[Federal Register: June 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 119)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35424-35432]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn10-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AX01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Reclassification of the Tulotoma Snail From Endangered to Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to
threatened, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). This proposed action is based on a review of the best
available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the
endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the status of this
snail. We have documented a substantial improvement in the species'
distribution and numbers over the past 15 years, including the
discovery of several populations that were unknown when the species was
listed. Minimum flows and other conservation measures have been
implemented below two dams in the Coosa River, improving habitat and
resulting in the expansion of tulotoma snail numbers and range in the
Coosa River. The Alabama Clean Water Partnership has also developed the
Lower Coosa River Basin Management Plan to address nonpoint source
pollution and watershed management issues in most Coosa River
tributaries occupied by the tulotoma snail. While great strides have
been made to improve the species status, additional efforts are
required to address the remaining threats to the species. We are
seeking comments from the public on this proposal.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
August 23, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by August 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2008-0119.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AW08; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA
22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally
[[Page 35425]]
means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see
the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Aycock, Field Supervisor, Jackson
Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A
Jackson, MS 39213-7856 (telephone 601/321-1122; facsimile 601/965-
4340). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we are requesting
comments from other concerned government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, Tribes, or any other interested party concerning
this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial, trade, or other relevant data
concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the tulotoma snail;
(2) Additional information on the range, distribution, and
population size of the tulotoma snail and its habitat;
(3) The location of any additional populations of the tulotoma
snail;
(4) Data on tulotoma snail population trends; and
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the tulotoma snail that may impact or benefit the species.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours at the Jackson Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Public Hearing
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal
Register publication (see DATES). Such requests must be made in writing
and addressed to the Field Supervisor (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above).
Background
The tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) is a gill-breathing,
operculate snail in the family Viviparidae. Operculate means that the
snail has a rounded plate that seals the mouth of the shell while the
snail is inside. The shell is globular, reaching a size somewhat larger
than a golf ball, and typically ornamented with spiral lines of knob-
like structures (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 815). Its adult size and
ornamentation distinguish it from all other freshwater snails in the
Coosa-Alabama River system. The tulotoma snail is normally referred to
as simply the tulotoma in literature so from this point forward in this
rule we will use this approach.
The tulotoma was described from the Alabama River in 1834 by T.A.
Conrad, and collection records indicate a historical range of around
563 kilometers (km) (350 miles (mi)) in the Coosa and Alabama River
drainages of Alabama (Herschler et al. 1990, pp. 815-817). Historical
collection localities in the Coosa River System included numerous sites
on the river itself as well as the lower reaches of several of its
large tributaries in St. Clair, Calhoun, Talladega, Shelby, Chilto,
Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama (Herschler et al. 1990, pp. 815-
817). The tulotoma was only recorded from two collection localities in
the Alabama River System, the type locality near Claiborne, Monroe
County, Alabama, and Chilachee Creek southwest of Selma, Dallas County,
Alabama (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 815).
Tulotoma occur in cool, well-oxygenated, clean, free-flowing rivers
and the lower portions of the rivers' larger tributaries (Herschler et
al. 1990, p. 822). This species is generally found in riffles and
shoals with moderate to strong currents, and has been collected at
depths over 5 meters (m) (15 feet (ft)) (Hartfield 1991, p. 7). The
species is strongly associated with boulder, cobble, and bedrock stream
bottoms and is generally found clinging tightly to the underside of
large rocks or between cracks in bedrock (Christman et al. 1996, p.
28).
Christman et al. (1996, pp. 45-59) studied the life history of
tulotoma in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, Elmore County, Alabama.
Tulotoma produce live born offspring year round, but reproduction peaks
during the months of May to July, and at sizes of about 3 to 5
millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.2 inches (in)) height of last whorl (HLW) or
coil in a tulotoma shell. They grow rapidly during their first year
reaching sizes of 11 to 14 mm (0.4 to 0.5 in), with females producing
an average of 16 offspring. Females that live beyond their second year
grow more slowly, and produce an average 28 juveniles per year.
Christman et al. (1996, p. 61) found that few tulotoma survived longer
than 2 years of life in the lower Coosa River.
