Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Three Aquatic Snails, and Threatened Status for Three Aquatic Snails in the Mobile River Basin of Alabama

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE36

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status

for Three Aquatic Snails, and Threatened Status for Three Aquatic

Snails in the Mobile River Basin of Alabama

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the

cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis), flat pebblesnail

(Lepyrium showalteri), and plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) to be

endangered species; and the painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata),

round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla), and lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella)

to be threatened species under the authority of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These aquatic snails are found in

localized portions of the Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, and Coosa

rivers or their tributaries in central Alabama. Impoundment and water

quality degradation have eliminated the six snails from 90 percent or

more of their historic habitat. Surviving populations are currently

threatened by pollutants such as sediments and nutrients that wash into

streams from the land surface. This action implements the protection of

the Act for these six snail species.

DATES: This rule is effective November 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by

[[Page 57611]]

appointment, during normal business hours at the Jackson Field Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson,

Mississippi 39213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Hartfield (see ADDRESSES

section), 601/965-4900, extension 25.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mobile River Basin (Basin) historically supported the greatest

diversity of freshwater snail species in the world (Bogan et al. 1995),

including six genera and over 100 species that were endemic to the

Basin. During the past few decades, publications in the scientific

literature have primarily dealt with the apparent decimation of this

fauna following the construction of dams within the Basin and the

inundation of extensive shoal (a shallow place in a body of water)

habitats by impounded waters (Goodrich 1944, Athearn 1970, Heard 1970,

Stein 1976, Palmer 1986, Garner 1990).

In 1990, the Service initiated a status review of the endemic

freshwater snails of the Basin. An extensive literature survey

identified sources of information on taxonomy, distribution, ecology,

and status of the fauna and was used to assemble a checklist of the

Basin's snails and their distributions (Bogan 1992). Field surveys and

collections were made for snails and other freshwater mollusks

throughout the Basin (Bogan and Pierson, 1993a,b; McGregor et al. 1996;

Service Field Records, Jackson, Mississippi 1989-1996; Bogan in litt.

1995; M. Pierson Field Records, Calera, Alabama, in litt. 1993-1994; J.

Garner, Alabama Department of Conservation, pers. comm. 1996; J.

Johnson, Auburn University, in litt. 1996).

Bogan et al. (1995) summarized the results of their efforts noting

the apparent extinction of numerous snail species in the Coosa and

Cahaba River drainages, and the imperiled state of many other aquatic

snails in the Basin.

The taxonomy used in this final rule follows Burch (1989), which

relies almost exclusively on shell morphology. Many of the Basin's

freshwater snail species, particularly in the family Pleuroceridae, are

known to exhibit marked clinal variation (gradual change in characters

of a species that manifests itself along a geographic gradient) in

shell form, some of which has been described as environmentally induced

(e.g., Goodrich 1934, 1937). Four of the six species considered in this

final rule belong to the family Pleuroceridae and their relationships

to each other, as well as to other Pleuroceridae, are poorly

understood. In order to better document taxonomic relationships among

these snails, a genetic study was conducted during the status review of

a select group of the Basin's Pleuroceridae (Lydeard et al. 1997). The

four snails within this family considered herein (lacy elimia, round

rocksnail, plicate rocksnail, and painted rocksnail) were included in

the genetic study. This study supported their current taxonomic status

(Lydeard et al. 1997).

The cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis (Lea 1841)) is a

gill-breathing snail in the family Viviparidae. The shell is elongate,

reaching about 28 millimeters (mm) (1.1 inches (in)) in length. Shell

color is light to dark olivaceous-green externally, and bluish inside

of the aperture (shell opening). The cylindrical lioplax is

distinguished from other viviparid (eggs hatch internally and the young

are born as juveniles) snails in the Basin by the number of whorls, and

differences in size, sculpture, microsculpture, and spire angle. No

other species of lioplax snails are known to occur in the Mobile Basin

(see Clench and Turner 1955 for a more detailed description).

Habitat for the cylindrical lioplax is unusual for the genus, as

well as for other genera of viviparid snails. It lives in mud under

large rocks in rapid currents over stream and river shoals. Other

lioplax species are usually found in exposed situations or in mud or

muddy sand along the margins of rivers. Little is known of the biology

or life history of the cylindrical lioplax. It is believed to brood its

young and filter-feed, as do other members of the Viviparidae. Life

spans have been reported from 3 to 11 years in various species of

Viviparidae (Heller 1990).

Collection records for the cylindrical lioplax exist from the

Alabama River (Dallas County, Alabama), Black Warrior River (Jefferson

County, Alabama) and tributaries (Prairie Creek, Marengo County,

Alabama; Valley Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama), Coosa River (Shelby,

Elmore counties, Alabama) and tributaries (Oothcalooga Creek, Bartow

County, Georgia; Coahulla Creek, Whitfield County, Georgia; Armuchee

Creek, Floyd County, Georgia; Little Wills Creek, Etowah County,

Alabama; Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County, Alabama; Yellowleaf

Creek, Shelby County, Alabama), and the Cahaba River (Bibb, Shelby

counties, Alabama) and its tributary, Little Cahaba River (Jefferson

County, Alabama) (Clench and Turner 1955). A single collection of this

species has also been reported from the Tensas River, Madison Parish,

Louisiana (Clench 1962), however, there are no previous or subsequent

records outside of the Alabama-Coosa system, and searches of the Tensas

River in Louisiana by Service biologists (1995) and others (Vidrine

1996) have found no evidence of the species or its typical habitat.

The cylindrical lioplax is currently known only from approximately

24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) of the Cahaba River above the Fall

Line in Shelby and Bibb counties, Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b).

Survey efforts by Davis (1974) failed to locate this snail in the Coosa

or Alabama rivers, and more recent survey efforts have also failed to

relocate the species at historic localities in the Alabama, Black

Warrior, Little Cahaba, and Coosa rivers and their tributaries (Bogan

and Pierson 1993a, 1993b; M. Pierson in litt. 1993, 1994; Service Field

Records 1991, 1992, 1993).

The flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri (Lea 1861)) is a small

snail in the family Hydrobiidae; however, the species has a large and

distinct shell, relative to other hydrobiid species. This snail's shell

is also distinguished by its depressed spire and expanded, flattened

body whorl. The shells are ovate in outline, flattened, and grow to 3.5

to 4.4 mm (0.1-0.2 in) high and 4 to 5 mm (0.2 in) wide. The umbilical

area is imperforate (no opening), and there are 2 to 3 whorls which

rapidly expand. The anatomy of this species has been described in

detail by Thompson (1984). The flat pebblesnail is found attached to

clean, smooth stones in rapid currents of river shoals. Eggs are laid

singly in capsules on hard surfaces (Thompson 1984). Little else is

known of the natural history of this species.

The flat pebblesnail was historically known from the mainstem Coosa

River in Shelby and Talladega counties, the Cahaba River in Bibb and

Dallas counties, and Little Cahaba River in Bibb County, Alabama

(Thompson 1984). The flat pebblesnail has not been found in the Coosa

River portion of its range since the construction of Lay and Logan

Martin Dams, and recent survey efforts have failed to locate any

surviving populations outside of the Cahaba River drainage (Bogan and

Pierson, 1993a,b; McGregor et al. 1996; Service Field Records, Jackson,

Mississippi 1989-1996; Bogan in litt. 1995; M. Pierson Field Records,

Calera, Alabama, in litt. 1993-1994; J. Garner pers. comm. 1996; J.

Johnson in litt. 1996). The flat pebblesnail is currently known from

one site on the Little Cahaba River, Bibb County, and from a single

shoal series on the Cahaba River above the Fall Line, Shelby County,

Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b).

[[Page 57612]]

The lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella (Lea 1860)) is a small species

in the family Pleuroceridae. Growing to about 1.1 centimeters (cm) (0.4

in) in length, the shell is conic in shape, strongly striate, and often

folded in the upper whorls. Shell color is dark brown to black, often

purple in the aperture, and without banding. The aperture is small and

ovate. The lacy elimia is easily distinguished from other elimia

species by a combination of characters (i.e., size, ornamentation,

color).

In a recent genetic sequence study of the 16S rRNA gene, the lacy

elimia was found to be very similar to the compact elimia (Elimia

showalteri) (Lydeard et al. 1997). Despite their apparent close genetic

relationship, the authors made no suggestion that the two species

represented a single species. Upon review of Lydeard et al. (1997),

Dillon (College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, in litt.

1997) suggested that additional genetic studies were needed to

demonstrate the genetic uniqueness of the lacy elimia. However, the

Lydeard et al. (1997) genetic study addressed only one small genetic

character of the genome (entire genetic make-up of an individual) of

these species, and other characters strongly support the taxonomic

status of the lacy elimia. The two species are allopatric (do not

overlap in distribution--the compact elimia occurs in the Cahaba River,

whereas the lacy elimia was found in the Coosa River and tributaries),

and are strikingly different in size, appearance, and behavior. The

compact elimia has a large, robust, smooth shell boldly colored brown

and/or green, whereas the lacy elimia has a small, delicate, darkly

colored, and ornamented shell. The lacy elimia is one of the few elimia

snails in the Basin that does not exhibit clinal variation (Goodrich

1936). In addition, compact elimia are found grazing individually

throughout shoal habitats, whereas the lacy elimia is usually found in

tight clusters or colonies on larger rocks within a shoal (P.

Hartfield, Jackson, MS, pers. obsv.). Allopatry, morphology, and

behavior are strong characters supporting species specific status of

the lacy elimia.

Elimia snails are gill breathing snails that typically inhabit

highly oxygenated waters on rock shoals and gravel bars. Most species

graze on periphyton growing on benthic (bottom) substrates. Individual

snails are either male or female. Eggs are laid in early spring and

hatch in about 2 weeks. Snails apparently become sexually mature in

their first year, but, in some species, females may not lay until their

second year. Some elimia may live as long as 5 years (Dillon 1988).

The lacy elimia was historically abundant in the Coosa River main

stem from St. Clair to Chilton County, Alabama, and was also known in

several Coosa River tributaries--Big Will's Creek, DeKalb County;

Kelley's Creek, St. Clair County; and Choccolocco and Tallaseehatchee

creeks, Talladega County, Alabama (Goodrich 1936). The lacy elimia has

not been recently located at any historic collection site. However, as

a result of the recent survey efforts, previously unreported

populations were discovered in three Coosa River tributaries--Cheaha,

Emauhee, and Weewoka creeks, Talladega County, Alabama (Bogan and

Pierson 1993a). The species is locally abundant in the lower reaches of

Cheaha Creek. This stream originates within the Talladega National

Forest; however, no specimens of the lacy elimia have been collected on

Forest Service lands. The species has also been found at single sites

in Emauhee and Weewoka creeks, where specimens are rare, and difficult

to locate.

The painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata (Conrad 1834)) is a small

to medium snail about 19 mm (0.8 in) in length, and subglobose to oval

in shape. The aperture is broadly ovate, and rounded anteriorly.

Coloration varies from yellowish to olive-brown, and usually with four

dark bands. Some shells may not have bands and some have the bands

broken into squares or oblongs (see Goodrich 1922 for a detailed

description). All of the rocksnails that historically inhabited the

Basin had broadly rounded apertures, oval shaped shells, and variable

coloration. Although the various species were distinguished by relative

sizes, coloration patterns, and ornamentation, identification could be

confusing. However, the painted rocksnail is the only known survivor of

the 15 rocksnail species that were historically known from the Coosa

River drainage.

Rocksnails are gill breathing snails found attached to cobble,

gravel, or other hard substrates in the strong currents of riffles (a

shallow area in a streambed that causes ripples in the water) and

shoals. Adult rocksnails move very little, and females probably glue

their eggs to stones in the same habitat (Goodrich 1922). Heller (1990)

reported a short life span (less than 2 years) in a Tennessee River

rocksnail. Longevity in the painted and the Basin's other rocksnails is

unknown.

