[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54020-54028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE36


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to 
List Three Aquatic Snails as Endangered, and Three Aquatic Snails as 
Threatened in the Mobile River Basin of Alabama

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition findings.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list the 
cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis), flat pebblesnail 
(Lepyrium showalteri), and plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) as 
endangered; and the painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata), round 
rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla), and lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella) as 
threatened species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). These aquatic snails are found in localized 
portions of the Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, and Coosa rivers or 
their tributaries in Alabama. Impoundment and water quality degradation 
have eliminated the six snails from 90 percent or more of their 
historic habitat. Surviving populations are currently threatened by 
pollutants such as sediments and nutrients that wash into streams from 
the land surface. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend the 
Act's protection to these six snail species.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by 
December 16, 1997. Public hearing requests must be received by December 
1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. 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. Paul Hartfield at the above 
address, or telephone 601/965-4900, Ext. 25.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mobile River Basin (Basin) historically supported the greatest 
diversity of freshwater snail species in the world (Bogan et al. 1995), 
including six genera and over 100 species that were endemic to the 
Basin. During the past few decades, publications in the scientific 
literature have primarily dealt with the apparent decimation of this 
fauna following the construction of dams within the Basin and the 
inundation of extensive shoal habitats by impounded waters (Goodrich 
1944, Athearn 1970, Heard 1970, Stein 1976, Palmer 1986, Garner 1990).
    In 1990, the Service initiated a status review of the endemic 
freshwater snails of the Basin. An extensive literature survey 
identified sources of information on taxonomy, distribution, ecology, 
and status of the fauna and was used to assemble a checklist of the 
Basin's snails and their distributions (Bogan 1992). Field surveys and 
collections were made for snails and other freshwater mollusks 
throughout the Basin (Bogan and Pierson, 1993a,b; McGregor et al. 1996; 
Service Field Records, Jackson, Mississippi 1989-1996; Bogan in litt. 
1995; M. Pierson Field Records, Calera, Alabama, in litt. 1993-1994; J. 
Garner, Alabama Department of Conservation, pers. comm. 1996; J. 
Johnson, Auburn University, in litt. 1996).
    Bogan et al. (1995) summarized the results of their efforts noting 
the apparent extinction of numerous snail species in the Coosa and 
Cahaba River drainages, and the imperiled state of many other aquatic 
snails in the Basin.
    The taxonomy used in this proposal follows Burch (1989), which 
relies almost exclusively on shell morphology. Many of the Basin's 
freshwater snail species, particularly in the family Pleuroceridae, are 
known to exhibit marked clinal variation (gradual change in characters 
of a species that manifests itself along a geographic gradient) in 
shell form, some of which has been described as environmentally induced 
(e.g., Goodrich 1934, 1937). Four of the six species considered in this 
proposal belong to the family Pleuroceridae and their relationships to 
each other, as well as to other Pleuroceridae, are poorly understood. 
In order to better document taxonomic relationships among these snails, 
a genetic study was conducted during the status review of a select 
group of the Basin's Pleuroceridae (Lydeard et al. 1997). The four 
snails within this family considered herein (lacy elimia, round 
rocksnail, plicate rocksnail, and painted rocksnail) were included in 
the genetic study. This study supported their current taxonomic status 
(Lydeard et al. 1997).
    The cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis (Lea 1841)) is a 
gill-breathing snail in the family Viviparidae. The shell is elongate, 
reaching about 28 millimeters (mm) (1.1 inches (in)) in length. Shell 
color is light to dark olivaceous-green externally, and bluish inside 
of the aperture (shell opening). The cylindrical lioplax is 
distinguished from other viviparid snails in the Basin by the number of 
whorls, and differences in size, sculpture, microsculpture, and spire 
angle. No other species of lioplax snails are known to occur in the 
Mobile Basin (see Clench and Turner 1955 for a more detailed 
description).
    Habitat for the cylindrical lioplax is unusual for the genus, as 
well as for other genera of viviparid snails. It lives in mud under 
large rocks in rapid currents over stream and river shoals.
    Other lioplax species are usually found in exposed situations or in 
mud or muddy sand along the margins of rivers. Little is known of the 
biology or life history of the cylindrical lioplax. It is believed to 
brood its young and filter-feed, as do other members of the 
Viviparidae. Life spans have been reported from 3 to 11 years in 
various species of Viviparidae (Heller 1990).
    Collection records for the cylindrical lioplax exist from the 
Alabama River (Dallas County, Alabama), Black Warrior River (Jefferson 
County, Alabama) and tributaries (Prairie Creek, Marengo County, 
Alabama; Valley Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama), Coosa River

[[Page 54021]]

