Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Armored Snail and Slender Campeloma

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF29

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Endangered Status for the Armored Snail and Slender Campeloma

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list the

armored snail (Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta) and slender campeloma

(Campeloma decampi) as endangered species under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The armored snail is known only from

Piney and Limestone creeks, Limestone County, Alabama, and the range of

the slender campeloma has been reduced (Aquatic Resources Center (ARC)

1997) by at least three-quarters from its historical distribution and

is now found only in Round Island, Piney, and Limestone creeks,

Limestone County, Alabama. These species are in a particularly

precarious position, being restricted to a few isolated sites along two

or three short river reaches. Siltation and other pollutants from poor

land-use practices, and waste discharges, are contributing to the

general deterioration of water quality, likely impacting these species.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by

December 28, 1998. Public hearing requests must be received by December

14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Allen Ratzlaff, at the above

address (telephone 828/258-3939, Ext. 229; facsimile 828/258-5330).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

h and

Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Allen Ratzlaff, at the above

address (telephone 828/258-3939, Ext. 229; facsimile 828/258-5330).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The armored snail (Marstonia pachyta) was described by Thompson in

1977 and was later reassigned to the genus Pyrgulopsis by Hershler and

Thompson (1987). The armored snail is a small, presumably annual,

species (usually less than 4 millimeters (mm) (0.16 inch (in)) in

length) (Thompson 1984). It is distinguished from other closely related

species by the characteristics of both its verge (male reproductive

organ) and shell. The armored snail has a small raised gland on the

ventral surface of the verge (a trait common only with the beaverpond

snail (P. castor) of this genus) and two small glands along the left

margin of the apical (tip) lobe. The apical lobe is smaller than in

most species of Pyrgulopsis (Thompson 1977). Garner (1993) noted some

variation in verge characteristics (more developed apical lobes) but

attributed the differences to temporal changes in verge morphology

throughout the annual life cycle. The shell is easily identified by its

ovate-conical shape, its pronounced thickness, and its complete

peristome (edge of the opening). Other Pyrgulopsis species with ovate-

conical shells have much thinner, almost transparent, shells, and the

peristome is seldom complete across the parietal margin (area along the

opening abutting the main body of the shell) of the aperture (opening)

(Thompson 1977).

The armored snail occurs only in Piney and Limestone creeks,

Limestone County, Alabama (Garner 1993, Hershler 1994, ARC 1997), and

has never been noted outside this area. Piney Creek was a tributary to

Limestone Creek prior to the construction of Wheeler Lake on the

Tennessee River

margin (area along the

opening abutting the main body of the shell) of the aperture (opening)

(Thompson 1977).

The armored snail occurs only in Piney and Limestone creeks,

Limestone County, Alabama (Garner 1993, Hershler 1994, ARC 1997), and

has never been noted outside this area. Piney Creek was a tributary to

Limestone Creek prior to the construction of Wheeler Lake on the

Tennessee River. Thus, the two populations of the armored snail are

likely remnants of a once larger population. Armored snails are

generally found among submerged tree roots and bryophytes (nonflowering

plants comprising mosses and liverworts) along stream margins in areas

of slow to moderate flow. Occasionally they are found in the submerged

detritus (organic matter and rock fragments) along pool edges.

The armored snail is in a particularly precarious position, being

restricted to a few isolated sites along two short river reaches.

Inhabited sites appear to be rather small, covering only a few square

meters.

The slender campeloma belongs to the ovoviviparous family

Viviparidae. All species in this family give birth to

young crawling snails rather than laying eggs that hatch in an external

environment. The sexes are separate in the Viviparidae, with males

being distinguishable by their modified right tentacle that serves as a

copulatory organ. This modified tentacle in males is shorter and

thicker than the left tentacle or either of the bilaterally symmetrical

tentacles of the females (Burch and Vail 1982)

young crawling snails rather than laying eggs that hatch in an external

environment. The sexes are separate in the Viviparidae, with males

being distinguishable by their modified right tentacle that serves as a

copulatory organ. This modified tentacle in males is shorter and

thicker than the left tentacle or either of the bilaterally symmetrical

tentacles of the females (Burch and Vail 1982).