At the time of listing in 1991, the tulotoma was known from five
localized areas in the lower Coosa River drainage (56 FR 797; January
9, 1991). These included approximately a 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of the
lower Coosa River between Jordan Dam and the City of Wetumpka (Elmore
County, Alabama), and short reaches of four tributaries: 2 km (1.2 mi)
of Kelly Creek (St. Clair and Shelby Counties, Alabama), 4 km (2.4 mi)
of Weogufka Creek, and 3 km (1.8 mi) of Hatchet Creek (Coosa County,
Alabama), and from a single shoal on Ohatchee Creek (Calhoun County,
Alabama) (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 819). Each river reach is
considered a population. A population can contain one or more colonies.
A colony is defined as the tulotoma found under one rock or several
rocks in close proximity to each other. A site is considered a specific
location within the river reach, where specific colonies are located.
Spatial distribution and trends of these five tulotoma populations
have been monitored for periods of 9 to 12 years (depending on the
population) since 1991 (DeVries 2005, p. 3). The lower Coosa River
population has expanded throughout a 10-km (6-mi) reach (Christman et
al. 1996, pp. 23-25; DeVries 2005, p. 14; Hartfield 1991), and the
species' numbers in this reach are estimated at over 100 million
tulotoma (Christman et al. 1996, p. 59). Habitat in the Coosa River
below Jordan Dam has improved and expanded due to implementation of a
minimum flow regime below the dam and installation of an aeration
system (Christman et al. 1996, p. 59, Grogan 2005, p. 3).
The overall density of tributary populations has not been
estimated; however, colony size and distribution of tulotoma within the
tributaries has been monitored and appear to be stable within a 13.7-km
(8.5-mi) reach of Weogufka Creek, a 14-km (8.8-mi) reach of Hatchet
Creek, and a 5.8-km (3.6-mi) reach of Kelly Creek (DeVries 2005, pp.11-
13). Habitat conditions within these three tributaries appear to have
remained stable since listing (DeVries
[[Page 35426]]
2005, p. 4; 2008, pp. 5-9). The Kelly Creek tulotoma population has
expanded into an approximately 8-km (5-mi) reach of the middle Coosa
River above and below the confluence of Kelly Creek (Garner 2003,
Powell 2005, Lochamy 2005), apparently as a result of implementation of
pulsing flows below Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen levels
(Krotzer 2008).
No tulotoma have been rediscovered from the Ohatchee Creek shoal
population for 15 years, and it is now believed to be extirpated
(DeVries 2005, pp.10). Impacts of nonpoint source pollution at the
Ohatchee shoal, including excessive sedimentation and algal growth,
have been observed (Hartfield 1992).
Since 1991, tulotoma populations have also been located at six
additional locations, three in the Coosa River drainage, and three in
the Alabama River. (DeVries 2005, p. 7; Garner 2003, 2006, 2008;
Johnson 2008). In the lower Coosa River drainage the tulotoma has been
discovered surviving in a 0.8-km (0.5-mi) reach of Choccolocco Creek, a
0.4-km (0.25-mi) reach of Yellowleaf Creek, and about 2 km (1.2 mi) of
Weoka Creek (DeVries 2005, pp. 10-13). The tulotoma population's range,
colony size, and habitat in Choccolocco Creek have remained relatively
stable since monitoring began in 1995 (DeVries 2005, p. 4). Tulotoma
colony sizes in Weoka Creek have reached higher densities than any
other tributary population; however, population trends have been
monitored for only 3 years (DeVries 2005, p. 5). The Yellowleaf Creek
tulotoma population is extremely localized and has not been monitored;
however, occasional spot checks show the species continues to persist
(Johnson 2006).
The additional three new populations were discovered in the Alabama
River. A single localized colony was discovered near the type locality
in the lower Alabama River below Claiborne Lock and Dam, Monroe County,
Alabama (Garner 2006). Additionally, dead tulotoma shells were found in
appropriate habitat over a 1.6-km (1.0-mi) reach (Garner 2006). During
the summer of 2008, two colonies were located near Selma, Dallas
County, Alabama (Johnson 2008), and a single robust colony containing
approximately 150 tulotoma was discovered below R.F. Henry Lock and
Dam, Autauga-Lowndes Counties, Alabama (Garner 2008). Both juvenile and
adult tulotoma were present at the three sites. A single localized
colony was also discovered below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Wilcox
County, Alabama (Powell 2008). For additional details of the expansion
of the tulotoma range, see the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' discussion below.