(Shelby, Elmore counties, Alabama) and tributaries (Oothcalooga Creek, 
Bartow County, Georgia; Coahulla Creek, Whitfield County, Georgia; 
Armuchee Creek, Floyd County, Georgia; Little Wills Creek, Etowah 
County, Alabama; Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County, Alabama; 
Yellowleaf Creek, Shelby County, Alabama), and the Cahaba River (Bibb, 
Shelby counties, Alabama) and its tributary, Little Cahaba River 
(Jefferson County, Alabama) (Clench and Turner 1955). A single 
collection of this species has also been reported from the Tensas 
River, Madison Parish, Louisiana (Clench 1962), however, there are no 
previous or subsequent records outside of the Alabama-Coosa system, and 
searches of the Tensas River in Louisiana by Service biologists (1995) 
and others (Vidrine 1996) have found no evidence of the species or its 
typical habitat.
    The cylindrical lioplax is currently known only from approximately 
24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) of the Cahaba River above the Fall 
Line in Shelby and Bibb counties, Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b). 
Survey efforts by Davis (1974) failed to locate this snail in the Coosa 
or Alabama rivers, and more recent survey efforts have also failed to 
relocate the species at historic localities in the Alabama, Black 
Warrior, Little Cahaba, and Coosa rivers and their tributaries (Bogan 
and Pierson 1993a, 1993b; M. Pierson in litt. 1993, 1994; Service Field 
Records 1991, 1992, 1993).
    The flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri (Lea 1861)) is a small 
snail in the family Hydrobiidae; however, the species has a large and 
distinct shell, relative to other hydrobiid species. This snail's shell 
is also distinguished by its depressed spire and expanded, flattened 
body whorl. The shells are ovate in outline, flattened, and grow to 3.5 
to 4.4 mm (0.1-0.2 in) high and 4 to 5 mm (0.2 in) wide. The umbilical 
area is imperforate (no opening), and there are 2 to 3 whorls which 
rapidly expand. The anatomy of this species has been described in 
detail by Thompson (1984). The flat pebblesnail is found attached to 
clean, smooth stones in rapid currents of river shoals. Eggs are laid 
singly in capsules on hard surfaces (Thompson 1984). Little else is 
known of the natural history of this species.
    The flat pebblesnail was historically known from the mainstem Coosa 
River in Shelby and Talladega counties, the Cahaba River in Bibb and 
Dallas counties, and Little Cahaba River in Bibb County, Alabama 
(Thompson 1984). The flat pebblesnail has not been found in the Coosa 
River portion of its range since the construction of Lay and Logan 
Martin Dams, and recent survey efforts have failed to locate any 
surviving populations outside of the Cahaba River drainage (Bogan and 
Pierson, 1993a,b; McGregor et al. 1996; Service Field Records, Jackson, 
Mississippi 1989-1996; Bogan in litt. 1995; M. Pierson Field Records, 
Calera, Alabama, in litt. 1993-1994; J. Garner pers. comm. 1996; J. 
Johnson in litt. 1996). The flat pebblesnail is currently known from 
one site on the Little Cahaba River, Bibb County, and from a single 
shoal series on the Cahaba River above the Fall Line, Shelby County, 
Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b).
    The lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella (Lea 1860)) is a small species 
in the family Pleuroceridae. Growing to about 1.1 centimeters (cm) (0.4 
in.) in length, the shell is conic in shape, strongly striate, and 
often folded in the upper whorls. Shell color is dark brown to black, 
often purple in the aperture, and without banding. The aperture is 
small and ovate. The lacy elimia is easily distinguished from other 
elimia species by a combination of characters (i.e., size, 
ornamentation, color).
    In a recent genetic sequence study of the 16S rRNA gene, the lacy 
elimia was found to be very similar to the compact elimia (Elimia 
showalteri) (Lydeard et al. 1997). Despite their apparent close genetic 
relationship, the authors made no suggestion that the two species 
represented a single species. Upon review of Lydeard et al. (1997), 
Dillon (College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, in litt. 
1997) suggested that additional genetic studies were needed to 
demonstrate the genetic uniqueness of the lacy elimia. However, the 
Lydeard et al. (1997) genetic study addressed only one small genetic 
character of the genome of these species, and other characters strongly 
support the taxonomic status of the lacy elimia. The two species are 
allopatric (the compact elimia occurs in the Cahaba River, whereas the 
lacy elimia was found in the Coosa River and tributaries), and are 
strikingly different in size, appearance, and behavior. The compact 
elimia has a large, robust, smooth shell boldly colored brown and/or 
green, whereas the lacy elimia has a small, delicate, darkly colored, 
and ornamented shell. The lacy elimia is one of the few elimia snails 
in the Basin that does not exhibit clinal variation (Goodrich 1936). In 
addition, compact elimia are found grazing individually throughout 
shoal habitats, whereas the lacy elimia is usually found in tight 
clusters or colonies on larger rocks within a shoal (P. Hartfield, 
Jackson, MS, pers. obsv.). Allopatry, morphology, and behavior are 
strong characters supporting species specific status of the lacy 
elimia.
    Elimia snails are gill breathing snails that typically inhabit 
highly oxygenated waters on rock shoals and gravel bars. Most species 
graze on periphyton growing on benthic substrates. Individual snails 
are either male or female. Eggs are laid in early spring and hatch in 
about 2 weeks. Snails apparently become sexually mature in their first 
year, but, in some species, females may not lay until their second 
year. Some elimia may live as long as 5 years (Dillon 1988).
    The lacy elimia was historically abundant in the Coosa River main 
stem from St. Clair to Chilton County, Alabama, and was also known in 
several Coosa River tributaries--Big Will's Creek, DeKalb County; 
Kelley's Creek, St. Clair County; and Choccolocco and Tallaseehatchee 
creeks, Talladega County, Alabama (Goodrich 1936). The lacy elimia has 
not been recently located at any historic collection site. However, as 
a result of the recent survey efforts previously unreported populations 
were discovered in three Coosa River tributaries--Cheaha, Emauhee, and 
Weewoka creeks, Talladega County, Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993a). 
The species is locally abundant in the lower reaches of Cheaha Creek. 
This stream originates within the Talladega National Forest; however, 
no specimens of the lacy elimia have been collected on Forest Service 
lands. The species has also been found at single sites in Emauhee and 
Weewoka creeks, where specimens are rare, and difficult to locate.
    The painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata (Conrad 1834)) is a small 
to medium snail about 19 mm (0.8 in.) in length, and subglobose to oval 
in shape. The aperture is broadly ovate, and rounded anteriorly. 
Coloration varies from yellowish to olive-brown, and usually with four 
dark bands. Some shells may not have bands and some have the bands 
broken into squares or oblongs (see Goodrich 1922 for a detailed 
description). All of the rocksnails that historically inhabited the 
Basin had broadly rounded apertures, oval shaped shells, and variable 
coloration. Although the various species were distinguished by relative 
sizes, coloration patterns, and ornamentation, identification could be 
confusing. However, the painted rocksnail is the only known survivor of 
the 15 rocksnail species that were historically known from the Coosa 
River drainage.
    Rocksnails are gill breathing snails found attached to cobble, 
gravel, or other hard substrates in the strong currents of riffles and 
shoals. Adult