The painted rocksnail had the largest range of any rocksnail in the

Mobile River Basin (Goodrich 1922). It was historically known from the

Coosa River and tributaries from the northeastern corner of St. Clair

County, Alabama, downstream into the mainstem of the Alabama River to

Claiborne, Monroe County, Alabama, and the Cahaba River below the Fall

Line in Perry and Dallas counties, Alabama (Goodrich 1922, Burch 1989).

Surveys by Service biologists and others (Bogan and Pierson 1993a,

1993b; M. Pierson, in litt. 1993) in the Cahaba River, unimpounded

portions of the Alabama River, and a number of free-flowing Coosa River

tributaries have located only three localized Coosa River drainage

populations.

The painted rocksnail is currently known from the lower reaches of

three Coosa River tributaries--Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County;

Buxahatchee Creek, Shelby County (Bogan and Pierson 1993a); and

Ohatchee Creek, Calhoun County, Alabama (Pierson in litt. 1993).

The round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla (Anthony 1855)) grows to about

20 mm (0.8 in) in length. The shell is subglobose, with an ovately

rounded aperture. The body whorl is shouldered at the suture, and may

be ornamented with folds or plicae. Color may be yellow, dark brown, or

olive green, usually with four entire or broken bands (Goodrich 1922).

Round rocksnails inhabit riffles and shoals over gravel, cobble, or

other rocky substrates.

Lydeard et al. (1997) found slight differences in DNA sequencing

between the painted rocksnail and the round rocksnail, and considered

them to be sister species. Following analysis by allozyme

electrophoresis on these same species, Dillon (in litt. 1997)

speculated that the two species represented isolated populations

belonging to a single species. The two species are geographically

separated, with the painted rocksnail inhabiting Coosa River

tributaries, while the round rocksnail is the only surviving rocksnail

species in the Cahaba River drainage. Both species are currently

recognized by the malacological community (e.g., Burch 1989; Turgeon et

al. 1988, revision in review), and are treated as distinct in this

final rule.

The round rocksnail was historically found in the Cahaba River, and

its tributary, Little Cahaba River, Bibb County, Alabama; and the Coosa

River, Elmore County, and tributaries--Canoe Creek and Kelly's Creek,

St. Clair County; Ohatchee Creek, Calhoun County; Yellowleaf Creek,

Shelby County; and Waxahatchee Creek, Shelby/Chilton counties, Alabama

(Goodrich 1922).

The round rocksnail is currently known from a shoal series in the

Cahaba

[[Page 57613]]

River, Bibb and Shelby counties, Alabama, and from the lower reach of

the Little Cahaba River, and the lower reaches of Shade and Six-mile

creeks in Bibb County, Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b).

The plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata (Conrad, 1834)) grows to

about 20 mm (0.8 in) in length. Shells are subglobose with broadly

rounded apertures. The body whorl may be ornamented with strong folds

or plicae. Shell color is usually brown, occasionally green, and often

with four equidistant color bands. The columella (central column or

axis) is smooth, rounded, and typically pigmented in the upper half.

The aperture is usually bluish-white, occasionally pink or white. The

operculum (plate that closes the shell when the snail is retracted) is

dark red, and moderately thick (Goodrich 1922). Although

morphologically similar to the Basin's other three surviving rocksnail

species, the plicate rocksnail is genetically distinct (Lydeard et al.

1997, Dillon in litt. 1997).

The plicate rocksnail historically occurred in the Black Warrior

River and its tributary, the Little Warrior River, and the Tombigbee

River (Goodrich 1922). Status survey efforts found populations of

plicate rocksnails only in an approximately 88km (55 mi) reach of the

Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River, Jefferson and Blount counties,

Alabama (Service Field Records, Jackson, Mississippi 1991, 1992;

Malcolm Pierson, Calera, Alabama, Field Notes 1993). Surveys during

1996 and 1997 indicate that the snail has recently disappeared from the

upstream two-third portion of that habitat and now appears restricted

to an approximately 32 km (20 mi) reach in Jefferson County (Garner in

litt. 1998).

Previous Federal Action

The six aquatic snails were identified as Category 2 species in

notices of review published in the Federal Register on November 21,

1991 (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). At that time,

a Category 2 species was one that was being considered for possible

addition to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, but

for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat were

not available to support a proposed rule. Designation of Category 2

species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61

FR 7596). The six snails considered in this final rule were approved as

Candidate species by the Service on November 9, 1995, and identified as

Candidates in the 1996 Notice of Review (61 FR 7601). A Candidate

species is defined as a species for which the Service has on file

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to

support issuance of a proposed rule.

A status review summary, that included these six snails, was mailed

on August 23, 1994 (62 letters), to appropriate species authorities,

State and Federal agencies, private organizations, and interested

individuals. A cover letter provided notification that a status review

was in progress by the Service, stated that the species appeared to

qualify for listing under the Act, and requested a review of the status

review summary for accuracy regarding taxonomy, distribution, threats,

and status. Three species authorities responded by telephone concurring

with the status reviews. No other comments were received as a result of

this notification.

An updated status report, along with a review request, was mailed

on March 11, 1997 (157 letters), following elevation of the snails to

Candidate status. One snail authority concurred with the status review

analysis; however, he recommended additional genetic studies on the

lacy elimia (see ``Background'' section above). Two other snail

authorities responded concurring with the analysis, as well as the

taxonomic treatment of the six species.

On September 5, 1995, the Service received two petitions, dated

August 31, 1995, from a coalition of environmental organizations

(Coosa-Tallapoosa Project, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, and Alabama

Wilderness Alliance) represented by Mr. Ray Vaughan. The petitioners

requested the Service to list the plicate rocksnail as endangered and

to designate critical habitat for this species. The second petition

requested the Service to list the lacy elimia as a threatened species

and to designate critical habitat.

Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Act and implementing regulations at 50

CFR 424.14 require that, to the extent practicable, the Service make a

finding of substantiality on any petition within 90 days of its

receipt, and publish a notice of its finding in the Federal Register.

