Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Magnificent Ramshorn and Designation of Critical Habitat, 56471-56489 [2023-17670]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56471-56489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17670]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE86


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Magnificent Ramshorn and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella 
magnifica), a freshwater snail species from southeastern North 
Carolina. We also designate critical habitat for the species. In total, 
approximately 739 acres (299 hectares) in two ponds in Brunswick 
County, North Carolina, fall within the boundaries of the critical 
habitat designation. This rule applies the protections of the Act to 
this species and its designated critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective September 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2022-0070.
    Supporting materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the 
species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina/library, 
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070, or 
both. For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot 
points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the 
decision file for this critical habitat designation and are available 
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070 and on 
the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina/library.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 
P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726; telephone 919-856-4520. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely

[[Page 56472]]

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range). If we determine that a species 
warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and designate the 
species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. We have determined that the magnificent ramshorn meets 
the definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are listing it 
as such and finalizing a designation of its critical habitat. Both 
listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and 
designating critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule 
through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 
551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule lists the magnificent ramshorn 
(Planorbella magnifica) as an endangered species and designates 
critical habitat for this species under the Act. We are designating 739 
acres (299 hectares) in two ponds in Brunswick County, North Carolina, 
as critical habitat for the species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined the species may no longer exist 
in the wild, as it has not been found in surveys over the past 40 years 
at the only known historical locations. While likely locally extirpated 
from the wild, it does persist in captive populations. The most 
significant stressor that likely led to the extirpation of magnificent 
ramshorn in the wild is the loss of suitable lentic (still or slow-
flowing) habitat (Factor A) that individuals and populations need to 
complete their life history. The primary causes of historical habitat 
loss are related to anthropogenic activities coupled with extreme 
weather events that have altered water quality (Factor E) such that the 
breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal needs of the snails cannot 
be met. There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that ameliorate or 
reduce these threats such that the species does not warrant listing 
(Factor D).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration 
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the August 18, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 50804) 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning the 
magnificent ramshorn.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the magnificent ramshorn. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other experts on the magnificent 
ramshorn. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the 
species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors 
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the magnificent ramshorn SSA 
report. As discussed in the August 18, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 
50804), we sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and 
received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://regulations.gov. We also received valuable partner review. In preparing 
the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the 
proposed rule and this final rule.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all 
comments we received from the public during the comment period on the 
August 18, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 50804). We made minor, 
nonsubstantive changes and corrections to this document in response to 
comments we received; no edits were required for the SSA report. The 
information we received during the public comment period on the 
proposed rule did not change our analysis, rationale, or determination 
that the magnificent ramshorn warrants listing as an endangered species 
under the Act. It also did not substantively modify our critical 
habitat designation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our August 18, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 50804), we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
October 17, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices 
inviting general public comment were published in The News and Observer 
and The Herald Sun on August 30, 2022. We did not receive any requests 
for a public hearing.
    Nearly every public comment we received expressed support for the 
proposed rule, including 68 signatures collected and submitted by the 
Coastal Plain Conservation Group and 1,000 signatures collected via a 
petition of support and submitted by the North Carolina Conservation 
Network. No commenters stated that they were opposed to the proposed 
rule or any portions thereof, although one mentioned the potential for 
the listing of the species to affect the aquarium trade (see (4) 
Comment, below). One commenter provided literature and forestry best 
management practice information without expressing either support or 
opposition to the proposed rule; we address this comment under (5) 
Comment, below. Several public comments expressing support included 
reasons such as biodiversity conservation, the importance of snails as 
part of the ecosystem, and the snail as a provider of beneficial 
ecological functions (e.g., grazing) and ecosystem services that 
benefit people (e.g., contributing to water quality). We address topics 
requiring our response below.

[[Page 56473]]

Comments From States

    (1) Comment: The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 
(NCWRC) stated that it was satisfied that data it provided to the 
Service were adequately incorporated into the SSA report for the 
magnificent ramshorn. The NCWRC requested that if the Service lists the 
magnificent ramshorn, the Service supports conservation and restoration 
efforts for the species under section 10 of the Act. The NCWRC also 
recommended against being overly prescriptive in identifying locations 
for the species' reintroduction.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates confirmation that data 
provided to us were sufficiently considered. Adaptive strategies for 
reintroduction will be important as we continue to learn about the 
species' ecology and remaining adaptive capacity, and as we investigate 
the proximity of threats and the availability of suitable habitats 
within and near the species' known historical range. The Service 
intends to use the full breadth of its authorities and programs to 
support the species' recovery, including section 10 of the Act, as 
appropriate.