Previous Federal Actions
The proposed rule to list the tulotoma as an endangered species was
published on July 11, 1990 (55 FR 28573). The final rule listing the
tulotoma as an endangered species was published on January 9, 1991 (56
FR 797). Recovery criteria for the tulotoma were outlined in the Mobile
River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2000). A 5-year review on the status of the tulotoma was
completed on February 29, 2008, and can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/TulotomaSnail.pdf.
Additional information regarding these previous Federal actions for the
tulotoma can be obtained by consulting the species' regulatory profile
found at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/
SpeciesReport.do?spcode=G04X.
Recovery Achieved
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead
intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners
on methods of minimizing threats to a listed species and improving its
status, and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is
achieved. In 1994, the recovery goal, criteria, and tasks for the
tulotoma were first proposed in the Technical Draft Mobile River Basin
Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994,
p. 21). The Technical Draft Recovery Plan stated that the tulotoma
could be reclassified to threatened status when an in-progress study
documented a stable or increasing population size due to flow and
habitat improvements in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam.
The 1994 draft plan received wide review and interest, which
resulted in the formation of the Mobile River Aquatic Ecosystem
Coalition (Ecosystem Coalition), formed by representatives of State and
Federal agencies, and business and citizen groups from throughout the
Mobile River Basin (Basin). The first task of the Ecosystem Coalition
was to produce a draft of an ecosystem plan addressing all listed
aquatic species in the Basin. By the time the final Mobile River Basin
Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Ecosystem Plan) was published (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) studies had been completed showing that
status of tulotoma in the Coosa River had improved considerably due to
habitat improvements. Therefore, the recovery criteria for
reclassification of tulotoma to threatened status were modified to
recommend reclassification to threatened status upon completion of a
status review confirming a stable or increasing population of tulotoma
in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2000, p. 21).
Our recent 5-year review of the tulotoma has documented an increase
in extent and size of tulotoma populations in the Coosa River below
Jordan Dam, an increase in range of 3 of 4 tributary populations known
at the time of listing, and discovery of 6 previously unknown extant
populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).
The 2000 Ecosystem Plan addressed protecting habitat integrity and
improving habitat quality, reducing impacts from permitted activities,
promoting watershed stewardship, conducting basic research,
establishing propagation programs if necessary, and monitoring species
population size and distribution. Some recovery actions accomplished in
the Coosa River under this plan include the establishment of minimum
flows below Jordan Dam to improve habitat conditions in that reach, and
the implementation of pulsing flows below Logan Martin Dam to improve
dissolved oxygen in that reach. Watershed management plans have also
been developed to address nonpoint source pollution in the lower Coosa
Basin and the Alabama River Basin. These and other recovery
accomplishments addressing threats to the tulotoma are presented in
more detail in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' below.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from listed status.
Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. ``Range'' refers to the range in which the species currently
exists and is discussed further in the Conclusion section of this
proposal below.
``Foreseeable future'' is determined by the Service on a case-by-
case basis, taking into consideration a variety of species-specific
factors such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, demography,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. The
average lifespan of a tulotoma is about two years, with
[[Page 35427]]
females becoming fertile at the end of their first year. Tulotoma
produce live-born offspring year-round; however, reproduction peaks in
late spring and early summer. In monitoring of all tulotoma
populations, multiple cohorts have been found which suggests
demographic stability over time. As discussed further below, the
primary threats to the tulotoma have been the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A), the
inadequacies of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and other natural or
manmade factors (Factor E). These threats can occur during variable
timeframes, ranging from specific activities which can arise at any
time, to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management's 5-year
surface water quality assessment program, to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's 50-year hydroelectric certification of dams.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we define foreseeable future as
a 20-year period, which encompasses 20 generations of tulotoma.