Burch and Vail (1982) describe Campeloma decampi (``Currier''

Binney 1865) as follows: Shell medium to large but generally less than

35 mm (1.40 in) in length; shell without spiral nodules; outer margin

of shell aperture not concave and its oblique angle to the shell axis

not exaggerated; columellar margin of operculum (plate that closes the

shell when the snail is retracted) not reflected inward; operculum

entirely concentric, including its nucleus; whorls without spiral

angles, ridges, or sulci (grooves); shells without spiral color bands;

length of aperture noticeably greater than width; lateral and marginal

teeth simple with very fine, difficult-to-distinguish cusps (points);

shell narrow, relatively thin, generally with prominent raised spiral

lines.

The slender campeloma can be easily distinguished from the

sympatric (two or more closely related species occupying identical or

overlapping territories) Campeloma decisum (a widespread and common

species in northern Alabama) by the presence of fine sculpture in the

form of faint striations and a relatively higher spire on the shell of

C. decampi. Many C. decampi specimens have strongly developed ridges,

referred to as axial growth ridges by Clench and Turner (1955). All

whorls in juveniles and early whorls in adults are carinate (keel-

shaped). The shell of C. decisum is smooth, without carination.

Campeloma decampi is typically found burrowing in soft sediment

(sand and/or mud) or detritus

ely higher spire on the shell of

C. decampi. Many C. decampi specimens have strongly developed ridges,

referred to as axial growth ridges by Clench and Turner (1955). All

whorls in juveniles and early whorls in adults are carinate (keel-

shaped). The shell of C. decisum is smooth, without carination.

Campeloma decampi is typically found burrowing in soft sediment

(sand and/or mud) or detritus. At no site does it appear abundant, and

the spotty distribution appears consistent with other Campeloma species

(Bovbjerg 1952, Medcof 1940, van der Schalie 1965). Several size

classes were found in 1996, ranging from 5 mm to 31 mm in shell height,

indicating reproducing populations (ARC 1997). The life history of C.

decampi has not been studied. Based on other studies of species in the

genus Campeloma, a genus exclusive to North America, a few generalities

can be inferred. Van Cleave and Altringer (1937), in their study of C.

rufum in Illinois, found gravid (pregnant) females year-round, peaking

in May, with the most barren females found in June. Parturition (birth)

was also most active in May but extended until September first.

Chamberlain (1958) found similar results with C. decisum in North

Carolina (parturition extending from mid-March until the end of June)

as did Medcof (1940) in his study of C. decisum in Ontario (parturition

extending from March to September). Van Cleave and Altringer (1937) and

van der Schalie (1965), in their work with C. ponderosum coarctatum,

both found females carrying young in their uterus over winter. Given

the wide range of sizes found by ARC (1997), the timing of parturition

and the ability of females to over-winter young in their uterus is

likely similar for C. decampi. However, it should be noted that C.

rufum and C. decisum are parthenogenic (production of young by females

without fertilization by males), as several of the northern Campeloma

species appear to be. The food habits of the slender campeloma are not

known, but they likely feed on detritus

turition

and the ability of females to over-winter young in their uterus is

likely similar for C. decampi. However, it should be noted that C.

rufum and C. decisum are parthenogenic (production of young by females

without fertilization by males), as several of the northern Campeloma

species appear to be. The food habits of the slender campeloma are not

known, but they likely feed on detritus.

The range given for Campeloma decampi in Burch (1989) is Jackson,

Limestone, and Madison counties, Alabama. These counties all lie along

the north side of the Tennessee River. However, the type locality

(location where the specimen was collected and described) of C. decampi

is Decatur, Alabama, in Morgan County, across the river from Limestone

County (Clench 1962).

Clench and Turner (1955) identified museum specimens of C. decampi

from several localities in northern Alabama. These sites were located

primarily on stream impoundments and included Swan and Bass Lakes,

Limestone County; Brim (=Braham) and Byrd Lakes, Madison County; and an

unspecified locality in Jackson County. Surveys conducted in 1996 (ARC

1997) found no Swan Lake in North Alabama. A lake by that name was

apparently located in Limestone County, across the river from Decatur,

but was inundated by Wheeler Reservoir. This was likely the ``Decatur''

locality (type) mentioned in Clench (1962). Brim (=Braham) Lake was

surveyed, but no C. decampi were found, though another viviparid

(Viviparus georgianus) was abundant at the site. Byrd Spring, on

Redstone Arsenal, was not accessible.

