[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31866-31874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13687]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AX01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification
of the Tulotoma Snail From Endangered to Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify
the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to threatened,
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). This action is based on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial data, which indicates that the endangered
designation no longer correctly reflects the status of this snail.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson Ecological
Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS
39213 (telephone 601-321-1122; facsimile 601-965-4340).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor,
Mississippi 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: This document consists of a final rule to
reclassify the tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to
threatened, under the authority of the Act.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the reclassification of the tulotoma snail from endangered to
threatened. For information on our proposed
[[Page 31867]]
determination, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35424).
The tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica), henceforth ``tulotoma,''
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 spherical
and can reach 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 is found only in the State of Alabama. It 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 from
the Coosa River in St. Clair and Calhoun Counties, Alabama, to the
Alabama River in Monroe County, 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, Chilton, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama
(Herschler et al. 1990, pp. 815-817). In the Alabama River system, the
tulotoma was recorded only from two collection localities: 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
streams, including rivers and the lower portions of the rivers' larger
tributaries (Herschler et al. 1990, p. 822). This species is generally
found in shoals (a shallow place in a body of water) and riffles (a
rocky shoal lying just below the surface of the water) with moderate to
strong currents. Although this species is typically associated with
shoals and riffles, it inhabits rivers that rise and fall, and tulotoma
have been collected at depths more than 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). Historical habitats included
large coastal plain river, large high-gradient rivers, and multiple
upland tributary streams.
Based on a study of the tulotoma life history 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
(Christman et al. 1996, pp. 45-59). 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 in their second year (Christman et
al. 1996, pp. 45-59). Females that live beyond their second year grow
more slowly and produce an average of 28 juveniles per year (Christman
et al.1996, pp. 45-59); few tulotoma survived longer than 2 years of
life in the lower Coosa River (Christman et al. 1996, p. 61).
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-kilometer (km) (1.8-mile
(mi)) reach (section of river) 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, and a population can
contain one or more colonies. A colony is defined as the tulotoma found
under one rock or several adjacent rocks. A site is considered a
specific location within the river reach, where specific colonies are
located.
Spatial distribution and trends of four of these five tulotoma
populations (all populations except Ohatchee Creek) were monitored
annually between 1992 and 1995, and again in 1999, and 2004 (DeVries
2005, p. 3). The lower Coosa River population has expanded throughout a
10-km (6-mi) reach (Hartfield 1991, Christman et al. 1996, pp. 23-25;
DeVries 2005, p. 14), and the species' numbers in this reach are
estimated at more than 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).
Colony size and distribution of tulotoma within the tributaries
have 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 2005, p. 4; 2008, pp. 5-9). The Kelly
Creek tulotoma population has expanded into suitable habitat in 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), likely 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 its listing in 1991, tulotoma populations have also been
located at six additional locations: Three in the Coosa River drainage
and three in the Alabama River. (Garner 2003, 2006, 2008; DeVries 2005,
p. 7; 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 (found in a
small area in the creek that is isolated from other populations) and
has not been monitored; however, occasional spot checks show the
species continues to persist (Johnson 2006).
The other three new populations were discovered in the Alabama
River, one below each of three dams: Claiborne Lock and Dam (one
colony), R.F. Henry Lock and Dam (three colonies), and Millers Ferry
Lock and Dam (one colony). 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 of the Alabama River (Garner
[[Page 31868]]
2006). During the summer of 2008, two colonies were located near Selma,
Dallas County, Alabama (Johnson 2008), and a single robust (healthy or
vigorous) colony containing approximately 150 tulotoma was discovered
below R.F. Henry Lock and Dam, Autauga and 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 about the expansion of the tulotoma range, see the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, below.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for this species prior to June 22, 2010, are
outlined in our proposed rule for this reclassification (75 FR 35424).
Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which
closed on August 23, 2010.
Recovery Achieved
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead
intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed
species, define criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is
achieved, and provide guidance to our Federal, State, other
governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods to minimize
threats to listed species. There are many paths to accomplishing
recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all
criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be
exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that
instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently
and the species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to
threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be
discovered that were not known when the recovery plan was finalized.
These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the
recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that
was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new
information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for
recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
In 1994, the recovery goal, criteria, and tasks for the tulotoma
were first proposed in the Technical/Agency Draft Mobile River Basin
Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Technical Draft 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 a population study, in progress at the time, documented a
stable or increasing population size due to flow and habitat
improvements in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam (Devries 2005).