Public Comments

    (2) Comment: Several commenters requested that the Service 
designate additional critical habitat or identify additional habitat, 
including places outside the species' native historical range. One 
commenter called the proposed critical habitat designation insufficient 
to ensure the survival and recovery of the species. Many of these 
comments included references to multiple threats relevant to the 
proposed designated critical habitats, including saltwater intrusion 
related to dredging and sea level rise, climate change, or other 
climate-related weather patterns (i.e., hurricanes, flooding, and 
drought). Multiple commenters requested that five unspecified 
additional sites be designated in locations higher in the watershed and 
away from immediate saltwater intrusion threats, and one commenter 
suggested specific locations, including Greenfield Lake (a historical 
habitat location); Sutton, Spring, Patricia, and White Lakes and Pretty 
Pond (higher in the watershed); and Lake Waccamaw, which is located 
outside the Cape Fear River Basin.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes that multiple locations beyond 
the two designated critical habitat sites will be necessary to support 
a full recovery of the magnificent ramshorn, but we currently cannot 
determine which other sites will have the best chance of success in 
supporting introduction of the species. Accordingly, we cannot 
determine that additional sites are essential for the conservation of 
the magnificent ramshorn and meet the Act's definition of critical 
habitat. We acknowledged this under Conservation Strategy in the August 
18, 2022, proposed rule (i.e., occupied and self-sustaining populations 
at two known historical locations and at least two additional locations 
within the species' historical range) (see 87 FR 50804, August 18, 
2022, at pp. 50814-50815). We further stated that these strategic 
efforts to promote at least four wild populations will be more 
thoroughly addressed in future recovery planning for the species (87 FR 
50804, August 18, 2022, at p. 50814).
    We appreciate the specific site suggestions for supporting the 
species; these may be helpful in future recovery planning and 
implementation efforts. However, the Service is required to use primary 
sources of information (e.g., SSA, peer-reviewed literature, or 
scientific studies) to determine areas that should be designated as 
critical habitat for listed species. Thus, for the magnificent 
ramshorn, for any additional sites, we would have to evaluate each site 
to determine whether it is essential for the conservation of the 
species in order to designate it as critical habitat for the species. 
Also, we would need to evaluate each unoccupied area to determine if 
the habitat can support the species' life history needs, such as ponds 
with permanent lentic flow conditions that have sufficient littoral 
depth to sustain large-leaved emergent aquatic vegetation, with a 
circumneutral pH, no salinity, and natural water hardness to promote 
snail growth. As stated in the August 18, 2022, proposed rule, 
designated critical habitat will not limit or direct future 
conservation measures for the magnificent ramshorn (87 FR 50804, August 
18, 2022, at p. 50813). We also note in the August 18, 2022, proposed 
rule that Greenfield Lake no longer has suitable habitat for the 
species (87 FR 50804, August 18, 2022, at p. 50815), which is why it 
does not meet the criteria for critical habitat designation. Finally, 
the magnificent ramshorn is one of many aquatic species covered under a 
new safe harbor agreement (SHA)/candidate conservation agreement with 
assurances (87 FR 51698; August 23, 2022) that will support 
conservation through reintroduction into suitable habitats. The Service 
issued an enhancement of survival permit under section 10 of the Act to 
the NCWRC in October 2022 (permit number ESPER0041144), which can be 
used to restore the magnificent ramshorn to future suitable sites 
through cooperation with landowners in North Carolina.
    (3) Comment: Some commenters urged the Service to expand the 
captive breeding capacity for the magnificent ramshorn. At least two 
commenters called for the need to support a third captive breeding 
facility, specifically naming the Coastal Plain Conservation Group, to 
maintain the genetic health and adaptive capacity of the species, to 
support reintroduction into wild habitats, and to account for losses 
that could occur in the wild from predation or potential hybridization 
with another common Planorbella species, while magnificent ramshorn 
populations are becoming established.
    Our Response: The Service is committed to fostering collaborative 
conservation partnerships with all stakeholders and partners involved 
in the species' survival, conservation, and recovery. We are actively 
coordinating with all facilities holding captive populations of this 
species, and we intend to continue involvement with species experts to 
support recovery planning and implementation, including captive 
propagation and reintroduction efforts. Beyond offering technical 
assistance and centralized recovery coordination, the Service 
recognizes the ongoing need for propagation materials (such as tanks) 
and funding support to conserve species. We intend to support these 
efforts as priorities and funds allow.
    (4) Comment: Commenters referenced the aquarium trade and ramshorn 
snails, stating that the aquarist community is a source of knowledge 
for captive culture techniques, commenting on the legal effects on the 
aquarium trade of listing ramshorn snails, and commenting on protecting 
ramshorn snails from the aquarium trade.
    Our Response: This rule is specific to the magnificent ramshorn 
snail (i.e., Planorbella magnifica) and this imperiled and rarely 
encountered species, which is presumed extirpated in the wild, is not 
the typical ramshorn(s) in hobby collections. Other snails in the 
Planorbidae and Ampullariidae families are regularly called ramshorns 
by collectors. Common species in the aquarium trade include the 
Seminole ramshorn (Planorbella duryi), the great ramshorn (Planorbis 
(Planorbarius) corneus), and the giant ramshorn (Marisa cornuarietis) 
(Brand 2015, unpaginated; Doll 2020, unpaginated). These species and 
their trade are not affected by the listing of the magnificent 
ramshorn.

[[Page 56474]]