If a substantial 90-day finding is made, the Service is required, to

the extent practicable, within 12 months of receipt of the petition, to

make a finding as to whether the action requested in the petition is:

(a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted but precluded.

Because of reductions in funding and the lasting effects of a

congressionally imposed listing moratorium from April 10, 1995, to

April 26, 1996, the Service's listing program was essentially shut down

and the Service was precluded from processing petitions and developing

proposed rules from October 1, 1995, through April 26, 1996. When the

moratorium was lifted and funds were appropriated for the

administration of the listing program, the Service was faced with a

significant backlog of listing activities. Petitions and other listing

actions were processed according to the listing priority guidance

published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475).

The guidance clarified the order in which the Service processed listing

actions during fiscal year 1997. The guidance called for giving highest

priority (Tier 1) to handling emergency situations and second highest

priority (Tier 2) to resolving the status of outstanding proposed

listings. Third priority (Tier 3) was given to resolving the

conservation status of Candidate species and processing administrative

findings on petitions to add species to the lists or reclassify

threatened species to endangered status. The processing of these two

petitions and the proposed rule fell under Tier 3. A proposal to list

three aquatic snails as endangered, and three aquatic snails as

threatened was published in the Federal Register (62 FR 54020) on

October 17, 1997. The proposal constituted the 90-day and 12-month

finding on the petitioned actions. The processing of this final rule

conforms with the Service's final listing priority guidance for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 published in the Federal Register on May 8, 1998

(63 FR 25502). The guidance calls for giving highest priority (Tier 1)

to handling emergency situations, second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the listing status of outstanding proposed listings,

resolving the conservation status of candidate species, processing

administrative findings on petitions, and processing a limited number

of delistings and reclassifications, and third priority (Tier 3) to

processing proposed and final designations of critical habitat. The

processing of this final rule falls under Tier 2. The Southeast Region

has no pending Tier 1 actions.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the October 17, 1997, proposed rule (62 FR 54020) and associated

notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual

information that might assist the Service in determining whether these

taxa warrant listing. Direct notification of the proposal was made to

205 institutions and individuals, including State and Federal agencies,

county governments,

[[Page 57614]]

scientific organizations, and other interested parties. Newspaper legal

notices announcing the proposal and inviting public comment were

published in The Birmingham News, Daily Home, Montgomery Advertiser,

and Anniston Star. The comment period closed on December 16, 1997.

During the initial comment period, a public hearing was requested by

Gorham & Waldrep, a legal firm representing The Birmingham Water Works

Board. The public comment period was reopened on December 19, 1997 (62

FR 66583), and extended until January 23, 1998, to accommodate the

public hearing. The Service notified by letter appropriate State and

Federal agencies, county governments, scientific organizations, and

other interested parties of the public hearing and the reopening of the

comment period. In addition, newspaper notices announcing the public

hearing and reopening of the comment period were published in The

Birmingham News, Anniston Daily Star, Montgomery Advertiser, and Daily

Home. The hearing was held at the Dwight Beeson Hall Auditorium on the

campus of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, on January 13,

1998, with 23 people in attendance. Oral comments were received from

six individuals, four in support of the proposed action, and two

requesting clarification of language in the proposal.

During the comment periods, the Service received over 200 cards and

letters concerning the proposal. Most individuals expressed support for

the proposed listing; however, one individual expressed concern over

the listing of the plicate rocksnail, another individual supported

preservation of the species but opposed the listing on constitutional

grounds, and several individuals expressed concern over specific

statements within the proposal.

Written comments and oral statements presented at the public

hearing and received during the comment periods are either incorporated

into the appropriate section of this rule, or are addressed in the

following summary. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped

into a number of general issues. These issues and the Service's

response to each are discussed below:

Issue 1: The Service lacks authority to regulate these species

under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States

Constitution.

Response: On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court, without comment,

rejected the argument that using the Act to protect species that live

only in one State goes beyond Congress' authority to regulate

interstate commerce. This decision upholds a decision made by the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

(National Association of Homebuilders vs. Babbitt, 97-1451) that

regulation under the Act is within Congress' Commerce Clause power and

that loss of animal diversity has a substantial effect on interstate

commerce. Thus, although these six snails are found only within the

State of Alabama, the Service's application of the Act to list these

species is constitutional.

Issue 2: Emergency listing is appropriate for the cylindrical

lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and the plicate rocksnail.

Response: Emergency listing is appropriate only in cases where

imminent threats to a species have been identified requiring the

immediate protection of the Act for the species. As noted in the

proposed rule, nonpoint source pollution is the primary threat to all

known populations of these six species. The deleterious effects of

nonpoint source pollution on these snails are gradual and cumulative,

and cannot be easily eliminated or specifically identified. Federal and

State agencies are currently working with the Service in attempts to

identify and address similar problems of nonpoint source pollutants on

other listed species within the Mobile River Basin. Emergency listing

would not accelerate this process.

Issue 3: Endangered status is more appropriate for the lacy elimia

and round rocksnail.

Response: There are three known populations of the lacy elimia, and

four known populations of the round rocksnail. The primary threat to

populations of both species is from nonpoint source pollution. This is

an insidious but unpredictable threat, and no two of the distinct

populations of these species are likely to be faced with identical

impacts from stormwater runoff since they all occupy distinct

watersheds. Although both species have declined significantly in

overall range, one or more populations of each species is currently

vigorous, with high numbers of individuals and strong recruitment.

Therefore, the Service believes that threatened status is appropriate

for these species. If conditions should deteriorate in the future, the

status of one or both species could be elevated to endangered.

Issue 4: Critical habitat should be designated for all six species

because the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) would

have to maintain and protect designated critical habitat as an existing

use under Federal and State water quality regulations. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented that it does not have

the authority to require water use classifications higher than the

minimum goal of Fish and Wildlife or Swimmable, and suggested that

designation of critical habitat might encourage the State to elevate

the use classifications of streams where the snails occur to higher

levels.

