26),
Coosa County, Alabama, upstream to Clay County Road 4 (T22S R6E S17)
Clay County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 19 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14817]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.022
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxii) Unit 20. Shoal Creek, Calhoun, Cleburne Counties, Alabama.
This is a critical habitat unit for the triangular kidneyshell, Coosa
moccasinshell,

[[Page 14818]]

southern pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 20 includes the main stem of Shoal Creek from the
headwater of Whitesides Mill Lake (T15S R9E S12), Calhoun County,
Alabama, upstream to the tailwater of Coleman Lake Dam (T14S R10E S26),
Cleburne County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 20 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14819]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.023
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxiii) Unit 21. Kelly Creek and Shoal Creek, Shelby, St. Clair
Counties, Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the southern
acornshell, ovate

[[Page 14820]]

clubshell, southern clubshell, upland combshell, triangular
kidneyshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and fine-lined
pocketbook.
(A) Unit 21 includes the Kelly Creek main stem extending from the
confluence with the Coosa River (T19S R3E S5), upstream to the
confluence of Shoal Creek (T17S R2E S28), St. Clair County, Alabama;
and the main stem of Shoal Creek from the confluence with Kelly Creek
(T17S R2E S28), St. Clair County, Alabama, upstream to the St. Clair/
Shelby County Line (T17S R2E S30), St. Clair County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 21 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14821]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.024
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxiv) Unit 22. Cheaha Creek, Talladega, Clay Counties, Alabama.
This is a critical habitat unit for the triangular kidneyshell, Coosa

[[Page 14822]]

moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 22 includes the main stem of Cheaha Creek from its
confluence with Choccolocco Creek (T17S R6E S19), Talladega County,
Alabama, upstream to the tailwater of Chinnabee Lake Dam (T18S R7E
S14), Clay County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 22 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14823]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.025
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxv) Unit 23. Yellowleaf Creek and Mud Creek, Shelby County,
Alabama. This is a critical habitat unit for the triangular
kidneyshell, Coosa

[[Page 14824]]

moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 23 includes the Yellowleaf Creek main stem from Alabama
Highway 25 (T20S R2E S29), upstream to Shelby County Road 49 (T20S R1W
S13); and the Muddy Prong main stem extending from its confluence with
Yellowleaf Creek (T20S R1E S1), upstream to U.S. Highway 280 (T19S R1E
S28), Shelby County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 23 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14825]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.026
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxvi) Unit 24. Big Canoe Creek, St. Clair County, Alabama. This is
a critical habitat unit for the southern acornshell, ovate clubshell,
southern clubshell,

[[Page 14826]]

upland combshell, triangular kidneyshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern
pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 24 includes the main stem of Big Canoe Creek from its
confluence with Little Canoe Creek at the St. Clair/Etowah County line
(T13S R5E S17), St. Clair County, upstream to the confluence of Fall
Branch (T14S R1E S28) St. Clair County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 24 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14827]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.027
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxvii) Unit 25. Oostanaula, Coosawattee, and Conasauga Rivers, and
Holly Creek, Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, Murray Counties, Georgia;
Bradley, Polk

[[Page 14828]]

Counties, Tennessee. This is a critical habitat unit for the southern
acornshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, upland combshell,
triangular kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell,
southern pigtoe, and fine-lined pocketbook.
(A) Unit 25 includes the Oostanaula River main stem from its
confluence with the Etowah River, Floyd County, Georgia
(34[deg]15'13''N, 85[deg]10'35''W), upstream to the confluence of the
Conasauga and Coosawattee River, Gordon County, Georgia
(34[deg]32'32''N, 84[deg]54'12''W); the Coosawattee River main stem
from its confluence with the Conasauga River (34[deg]32'32''N,
84[deg]54'12''W), upstream to Georgia State Highway 136, Gordon County,
Georgia (34[deg]36'49''N, 84[deg]46'43''W); the Conasauga River main
stem from confluence with the Coosawattee River (34[deg]32'32''N,
84[deg]54'13''W), Gordon County, Georgia, upstream through Bradley and
Polk Counties, Tennessee, to Murray County Road 2 (34[deg]58'27''N,
84[deg]38'43''W), Murray County, Georgia; and the main stem of Holly
Creek from its confluence with the Conasauga River (34[deg]42'12''N,
84[deg]53'29''W), upstream to its confluence with Rock Creek, Murray
County, Georgia (34[deg]46'59''N, 84[deg]45'25''W).
(B) Map of Unit 25 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14829]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.028
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(xxviii) Unit 26. Lower Coosa River, Elmore County, Alabama. This
is a critical habitat unit for the southern acornshell, ovate
clubshell, southern

[[Page 14830]]

clubshell, upland combshell, triangular kidneyshell, Alabama
moccasinshell, Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, and fine-lined
pocketbook.
(A) Unit 26 includes the Coosa River main stem from Alabama State
Highway 111 bridge (T18N R18/19E S24/19), upstream to Jordan Dam (T19N
R18E S22), Elmore County, Alabama.
(B) Map of Unit 26 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14831]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP26MR03.029
[[Page 14832]]

* * * * *

Dated: March 17, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-6903 Filed 3-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin

Local Navigation