    The fact that multiple people submitted comments related to the 
ramshorn aquarium trade does suggest that future conservation and 
recovery efforts should be mindful of the popularity of other planorbid 
species of interest to collectors and the potential for collection 
pressure on the magnificent ramshorn when it is reintroduced into the 
wild.
    (5) Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about habitat 
and water quality effects from the wood pellet biomass energy 
harvesting industry within the historical range of the magnificent 
ramshorn, citing increased pressure on swamp forests that could support 
the magnificent ramshorn. In addition, one commenter provided a 
comprehensive summary of literature largely relevant to the 
consideration of forestry best management practices (BMPs) on stream 
water quality and requested that it be referenced in the final rule. 
The literature largely assesses whether the BMPs are being implemented 
and if the oversight by State agencies or certification programs is 
sufficient. The literature also addresses the extent to which adhering 
to these BMPs provides reassurance of water quality protection in 
forest harvesting and management activities.
    Our Response: Forested landscapes provide many benefits to aquatic 
ecosystems, and forest management practices are currently not among the 
most pervasive stressors affecting the magnificent ramshorn. However, 
we acknowledge that forest management operations are not risk-free and 
emphasize that rare species with a narrow range, such as the 
magnificent ramshorn, are especially vulnerable to isolated water 
quality degradation events. We agree with one commenter's suggestion 
that it would be prudent to identify habitats that could be protected 
for future conservation of the snail, and have done so in our 
conservation strategy (see below).
    Regarding the comments on biomass energy harvesting, a recent study 
compared conventional clearcut harvests and biomass harvests in 
Virginia's Coastal Plain region to address concerns about biomass 
harvesting, including any special considerations for the Coastal Plain 
region (i.e., comparable to North Carolina's southeastern Coastal 
Plain, which encompasses the historical range of the magnificent 
ramshorn). The researchers found no significant difference in erosion 
rates between biomass and conventional clearcut harvests, and they 
reported similar rates of compliance with forestry BMPs between the 
harvest types (Hawks et al. 2022, pp. 1, 5-8). They also found that BMP 
implementation scores were a significant predictor of erosion rates, 
meaning that implementing existing forestry BMPs is essential for 
minimizing erosion to protect against sediment input into nearby water 
bodies, and they noted their results suggest that developing new BMPs 
specific to biomass harvesting are not necessary (Hawks et al. 2022; 
pp. 1, 7-9). Another study reported similar findings in the Piedmont 
physiographic region of Virginia (Barrett et al. 2016, entire).
    Development and refinement of BMPs have resulted in substantial 
improvements to forestry's impacts on water quality in recent decades 
and have created a culture of water stewardship in the forest landowner 
community, making this stakeholder group an important ally in the 
conservation of imperiled species. Properly implemented State-approved 
BMPs protect water quality and help conserve aquatic species and their 
habitats. Further, those forest landowners who are third-party-
certified to a credible forest management standard are providing 
audited certainty that BMP implementation is taking place across the 
landscape. We encourage North Carolina's forestry practitioners to 
maximize implementation of BMPs to avoid take of the magnificent 
ramshorn.
    Finally, in this rule, we have included references to literature 
reviews that provide helpful context relevant to the effects of forest 
management and harvesting on water quality in watersheds that may 
support future populations of the magnificent ramshorn. The remainder 
of the references provided by the commenter appear in the relevant 
comment, which is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of 
magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica) is presented in the SSA 
report (version 1.0; Service 2019, pp. 9-16).
    Magnificent ramshorn is a species of air-breathing snail endemic to 
southeastern North Carolina. It is a freshwater snail in the family 
Planorbidae (Pilsbry 1903, pp. 75-76) and is the largest North American 
snail in this family. It has a discoidal, (i.e., coiling in one plane) 
relatively thin shell that reaches approximately 1.5 inches (38 
millimeters) in diameter. The aperture of the shell is somewhat bell-
shaped and very wide, extending beyond the sides of the shell. Like 
other members of the Planorbidae family, magnificent ramshorn is 
primarily herbivorous, feeding on emergent and submerged aquatic 
plants, algae, and detritus (decomposing plant material). Available 
information indicates that suitable habitat for the species is 
restricted to relatively shallow, sheltered portions of still or 
sluggish freshwater (no salinity) bodies with an abundance and 
diversity of emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation and a 
circumneutral (nearly neutral) pH (see table 1, below).

              Table 1--Magnificent Ramshorn's Habitat Needs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Waterbody attribute                      Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH................................  Ideal is 6.8 to 7.5; inactive below
                                     6.5 and above 8.
Salinity..........................  Ideal is 0 parts per thousand (ppt);
                                     1.0 ppt (1.0 grams per liter (g/L))
                                     caused snails to withdraw.
Temperature.......................  60 [deg]F (16 [deg]C) and above.
                                     Still able to feed at 93 [deg]F (34
                                     [deg]C). Dormant below 60 [deg]F.
Hardness *........................  Ideal hardness is: Lab: 30 ppm (30
                                     mg/L); Hatchery ponds: between 60
                                     ppm (60 mg/L) and 220 ppm (200 mg/
                                     L).
Emergent vegetation...............  Aquatic vegetation in sufficient
                                     littoral depth (about 0.5 to 6 feet
                                     (ft) (0.15 to 2 meters (m))) used
                                     for feeding and shelter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Hardness'' is considered to be the sum of the calcium and magnesium
  ions in water, expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per
  million (ppm) as calcium carbonate. It affects snail survival,
  particularly shell shape.


[[Page 56475]]

    Historically, magnificent ramshorn was documented from only four 
sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina: (1) 
Greenfield Lake, a millpond located on a tributary to the Cape Fear 
River within the present city limits of Wilmington, New Hanover County; 
(2) Orton Pond (also known as Sprunt's Pond), a millpond located on 
Orton Creek in Brunswick County; (3) Big Pond (also known as Pleasant 
Oaks Pond or Sand Hill Creek Pond), a millpond on Sand Hill Creek in 
Brunswick County; and (4) McKinzie Pond, a millpond on McKinzie Creek, 
in Brunswick County. Species-specific surveys of more than 100 
potential sites (including most historical locations) over the last few 
decades have not documented any magnificent ramshorn snails, and the 
species is currently likely extirpated in the wild.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis 
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further 
application of standards within the Act and its implementing 
regulations and policies.
    To assess magnificent ramshorn's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species'

[[Page 56476]]

ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2022-0070 at https://www.regulations.gov and on the Service's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina/library.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. Although magnificent 
ramshorn is considered a large snail, its shell is thin and fragile, 
indicating that it is adapted to lentic (still or slow-flowing) aquatic 
habitats. Available information indicates that suitable habitat for the 
species is restricted to relatively shallow, sheltered portions of 
still or sluggish, freshwater bodies with an abundance and diversity of 
emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation and a circumneutral pH (pH 
within the range of 6 to 8) (Jones 2020, pers. comm.). The species is 
not able to survive in flowing water, nor is it able to tolerate any 
amount of salinity, thus restricting it to inland, freshwater, pond-
like habitats.

Loss of Lentic (Pond) Habitats

    Although the complete historical range of magnificent ramshorn is 
unknown, available information indicates that the species was likely 
once an inhabitant of beaver ponds on tributaries in the lower Cape 
Fear River basin; the species may also have once inhabited backwater 
and other sluggish portions of tributaries and the main channel of 
lower Cape Fear River. Beaver pond habitat was eliminated throughout 
much of the lower Cape Fear River as a result of the extirpation of the 
beaver from trapping and hunting during the 19th and early 20th 
centuries. This, together with draining and destruction of beaver ponds 
for development, agriculture, and other purposes, is believed to have 
led to a significant decline in the snails' habitat and significant 
reduction in its abundance (Wood 2010, pp. 6, 7). Surveys in the 1990s 
also noted the loss of ponds due to hurricanes (Adams 1993, p. 26). 
Several ponds that were created or maintained by old mill dams have 
structures that will fail, or have failed, during catastrophic events. 
Catastrophic rainfall can overtop old mill dam structures and cause 
portions of them to wash out, thus draining the ponds behind them. This 
is likely what happened at McKinzie Pond. The four known historical 
sites where magnificent ramshorn were found are, or were, ponds likely 
created by old mill dams.