Based on the 1996 surveys (ARC 1997), the range of Campeloma

decampi has been reduced by at least three-quarters from its historical

distribution, and existing populations are now isolated by Wheeler

Reservoir. The species is now in a particularly precarious position,

being restricted to a few isolated sites along three short stream

reaches--Limestone, Piney, and Round Island creeks.

Previous Federal Action

6 surveys (ARC 1997), the range of Campeloma

decampi has been reduced by at least three-quarters from its historical

distribution, and existing populations are now isolated by Wheeler

Reservoir. The species is now in a particularly precarious position,

being restricted to a few isolated sites along three short stream

reaches--Limestone, Piney, and Round Island creeks.

Previous Federal Action

The armored snail was identified as a category 2 species in notices

of review published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1989 (54 FR

554), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR

58982). The slender campeloma was identified as a category 2 species in

the notice of review published in the Federal Register on 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 threats were not available to support a

proposed rule. Designation of category 2 status was discontinued in the

February 28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7956). The two snails in

this proposed rule were approved as candidate species on August 29,

1997, after publication of the 1996 notice of review. 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.

On October 20, 1993, the Service notified (by mail, 34 letters)

potentially affected Federal and State agencies and local governments,

and interested individuals within the species' present range that a

status review of the armored snail was being conducted. No objections

to the potential listing of the armored snail were received. No

notification was made concerning the slender campeloma because the

ranges are so similar

e notified (by mail, 34 letters)

potentially affected Federal and State agencies and local governments,

and interested individuals within the species' present range that a

status review of the armored snail was being conducted. No objections

to the potential listing of the armored snail were received. No

notification was made concerning the slender campeloma because the

ranges are so similar.

The processing of this proposed 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 to handling emergency

situations (Tier 1); 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 proposed rule falls under tier 2.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated

to

implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal list. 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 armored snail (Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta) and

slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The armored snail is known only

from Limestone and Piney creeks, Limestone County, Alabama, and has

never been noted outside this area

tion 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the armored snail (Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta) and

slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The armored snail is known only

from Limestone and Piney creeks, Limestone County, Alabama, and has

never been noted outside this area. The slender campeloma is currently

known from Round Island, Piney, and Limestone creeks, Limestone County,

Alabama (a range reduction of about three-quarters from its historical

distribution). Their extremely limited distribution, limited occupied

habitat, and annual life cycle (in the case of the armored snail) make

these species extremely vulnerable to extirpation. The annual life

cycle of the armored snail increases its vulnerability to extirpation,

because an event resulting in the extirpation or disruption of any

portion of the life cycle could result in the loss of this snail.

Threats to these species include siltation, direct loss of habitat,

altered water chemistry, and chemical pollution.

Piney Creek was a tributary to Limestone Creek prior to the

construction of Wheeler Lake on the Tennessee River. Thus, populations

of both the armored snail and slender campeloma inhabiting these two

creeks are likely remnants of once larger populations. In addition to

directly altering snail habitat, dams and their impounded waters form

barriers to the movement of snails. Sediment accumulation and changes

in flow and water chemistry in impounded stream and river reaches

reduce food and oxygen availability and eliminate essential breeding

habitat for riverine snails. It is suspected that isolated colonies

gradually disappear as a result of local water and habitat quality

changes. Unable to emigrate (move to another area), isolated snail

populations are vulnerable to local discharges in surface run-off

within their watersheds

mpounded stream and river reaches

reduce food and oxygen availability and eliminate essential breeding

habitat for riverine snails. It is suspected that isolated colonies

gradually disappear as a result of local water and habitat quality

changes. Unable to emigrate (move to another area), isolated snail

populations are vulnerable to local discharges in surface run-off

within their watersheds. Although many watershed impacts have been

temporary, eventually improving or even disappearing with the advent of

new technology, practices, or laws, dams and their impoundments prevent

natural recolonization by surviving snail populations.