[[Page 54022]]

rocksnails move very little, and females probably glue their eggs to 
stones in the same habitat (Goodrich 1922). Heller (1990) reported a 
short life span (less than 2 years) in a Tennessee River rocksnail. 
Longevity in the painted and the Basin's other rocksnails is unknown.
    The painted rocksnail had the largest range of any rocksnail in the 
Mobile River Basin (Goodrich 1922). It was historically known from the 
Coosa River and tributaries from the northeastern corner of St. Clair 
County, Alabama, downstream into the mainstem of the Alabama River to 
Claiborne, Monroe County, Alabama, and the Cahaba River below the Fall 
Line in Perry and Dallas counties, Alabama (Goodrich 1922, Burch 1989). 
Surveys by Service biologists and others (Bogan and Pierson 1993a, 
1993b; M. Pierson, in litt. 1993) in the Cahaba River, unimpounded 
portions of the Alabama River, and a number of free-flowing Coosa River 
tributaries have located only three localized Coosa River drainage 
populations.
    The painted rocksnail is currently known from the lower reaches of 
three Coosa River tributaries--Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County; 
Buxahatchee Creek, Shelby County (Bogan and Pierson 1993a); and 
Ohatchee Creek, Calhoun County, Alabama (Pierson in litt. 1993).
    The round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla (Anthony 1855)) grows to about 
20 mm (0.8 in) in length. The shell is subglobose, with an ovately 
rounded aperture. The body whorl is shouldered at the suture, and may 
be ornamented with folds or plicae. Color may be yellow, dark brown, or 
olive green, usually with four entire or broken bands (Goodrich 1922). 
Round rocksnails inhabit riffles and shoals over gravel, cobble, or 
other rocky substrates.
    Lydeard et al. (1997) found slight differences in DNA sequencing 
between the painted rocksnail and the round rocksnail, and considered 
them to be sister species. Following analysis by allozyme 
electrophoresis on these same species, Dillon (in litt. 1997) 
speculated that the two species represented isolated populations 
belonging to a single species. The two species are geographically 
separated, with the painted rocksnail inhabiting Coosa River 
tributaries, while the round rocksnail is the only surviving rocksnail 
species in the Cahaba River drainage. Both species are currently 
recognized by the malacological community (e.g., Burch 1989; Turgeon et 
al. 1988, revision in review), and are treated as distinct in this 
proposed rule.
    The round rocksnail was historically found in the Cahaba River, and 
its tributary, Little Cahaba River, Bibb County, Alabama; and the Coosa 
River, Elmore County, and tributaries--Canoe Creek and Kelly's Creek, 
St. Clair County; Ohatchee Creek, Calhoun County; Yellowleaf Creek, 
Shelby County; and Waxahatchee Creek, Shelby/Chilton counties, Alabama 
(Goodrich 1922).
    The round rocksnail is currently known from a shoal series in the 
Cahaba River, Bibb and Shelby counties, Alabama, and from the lower 
reach of the Little Cahaba River, and the lower reaches of Shade and 
Six-mile creeks in Bibb County, Alabama (Bogan and Pierson 1993b).
    The plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata (Conrad, 1834)) grows to 
about 20 mm (0.8 in) in length. Shells are subglobose with broadly 
rounded apertures. The body whorl may be ornamented with strong folds 
or plicae. Shell color is usually brown, occasionally green, and often 
with four equidistant color bands. The columella (central column or 
axis) is smooth, rounded, and typically pigmented in the upper half. 
The aperture is usually bluish-white, occasionally pink or white. The 
operculum (plate that closes the shell when the snail is retracted) is 
dark red, and moderately thick (Goodrich 1922). Although 
morphologically similar to the Basin's other three surviving rocksnail 
species, the plicate rocksnail is genetically distinct (Lydeard et al. 
1997, Dillon in litt. 1997).
    The plicate rocksnail historically occurred in the Black Warrior 
River and its tributary, the Little Warrior River, and the Tombigbee 
River (Goodrich 1922). Status survey efforts found populations of 
plicate rocksnails only in an approximately 88km (55 mi) reach of the 
Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River, Jefferson and Blount counties, 
Alabama (Service Field Records, Jackson, Mississippi 1991, 1992; 
Malcolm Pierson, Calera, Alabama, Field Notes 1993). Surveys during 
1996 (Garner in progress) indicate that the snail has recently 
disappeared from the upstream \4/5\ portion of that habitat and now 
appears restricted to an approximately 17.6 km (11 mi) reach in 
Jefferson County.