Saltwater Intrusion

    Dredging and deepening of the Cape Fear River channel, which began 
as early as 1822, and opening of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
(through Snow's Cut) in 1930 for navigational purposes have caused 
saltwater intrusion, altered the diversity and abundance of aquatic 
vegetation, and changed flows and current patterns far up the river 
channel and its lower tributaries (Adams 1993, p. 22; Wood 2010, p. 7). 
Under these circumstances, magnificent ramshorn could have survived 
only in lentic areas of tributary streams not affected by saltwater 
intrusion and other changes, such as the millponds protected from 
saltwater intrusion by their dams (Adams 1993, p. 22).
    Climate change and sea level rise pose a significant long-term 
threat to the survival of magnificent ramshorn. As previously noted, 
magnificent ramshorn is salt-intolerant (Wood 2002, p. 3), and 
saltwater intrusion into its habitat is one of the primary factors that 
contributed to its extirpation in the wild. During the past century, 
sea level has risen by 8+ inches (20+ centimeters (cm)), and available 
information indicates the rate of sea level rise is increasing (U.S. 
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2009, p. 18; Kopp et al. 2015, 
p. 700). Sea levels are rising at a rate of about an inch (2.5 cm) per 
year (5 inches (12.7 cm) from 2011-2015) in some areas along the east 
coast of North Carolina (Valle-Levinson et al. 2017, p. 7876). While 
future rates of sea level change are uncertain, continued sea level 
rise threatens the southeastern U.S. coastal zone with retreat of 
shorelines, inundation of coastal wetlands and streams, and increased 
salinity of estuaries, coastal wetlands, and tidal rivers and creeks, 
pushing freshwater coastal ecosystems farther inland. In addition, in 
the future, the southeastern United States faces potential higher 
average temperatures (resulting in increased evaporation rates), less 
frequent rainfall (resulting in potentially more frequent and longer 
dry periods), and an increase in intensity of storm events, including 
hurricanes; all of which are likely to increase the rate and upstream 
distance of saltwater intrusion into coastal streams. Also, higher 
average temperatures and longer periods between rainfall events, 
together with increased development and human population levels in 
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, will result in an increased demand 
on freshwater systems for drinking, irrigation, and other water needs, 
exacerbating the effects of sea level changes on streams in the lower 
Cape Fear River basin, which encompass the entire known historical 
range of magnificent ramshorn (adapted from USGCRP and references 
therein 2009, pp. 1111-1116).

Disrupted Nutrient Cycles--Pollution and Nutrient Inputs

    The human residential population of Brunswick and New Hanover 
Counties is rapidly increasing; both counties are popular vacationing 
and retirement areas (see section 5-6 of the SSA report (Service 2019, 
pp. 31-35)). Both counties are among the most rapidly developing 
counties in the State, with population growth greater than 25 percent 
during the period of 2000-2010 (WRAL-News 2019, unpaginated). 
Typically, as development increases, the input of nutrients (through 
both surface and groundwater), silt, and other pollutants into the 
aquatic system increases. Increased input of these pollutants into 
streams from point and non-point sources may result in eutrophication, 
decreased dissolved oxygen concentration, increased acidity and 
conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry. Impacts from 
development within the areas that formerly harbored magnificent 
ramshorn, or within areas that may provide potential habitat for the 
species, have the potential to reduce groundwater levels, which could 
have a serious adverse effect on pH, water hardness, and salinity 
levels.

[[Page 56477]]

Altered Aquatic Vegetation Communities

    Aquatic vegetation is common in pond systems, but sometimes the 
vegetation can be invasive and overwhelm the aquatic system, such as in 
Greenfield Lake, formerly occupied snail habitat in Wilmington. 
Managing vegetation in ponds takes many forms; some practices are 
compatible with molluscan pond inhabitants (like magnificent ramshorn), 
such as aeration or mechanical cutting/removal, but some practices can 
significantly impact snails, such as using grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon 
idella), using copper-based herbicides, or drawing water out of the 
pond and subsequently drying out vegetation for complete removal, as 
was once done in Big Pond, formerly occupied by the ramshorn. The 
latter practices result in snail mortality, either from complete 
elimination of aquatic vegetation on which the snails depend, exposure 
to toxic metals like copper, lethal temperatures, predation, or 
desiccation from no access to water (Adams 1993, p. 12).

Extreme Weather Events

    Changes in climate and weather patterns may affect ecosystem 
processes and communities by altering the abiotic conditions 
experienced by biotic assemblages, resulting in potential effects on 
community composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al. 
2010, p. 7). This is especially true for aquatic systems where 
increases in droughts or severe storm events resulting from climate 
change can trigger a cascade of ecological effects. For example, 
increases in air temperatures can lead to subsequent increases in water 
temperatures that, in turn, may lower water quality parameters (like 
pH), ultimately influencing overall habitat suitability for species 
like magnificent ramshorn.
    Impacts from climate change affect sea levels; alter precipitation 
patterns and subsequent delivery of freshwater, nutrients, and 
sediment; and change the frequency and intensity of coastal storms 
(Michener et al. 1997, p. 770; Scavia et al. 2002, p. 149; Neumann et 
al. 2015, p. 97). During the time when magnificent ramshorn became 
extremely rare in the wild (1990s-2000s), three of the top five 
strongest/most intense storms experienced in Wilmington, North 
Carolina, occurred (1996, 1998, and 1999) and caused massive flooding 
and saltwater intrusion into the ponds where magnificent ramshorn 
occurred (Service 2019, p. 24).
    The North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan (NCWRC 2015, pp. 5-48) 
identifies climate change as a ``very high'' threat to magnificent 
ramshorn. In addition, in an assessment of ecosystem response to 
climate change, factors associated with climate change ranked high with 
other factors that were deemed imminent risks to magnificent ramshorn's 
historical population locations (e.g., development, pollution, flood 
regime alteration, etc.; (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 
(NCNHP) 2010, entire). Furthermore, it should be recognized that the 
greatest threat from climate change to magnificent ramshorn habitat may 
come from synergistic effects. That is, factors associated with a 
changing climate may act as risk multipliers by increasing the risk and 
severity of more imminent threats (Arabshahi and Raines 2012, p. 8). As 
a result, impacts from rapid urbanization in the region might be 
exacerbated under even a mild-to-moderate climate future.