Sedimentation of rivers and streams may affect the reproductive

success of aquatic snails by eliminating breeding habitat and

interfering with their feeding activity by reducing or eliminating

periphyton (plankton which live attached to rooted aquatic plants) food

sources. Sources of sediments likely affecting these species include

channel modification, agriculture, cattle grazing, run-off from unpaved

roads, and industrial and residential development.

Other types of water quality degradation from both point and

nonpoint sources currently affect these species. Stream discharges from

these sources may result in eutrophication, decreased dissolved oxygen

concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in

water chemistry. Nutrients, usually phosphorus and nitrogen, may

emanate from agricultural fields, residential lawns, livestock

operations, and leaking septic tanks in levels that result in

eutrophication and reduced oxygen levels in small streams. The Round

Island, Limestone, and Piney Creek drainages are dominated by

agricultural use, primarily cotton (a high pesticide use crop), which

makes these creeks susceptible to pesticide contamination. Pesticide

containers were found in Limestone and Piney creeks during site visits

in 1997 (J. Allen Ratzlaff, personal observation)

in

eutrophication and reduced oxygen levels in small streams. The Round

Island, Limestone, and Piney Creek drainages are dominated by

agricultural use, primarily cotton (a high pesticide use crop), which

makes these creeks susceptible to pesticide contamination. Pesticide

containers were found in Limestone and Piney creeks during site visits

in 1997 (J. Allen Ratzlaff, personal observation). Timber harvesting

for wood chip mills proposed for northeastern Alabama and southwestern

Tennessee could also contribute to a deterioration of water quality.

Many bridge crossings occur within these species' range. Highway

and bridge construction and widening could impact these species through

sedimentation or the physical destruction of its habitat unless

appropriate precautions are implemented.

Limestone Creek currently supports one endangered snail species,

Athearnia anthonyi (Anthony's riversnail), and most of its mussel fauna

has been extirpated (17 species), including five species currently

listed as endangered. The specific reasons for the loss of these

species are not known but are likely a combination of the above-listed

impacts.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. The two snail species addressed in this proposed

rule 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. Although scientific collecting is not

presently identified as a threat, unregulated collecting by private and

institutional collectors could pose a threat to these locally

restricted populations.

C. Disease or predation. Diseases of aquatic snails are unknown

ue, and overutilization has not

been a problem. However, as their rarity becomes known, they may become

more attractive to collectors. Although scientific collecting is not

presently identified as a threat, unregulated collecting by private and

institutional collectors could pose a threat to these locally

restricted populations.

C. Disease or predation. Diseases of aquatic snails are unknown.

Although both the armored snail and slender campeloma are undoubtedly

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 at this time.

Chamberlain (1958) found the uterus of some specimens of Campeloma

decisum infected by the trematode Leucochloridomorpha constantiae, a

black duck (Anas rubripes) parasite, with the snail evidently being an

intermediate host. It is not known whether the slender campeloma is

parasitized or to what degree any parasitism inhibits its life cycle.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The State of

Alabama's prohibitions against taking fish and wildlife for scientific

purposes without State collecting permits provide some protection for

these snails. However, these species are generally not protected from

other threats. These snails are not given any special consideration

under other environmental laws when project impacts are reviewed.

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 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

mpliance with

State and Federal regulations pertaining to water quality, there is

currently no information on the sensitivity of 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 to protect these species. 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.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. Both species inhabit short creek reaches; thus, they are

vulnerable to extirpation from naturally occurring events such as toxic

chemical spills. All three creeks are crossed by a number of roads,

railroads, and power lines that pose additional direct threats (e.g.,

loss of riparian vegetation) and indirect threats

(potential toxic spills and run-off). Additionally, because these

populations are isolated, their long-term genetic viability is

questionable. Because all three creeks are isolated by an impoundment,

recolonization of an extirpated population is not likely without human

intervention.

Further, since most of Limestone Creek's mussel fauna has already

been lost, this is a strong indicator of a severely impacted ecosystem

that has undergone significant degradation. Because the life history

and biology of these species are virtually unknown, it is likely they

may continue to decline due to currently unrecognized impacts and

stresses to their populations

t human

intervention.