Previous Federal Action

    The six aquatic snails were identified as Category 2 species in 
notices of review published in the Federal Register on November 21, 
1991 (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). At that time, 
a Category 2 species was one that was being considered for possible 
addition to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, but 
for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat were 
not available to support a proposed rule. Designation of Category 2 
species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 
FR 7956). The six snails considered in this proposal were approved as 
Candidate species by the Service on November 9, 1995, and identified as 
Candidates in 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.
    A status review summary, that included these six snails, was mailed 
on August 23, 1994 (62 letters), to appropriate species authorities, 
State and Federal agencies, private organizations, and interested 
individuals. A cover letter provided notification that a status review 
was in progress by the Service, stated that the species appeared to 
qualify for listing under the Act, and requested a review of the status 
review summary for accuracy regarding taxonomy, distribution, threats, 
and status. Three species authorities responded by telephone concurring 
with the status reviews. No other comments were received as a result of 
this notification.
    An updated status report, along with a review request, was mailed 
on March 11, 1997 (157 letters), following elevation of the snails to 
Candidate status. One snail authority concurred with the status review 
analysis; however, he recommended additional genetic studies on the 
lacy elimia (see Background section above). Two other snail authorities 
responded concurring with the analysis, as well as the taxonomic 
treatment of the six species.
    On September 5, 1995, the Service received two petitions, dated 
August 31, 1995, from a coalition of environmental organizations 
(Coosa-Tallapoosa Project, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, and Alabama 
Wilderness Alliance) represented by Mr. Ray Vaughan. The petitioners 
requested the Service to list the plicate rocksnail as endangered and 
to designate critical habitat for this species. The second petition 
requested the Service to list the lacy elimia as a threatened species 
and to designate critical habitat.
    Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Act and implementing regulations at 50 
CFR part 424.14 require that, to the extent practicable, the Service 
make a finding of substantiality on any petition within 90 days of its 
receipt, and publish a notice of its finding in the Federal Register. 
If a substantial 90-day finding is made, the Service is required, to 
the

[[Page 54023]]

extent practicable, within 12 months of receipt of the petition, to 
make a finding as to whether the action requested in the petition is 
(a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded. 
Because of budgetary constraints and the lasting effects of a 
congressionally imposed listing moratorium, the Service is processing 
petitions and other listing actions according to the listing priority 
guidance published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 
64475). The guidance clarifies the order in which the Service will 
process listing actions during fiscal year 1997. The guidance calls for 
giving highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and 
second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the status of outstanding 
proposed listings. Third priority (Tier 3) is given to resolving the 
conservation status of Candidate species and processing administrative 
findings on petitions to add species to the lists or reclassify 
threatened species to endangered status. The processing of these two 
petitions and the proposed rule falls under Tier 3. At this time, the 
Southeast Region has no pending Tier 1 actions and is near completion 
of its pending Tier 2 actions. Additionally, the guidance states that 
``effective April 1, 1997, the Service will concurrently undertake all 
of the activities presently included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3'' (61 FR 
64480). This proposal constitutes the 90-day and 12-month finding on 
the petitioned actions.