Summary

    Based on the results of repeated surveys from the 1980s to 2010s by 
qualified species experts in the species' historical habitat and 
suitable habitat in surrounding areas, there appear to be no extant 
populations of magnificent ramshorn in the wild. While several factors 
have likely contributed to the extirpation of magnificent ramshorn in 
the wild, the primary factors include loss of lentic habitats, perhaps 
associated with the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) 
between the early and late 20th century; increased salinity and 
alteration of flow patterns in the lower Cape Fear River Basin; and 
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants that may have altered 
the pH of pond waters beyond what the species can tolerate.
    The extirpation of magnificent ramshorn from Greenfield Lake is 
likely attributable to the alteration of the lake's water quality and 
chemistry resulting from past events such as breaks in sewer lines on 
the bottom of the lake; sewage overflows during storm events; runoff of 
fertilizers, sediment, toxic chemicals, and other pollutants from heavy 
development in the watershed; and efforts by the city of Wilmington to 
control aquatic plants and algae within the lake. All of these changes 
to Greenfield Lake likely led to salinization of the waters to levels 
beyond what the species could tolerate. Additionally, application of 
herbicides (usually containing copper) to control aquatic plants would 
not only have eliminated the snail's food source but could have also 
directly killed individual snails.
    The Big Pond population of magnificent ramshorn was likely 
extirpated in 1996, when the dam on the pond was breached during 
flooding associated with Hurricane Fran. This resulted in the 
subsequent drawdown of the pond due to failure of the dam, and 
saltwater intrusion into the pond from upstream movement of the 
saltwater wedge in the Cape Fear River, which killed the aquatic 
vegetation and eliminated the salt-intolerant magnificent ramshorn.
    Magnificent ramshorn was last observed in McKenzie Pond in 2004, 
but was likely extirpated due to saltwater intrusion resulting from 
prolonged drought conditions that allowed tidal flow of saltwater to 
extend into the areas harboring the snail.
    Magnificent ramshorn may have been eliminated from Orton Pond by 
the previous attempts to control aquatic vegetation by drawing down the 
pond for extended periods of time, thus eliminating essential habitat 
components of water and vegetation, causing snail extirpation.
    The ongoing anthropogenic activities described above, coupled with 
the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events (e.g., 
storms/hurricanes) that may blow out dams and cause saltwater 
intrusion, have the potential to continue to alter habitat and water 
quality such that the breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal 
needs of magnificent ramshorn cannot be met.
    While efforts have been made to restore habitat for magnificent 
ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the 
species, all of the sites continue to be affected by many of the same 
factors (i.e., saltwater intrusion and other water quality degradation, 
nuisance aquatic plant control, storms, sea level rise, etc.) thought 
to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the wild. 
Currently, only three captive populations exist, with approximately 
1,000 snails in existence. Although captive populations have been 
maintained since 1993, a catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, 
disease, or predator infestation, affecting one or more of the captive 
populations, could result in the near extinction of the species.
    Magnificent ramshorn lacks the resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation necessary for viability in the wild. Magnificent 
ramshorn populations were not able to survive habitat degradation 
resulting from impacts including saltwater intrusion, pollutant influx, 
and human alteration of aquatic vegetation communities, thus 
eliminating the species' resiliency. Based on knowledge of the snail 
and the

[[Page 56478]]

systems on which it depends, the loss of habitat, and the lack of 
finding any magnificent ramshorns despite surveying dozens of possible 
locations, magnificent ramshorn has no redundancy in the wild. 
Furthermore, the historical range of the species is narrow and limited 
to lentic habitats within the Coastal Plain of southeastern North 
Carolina. We do not know the level of genetic diversity of the captive 
animals; however, we do know that the individuals in captivity are all 
descendants of adult snails from two distinct populations: Pleasant 
Oaks Pond and McKinzie Pond. The captive ramshorns have extremely 
limited representation, and because no magnificent ramshorns are known 
to exist in the wild, the species has no representation in the wild. We 
cannot project future conditions because there are no known extant 
populations on which we can project those conditions. While magnificent 
ramshorn is likely extirpated from the wild, recovering the species 
means re-establishing self-sustaining populations in the wild.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and 
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis 
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Magnificent ramshorn is currently listed by the State of North 
Carolina as an endangered species. However, this designation does not 
protect the species from ``incidental'' harm, injury, or death (that 
is, harm, injury, or death resulting from activities not specifically 
intended to harm the species) or provide any protection to the species' 
habitat except on State-owned lands.
    Captive holding of magnificent ramshorn began in the early 1990s, 
when individuals were collected to learn about their life-history 
requirements (Adams 1993, entire). In the mid-1990s, snails were held 
in captivity at the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, but they 
were later moved to a private residence due to the influence of salt-
laden air at the aquarium. There is a well-maintained snail sanctuary 
at the private residence, kept since the mid-1990s with approximately 
100 breeding ramshorn snails.
    In early 2012, a small captive population (35 individuals) was 
established at North Carolina State University's College of Veterinary 
Medicine's (CVM) Aquatic Epidemiology Conservation Laboratory in 
Raleigh, North Carolina. These captive snails have reproduced 
successfully, and there are currently approximately 100 snails at the 
facility (which had to scale back operations temporarily due to Covid-
19 restrictions).
    Additional facilities for holding and propagating magnificent 
ramshorn at the NCWRC's hatchery in Watha, North Carolina, were 
established in 2011. In 2018, NCWRC hired a snail technician to focus 
on magnificent ramshorn husbandry at the Watha hatchery. The NCWRC 
subsequently moved the snail technician and all snails to their 
Conservation Aquaculture Center in Marion, North Carolina; there are 
currently approximately 775 breeding snails at this location.
    In 2012-2013, several potentially suitable locations, including 
portions of Orton Pond, McKinzie Pond, Big Pond (Sand Hill Creek/
Pleasant Oaks Pond), and nearby Pretty Pond, were all brought under 
single ownership. In 2014, the landowner approached the Service to 
determine the possibility of restoring the snail to Big Pond at the 
Pleasant Oaks Plantation. A proposal to assess snail restoration 
potential under a candidate conservation agreement with assurances 
(CCAA) has been formulated but not finalized or implemented.
    The North Carolina Division of Water Resources and the Service are 
working with the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, to improve the 
water quality of Greenfield Lake, which formerly supported the species. 
Greenfield Lake is currently on the State's list of impaired water 
bodies due to excessive nutrient inputs.
    In 2018, Service staff performed an analysis to determine the 
suitability of potential habitats within the former range to support 
introduction of magnificent ramshorn. The results are being used by 
staff, as well as State and Federal partners, to field-verify the 
suitability of potential locations. In preparation for potential 
reintroduction, the Service has drafted experimental protocols to 
detail necessary steps for possible introduction of the species into 
the wild. Further, the Service has a SHA/CCAA for landowners interested 
in contributing to the conservation of the State's aquatic species; 
this agreement broadly covers aquatic species and is in addition to the 
draft CCAA with the owner of three ponds in the species' historical 
range.
    In 2019 and 2020, Service staff met with Department of Defense 
(DoD) and the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program (NCPCP), both 
landowners with several ponds on their properties within the historical 
range of magnificent ramshorn. The DoD's Military Ocean Terminal Sunny 
Point is immediately adjacent to the private property where the species 
was last known to occur in the wild. The NCPCP and DoD own ponds in the 
same watershed as the historical locations. Both are amenable to having 
water quality analyzed to determine whether their ponds could be 
suitable habitat for snail introduction, and that habitat assessment 
work began in 2021 under the lead of NCWRC.
    Further, in a 2019 legal settlement involving a major highway 
project, the North Carolina Department of Transportation committed 
$250,000 for magnificent ramshorn propagation into the future while 
both the Service and partners work on reintroduction site assessment 
and landowner agreements.

