[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