54020 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ASMFC Fisheries Management Report No.

17. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Sturgeon. Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission, Nov. 1990. 73 pp.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation. 1996. DEC

Announces Emergency Moratorium on

Atlantic Sturgeon. News Release dated

March 22, 1996.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Marine mammals,

Transportation.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 29, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dated: October 2, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–27547 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

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 gillbreathing 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 filterfeed, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
54022 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 postconstruction 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
54024 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
54026 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

SNAILS

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

Lioplax, cylindrical ... Lioplax

cyclostomaformis.

U.S.A. (AL) .............. NA ........................... E NA NA

* * * * * * *

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
54028 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE41

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposal to List the St.

Andrew Beach Mouse as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) proposes endangered status for

the St. Andrew Beach Mouse

(Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis)

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act). This

subspecies is restricted to coastal sand

dunes and had a historic distribution

that included the northeast Florida

panhandle from Gulf County into

portions of Bay County. Its current range

is limited to a portion of the St. Joseph

Peninsula in Gulf County. Habitat

impacts causing loss of mice and the

species’ local capability to recover from

such impacts are primarily responsible

for the range curtailment. Threats to

beach mouse habitat include severe

storms, coastal land development and

its associated activities, and non-storm

related, natural shoreline erosion.

Additional threats include predation by

free-ranging domestic cats and

displacement by house mice. This

proposal, if made final, would

implement the protection provisions

provided by the Act for this beach

mouse.

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 Michael M. Bentzien, Assistant Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive South,

Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Michael M. Bentzien, at the above

address (telephone 904/232–2580, ext.

106; facsimile 904/232–2404).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The oldfield mouse (Peromyscus

polionotus) occurs in northeastern

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South

Carolina, and Florida. Beach mice are

coastal subspecies of the oldfield mouse

restricted to beach and sand dune

habitat. Hall (1981) recognized eight

coastal subspecies whose common

distinguishing characteristics include

white feet, large ears, and large black

eyes. Their fur is variously patterned in

shades of white, yellow, brown, and

grey. The head, back, and rump are

darkly patterned, though to a lighter and

less extensive degree than inland

oldfield mice. The all-white underparts

extend higher up to the sides than on

the inland subspecies (Sumner 1926,

Bowen 1968). Howell (1939) described

the type (original) specimen of the St.

Andrew beach mouse as having a very

pale, buff-colored head and back with

extensive white coloration underneath

and along the sides. Bowen (1968) noted

two distinct rump color pigmentations,

one a tapered and the other a squared

pattern, which extended to the thighs.

Head and body lengths average 75

millimeters (mm) (2.95 inches (in)), tail

mean length 52 mm (2.05 in), and hind

foot mean length 18.5 mm (0.73 in)

(James 1992).

Beach mice subspecies historically

occurred on both the Atlantic Coast of

Florida from St. Johns through Broward

counties and the eastern Gulf of Mexico

from Gulf County, Florida, to Baldwin

County, Alabama (Ivey 1949, Bowen

1968, James 1992, Stout 1992, Gore and

Schaefer 1993). The St. Andrew beach

mouse is the easternmost of the five

Gulf coast subspecies. Howell (1939)

collected the type specimen at St.

Andrew Point on Crooked Island,

Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County,

Florida (type locality). Other historic

collection records for the subspecies

include nine additional specimens from

the type locality, seven mice from St.

Joseph Point and four mice from Cape

San Blas on the St. Joseph Peninsula in

Gulf County, 48 individuals at or near

the town of Port St. Joe located on the

central Gulf County coastal mainland,

and four specimens near Money Bayou

in eastern Gulf County (Bowen 1968).

Based on these records, Bowen (1968)

and James (1992) described the former

range of the St. Andrew beach mouse as

likely extending from the St. Joseph Spit

(Peninsula) northwest along the coastal

mainland adjacent to St. Joseph Bay, to

Crooked Island at the East Pass of St.

Andrews Bay. This range also included

about 0.6 kilometer (km) (1 mile (mi)) of

mainland sand dune habitat east of the

landward end of the St. Joseph

Peninsula to Money Bayou on the Gulf

of Mexico. The absence of past

collection records and lack of beach

mouse sign and trapping success in the

area east of Money Bayou to the

southeastern corner of Gulf County

(James 1987; J. Gore, Florida Game and

Fresh Water Fish Commission, in litt.

1994) suggest that this area may not be

part of the subspecies’ historic range.

Coastal tidal marsh and upland

habitat between the mainland city of

Port St. Joe and the St. Joseph Peninsula

naturally divided the former range of

the St. Andrew beach mouse into two

segments. Initial genetic analysis of a

small sample of mice from these

segments and another subspecies, the

Choctawhatchee beach mouse (P.

polionotus allophrys), from nearby

habitat found similarities between the

Crooked Island and St. Joseph Peninsula

samples at one gene location (locus).

The Crooked Island sample was

distinctly different from the

Choctawhatchee beach mouse sample at

the same locus. Additional work is

needed to determine if these patterns

are consistent at several loci (Moyers

1997).

Typical beach mouse habitat generally

consists of several rows of sand dunes

paralleling the shoreline. Prevailing

wind, beach sand, and vegetation

combine to form and shape coastal

dunes. A common complex of animal

species, vegetation, and habitat types

characterize the coastal sand dune

ecosystem. The types and amount of

animals, vegetation, and habitat may

differ, however, among specific sites.

The common types of sand dune habitat

include frontal dunes, primary dunes,

secondary dunes, inter and intradunal

swales, and scrub dunes. Frontal dunes

and primary dunes are those closest to