Determination of Magnificent Ramshorn's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or

[[Page 56479]]

manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    We have determined that magnificent ramshorn is likely extirpated 
in the wild predominantly as a result of the loss of suitable lentic 
(still or slow-flowing) habitat that individuals and populations need 
to complete their life history (Factor A). The primary causes of 
historical habitat loss are related to anthropogenic activities that 
removed aquatic vegetation, coupled with extreme weather events (e.g., 
hurricanes that breach dams) that have altered water quality via 
saltwater intrusion (Factor E) such that the breeding, feeding, 
sheltering, and dispersal needs of the snails cannot be met. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to ameliorate or address these 
threats (Factor D).
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, magnificent ramshorn does not have sufficient resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy for viability. Based on decades of 
surveys attempting to locate the species, magnificent ramshorn is 
likely extirpated in the wild. The past loss of suitable pond habitat 
and the challenge of finding suitable introduction sites exacerbates 
the current situation for magnificent ramshorn. The only known 
surviving individuals of the species are being held as part of captive 
populations. Although captive populations have been maintained since 
1993, a catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, disease, or 
predator infestation, affecting one or more of the captive populations 
could result in the near extinction of the species. Thus, after 
assessing the best available information, we conclude that magnificent 
ramshorn is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the magnificent ramshorn is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portions of its range. 
Because the magnificent ramshorn warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), which vacated the provision of the Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578, July 
1, 2014) providing that if the Services determine that a species is 
threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze 
whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its 
range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the magnificent ramshorn meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the 
magnificent ramshorn as an endangered species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of North Carolina will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the magnificent ramshorn. Information on 
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the magnificent ramshorn. Additionally, we invite 
you to submit any new information on this species

[[Page 56480]]

whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for 
recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference, consultation, or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is 
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation 
agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the listed species. 
Based on the best available information, the following actions may 
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they are 
not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat by draining, 
ditching, tiling, or diverting or altering surface or ground water flow 
into or out of ponds or other slack water areas;
    (3) Herbicide or other pesticide applications in violation of label 
restrictions in areas occupied by magnificent ramshorn;
    (4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon magnificent ramshorn;
    (5) Removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in areas 
designated as critical habitat or in any body of water in which 
magnificent ramshorn becomes established; and
    (6) Discharge of chemicals into any waters in which magnificent 
ramshorn becomes established.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. None of the situations 
identified at 50 CFR 424.12(a) for when designation of critical habitat 
would be not prudent or not determinable is present. We, therefore, are 
designating critical habitat for magnificent ramshorn concurrently with 
listing it.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    This critical habitat designation for the magnificent ramshorn was 
proposed when the regulations governing the Service's process for 
excluding areas of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
(85 FR 82376; December 18, 2020) were in place and in effect. However, 
those regulations have been rescinded (87 FR 43433; July 21, 2022) and 
no longer apply to any designations of critical habitat. Therefore, for 
this final rule designating critical habitat for the magnificent 
ramshorn, we apply the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the Policy 
Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species 
Act (2016 Joint Policy; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.

[[Page 56481]]

    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level 
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics

[[Page 56482]]

include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population 
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of 
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of magnificent ramshorn from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2019, entire; 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0070). We have determined that the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of magnificent ramshorn consist of 
waterbodies within the species' historical range that:
    1. Maintain permanent, lentic flow conditions;
    2. Have sufficient littoral depth (approximately 0.5 to 6 feet) to 
sustain large-leaved emergent aquatic vegetation (e.g., water lilies, 
spatterdock, etc.);
    3. Maintain circumneutral pH (i.e., between pH 6 and 8);
    4. Have no salinity (i.e., 0 parts per thousand (ppt) salinity); 
and
    5. Maintain natural water hardness to promote shell growth (greater 
than 60 parts per million (ppm) calcium carbonate).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