We evaluate whether the species must be listed as endangered or
threatened because of one or more of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as
endangered or threatened, we evaluate both the threats currently facing
the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the
species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections. The
following analysis examines all five factors currently affecting or
that are likely to affect tulotoma within the foreseeable future.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate all five
factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the tulotoma
to determine whether the currently listed species is threatened or
endangered. The five factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and their application to the tulotoma are:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. When listed in 1991, the tulotoma
was believed to inhabit less than 2 percent of its 563-km (350-mi)
historical range. A Coosa River population of tulotoma was known to
survive below Jordan Dam. Populations were also known from four Coosa
River tributaries: Kelly, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Ohatchee Creeks. All
of these populations were isolated by dams and impounded waters and
considered to be vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution. Population
trends were unknown, but were believed to be possibly declining.
At the time of listing, hydropower discharges were limiting the
range and abundance of tulotoma to only a 3-km (1.8-mi) reach of the
Coosa River below Jordan Dam. Water discharges for hydropower purposes
were released from Jordan Dam for only 2.25 hours per day, and flow
consisted of only dam seepage at other times. As a result of the low
water quantity, water quality problems, particularly low dissolved
oxygen and elevated temperatures, were a significant limiting factor to
tulotoma below Jordan Dam. In 1992, the Alabama Power Company (APC)
established minimum flows in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, and
later installed a draft tube aeration system to ensure dissolved oxygen
levels are maintained at or above State standards (Grogan 2005, pp. 2-
3). The APC also initiated studies to document the range, numbers,
demographics, and life history of tulotoma in the reach of the Coosa
River below Jordan Dam and to determine the effects of the new minimum
flow regime (Christman et al. 1996, p. 18). Other studies were also
conducted to monitor long-term population trends in this reach of river
(e.g., De Vries 2005). As a result, numerous tulotoma colonies have
been discovered or become established in the upper portion of the
reach, and in the downstream areas the tulotoma has extended its range
laterally within the channel in habitats made available by the constant
minimum flows. Thousands of colonies consisting of millions of tulotoma
now inhabit a 10-km (6-mi) reach of the Coosa River below the Jordan
Dam (Christman et al. 1996, p. 59; DeVries 2004, pp. 8-10, 2005 p. 14).
In 1991, tulotoma were also known to occur in 2 km (1.2 mi) of
Kelly Creek, 4 km (2.4 mi) of Weogufka Creek, 3 km (1.8 mi) of Hatchet
Creek, and from a single shoal on Ohatchee Creek (Herschler et al.
1990, p. 819). These four known tributary populations of tulotoma were
considered to be extremely localized, vulnerable to water quality or
channel degradation, and susceptible to decline and extirpation from
effects of nonpoint source pollution and stochastic events within their
respective watersheds. Studies and surveys since listing have extended
the known range of three of these populations, and tulotoma is now
known to occur in a 13.7-km (8.5-mi) reach of Weogufka Creek, a 14-km
(8.8-mi) reach of Hatchet Creek, and a 5.8-km (3.6-mi) reach of Kelly
Creek (DeVries 2005 pp. 11-13). Tulotoma colony sizes within these
three populations have remained stable over a 12-year period (DeVries
2005, pp. 11-13). The Kelly Creek tulotoma population has expanded into
an approximately 8-km (5-mi) reach of the middle Coosa River above and
below the confluence of Kelly Creek (Garner 2003, Powell 2005, Lochamy
2005), apparently as a result of implementation of pulsing flows below
Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen levels (Krotzer 2008). No
tulotoma have been relocated from the Ohatchee Creek shoal population
for 15 years, and it is now believed to be extirpated (DeVries 2005,
p.10).
Although the Ohatchee Creek population has apparently become
extirpated (DeVries 2005, p. 10), other tributary stream surveys have
located three populations in the Lower Coosa River drainage that were
unknown at the time of listing. Tulotoma are now known from a 0.8-km
(0.5-mi) reach of Choccolocco Creek, a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) reach of
Yellowleaf Creek, and about 2 km (1.2 mi) of Weoka Creek (DeVries 2005,
pp. 10-13). Although very localized, the Choccolocco Creek population
has remained stable in colony size and numbers over the past decade
(DeVries 2005, pp. 10-11). The Weoka Creek population has only been
sampled twice since its discovery; however, tulotoma colonies are
abundant in the stream reach, and average colony size is larger than
any other tributary population (DeVries 2005, pp.13-14.) The Yellowleaf
Creek population is localized, small, and has not been routinely
monitored; however, occasional spot checks show the species continues
to persist (Johnson 2006).