Response: As discussed in the proposed rule and in this final rule

(see ``Critical Habitat'' section), critical habitat designation, by

definition, directly affects only Federal actions. The presence of

listed species is already an existing use of a water body which ADEM,

under authority delegated by EPA, is responsible to maintain. ADEM has

been informed of the location of the six species, and the threats

confronting them. Therefore, critical habitat designation will have no

effect on ADEM's responsibilities to maintain State water quality that

do not already accrue from the listing. The Service, through

coordination and cooperation with the EPA and ADEM, will continue to

define water quality impacts and work to revise State and Federal water

quality standards and stream use classifications where appropriate.

Issue 5: The Service should not construe its mandate to designate

critical habitat as narrowly as was done in the proposed rule, i.e.,

there are benefits to critical habitat designation beyond the section 7

consultation process. The prior controversy surrounding the proposed

listing of the Alabama sturgeon should not be a factor in determining

critical habitat for the snails.

Response: The Service recognized and discussed benefits that might

accrue from identifying stream and river reaches currently unoccupied

by these species as critical habitat. However, because stream and river

habitats change rapidly in response to watershed land use, and it is

difficult to project watershed conditions and stream habitat values

into the future, the Service is working through a dynamic process with

State and other Federal agencies and private parties. In a cooperative

relationship, these entities periodically survey, assess, and protect

habitat, as well as potential habitat, for listed aquatic species and

species of concern within the Mobile River Basin. Additionally, the

Service believes that any benefits that might be derived from

designation of critical habitat for these species would be outweighed

by increasing the threat of vandalism that might result from such a

designation. The proposed listing and designation of

[[Page 57615]]

critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon was used as an example of

increased potential for vandalism that can result from proposed

designation of critical habitat. Other examples can also be given;

however, the Alabama sturgeon inhabits the same drainage basin as these

snails, and reflects the public mood within the basin.

Issue 6: EPA requested clarification regarding the potential that

these snails may be more susceptible to common pollutants than

organisms currently used in bioassays. EPA provided a table

demonstrating that at least nine species of snails have been used for

bioassays in the development of criterion for arsenic, copper, lead,

mercury, ammonia, aluminum, as well as several other chemicals, and

showing them less sensitive than other species, e.g., guppy, crayfish,

bluegill, etc.

Response: None of the six snails addressed herein have been used

for bioassays. Of the nine snail species referenced in the table

provided by EPA, all are widespread, most occur far north of the Mobile

River Basin, and only one is closely related to any of the six species

considered herein. The liver elimia, Elimia livescens, is within the

same genus as the lacy elimia, but is a widely distributed and locally

abundant species in the Great Lakes and its drainages. The other

species that have been used for bioassays included five pulmonate (lung

breathing and include land and freshwater snails) snails, which are

often considered tolerant species, two hydrobiid (small aquatic snail

in Hydrobiidae family) species, and one viviparid species. The high

tolerance demonstrated by the snails in the data provided by EPA

supports the Service's assertion that current standards must be assumed

protective until further evidence proves otherwise. The Service and EPA

are working to identify appropriate surrogates for listed species for

use in bioassays.

Issue 7: Dams and impoundment may not be the primary cause of

decline of the six snail species. The plicate rocksnail has continued

to decline in the unimpounded Locust Fork, suggesting that nonpoint

source pollution, or other factors not addressed in the proposed rule,

such as flood scour, loss of food source, water temperature changes,

etc., represent the primary threats to this species. Dams can increase

habitat suitability for aquatic snails by providing flood flow control,

flow augmentation, and retention of sediments and toxins.

Response: Dams and impounded waters have long been recognized as a

cause of decline, extirpation, and extinction of aquatic snails in the

Basin (see discussion under Factor A in the ``Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species'' section). Pollution, particularly nonpoint

source pollution, is the primary threat to surviving populations of the

six species in unimpounded stream and river habitats. Flood scour was

not addressed in the proposed rule, and may have been, and continue to

be a factor in the decline of the species. However, all six species

inhabit the most dynamic portions of the stream channel and are well

adapted to strong flows.

The Service agrees that there are situations in which dams can

serve to moderate or augment flows, and retain sediments and

contaminants. However, it must also be recognized that none of the six

snail species addressed in this rule survive in tailwaters below any of

the many dams constructed within their historic ranges.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined that the cylindrical lioplax

(Lioplax cyclostomaformis), flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri), and

plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) should be classified as endangered

species, and the painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata), round rocksnail

(Leptoxis ampla), and lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella) should be

classified as threatened species. Procedures found at section 4(a)(1)

of the Act and regulations implementing the listing provisions of the

Act (50 CFR part 424) were followed. A species may be determined to be

an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five

factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, plicate

rocksnail, painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia are as

follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The cylindrical lioplax, flat

pebblesnail, lacy elimia, round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and

plicate rocksnail have all disappeared from more than 90 percent of

their historic ranges. All of these snails were historically, and

continue to be, strongly associated with river or stream habitats

characterized by flowing currents, and hard, clean bottoms (e.g.,

bedrock, boulder, gravel) (Goodrich 1922, 1936; Clench and Turner

1955). The curtailment of habitat and range for these six species in

the Basin's larger rivers (Coosa, Alabama, Tombigbee, and Black

Warrior) is primarily due to extensive construction of dams and the

inundation of the snail's shoal habitats by impounded waters. Thirty

dams have changed this system from a continuum of free-flowing riverine

habitats into a series of impoundments connected by short, free-flowing

reaches. On the Alabama River, there are 3 dams (built between 1968-

1971); the Black Warrior has 5 (1915-1959); the Coosa 10 (1914-1966),

and the Tombigbee 12 (1954-1979). Dams impound approximately 1,650 km

(1,022 mi) of river channel in the Basin.

These six snail species have disappeared from all portions of their

historic habitats that have been impounded by dams. As noted earlier,

they are all associated with fast currents over clean, hard bottom

materials. Dams change such areas by eliminating or reducing currents,

and allowing sediments to accumulate on inundated channel habitats.