Conservation Strategy

    Future viability for magnificent ramshorn depends on maintaining 
multiple resilient populations over time. While the species is 
currently likely extirpated from the wild, species experts have 
identified several strategic efforts that will be important to build 
the future viability of the species. These could include:
    1. Maintain at least two secure captive populations of magnificent 
ramshorn until such time as there are enough populations in the wild to 
no longer necessitate such an effort.
    2. Reintroduce magnificent ramshorn snails to at least two known 
historical locations and establish monitoring to ensure reintroductions 
are successful; augment until populations are established and success 
criteria are met.
    3. Introduce magnificent ramshorn snails to at least two other 
locations with suitable habitat within the historical range of the 
species. Monitor to ensure reintroductions are successful; augment 
until populations are established.
    These strategic efforts to promote at least four wild populations 
(two historical locations occupied and self-sustaining, as well as two 
other locations within the historical range occupied and self-
sustaining) will be more thoroughly addressed in future recovery 
planning for the species.
    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. Because the species is likely 
extirpated in the wild, we have determined that there are no occupied 
areas to ensure the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we are 
designating critical habitat in two unoccupied areas within the 
historical range for the species. In addition, these unoccupied areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species. Each of the two 
unoccupied units contains suitable habitat for the magnificent 
ramshorn--the ponds contain slow-moving waters, are of sufficient depth 
to sustain emergent aquatic vegetation, and are managed consistent with 
magnificent ramshorn's life requisites. Both ponds were previously 
occupied by magnificent ramshorn, and we determined the factors that 
led to the species' decline in these locations have been ameliorated or 
are manageable.
    To delineate critical habitat units, we used the U.S. Geological 
Survey's high resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) to 
determine the boundaries of each pond. We included all waters from the 
base of the dams upstream to the upper limits of the pond features that 
became more stream-like, as demarcated in the NHD data layer. For areas 
outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, we identified the critical habitat units using the following 
considerations:
    a. Unoccupied habitats have historical records of species 
occurrence;
    b. Unoccupied areas exhibit suitable habitat availability, 
providing the physical or biological features necessary for survival, 
growth, and reproduction of the species;
    c. Unoccupied areas provide habitat for reintroduction, with 
potential to reduce the level of stochastic and human-induced threats, 
and decrease the risk of extinction because the areas currently contain 
the essential physical or biological features to support life-history 
functions of magnificent ramshorn; and
    d. Unoccupied habitat currently supports diverse aquatic pond 
communities, including the presence of closely related species 
requiring physical or biological features similar to magnificent 
ramshorn.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack the physical or 
biological features necessary for magnificent ramshorn. The scale of 
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We have determined that because there are no occupied areas at the 
time of listing, unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Accordingly, we have identified two unoccupied units as 
critical habitat. As detailed above, additional units will be needed 
for recovery, but we cannot currently determine what other areas will 
have the best chance of successful species introduction. To consider 
for designation areas not occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, we must demonstrate that these areas are essential for the 
conservation of magnificent ramshorn. Because the species is likely 
extirpated from the wild, the only way for the species to be conserved 
and have viable populations in the wild is via captive propagation and 
reintroduction to unoccupied areas.
    Magnificent ramshorn is historically known from four locations, all 
of which are ponds/impoundments. Of these four historical locations, 
only two meet all of the criteria for designation as critical habitat. 
Both Greenfield Lake and McKinzie Pond no longer have suitable habitat 
for the species, and would require extensive restoration and threat

[[Page 56483]]

abatement measures before potentially becoming suitable again. Based on 
our review, we determined that Orton Pond and Big Pond, the two other 
known historical locations for magnificent ramshorn, have the potential 
for future reintroduction and reoccupation by the species. 
Reestablishing viable populations in those two ponds will provide 
redundancy within the historical range and increase the species' 
ecological representation. Orton Pond and Big Pond represent habitat 
within the historical range with the best potential for recovery of the 
species due to current pond conditions, suitability for 
reintroductions, compatibility between the landowner's existing habitat 
management and the habitat needs of magnificent ramshorn, and landowner 
interest in recovery and access for monitoring.
    Accordingly, we designate two units as critical habitat for 
magnificent ramshorn. Both units contain the identified physical or 
biological features, appear to be capable of supporting multiple life-
history processes of the species, and are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more-detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070 and on 
the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina/library.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 739 acres (ac) (299 hectares (ha)) 
in two units as critical habitat for magnificent ramshorn. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for magnificent 
ramshorn. The two areas designated as critical habitat are: (1) Orton 
Pond and (2) Big Pond (Pleasant Oaks Pond). The table below shows the 
critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit.

                            Table 2--Critical Habitat Units for Magnificent Ramshorn
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Size of unit in acres
        Critical habitat unit           Land ownership by type         (hectares)               Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Orton Pond........................  Private................  688 ac (278 ha)........  No.
2. Big Pond (Pleasant Oaks Pond).....  Private................  51 ac (21 ha)..........  No.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  .......................  739 ac (299 ha)........  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of each unit, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for magnificent ramshorn, 
below.

Unit 1: Orton Pond

    Unit 1, Orton Pond, consists of 688 ac (278 ha) of unoccupied 
lentic habitat in an impounded section of Orton Creek in Brunswick 
County, North Carolina, approximately \1/2\ mile upstream from its 
confluence with the Cape Fear River, located east of the town of 
Boiling Spring Lakes. This pond is privately owned and has a 
conservation easement along the entire southeastern shore and along the 
dam right-of-way. Access to Orton Pond by researchers surveying for 
magnificent ramshorn has been restricted since the mid-1990s, and the 
species was last observed in this location in 1995. Orton Pond is one 
of four known historical locations for the species, and it currently 
has extensive suitable habitat for the ramshorn, including sluggish 
flows, sufficient littoral depth for emergent aquatic vegetation, and 
no salinity. Its management is consistent with magnificent ramshorn's 
life requisites. For these reasons, we find that the formerly occupied 
Orton Pond is essential for the conservation of the species.