Tulotoma colonies have also been discovered at three locations in
the Alabama River: Near the type locality in Monroe County, Alabama
(Garner 2006); a locality in Dallas County, Alabama (Johnson 2008); and
at a location in Autauga-Lowndes Counties, Alabama (Garner 2008). The
presence of juvenile and adult tulotoma at the three sites indicates
that the newly discovered colonies are self-maintaining. In addition, a
single localized colony was also recently discovered in Wilcox County,
Alabama (Powell 2008).
The 1991 listing rule (56 FR 797) noted the vulnerability of
localized tributary populations to nonpoint source pollution,
specifically siltation from construction activities. The extirpation of
the Ohatchee Creek population is suspected due to sedimentation and
nutrient enrichment from nonpoint sources in the watershed. Although
other monitored tulotoma populations have remained stable or expanded
since listing, they remain
[[Page 35428]]
vulnerable to water and habitat quality degradation, particularly in
the tributaries. Lower Choccolocco Creek is on the State list of
impaired waters for organic pollution due to contaminated sediments
(Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) 2006 p. 5).
Yellowleaf Creek and several other lower Coosa River watersheds have
been identified as High Priority Watersheds (i.e., vulnerable to
degradation) by the Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP) (ACWP 2005a,
Chapter 12) due to the high potential of nonpoint source pollution
associated with expanding human population growth rates and
urbanization. For example, the headwaters of Yellowleaf Creek are about
5 km (3 mi) southeast of the greater metropolitan area surrounding
Birmingham, Alabama, and the watershed is highly dissected by county
roads. High sediment discharge has been identified as an issue in Kelly
Creek (ACWP in prep., p. 43), and potential fecal coliform problems
have been documented at several locations in Choccolocco Creek (ACWP in
prep., p. 38). However, the ACWP has also developed locally endorsed
and supported plans to address nonpoint source pollution and maintain
and improve water quality in the lower Coosa River Basin (ACWP 2005a,
pp. 3.1-3.48) and in the middle Coosa River Basin (AWCP in prep., pp.
49-50) (see Factor D section below for further detail on monitoring
plans). Full implementation of current programs and plans will reduce
the vulnerability of tributary populations to nonpoint source
pollution.
In summary, the range of tulotoma has increased from 6 populations
occupying 2 percent of its historical range in 1991, to 11 populations
occupying 10 percent of the historical range. In addition, these
populations are found in a wide range of historically occupied
habitats, including large coastal plain river, large high-gradient
rivers, and multiple upland tributary streams. Populations known at the
time of listing have been monitored and, with the exception of Ohatchee
Creek, found to be stable or increasing. Four of the six populations
discovered since 1991 have been monitored for 2 to 12 years. The
Choccolocco Creek population has remained stable for 12 years. The
Yellowleaf Creek population has not been routinely monitored and we
cannot determine a population trend beyond mere presence or absence;
however, occasional spot checks show the species continues to persist
(Johnson 2006). The Weoka Creek and Lower Alabama River populations
have been observed and monitored for a period of 4 and 2 years,
respectively; however, this is not a sufficient amount of time to be
able to determine a population trend.
Habitat-related threats have been addressed in the Coosa River
through establishing minimum flows or pulsing flows below Jordan and
Logan Martin Dam, respectively. Habitat conditions have improved;
occupied habitat has expanded in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam; and
tulotoma numbers are now estimated at greater than 100 million
individuals. The ranges of tulotoma populations in Kelly, Weogufka, and
Hatchet Creek have expanded 2 to 5 fold since listing. Tulotoma colony
densities within these populations have remained stable or expanded.
Tulotoma remains extirpated from approximately 90 percent of its
historical range, and surviving populations remain isolated, localized,
and vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution. These conditions are
expected to continue for the foreseeable future. While monitored
populations have persisted and expanded over the past two decades, and
a program to address nonpoint source pollution in the Coosa and Alabama
rivers and their tributaries has been established by ACWP and ADEM, the
tulotoma continues to be threatened by the destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat and range such that the tulotoma is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Overutilization was not a threat when the species
was listed in 1991 but the final listing rule noted the vulnerability
and susceptibility of the localized populations to overcollecting
should the tulotoma with its ornate shell become important to the
commercial pet trade (56 FR 797; January 9, 1991). However, there has
been no evidence to date that any commercial use in the pet trade
industry has occurred.