Impounded waters also experience changes in water chemistry which could

affect survival or reproduction of riverine snails. For example, many

reservoirs in the Basin currently experience eutrophic (enrichment of a

water body with nutrients) conditions, including chronically low

dissolved oxygen levels (Alabama Department of Environmental Management

(ADEM) 1994, 1996). Such physical and chemical changes can affect

feeding, respiration, and reproduction of these riffle and shoal snail

species.

A site on the Locust Fork River is being considered for the

construction of a water supply impoundment, however, no formal proposal

has been made and no permits have been issued (C. Waldrep, Gorham &

Waldrep, P.C., Montgomery, Alabama, in litt. 1995; G. Hanson,

Birmingham Water Works Board, in litt. 1998). Plicate rocksnails

occurred in riffle and shoal habitats above and below the reservoir

site in 1994. In 1996, plicate rocksnails could not be relocated in the

portion of the river to be flooded by the reservoir; however, they were

confirmed to continue to survive in an approximately 32 km (20 mi)

reach of river below the potential dam site, which would be subject to

impacts from construction activities and post-construction changes in

water quality (Garner in litt. 1998).

In addition to directly altering snail habitats, dams and their

impounded waters also formed barriers to the movement of snails that

continued to live below dams or in unimpounded tributaries. It is

suspected that many such isolated colonies gradually disappear as a

result of local water and habitat quality changes. Unable to emigrate

(move out of the area), the

[[Page 57616]]

isolated snail populations are vulnerable to local discharges as well

as any detrimental land surface runoff within their watersheds.

Although many watershed impacts have been temporary, eventually

improving or even disappearing with the advent of new technology,

management practices, or laws, dams and their impounded waters prevent

natural recolonization by snail populations surviving elsewhere.

Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act and the adoption of

State water quality criteria, water pollution may have been a

significant factor in the disappearance of snail populations from

unimpounded tributaries of the Basin's impounded mainstem rivers. For

example, Hurd (1974) noted the extirpation of freshwater mussel

communities from several Coosa River tributaries, including the

Conasauga River below Dalton, Georgia, the Chatooga River, and

Tallaseehatchee Creek, apparently as a result of textile and carpet

mill waste discharges. He also attributed the disappearance of the

mussel fauna from the Etowah River, Talladega and Swamp creeks, and

from many of the lower tributaries of the Coosa River, to organic

pollution and siltation.

Short-term and long-term impacts of point and nonpoint source water

and habitat degradation continue to be a primary concern for the

survival of all these snails, compounded by their isolation and

localization. Point source discharges and land surface runoff (nonpoint

pollution) can cause nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen

concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in

water chemistry that are likely to seriously impact aquatic snails.

Point sources of water quality degradation include municipal and

industrial effluents.

Nonpoint source pollution from land surface runoff can originate

from virtually all land use activities, and may include sediments,

fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and

gray water leakage, and oils and greases (ADEM 1996). During many

recent surveys for these snails, sediment deposition and nutrient

enrichment of stream reaches was noted as being associated with the

absence of snails from historic collection localities (Bogan and

Pierson 1993a, 1993b; Hartfield 1991; Service Field Observations 1992-

1994, Jackson Field Office, MS).

Excessive sediments are believed to impact riverine snails

requiring clean, hard shoal stream and river bottoms, by making the

habitat unsuitable for feeding or reproduction. Similar impacts

resulting from sediments have been noted for many other components of

aquatic communities. For example, sediments have been shown to abrade

and/or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to underwater surfaces,

upon which snails may feed); affect respiration, growth, reproductive

success, and behavior of aquatic insects and mussels; and affect fish

growth, survival, and reproduction (Waters 1995).

Sediment is the most abundant pollutant produced in the Basin (ADEM

1989). Potential sediment sources within a watershed include virtually

all activities that disturb the land surface, and all localities

currently occupied by these snails are affected to varying degrees by

sedimentation. The amount and impact of sedimentation on snail habitats

may be locally correlated with the land use practice. For example, the

use of agriculture, forestry, and construction Best Management

Practices can reduce sediment amounts and impacts.

Land surface runoff contributes the majority of human-induced

nutrients to water bodies throughout the country (Louisiana Department

of Environmental Quality 1995). Excessive nutrient input (from

fertilizers, sewage waste, animal manure, etc.) can result in periodic

low dissolved oxygen levels that are detrimental to aquatic species

(Hynes 1970). Nutrients also promote heavy algal growth that may cover

and eliminate clean rock or gravel habitats of shoal dwelling snails.

Nutrient and sediment pollution may have synergistic effects (a

condition in which the toxic effect of two or more pollutants is much

greater than the sum of the effects of the pollutants when operating

individually) on freshwater snails and their habitats, as has been

suggested for aquatic insects (Waters 1995).

The cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and the round rocksnail

currently survive in localized reaches of the Cahaba River drainage.

Water quality studies in the upper Cahaba River drainage by the

Geological Survey of Alabama (Shepard et al. 1996) found that

discharges from 34 waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) in the upper

drainage have contributed to water quality impairment. This was

reflected by low levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of Birmingham;

ammonia and chlorination by-products in excess of recommended water

quality criteria; and eutrophication due to excessive levels of

phosphorus and nitrogen. The study noted that these problems are

chronic and have been a factor in a loss of mollusk and fish diversity

throughout the drainage. Their results indicate that the upper Cahaba

River drainage is primarily impacted by nonpoint runoff and WWTPs

through physical habitat destruction by sedimentation, and chronic

stress from exposure to toxics and low dissolved oxygen. The middle

Cahaba River is primarily impacted by eutrophication and associated

affects.

The lacy elimia is now restricted to three small stream channels in

Talladega County, Alabama--Cheaha, Emauhee, and Weewoka creeks (Coosa

River drainage). The painted rocksnail currently survives in localized

reaches of three other Coosa River tributaries, Choccolocco,

Buxahatchee, and Ohatchee creeks. The plicate rocksnail inhabits a

single short reach of the Locust Fork River in Jefferson County,

Alabama (Black Warrior River drainage). All of these streams are

variously impacted by sediments and nutrients from a variety of

upstream rural, suburban, and/or urban sources. The streams are all

small to moderate in size and volumes of flow, and their water and

habitat quality can be rapidly affected by local and offsite pollution

sources.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. The six aquatic snail species are currently not

of commercial value, and overutilization has not been a problem.