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 lists. A species may be determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to the cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis), flat 
pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri), plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis 
plicata), painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata), round rocksnail 
(Leptoxis ampla), and lacy elimia (Elimia crenatella) are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. The cylindrical lioplax, flat 
pebblesnail, lacy elimia, round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and 
plicate rocksnail have all disappeared from more than 90 percent of 
their historic ranges. All of these snails were historically, and 
continue to be, strongly associated with river or stream habitats 
characterized by flowing currents, and hard, clean bottoms (e.g., 
bedrock, boulder, gravel) (Goodrich 1922, 1936; Clench and Turner 
1955). The curtailment of habitat and range for these six species in 
the Basin's larger rivers (Coosa, Alabama, Tombigbee and Black Warrior) 
is primarily due to extensive construction of dams and the inundation 
of the snail's shoal habitats by impounded waters. Thirty dams have 
changed this system from a continuum of free-flowing riverine habitats 
into a series of impoundments connected by short, free-flowing reaches. 
On the Alabama River there are 3 dams (built between 1968-1971); the 
Black Warrior has 5 (1915-1959); the Coosa 10 (1914-1966), and the 
Tombigbee 12 (1954-1979). Dams impound approximately 1,650 km (1,022 
mi) of river channel in the Basin.
    These six snail species have disappeared from all portions of their 
historic habitats that have been impounded by dams. As noted earlier, 
they are all associated with fast currents over clean, hard bottom 
materials. Dams change such areas by eliminating or reducing currents, 
and allowing sediments to accumulate on inundated channel habitats. 
Impounded waters also experience changes in water chemistry which could 
affect survival or reproduction of riverine snails. For example, many 
reservoirs in the Basin currently experience eutrophic conditions, 
including chronically low dissolved oxygen levels (Alabama Department 
of Environmental Management (ADEM) 1994, 1996). Such physical and 
chemical changes can affect feeding, respiration, and reproduction of 
these riffle and shoal snail species.
    A site on the Locust Fork River is currently considered for the 
construction of a water supply impoundment (C. Waldrep, Gorham & 
Waldrep, P.C., Montgomery, Alabama, in litt. 1995). If constructed, 
this impoundment would bisect and threaten the only single surviving 
population of the plicate rocksnail. Plicate rocksnails occurred in 
riffle and shoal habitats above and below the reservoir site in 1994. 
In 1996, plicate rocksnails could not be relocated in the portion of 
the river to be flooded by the reservoir; however, they were confirmed 
to continue to survive in an approximately 17.6 km (11 mi) reach of 
river below the proposed dam site, which would be subject to impacts 
from construction activities and post-construction changes in water 
quality (Garner pers. comm. 1996).
    In addition to directly altering snail habitats, dams and their 
impounded waters also formed barriers to the movement of snails that 
continued to live below dams or in unimpounded tributaries. It is 
suspected that many such isolated colonies gradually disappear as a 
result of local water and habitat quality changes. Unable to emigrate, 
the isolated snail populations are vulnerable to local discharges as 
well as any detrimental land surface runoff within their watersheds. 
Although many watershed impacts have been temporary, eventually 
improving or even disappearing with the advent of new technology, 
practices, or laws, dams and their impounded waters prevent natural 
recolonization by snail populations surviving elsewhere.
    Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act and the adoption of 
State water quality criteria, water pollution may have been a 
significant factor in the disappearance of snail populations from 
unimpounded tributaries of the Basin's impounded mainstem rivers. For 
example, Hurd (1974) noted the extirpation of freshwater mussel 
communities from several Coosa River tributaries, including the 
Conasauga River below Dalton, Georgia, the Chatooga River, and 
Tallaseehatchee Creek, apparently as a result of textile and carpet 
mill waste discharges. He also attributed the disappearance of the 
mussel fauna from the Etowah River, Talladega and Swamp creeks, and 
from many of the lower tributaries of the Coosa River, to organic 
pollution and siltation.
    Short-term and long-term impacts of point and nonpoint source water 
and habitat degradation continue to be a primary concern for the 
survival of all these snails, compounded by their isolation and 
localization. Point source discharges and land surface runoff (nonpoint 
pollution) can cause nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen 
concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in 
water chemistry that are likely to seriously impact aquatic snails. 
Point sources of water quality degradation include municipal and 
industrial effluents.
    Nonpoint source pollution from land surface runoff can originate 
from virtually all land use activities, and may include sediments, 
fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and 
gray water leakage, and oils and greases (ADEM 1996). During many 
recent surveys for these snails, sediment deposition and nutrient 
enrichment of stream reaches was noted as being associated with the 
absence of snails from historic collection localities (Bogan and 
Pierson 1993a, 1993b; Hartfield 1991; Service Field

[[Page 54024]]