Overutilization for any purpose is not currently considered a
threat, and is not anticipated to emerge as a threat within the
foreseeable future.
C. Disease or predation. The January 9, 1991, final rule (56 FR
797) listing the tulotoma found no evidence of disease or predation as
a threat, and we are not aware of any evidence since listing that
suggests tulotoma is threatened by disease or predation or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. At the time of
the 1991 listing, existing laws were considered inadequate to protect
the tulotoma. It was not officially recognized by Alabama as needing
any special protection or given any special consideration under other
environmental laws when project impacts were reviewed.
Tulotoma are now protected under State law from take or commerce.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR)
recognize tulotoma as a Species of Highest Conservation Concern
(Mirarchi et al. 2004, p. 120; ADCNR 2005, p 301). The persistence of
tulotoma and the improvement of some populations over time is an
indication that existing regulatory mechanisms are now providing some
measure of consideration and protection of the species. For example,
the Alabama Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program has been
implemented to identify and reduce water pollution in impaired waters
(ADEM 2007). Under this program, Choccolocco Creek has been identified
as impaired, and plans are under development to remove contaminated
sediments. The Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP) has been
organized to educate and coordinate public participation in water
quality issues, particularly nonpoint source pollution and
implementation of TMDLs (http://www.cleanwaterpartnership.org). The
ACWP, in coordination with ADEM, has developed a Lower Coosa River
Basin Management Plan and an Alabama River Basin Management Plan to
address nonpoint source pollution and watershed management issues (AWCP
2005a, p. I; AWCP 2005b, p. xv-xvii). The Lower Coosa Plan includes the
watersheds of the Yellowleaf, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Weoka Creek
populations, along with the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, while the
Alabama River Basin Plan includes the watersheds of the newly
discovered Alabama River tulotoma population. A draft Middle Coosa
River Basin Management Plan, which includes Choccolocco and Kelly
Creeks, is under development (AWCP in prep., pp. i, v-vi, 43). These
plans are a mechanism to identify water quality problems in the
drainages, educate the public, and coordinate activities to maintain
and improve water quality in the basins; however, they have yet to be
fully implemented.
Federal status under the Act continues to provide additional
protections to the tulotoma not available under State laws. For
example, during recent water shortages due to an
[[Page 35429]]
extended drought in the Southeast, emergency consultation under section
7 of the Act was conducted between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and APC representatives on
efforts to conserve water by decreasing minimum flows below Jordan Dam.
The consultation identified measures to be implemented to minimize
impacts to tulotoma and monitor the effects of the reductions (e.g.,
FERC 2007, pp 1-8). Therefore, but for the protections of the Act, the
tulotoma is still threatened by the inadequacies of existing regulatory
mechanisms such that it is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Random events such as droughts and chemical spills
(stochastic events), and genetic drift were identified in the final
listing rule as threats to the species due to its restricted range,
isolation of the populations, and the inability for genetic exchange
between populations to occur. The tulotoma's restricted range and
isolation remain the greatest cause of concern for the species'
continued existence, and are factors that further compound the effects
of the other threats identified above. Each population is vulnerable to
changes in land use within their respective watershed that might result
in detrimental impacts (e.g., urbanization and increased nonpoint
pollution). All populations also remain independently vulnerable to
stochastic threats such as droughts or chemical spills. These threats,
however, have been somewhat offset by the extension of the ranges of
the populations known at listing, and by the discovery of additional
populations within the historical range of the species.
In general, larger populations are more resilient to stochastic
events than extremely small populations. For example, due to the
extended 2007 drought in the Southeast, minimum flows below Jordan Dam
were ramped down in order to conserve water in upstream reservoirs for
water supply and hydroelectric production. The reduction in flows
resulted in the stranding and estimated mortality of more than 73,000
tulotoma (APC 2008, 43). Although this loss was relatively
insignificant in a population estimated at more than 100 million
individual tulotoma, it demonstrates the vulnerability of range-
restricted populations to stochastic events. Other drought impacts
noted below Jordan Dam included high amounts of suspended algal
material and fine sediment deposition (Powell 2008).