However, as their rarity becomes known, they may become more attractive

to collectors. Unregulated collecting by private and institutional

collectors poses a threat. The cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail,

plicate rocksnail, painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia

inhabit shallow, fast-flowing waters of shoals and riffles. Because of

their occurrence and exposure in such areas, they are readily

vulnerable to overcollecting and/or vandalism. In these areas, the

snails are also exposed to crushing by recreational activities such as

canoeing, wading, swimming, or fishing; however, normal recreational

activities are not believed to be a factor in their decline.

C. Disease or predation. Aquatic snails are consumed by various

vertebrate predators, including fishes, mammals, and possibly birds.

Predation by naturally occurring predators is a normal aspect of the

population dynamics of a species and is not considered a threat to

these species. However, the potential now exists for black carp

(Mylopharyngodon piceus), a nonselective molluskivore recently

introduced into waters of the United States, to eventually enter the

Mobile River Basin. Exotic black carp recently escaped to the Osage

River in Missouri when hatchery ponds were flooded during a 1994 spring

flood of the river

[[Page 57617]]

(LMRCC newsletter, 1994). The extent of stocking black carp for snail

control in aquaculture ponds within the Basin is unknown; however,

black carp are currently cultured and sold within the State of

Mississippi (D. Reike, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries,

and Parks, 1997).

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although the

negative effects of point source discharges on aquatic communities have

probably been reduced over time by compliance with State and Federal

regulations pertaining to water quality, there is currently no

information on the sensitivity of the Mobile River Basin snail fauna to

common industrial and municipal pollutants. Current State and Federal

regulations regarding such discharges are assumed to be protective;

however, these snails may be more susceptible to some pollutants than

test organisms currently used in bioassays. A lack of adequate research

and data currently may prevent existing authorities, such as the Clean

Water Act (CWA), administered by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps), from being fully utilized. The Service is currently working

with EPA to develop a Memorandum of Agreement that will address how EPA

and the Service will interact relative to CWA water quality criteria

and standards within the Service's Southeast Region.

Lacking State or Federal recognition, these snails are not

currently given any special consideration under other environmental

laws when project impacts are reviewed.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The narrow distribution of extant populations of all six

snail species and the nature of their habitats (i.e., small to moderate

sized streams) renders them vulnerable to a natural catastrophic event

(e.g., flood, drought).

Habitat fragmentation and population isolation are a significant

threat to the continued survival of the lacy elimia and painted

rocksnail. The known populations of these two species are isolated by

extensive areas of impoundment, and there is little, if any,

possibility of genetic exchange between them. Over time, this isolation

may result in genetic drift, with each population becoming unique and

vulnerable to environmental disturbance.

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by these species in determining to make this rule

final. Based on these evaluations, the preferred action is to list the

cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and plicate rocksnail as

endangered; and the painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia

as threatened. All of these species have been rendered vulnerable due

to significant loss of habitat and severe range restriction.

The cylindrical lioplax is confined in distribution to a short

reach of the Cahaba River. The flat pebblesnail currently survives in

localized portions of the Cahaba River and the Little Cahaba River.

Both species are vulnerable to extinction by their confined ranges, and

current impacts from water quality degradation in the Cahaba River

drainage. The single known population of the plicate rocksnail has

experienced a significant reduction in range within the past 2 years,

apparently due to pollution of its habitat from nonpoint sources.

Habitat that was, until recently, occupied by the species is within a

potential site for reservoir construction. Endangered status is

appropriate for these three species due to their single populations,

restricted numbers within these populations, existing threats to their

occupied habitats, and in the case of the plicate rocksnail, an ongoing

decline in range.

The lacy elimia, painted rocksnail, and round rocksnail are each

currently known from three distinct drainage localities. Extant

populations and colonies of these three species are localized,

isolated, and are vulnerable to water quality degradation, future human

activities that would degrade their habitats, and random catastrophic

events. Threatened status is considered more appropriate for these

species due to the larger number of populations or colonies, and the

less immediate nature of these threats.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

consideration or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures that are necessary to bring the species to the point at

which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical

habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations

exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and

the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

degree of threat to the species or (ii) such designation of critical

habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The Service finds that

designation of critical habitat is not presently prudent for any of

these six aquatic snails.

Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only

Federal agency actions. Since these snail species are aquatic

throughout their life cycles, Federal actions that might affect these

species and their habitats include those with impacts on stream channel

geometry, bottom substrate composition, water quantity and quality, and

stormwater runoff. Such activities would be subject to review under

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whether or not critical habitat was

designated. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. The cylindrical lioplax, flat

pebblesnail and plicate rocksnail have become so restricted in

distribution that any significant adverse modification or destruction

of their occupied habitats would likely jeopardize their continued

existence. The round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and lacy elimia are

not as restricted in distribution as the other three snails, none the

less, projects found to cause a significant adverse modification or

destruction of their occupied habitats would also likely jeopardize

their continued existence. This would also hold true as the species

recovers and its numbers increase. Therefore, habitat protection for

these six species can be accomplished through the section 7 jeopardy

standard and there is no benefit in designating currently occupied

habitat of these species as critical habitat.

Recovery of these species will require the identification of

unoccupied stream and river reaches appropriate for reintroduction.

Critical habitat designation of unoccupied stream and river reaches

might benefit these species by alerting permitting agencies to

[[Page 57618]]

potential sites for reintroduction and allow them the opportunity to

evaluate projects which may affect these areas. The Service is

currently working with the State and other Federal agencies to

periodically survey and assess habitat potential of stream and river

reaches for listed and candidate aquatic species within the Mobile

River basin. This process provides up to date information on instream

habitat conditions in response to land use changes within watersheds.