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. The first task of the Ecosystem Coalition was to
produce a draft of an ecosystem plan addressing all listed aquatic
species in the Mobile River Basin. By the time the final Mobile River
Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) was published
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), studies had been completed
showing that the status of tulotoma in the Coosa River had improved
considerably due to habitat improvements (Christman et al. 1996,
DeVries 2005). Therefore, the recovery criterion for reclassification
of tulotoma to threatened status was 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 documented an increase in
the extent and size of tulotoma populations in the Coosa River below
Jordan Dam, an increase in range and number of colonies and individuals
in 3 of 4 tributary populations known at the time of listing, and
discovery of 6 previously unknown populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2008).
The 2000 Recovery 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 for all species addressed in the
Recovery Plan. 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 section, below.
Summary of Opportunity for Public Input
During the open comment period for the proposed rule (75 FR 35424),
we requested that all interested parties submit comments or information
concerning the proposed reclassification of tulotoma from endangered to
threatened. We directly notified and requested comments from the State
of Alabama. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies,
county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and
other interested parties and invited them to comment. We also published
newspaper notices inviting public comment in the following newspapers:
Daily Home, Talladega, Alabama; Monroe Journal, Monroe, Alabama;
Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery, Alabama; and Selma Times Journal,
Selma, Alabama. During the comment period, we received no public
comments.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) December 16, 2004, Final Information Bulletin for Peer
Review (OMB 2004), we requested the independent opinions of four
knowledgeable individuals with expertise on the tulotoma, freshwater
mollusks, the Mobile River Basin, and conservation biology principles.
The purpose of such review is to ensure that the reclassification is
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses,
including input of appropriate experts and specialists. We received a
single comment from a peer reviewer stating that the proposed rule was
comprehensive and accurate, and recommending that we include reference
to a summary journal article that was not cited in the proposed rule.
This article has been referenced, where appropriate, in the Background
section, above.
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 the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species.
``Species'' is
[[Page 31869]]
defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants and any distinct vertebrate population segment of
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Once the ``species'' is determined, we then evaluate whether that
species may be endangered or threatened because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Those factors
are: (A) Habitat modification, destruction, or curtailment; (B)
overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five
factors in reclassifying or delisting a species. Listing,
reclassifying, or delisting may be warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, either singly or in combination.
For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, an
analysis of threats is an evaluation of 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.
The following threats analysis examines the five factors currently
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the listed tulotoma snail
within the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this analysis, we
will first evaluate whether the currently listed species, the tulotoma,
should be considered threatened or endangered throughout its range. If
we determine that the species is threatened, then we will consider
whether there are any significant portions of the species' range where
it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future.
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 an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The word ``range'' refers to the range in which
the species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to
the value of that portion of the range being considered to the
conservation of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period
of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be
anticipated, or trends extrapolated.
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 applications to tulotoma are presented below.
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 (12 km (7.2 mi)) 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 2.25 hours per day; at all other
times, flow consisted of only dam seepage. 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 maintenance of dissolved oxygen
levels 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 the Coosa River
(e.g., De Vries 2005). Numerous tulotoma colonies have been discovered
as a result of the monitoring efforts. With increased flows, additional
colonies have 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 more than 100 million
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. As a result of studies and surveys, we now know
that the range of tulotoma is greater than estimated at the time of
listing for 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, Lochamy 2005, Powell
2005), likely as a result of implementation of pulsing flows below
Logan Martin Dam to improve dissolved oxygen levels (Krotzer 2008). No
tulotoma have been rediscovered in the Ohatchee Creek shoal population
for 15 years, and, therefore, the population is now believed to be
extirpated (DeVries 2005, p. 10).
Although the Ohatchee Creek population has apparently become
extirpated since the time of listing (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 been sampled only 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,
[[Page 31870]]
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 below Claiborne Lock and Dam
in Monroe County, Alabama (Garner 2006); below Millers Ferry Lock and
Dam in Wilcox County, Alabama (Powell 2008); and below Robert F. Henry
Lock and Dam at a location in Autauga and Lowndes Counties, Alabama
(Garner 2008), and at a locality in Dallas County, Alabama (Johnson
2008). The presence of juvenile and adult tulotoma in these three river
reaches indicates that the newly discovered colonies are self-
maintaining.
The 1991 listing rule (56 FR 797) noted the vulnerability of
localized (isolated) tributary populations to nonpoint source
pollution, specifically siltation from construction activities. The
extirpation of the Ohatchee Creek population is suspected to be 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 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. 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.
Summary of Factor A: The range of tulotoma has increased from 6
populations in 1991, occupying 2 percent of its historical range, to a
total of 10 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 rivers,
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, were 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 increased.
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.
In summary, overutilization for any purpose is not currently
considered a threat to tulotoma, and is not likely to become 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 currently 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. The species 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 from collection or commerce under
Alabama Nongame Species Regulations 220-2-92. In addition, the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) recognizes
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 ACWP has been organized to educate and coordinate public
participation in water quality issues, particularly nonpoint source
pollution
[[Page 31871]]
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, pp. 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 extended drought in
the Southeast, emergency consultation under section 7 of the Act was
conducted between the 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).