The documentation of more tulotoma populations distributed in
different watersheds makes range-wide extinction from localized
activities or stochastic threats less likely. In addition, although
populations remain isolated from each other, the robust size of most
populations reduces the threat of genetic drift and bottlenecks.
However, each tulotoma population remains vulnerable to natural or
human-induced stochastic events within its respective watershed, as
demonstrated by the loss of the Ohatchee Creek population. Assessments
of five tulotoma tributary populations following the severe 2007
drought found little to no changes in distribution and density of the
tulotoma in Kelly, Weogufka, Hatchet, or Choccolocco Creeks (DeVries
2008, p. 3-15). However, tulotoma recruitment was not observed in the
Choccolocco Creek population (DeVries 2008, pp. 9-11), and colony
densities had declined at Weoka Creek (DeVries 2008, p. 15). The
assessment was unable to determine if the Weoka Creek tulotoma decline
was attributed to the drought or human impacts (DeVries 2008, p. 15).
Therefore, Factor E is still a threat to the tulotoma such that it is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Conclusion
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
tulotoma in preparing this proposed rule. As identified above, three of
the five listing factors continue to pose a known threat to the
tulotoma: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2000) criteria state that the tulotoma should be
considered for reclassification from endangered to threatened status
when an updated status review of the species was completed, and
confirmation made of a stable or increasing tulotoma population in the
Coosa River below Jordan Dam. The 5-year review of the status of
tulotoma has documented an increase in extent and size of tulotoma
populations in the Coosa River, Kelly Creek, Weogufka Creek, and
Hatchet Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Threats to the
species have also been reduced due to habitat improvements in the Coosa
River, the identification of six drainage populations of the species
that were unknown at the time of listing, development of watershed
management plans, and protection of tulotoma under State laws. However,
delisting criteria have not been fulfilled for the tulotoma as
watershed plans that protect and monitor water quality and habitat
quality in occupied watersheds have not been fully implemented.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the tulotoma meets the definition of
threatened, we must next consider whether there are any significant
portions of its range that are in danger of extinction. On March 16,
2007, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of
the Interior, ``The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All
or a Significant Portion of Its Range'' (U.S. DOI 2007). We have
summarized our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying
statutory language below. A portion of a species' range is significant
if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to
the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to
the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or
endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any
portions of the range that warrant further consideration. The range of
a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2)
the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. If any
concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are
unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions will not
warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we
then determine whether in fact the species is
[[Page 35430]]
threatened or endangered in any significant portion of its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient in some cases for the Service to
address the significance question first, and in others the status
question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the
range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the
species is threatened or endangered there; conversely, if the Service
determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a
portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is
significant.
The terms ``resiliency,'' ``redundancy,'' and ``representation''
are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of
the range. Resiliency of a species allows the species to recover from
periodic disturbance. A species will likely be more resilient if large
populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed
throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the
environmental variability within the range of the species. It is likely
that the larger size of a population will help contribute to the
viability of the species. Thus, a portion of the range of a species may
make a meaningful contribution to the resiliency of the species if the
area is relatively large and contains particularly high-quality habitat
or if its location or characteristics make it less susceptible to
certain threats than other portions of the range. When evaluating
whether or how a portion of the range contributes to resiliency of the
species, it may help to evaluate the historical value of the portion
and how frequently the portion is used by the species. In addition, the
portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons--for instance,
it may contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat
that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history
functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or
wintering.
Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of
safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not
mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion
of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the
range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few
populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether
that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the
conservation of the species.
Adequate representation insures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be
evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the
species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially
reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future
environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute
meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides
genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species'
habitat requirements.
For the tulotoma we applied the process described above to
determine whether any portions of the range warranted further
consideration for an endangered status. We concluded through the five-
factor analysis, in particular Factors A, D, and E that the existing or
potential threats are consistent throughout its range, and there is no
portion of the range where one or more threats is geographically
concentrated. Because the low level of threats to the species is
essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion warrants further
consideration.