Observations 1992-1994, Jackson Field Office, MS).
    Excessive sediments are believed to impact riverine snails 
requiring clean, hard shoal stream and river bottoms, by making the 
habitat unsuitable for feeding or reproduction. Similar impacts 
resulting from sediments have been noted for many other components of 
aquatic communities. For example, sediments have been shown to abrade 
and/or suffocate periphyton (organisms attached to underwater surfaces, 
upon which snails may feed); affect respiration, growth, reproductive 
success, and behavior of aquatic insects and mussels; and affect fish 
growth, survival, and reproduction (Watters 1995).
    Sediment is the most abundant pollutant produced in the Basin (ADEM 
1989). Potential sediment sources within a watershed include virtually 
all activities that disturb the land surface, and all localities 
currently occupied by these snails are affected to varying degrees by 
sedimentation. The amount and impact of sedimentation on snail habitats 
may be locally correlated with the land use practice. For example, the 
use of agriculture, forestry, and construction Best Management 
Practices can reduce sediment amounts and impacts.
    Land surface runoff contributes the majority of human-induced 
nutrients to water bodies throughout the country (Louisiana Department 
of Environmental Quality 1995). Excessive nutrient input (from 
fertilizers, sewage waste, animal manure, etc.) can result in periodic 
low dissolved oxygen levels that are detrimental to aquatic species 
(Hynes 1970). Nutrients also promote heavy algal growth that may cover 
and eliminate clean rock or gravel habitats of shoal dwelling snails. 
Nutrient and sediment pollution may have synergistic effects on 
freshwater snails and their habitats, as has been suggested for aquatic 
insects (Watters 1995).
    The cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and the round rocksnail 
currently survive in localized reaches of the Cahaba River drainage. 
Water quality studies in the upper Cahaba River drainage by the 
Geological Survey of Alabama (Shepard et al. 1996) found that 
discharges from 34 waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) in the upper 
drainage have contributed to water quality impairment. This was 
reflected by low levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of Birmingham; 
ammonia and chlorination by-products in excess of recommended water 
quality criteria; and eutrophication due to excessive levels of 
phosphorus and nitrogen. The study noted that these problems are 
chronic and have been a factor in a loss of mollusk and fish diversity 
throughout the drainage. Their results indicate that the upper Cahaba 
River drainage is primarily impacted by nonpoint runoff and WWTPs 
through physical habitat destruction by sedimentation, and chronic 
stress from exposure to toxics and low dissolved oxygen. The middle 
Cahaba River is primarily impacted by eutrophication and associated 
affects.
    The lacy elimia is now restricted to three small stream channels in 
Talladega County, Alabama--Cheaha, Emauhee, and Weewoka creeks (Coosa 
River drainage). The painted rocksnail currently survives in localized 
reaches of three other Coosa River tributaries, Choccolocco, 
Buxahatchee, and Ohatchee creeks. The plicate rocksnail inhabits a 
single short reach of the Locust Fork River in Jefferson County, 
Alabama (Black Warrior River drainage). All of these streams are 
variously impacted by sediments and nutrients from a variety of 
upstream rural, suburban, and/or urban sources. The streams are all 
small to moderate in size and volumes of flow, and their water and 
habitat quality can be rapidly affected by local and offsite pollution 
sources.
    Habitat fragmentation and population isolation are a significant 
threat to the continued survival of the lacy elimia and painted 
rocksnail. The known populations of these two species are isolated by 
extensive areas of impoundment, and there is little, if any, 
possibility of genetic exchange between them. Over time, this isolation 
may result in genetic drift, with each population becoming unique and 
vulnerable to environmental disturbance.
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. The six aquatic 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. 
Unregulated collecting by private and institutional collectors poses a 
threat. The cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, plicate rocksnail, 
painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia inhabit shallow, 
fast-flowing waters of shoals and riffles. Because of their occurrence 
and exposure in such areas, they are readily vulnerable to 
overcollecting and/or vandalism. In these areas, the snails are also 
exposed to crushing by recreational activities such as canoeing, 
wading, swimming, or fishing; however, normal recreational activities 
are not believed to be a factor in their decline.
    C. Disease or predation. Aquatic snails are consumed by various 
vertebrate predators, including fishes, mammals, and possibly birds. 
Predation by naturally occurring predators is a normal aspect of the 
population dynamics of a species and is not considered a threat to 
these species. However, the potential now exists for black carp 
(Mylopharyngodon piceus), a nonselective molluskivore recently 
introduced into waters of the United States, to eventually enter the 
Mobile River Basin. Exotic black carp recently escaped to the Osage 
River in Missouri when hatchery ponds were flooded during a 1994 spring 
flood of the river (LMRCC newsletter, 1994). The extent of stocking 
black carp for snail control in aquaculture ponds within the Basin is 
unknown; however, black carp are currently cultured and sold within the 
State of Mississippi (D. Reike, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 
Fisheries, and Parks, 1997).
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although the 
negative effects of point source discharges on aquatic communities have 
probably been reduced over time by compliance with State and Federal 
regulations pertaining to water quality, there is currently no 
information on the sensitivity of the Mobile River Basin snail fauna to 
common industrial and municipal pollutants. Current State and Federal 
regulations regarding such discharges are assumed to be protective; 
however, these snails may be more susceptible to some pollutants than 
test organisms currently used in bioassays. A lack of adequate research 
and data currently prevents existing authorities, such as the Clean 
Water Act (CWA), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, from being fully utilized. The 
Service is currently working with EPA to develop a memorandum of 
agreement (MOA) that will address how EPA and the Service will interact 
relative to CWA water quality criteria and standards within the 
Service's Southeast Region.
    Lacking State or Federal recognition, these snails are not given 
any special consideration under other environmental laws when project 
impacts are reviewed.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. The narrow distribution of extant populations of all six 
snail species and the nature of their habitats (i.e., small to moderate 
sized streams) renders them vulnerable to a natural catastrophic event 
(e.g., flood, drought).
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial

[[Page 54025]]

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by these species in determining to propose this rule. Based on 
these evaluations, the preferred action is to list the cylindrical 
lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and plicate rocksnail as endangered; and the 
painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia as threatened. All 
of these species have been rendered vulnerable due to significant loss 
of habitat and severe range restriction.
    The cylindrical lioplax is confined in distribution to a short 
reach of the Cahaba River. The flat pebblesnail currently survives in 
localized portions of the Cahaba River and the Little Cahaba River. 
Both species are vulnerable to extinction by their confined ranges, and 
current impacts from water quality degradation in the Cahaba River 
drainage. The single known population of the plicate rocksnail is 
threatened by the proposed construction of an impoundment within its 
remaining habitat in the Locust Fork, and water quality degradation. 
The plicate rocksnail has also experienced a significant reduction in 
range within the Locust Fork within the past 2 years, apparently due to 
pollution of its habitat from nonpoint sources. Endangered status is 
appropriate for these three species due to their single populations, 
restricted numbers within these populations, existing threats to their 
occupied habitats, and in the case of the plicate rocksnail, an ongoing 
decline in range.
    The lacy elimia, painted rocksnail, and round rocksnail are each 
currently known from three distinct drainage localities. Extant 
populations and colonies of these three species are localized, 
isolated, and are vulnerable to water quality degradation, future human 
activities that would degrade their habitats, and random catastrophic 
events. Threatened status is considered more appropriate for these 
species due to the larger number of populations or colonies, and the 
less immediate nature of these threats.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species.
    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 (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to 
increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) such designation of 
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The Service 
finds that designation of critical habitat is not presently prudent for 
any of these six aquatic snails.
    Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only 
Federal agency actions. Since these snail species are aquatic 
throughout their life cycles, Federal actions that might affect these 
species and their habitats include those with impacts on stream channel 
geometry, bottom substrate composition, water quantity and quality, and 
stormwater runoff. Such activities would be subject to review under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whether or not critical habitat was 
designated. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. The cylindrical lioplax, flat 
pebblesnail, plicate rocksnail, round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and 
lacy elimia have become so restricted in distribution that any 
significant adverse modification or destruction of their occupied 
habitats would likely jeopardize their continued existence. This would 
also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. 
Therefore, habitat protection for these six species can be accomplished 
through the section 7 jeopardy standard and there is no benefit in 
designating currently occupied habitat of these species as critical 
habitat.
    Recovery of these species will require the identification of 
unoccupied stream and river reaches appropriate for reintroduction. 
Critical habitat designation of unoccupied stream and river reaches may 
benefit these species by alerting permitting agencies to potential 
sites for reintroduction and allow them the opportunity to evaluate 
projects which may affect these areas. The Service is currently working 
with the State and other Federal agencies to periodically survey and 
assess habitat potential of stream and river reaches for listed and 
candidate aquatic species within the Mobile River basin. This process 
provides up to date information on instream habitat conditions in 
response to land use changes within watersheds. Information generated 
from surveys and assessments is disseminated through Service 
coordination with other agencies. 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 stream reaches and potential sites for 
reintroduction of these species. Thus, the benefit provided by 
designation of unoccupied habitat as critical will be accomplished more 
effectively with the current coordination process and is preferable for 
aquatic habitats which change rapidly in response to watershed land use 
practices. In addition, the Service believes that any potential 
benefits to critical habitat designation are outweighed by additional 
threats to the species that would result from such designation, as 
discussed below.
    Though critical habitat designation directly affects only Federal 
agency actions, this process can arouse concern and resentment on the 
part of private landowners and other interested parties. The 
publication of critical habitat maps in the Federal Register and local 
newspapers, and other publicity or controversy accompanying critical 
habitat designation may increase the potential for vandalism as well as 
other collection threats (See Factor B under ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species''). For example, in 1993 the Alabama sturgeon was 
proposed for endangered status with critical habitat (59 FR 33148). 
Critical habitat included the lower portions of the Alabama, Cahaba, 
and Tombigbee rivers in south Alabama. The proposal generated thousands 
of comments with the primary concern that the actions would devastate 
the economy of the State of Alabama and severely impact adjoining 
States. There were reports from State conservation agents and other 
knowledgeable sources of rumors inciting the capture and destruction of 
Alabama sturgeon. A primary contributing factor to this controversy was 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon.
    The six snail species addressed in this proposal are especially 
vulnerable to vandalism. They all are found in shallow shoals or 
riffles in restricted stream and river segments. The flat