Summary of Factor D: Although additional regulatory mechanisms have
been developed since listing including Alabama's regulations to prevent
collection or commerce and various water quality programs and
initiatives, tulotoma drainage populations require further regulations
that would ensure improved water quality and water availability in some
areas. At present, without the protections of the Act, the tulotoma
remains threatened by the inadequacy 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 or stochastic events such as droughts and chemical
spills, 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 lack of genetic exchange between populations. The
tulotoma's restricted range and isolation remain the greatest cause of
concern for the species' continued existence and are factors that
compound the effects of the other threats identified above. Within its
respective watersheds, each population is vulnerable to changes in land
use that might result in detrimental impacts (e.g., urbanization and
increased nonpoint source 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 reduced in order to conserve water in upstream reservoirs for
water supply and hydroelectric production. The reduction in flows led
to high amounts of suspended algal material and fine sediment, which
are harmful to tulotoma (Powell 2008) and resulted in the stranding and
estimated mortality of more than 73,000 tulotoma in the Coosa River
below Jordan Dam (APC 2008, p. 43). Although this loss seems relatively
insignificant in a population estimated at more than 100 million
individual tulotoma, it demonstrates the vulnerability of range-
restricted populations to stochastic events.
The documentation of more tulotoma populations (since listing)
distributed in different watersheds makes rangewide 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 tributary populations following the severe
2007 drought found little to no changes in distribution or 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).
Summary of Factor E: Although extension of the ranges of tulotoma
populations and discovery of additional populations makes rangewide
extinction from localized activities or stochastic threats less likely,
all tulotoma populations remain individually vulnerable to stochastic
threats such as drought and chemical spills and threatened by changes
in land use. Given the relatively small number of populations, 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 of the Five-Factor Analysis
In developing this rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial data available regarding the threats facing
this species, as well as the ongoing conservation efforts. Although
reduced, 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 (Factor A);
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2000) (see ``Recovery Achieved'' above) states
that the tulotoma should be considered for reclassification from
endangered to threatened status when an updated status review of the
species is completed and a stable or increasing tulotoma population in
the Coosa River below Jordan Dam is confirmed. The 5-year review of the
status of tulotoma, completed in 2008, 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 through habitat
improvements in the Coosa River, 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 for the tulotoma have not
been met as watershed plans that protect and monitor water quality and
habitat quality in occupied watersheds have not been fully implemented.
Recovery plans are intended to guide and measure recovery. Recovery
criteria for downlisting and delisting are developed in the recovery
planning
[[Page 31872]]
process to provide measureable goals on the path to recovery; however,
precise attainment of all recovery criteria is not a prerequisite for
downlisting or delisting. Rather, the decision to change the status of
a listed species under the Act is based on the analysis of the 5
listing factors identified in section 4 of the Act. The Act provides
for downlisting from endangered to threatened when the best available
data indicate that a species, subspecies, or distinct population
segment is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Based on the analysis above and given the reduction in threats, the
tulotoma is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all its
range. In the section that follows, we consider whether it is in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the tulotoma snail is no longer endangered
throughout its range as a consequence of the threats evaluated under
the five factors in the Act, we must next consider whether there are
any significant portions of its range where the species is currently
endangered. 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 as evaluated based upon its representation,
resiliency, or redundancy.
The first step in determining whether a species is 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. 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.
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. Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the range that are not significant
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 the species is in fact 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
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 endangered there. Conversely, if the
Service determines that the species is not endangered in a portion of
its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is
significant.
For the tulotoma we applied the process described above to
determine whether any portions of the range warranted 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. In addition, we concluded
through the five-factor analysis that the existing or potential threats
(Factors A, D, and E) are uniform throughout its range, and there is no
portion of the range where one or more threats is geographically
concentrated. 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 currently or within the
foreseeable future.
As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat
factors to assess whether tulotoma is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based on habitat
improvements, the numbers of tulotoma populations now known (10
populations found in 8 discrete drainages), 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 within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. However, we have determined that threats to the tulotoma still
exist, specifically as a result of water quality and quantity issues as
discussed under Factors A, D, and E. Due to these continued threats,
the tulotoma meets the definition of threatened in that it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are reclassifying the
tulotoma's 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.
[[Page 31873]]
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 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 revises 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.
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 rule does 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.
Required Determinations
Data Quality Act
In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act
(Pub. L. 106-554).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
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 U.S.C. 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 rule.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this 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 at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0119 and upon request
from the Jackson, Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this document is Paul Hartfield, Jackson,
Mississippi Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) 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) * * *
[[Page 31874]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Snails
* * * * * *
Snail, tulotoma.................. Tulotoma magnifica.. U.S.A. (AL)........ Entire............. T 412, 789 NA NA
* * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: May 18, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13687 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P