Habitat quality is variable throughout the range of the tulotoma.
However, the basic biological components necessary for the tulotoma to
complete its life history are present throughout the areas currently
occupied by each population, and there is no particular location or
area that provides a unique or biologically significant function
necessary for tulotoma recovery. The quantity of habitat available to
each surviving population of tulotoma is also variable. Although the
threats identified above are common to all areas currently occupied by
tulotoma, the magnitude of the threats are likely higher in the stream
reaches where tulotoma colonies are currently extremely localized, such
as Yellowleaf and Choccolocco creeks and the Alabama River. However,
due to habitat limitations and the resulting small range of tulotoma in
each of these stream reaches (each less than 2 percent of currently
occupied range) they are not significant to the species in a noticeable
or measurable way. Therefore, we have determined that there are no
portions of the range that qualify as a significant portion of the
range in which the tulotoma is in danger of extinction.
In summary, based on habitat improvements, the numbers of tulotoma
populations now known (8 discrete drainage populations), the robust
size of most of these populations (numbering in the thousands to tens
of millions of individual tulotoma), the stability of monitored
populations over the past 15 years, and current efforts toward
watershed quality protection, planning, and monitoring, we have
determined that none of the existing or potential threats, either alone
or in combination with others, are likely to cause the tulotoma to
become ``in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range.'' We have determined that threats still exist to the tulotoma,
specifically as a result of water quality and quantity issues as
discussed in Factors A, D, and E. Due to these continued threats, we
believe the tulotoma meets the definition of threatened, and,
therefore, we are proposing to downlist its status from endangered to
threatened under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of
threats to the tulotoma, and promotes conservation actions by Federal,
State, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The
Act provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the
States, and provides for recovery planning and implementation. The
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to the tulotoma. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a Federal action may affect the
tulotoma or its habitat, the responsible Federal agency must consult
with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the tulotoma. Federal agency actions that may require
consultation include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the
issuance of permits for reservoir construction, stream alterations,
discharges, wastewater facility development, water withdrawal projects,
pesticide registration, mining, and road and bridge construction.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR
17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harm, harass, and
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture
[[Page 35431]]
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct), import or
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species of wildlife. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to Service agents and agents
of State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, permits are also
available for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office, 1208-B Main Street,
Daphne, Alabama 36526 (telephone 251/441-5181). Requests for copies of
the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (telephone 404/679-7217, facsimile 404/679-
7081).
Effects of This Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reclassify the tulotoma from endangered to threatened on the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. However, this reclassification does
not significantly change the protection afforded this species under the
Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing a
tulotoma, or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 is subject to a
penalty under section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act,
all Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund,
or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the tulotoma.
Should this rule become final, recovery objectives and criteria for
tulotoma will be revised in the Recovery Plan. Recovery actions
directed at the tulotoma will continue to be implemented as outlined in
the current Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000),
including: (1) Protecting habitat integrity and quality; (2) informing
the public about recovery needs of tulotoma; (3) conducting basic
research on the tulotoma and applying the results toward management and
protection of the species and its habitats; (4) identifying
opportunities to extend the range of the species; and (5) monitoring
the populations.
Finalization of this proposed rule would not constitute an
irreversible commitment on our part. Reclassification of the tulotoma
to endangered status would be possible if changes occur in management,
population status, habitat, or other actions that would detrimentally
affect the populations or increase threats to the species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (50 FR
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists for peer review of this
proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We
will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed downlisting. We will
summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision
document, and we will consider their input, and any additional
information we receive, as part of our process of making a final
decision on the proposal. Such communication may lead to a final
regulation that differs from this proposal.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320,
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB
before collecting information from the public. This proposed rule does
not contain any new collections of information that require approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rule will not
impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species 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 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 affected by this proposal.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 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. This proposed rule is
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this
[[Page 35432]]
action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available upon request from
the Jackson, Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author
The primary author of this document is Paul Hartfield, Jackson,
Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Therefore, for the reasons stated 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. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for ``Snail, tulotoma'' under SNAILS
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SNAILS
* * * * * * *
Snail, tulotoma.................. Tulotoma magnifica.. U.S.A. (AL)........ Entire............. T 412 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: May 13, 2010.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14708 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P