[[Page 54026]]

pebblesnail, plicate rocksnail, round rocksnail, painted rocksnail, and 
lacy elimia attach to the surfaces of bedrock, cobble, or gravel, while 
the cylindrical lioplax is found under large boulders. The six species 
are relatively immobile and unable to escape collectors or vandals. 
They inhabit remote but easily accessed areas, and they are sensitive 
to a variety of easily obtained commercial chemicals and products. 
Because of these factors, vandalism or collecting could be undetectable 
and uncontrolled. For example, the plicate rocksnail recently 
disappeared from approximately 80 percent of its known occupied 
habitat. While the Service has been unable to determine the cause of 
this decline, the disappearance illustrates the vulnerability of this 
and the other snail species.
    All known populations of these six snail species occur in streams 
flowing through private lands. The primary threat to all surviving 
populations appears to be pollutants in stormwater runoff that 
originate from private land activities (see Factor A). Therefore, the 
survival and recovery of these snails will be highly dependent on 
landowner cooperation in reducing land use impacts.
    Controversy resulting from critical habitat designation has been 
known to reduce private landowner cooperation in the management of 
species listed under the Act (e.g., spotted owl, golden cheeked 
warbler). The Alabama sturgeon experience suggests that critical 
habitat designation could affect landowner cooperation within 
watersheds occupied by these six snails.
    Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded critical 
habitat designation would provide little additional benefit for these 
species beyond those that would accrue from listing under the Act. The 
Service also concludes that any potential benefit from such a 
designation would be offset by an increased level of vulnerability to 
vandalism or collecting, and by a possible reduction in landowner 
cooperation to manage and recover these species. The designation of 
critical habitat for these six snail species is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(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 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 affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal activities that could occur and impact these species 
include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the issuance of 
permits for reservoir construction, stream alterations, discharges, 
wastewater facility development, water withdrawal projects, pesticide 
registration, mining, and road and bridge construction. It has been the 
experience of the Service, however, that nearly all section 7 
consultations have been resolved so that the species have been 
protected and the project objectives have been met. Other than a 
potential dam on the Locust Fork River, Jefferson and Blount counties, 
Alabama, no other Federal activities that may affect these species are 
currently known to be under consideration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 for 
endangered species, and 17.21 and 17.31 for threatened species set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered or threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
or collect, or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in 
interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It 
also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 
17.23 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. Such 
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, 
there are also permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, 
or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable, those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act if these species are listed. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness as to the effects 
of these proposed listings on future and ongoing activities within a 
species' range.
    Activities which the Service believes are unlikely to result in a 
violation of section 9 for these six snails are:
    (1) Existing discharges into waters supporting these species, 
provided these activities are carried out in accordance with existing 
regulations and permit requirements (e.g., activities subject to 
sections 402, 404, and 405 of the Clean Water Act and discharges 
regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES)).
    (2) Typical agriculture and silviculture practices.
    (3) Development and construction activities designed and 
implemented pursuant to State and local water quality regulations.
    (4) Existing recreational activities such as swimming, wading, 
canoeing, and fishing.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially result in 
``take'' of these snails, if they should be listed, include:
    (1) The unauthorized collection or capture of the species;
    (2) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the species habitat 
(e.g., instream dredging, channelization, discharge of fill material);
    (3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit;

[[Page 54027]]

    (4) Illegal discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other 
pollutants into waters supporting the species.
    Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may 
be likely to result from such activity should these snails become 
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 Field Supervisor of the Service's Jackson Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of regulations regarding 
listed species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits should be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services 
Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Phone 404/
679-7313; Fax 404/679-7081).

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 this species;
    (2) the location of any additional populations of this species 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, distribution, and 
population size of this species; and
    (4) current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on this species.
    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.
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must 
be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES 
section).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental 
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES 
section).
    Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Paul Hartfield 
(see ADDRESSES section)(601/965-4900, Ext. 25).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under SNAILS, to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
              Snails                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Elimia, lacy.....................  Elimia crenatella...  U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  T                                     NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Lioplax, cylindrical.............  Lioplax               U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  E                                     NA           NA
                                    cyclostomaformis.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Pebblesnail, flat................  Lepyrium showalteri.  U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  E                                     NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Rocksnail, painted...............  Leptoxis taeniata...  U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  T                                     NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Rocksnail, plicate...............  Leptoxis plicata....  U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  E                                     NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Rocksnail, round.................  Leptoxis ampla......  U.S.A. (AL)........  NA.................  T                                     NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 54028]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-27548 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P