Further, since most of Limestone Creek's mussel fauna has already

been lost, this is a strong indicator of a severely impacted ecosystem

that has undergone significant degradation. Because the life history

and biology of these species are virtually unknown, it is likely they

may continue to decline due to currently unrecognized impacts and

stresses to their populations.

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 propose this

rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the

armored snail and slender campeloma as endangered. The armored snail is

currently known only from Piney and Limestone creeks, Limestone County,

Alabama, and the slender campeloma is known only from the

aforementioned creeks and Round Island Creek, Limestone County,

Alabama. These snails and their habitat have been and continue to be

threatened. Their limited distribution also makes them vulnerable to

toxic chemical spills. Because of their restricted distribution and

vulnerability to extinction, endangered status is the most appropriate

classification for these species.

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

considerations 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 needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary

special management

considerations 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 needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

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

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) requires 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

human activity, and 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 these two species.

Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only

Federal agency actions. Because these snails 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 storm-

water run-off. Such activities would be subject to review under section

7(a)(2) of the Act regardless of whether critical habitat was

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

consultation with and with the assistance of the Service, that

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

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat, if any is designated

ection

7(a)(2) of the Act regardless of whether critical habitat was

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

consultation with and with the assistance of the Service, that

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

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat, if any is designated. Also,

section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer informally with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat. See ``Available Conservation

Measures'' section for a further discussion of section 7. As part of

the development of this proposed rule, Federal and State agencies were

notified of the armored snail's general distribution (with the slender

campeloma being similar, no specific notification was sent regarding

it), and they were requested to provide data on proposed Federal

actions that might adversely affect the species. No specific projects

were identified. Should any future projects be proposed in areas

inhabited by these snails, the involved Federal agency will already

have the general distributional data needed to determine if the species

may be impacted by their action, and more specific distributional

information would be provided if needed.

Regulations promulgated for the implementation of section 7 of the

Act provide for both a ``jeopardy'' standard and a ``destruction or

adverse modification'' of critical habitat standard. Both standards are

defined in very similar language. Due to the highly precarious status

of the armored snail and slender campeloma, any significant adverse

modification or destruction of these species' habitat also would likely

jeopardize the species' continued existence, thereby triggering both

standards

' standard and a ``destruction or

adverse modification'' of critical habitat standard. Both standards are

defined in very similar language. Due to the highly precarious status

of the armored snail and slender campeloma, any significant adverse

modification or destruction of these species' habitat also would likely

jeopardize the species' continued existence, thereby triggering both

standards. Therefore, no additional protection for the snails would

accrue from a critical habitat designation that would not also occur

from listing of the species. If listed, habitat protection for these

snails will be accomplished through the section 7 ``jeopardy'' standard

and the section 9 prohibitions against take.

Recovery of these species will require the identification of

unoccupied creeks and creek reaches appropriate for reintroduction.

Critical habitat designation of unoccupied creeks and creek reaches may

benefit these species by alerting permitting agencies to areas

considered crucial to these species and allowing them the opportunity

to evaluate projects which may affect these areas. The Service will

work with the State and other Federal agencies to periodically survey

and assess habitat potential of creeks and creek reaches for listed and

candidate aquatic species within the watersheds in and around Limestone

County. This process will provide up to date information on instream

habitat conditions in response to land use changes within watersheds.

Information generated from surveys and assessments will be disseminated

through Service coordination with other agencies. Should this rule

become final, the Service will work with State and Federal agencies, as

well as private property owners and other affected parties, through the

recovery process to identify creek reaches and potential sites for

reintroduction of these species

watersheds.

Information generated from surveys and assessments will be disseminated

through Service coordination with other agencies. Should this rule

become final, the Service will work with State and Federal agencies, as

well as private property owners and other affected parties, through the

recovery process to identify creek reaches and potential sites for

reintroduction of these species. Thus, the benefit provided by

designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat will be

accomplished more effectively with this 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

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

the Species''). For example, on June 15, 1993, the Alabama sturgeon was

proposed for endangered status with critical habitat (50 CFR 33148).

