[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 208 (Wednesday, October 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57642-57648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28883]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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. 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
[[Page 57643]]
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. 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.
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
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.
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
[[Page 57644]]
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. 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. 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). 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.
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. 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
[[Page 57645]]
(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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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
[[Page 57646]]
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.
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.
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. 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). 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. 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
[[Page 57647]]
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).
(3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit.
(4) Illegal discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other
pollutants into waters supporting these two species.
(5) Use of pesticides and herbicides in violation of label
restrictions within the species' watersheds.
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 should these snails be listed.
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
future violation of section 9 should these snails be listed should be
directed to the Service's Asheville 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 (telephone 404/679-7313;
facsimile 404/679-7081).
Public 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
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
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.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 57648]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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