Information generated from surveys and assessments is disseminated

through Service coordination with other agencies. The Service will

continue to work with State and Federal agencies, as well as private

property owners and other affected parties, through the recovery

process to identify stream reaches and potential sites for

reintroduction of these species. Thus, any benefit that might be

provided by designation of unoccupied habitat as critical will be

accomplished more effectively with the current coordination process and

is preferable for aquatic habitats which change rapidly in response to

watershed land use practices. In addition, the Service believes that

any potential benefits to critical habitat designation are outweighed

by additional threats to the species that would result from such

designation, as discussed below.

Though critical habitat designation directly affects only Federal

agency actions, this process can arouse concern and resentment on the

part of private landowners and other interested parties. The

publication of critical habitat maps in the Federal Register and local

newspapers, and other publicity or controversy accompanying critical

habitat designation may increase the potential for vandalism as well as

other collection threats (See Factor B under ``Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species'' section). For example, on June 15, 1993, the

Alabama sturgeon was proposed for endangered status with critical

habitat (59 FR 33148). Proposed critical habitat included the lower

portions of the Alabama, Cahaba, and Tombigbee rivers in south Alabama.

The proposal generated thousands of comments with the primary concern

that the actions would devastate the economy of the State of Alabama

and severely impact adjoining States. There were reports from State

conservation agents and other knowledgeable sources of rumors inciting

the capture and destruction of Alabama sturgeon. A primary contributing

factor to this controversy was the proposed designation of critical

habitat for the sturgeon.

The six snail species addressed in this rule are especially

vulnerable to vandalism. They all are found in shallow shoals or

riffles in restricted stream and river segments. The flat pebblesnail,

plicate rocksnail, round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and lacy elimia

attach to the surfaces of bedrock, cobble, or gravel, while the

cylindrical lioplax is found under large boulders. The six species are

relatively immobile and unable to escape collectors or vandals. They

inhabit remote but easily accessed areas, and they are sensitive to a

variety of easily obtained commercial chemicals and products. Because

of these factors, vandalism or collecting could be undetectable and

uncontrolled. For example, the plicate rocksnail recently disappeared

from approximately 80 percent of its known occupied habitat. While the

Service has been unable to determine the cause of this decline, the

disappearance illustrates the vulnerability of this and the other snail

species.

All known populations of these six snail species occur in streams

flowing through private lands. The primary threat to all surviving

populations appears to be pollutants in stormwater runoff that

originate from private land activities (see Factor A). Therefore, the

survival and recovery of these snails will be highly dependent on

landowner cooperation in reducing land use impacts. Controversy

resulting from critical habitat designation has been known to reduce

private landowner cooperation in the management of species listed under

the Act (e.g., spotted owl, golden cheeked warbler). The Alabama

sturgeon experience suggests that critical habitat designation could

affect landowner cooperation within watersheds occupied by these six

snails.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded critical

habitat designation would provide little additional benefit for these

species beyond those that would accrue from listing under the Act. The

Service also concludes that any potential benefit from such a

designation would be offset by an increased level of vulnerability to

vandalism or collecting, and by a possible reduction in landowner

cooperation to manage and recover these species. The designation of

critical habitat for these six snail species is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in

part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may

adversely affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the

Service.

Federal activities that could occur and impact these species

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. Activities

affecting water quality may also impact these species and are subject

to the Corps and EPA's regulations and permit requirements under

authority of the CWA and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES). It has been the experience of the Service, however,

that nearly all section 7 consultations have been resolved so that the

species have been protected and the project objectives have been met.

Other than a potential dam on the Locust Fork River, Jefferson and

Blount counties, Alabama, no other Federal activities that may affect

these species are currently known to be under consideration.

The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 for

endangered species, and 17.21 and 17.31 for threatened species, set

forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered or threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

[[Page 57619]]

wound, kill, trap, or collect, or to attempt any of these), import or

export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,

carry, transport, or ship any wildlife that has been taken illegally.

Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered or threatened wildlife species under certain

circumstances. Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 for

endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in connection with

otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, there are also

permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special

purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.

It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent

practicable, those activities that would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness as to the effects of these listings on future

and ongoing activities within a species' range.

Activities which the Service believes are unlikely to result in a

violation of section 9 for these six snails are:

(1) Existing discharges into waters supporting these species,

provided these activities are carried out in accordance with existing

regulations and permit requirements (e.g., activities subject to

sections 402, 404, and 405 of the Clean Water Act and discharges

regulated under the NPDES.

(2) Actions that may affect these six snail species and are

authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action

is conducted in accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures

given by the Service in accordance with section 7 of the Act.

(3) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices that are

carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit

requirements, and best management practices.

(4) Development and construction activities designed and

implemented pursuant to Federal, State, and local water quality

regulations.

(5) Existing recreational activities such as swimming, wading,

canoeing, and fishing.

Activities that the Service believes could potentially result in

``take'' of these snails include:

(1) The unauthorized collection or capture of the species;

(2) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the species habitat

(e.g., instream dredging, channelization, discharge of fill material);

(3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit;

(4) Illegal discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other

pollutants into waters supporting the species.

Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-

by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may

be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider

these lists to be exhaustive and provides them as information to the

public.

Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the Service's Jackson Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests

for copies of regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about

prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard,

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Phone 404/679-7313; Fax 404/679-7081).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other

than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. 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 control number. For additional

information concerning permit and associated requirements for

endangered and threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32,

respectively.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,

is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this final rule is Paul Hartfield (see

ADDRESSES section)(601/965-4900, extension 25).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service amends 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 section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under SNAILS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

Snails

* * * * * * *

Elimia, lacy..................... Elimia crenatella... U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. T 651 NA NA

[[Page 57620]]

* * * * * * *

Lioplax, cylindrical............. Lioplax U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. E 651 NA NA

cyclostomaformis.

* * * * * * *

Pebblesnail, flat................ Lepyrium showalteri. U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. E 651 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Rocksnail, painted............... Leptoxis taeniata... U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. T 651 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Rocksnail, plicate............... Leptoxis plicata.... U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. E 651 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Rocksnail, round................. Leptoxis ampla ..... U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. T 651 NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: October 16, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-28884 Filed 10-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P