The proposal generated thousands of comments, with the primary concern

being that the action 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

primary concern

being that the action 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 two snail species addressed in this proposal are especially

vulnerable to vandalism. They are found in very restricted segments of

relatively short creek reaches. They are relatively immobile and unable

to escape collectors or vandals. They inhabit easily accessible areas

and are sensitive to a variety of readily available commercial

chemicals and products. Because of these factors, vandalism or

collecting would be difficult to detect and/or control. For example,

another Alabama snail, the plicate rocksnail, recently disappeared from

80 percent of its known occupied habitat. Although the Service has been

unable to determine the cause of this decline, this disappearance

illustrates the vulnerability of this and other snail species.

All known populations of these two species occur in creeks flowing

through private land. One of the primary threats to surviving

populations appears to be run-off from private land activities (see

Factor A). Therefore, the survival and recovery of these species 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

listed species under the Act (e.g., spotted owl, golden-cheeked

warblers). The Alabama sturgeon experience suggests that critical

habitat designation could affect landowner cooperation within the

watersheds occupied by these two snails

educing land-use

impacts.

Controversy resulting from critical habitat designation has been

known to reduce private landowner cooperation in the management of

listed species under the Act (e.g., spotted owl, golden-cheeked

warblers). The Alabama sturgeon experience suggests that critical

habitat designation could affect landowner cooperation within the

watersheds occupied by these two snails.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that a

critical habitat designation would provide few additional benefits for

these species beyond those that would occur from listing under the Act.

The Service also concludes that any potential benefit from such a

designation would be outweighed by an increased level of vulnerability

to vandalism and collecting and could possibly cause landowners to be

less willing to cooperate with the Service in the management and

recovery of these species. The designation of critical habitat for

these two snails is therefore 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 results in public awareness and

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 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

king 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)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer

informally with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a

species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species

or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

action may adversely affect a listed species or its critical habitat,

the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with

the Service.

The Service notified Federal agencies that may have programs or

projects affecting the armored snail. No notification was given about

the slender campeloma because its range is so similar and because no

controversy arose from the notification of the potential listing of the

armored snail. No specific proposed Federal actions were identified

that would likely affect the species. Federal activities that could

occur and impact the species include, but are not limited to, the

carrying out or the issuance of permits for reservoir construction,

stream alterations, wastewater facility development, pesticide

registration, 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)

the issuance of permits for reservoir construction,

stream alterations, wastewater facility development, pesticide

registration, 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 Service's experience that nearly all section 7

consultations can be resolved so that the species is protected and the

project objectives are met.

The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

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

endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 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 such 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. 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.

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 if these species are listed

s,

to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and/or for

incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

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 if these species are listed. The

intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of

this proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the

species' range.

Activities that the Service believes are unlikely to result in a

violation of section 9 for these two 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 two 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, including

pesticide and herbicide use, that are carried out in accordance with

any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best

management practices.

(4) Development and construction activities designed and

implemented pursuant to State and local water quality regulations.

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

canoeing, and fishing.

Activities that the Service believes could result in ``take'' of

these snails, if they should be listed, include:

(1) Unauthorized collection or capture of these species.

(2) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the species' habitat

(e.g., in-stream dredging, channelization, discharge of fill material).

Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments

particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to the armored snail or slender campeloma;

(2) The location of any additional populations of the armored snail

or slender campeloma and the reasons why any habitat should or should

not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of

the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range and distribution of

these species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on the armored snail or slender campeloma.

Final promulgation of the regulations on these species will take

into consideration the comments and any additional information received

by the Service, and such communications may lead to final regulations

that differ from this proposal.

You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for

a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date

of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your

request to the State Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866

ved

by the Service, and such communications may lead to final regulations

that differ from this proposal.

You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for

a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date

of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your

request to the State Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that

are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this

proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon

that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal

easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: E[email protected].

National Environmental Policy Act

The 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

ervice 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 species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

References Cited

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

is available upon request from the State Supervisor (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Mr. J. Allen

Ratzlaff, (see ``ADDRESSES'' section) (828/258-3939, Ext. 229).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened wildlife, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

PART 17--[AMENDED]

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

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

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

:

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

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

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

* * * * * * *

Campeloma, slender............... Campeloma decampi... U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. E NA NA

* * * * * * *

Snail, armored................... Pyrgulopsis U.S.A. (AL)........ NA................. E NA NA

(=Marstonia)

pachyta .

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: October 16, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-28883 Filed 10-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P