Unit 2: Big Pond (Pleasant Oaks Pond)

    Unit 2, Big Pond, consists of 51 ac (21 ha) of unoccupied lentic 
habitat in an impounded section of Sand Hill Creek in Brunswick County, 
North Carolina, just upstream of the confluence with the Cape Fear 
River across from Campbell Island. This pond is privately owned and has 
a conservation easement surrounding the entire pond. The species was 
last observed in this location in 1994. Big Pond is one of four known 
historical locations for the species, and it currently has suitable 
habitat for the ramshorn, including sluggish flows and sufficient 
littoral depth for emergent aquatic vegetation. Its management is 
consistent with magnificent ramshorn's life requisites. For these 
reasons, we find that the formerly occupied Big Pond is essential for 
the conservation of the species. Because of its proximity to the 
upstream saltwater wedge in the Cape Fear River, and the potential for 
dam failure during hurricanes, this pond will require permanent 
maintenance to prevent effects of saltwater intrusion, and the 
landowner has indicated that maintaining the dam to keep freshwater in 
the pond is a priority.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action

[[Page 56484]]

(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and 
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not 
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do 
not require section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions. 
These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. The 
reinitiation requirement applies only to actions that remain subject to 
some discretionary Federal involvement or control. As provided in 50 
CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species 
listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain 
agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the Bureau of 
Land Management in certain circumstances).

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would cause physical habitat disturbance. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, draining, dredging, 
channelization, placement of fill, or activities that modify or 
compromise the dam structure such that pond habitat quality is 
degraded. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat 
necessary for the conservation of magnificent ramshorn.
    (2) Actions that would degrade water quality in tributaries or the 
main pond. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
nonpoint discharges, inputs of dissolved solids or contaminants, 
erosion, and sedimentation. These activities could eliminate or greatly 
reduce the habitat necessary for the conservation of magnificent 
ramshorn.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation. There are no DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the 
critical habitat designation.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (2016 Joint Policy; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 
2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the 
Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The Secretary's Authority to 
Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to 
exclude areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that 
the decision is reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to

[[Page 56485]]

designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular 
area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are 
clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) 
to use and how much weight to give to any factor. In this final rule, 
we are not excluding any areas from critical habitat.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related 
factors (IEc 2020, entire). The analysis, dated February 25, 2020, was 
made available for public review from August 18 through October 17, 
2022 (see 87 FR 50804, August 18, 2022). The economic analysis 
addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for 
magnificent ramshorn. Following the close of the comment period, we 
reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment 
period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. 
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic 
impacts of critical habitat designation for the magnificent ramshorn is 
summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the 
magnificent ramshorn (IEc 2020, entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for 
magnificent ramshorn's critical habitat. Because there are currently no 
occupied units, all consultations will be addressing adverse 
modification alone. At such time that the species is reintroduced, and 
as consultation under the jeopardy standard will focus on the effects 
of habitat degradation because threats to the species are habitat-
related, critical habitat designation is not expected to result in 
additional consultation in occupied habitat. This evaluation of the 
incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
    The critical habitat designation for magnificent ramshorn totals 
approximately 739 ac (299 ha), all of which are currently unoccupied by 
the species but are essential for the conservation of the species. In 
these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable 
impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the 
critical habitat designation. Within the unoccupied critical habitat, 
rarely are any actions expected to occur that will result in section 7 
consultation or associated project modifications because both units are 
privately owned and subject to conservation easements. Therefore, 
future activities and associated economic impacts in critical habitat 
units are anticipated to be limited. Our analysis estimates that cost 
to private entities is expected to be relatively minor (administrative 
efforts will cost less than $8,900 per year, and potential incremental 
project modifications may cost up to $12,000 per year).
    As discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the 
critical habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical 
habitat for the magnificent ramshorn based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that 
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area such as HCPs, SHAs, or CCAAs, or whether there are 
non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, 
Tribal resources, or government-to-government relationships of the 
United States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation. 
We also consider any State, local, social, or other impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.
    We are not excluding any areas from critical habitat. In preparing 
this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or 
other management plans for magnificent ramshorn, and the designation 
does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no 
impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical 
habitat designation. We did not receive any additional information 
during the public comment period for the August 18, 2022, proposed rule 
regarding other relevant impacts to support excluding any specific 
areas from the critical habitat designation under the authority of 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19, as well as the 2016 Joint Policy. Accordingly, the Secretary is 
not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, 
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations 
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking 
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of 
ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these 
requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact

[[Page 56486]]

on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 
to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the 
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, 
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to 
evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The 
regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are 
realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in 
consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, 
funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only 
Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory 
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the 
potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 
agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities 
will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that this 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the 
August 18, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 50804) that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this 
critical habitat designation will significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use because the designated ponds are privately owned. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that 
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because only private lands are involved with 
the designation. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for magnificent ramshorn in a takings implications assessment. 
The Act does not authorize us to regulate private actions on private 
lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of

[[Page 56487]]

critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any 
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. 
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor 
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or 
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require 
Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are 
prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that 
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings 
implications assessment has been completed and concludes that this 
designation of critical habitat for the magnificent ramshorn does not 
pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by 
the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this final rule does not 
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
because the areas that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical 
or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of 
the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning 
because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final 
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the 
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if 
desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal 
lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation 
for magnificent ramshorn, so no Tribal lands will be affected by the 
designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Ramshorn, magnificent'' in

[[Page 56488]]

alphabetical order under SNAILS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                     SNAILS
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Ramshorn, magnificent...........  Planorbella         Wherever found....  E              88 [INSERT FEDERAL
                                   magnifica.                                             REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          DOCUMENT BEGINS], 8/18/
                                                                                          2023; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(f).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for 
``Magnificent Ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)'' immediately following 
the entry for ``Rough Hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani)'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Magnificent Ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Brunswick County, North 
Carolina, on the map in this entry.
    (2) Critical habitat does not include humanmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
September 18, 2023.
    (3) Data layers defining map units were created in a Geographic 
Information System (GIS), and critical habitat units were mapped using 
the U.S. Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset. The map in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, 
establishes the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based are 
available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2022-0070, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (4) Unit 1: Orton Pond; Brunswick County, North Carolina.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 688 acres (ac) (278 hectares (ha)) in an 
impounded section of Orton Creek in Brunswick County, North Carolina, 
approximately \1/2\ mile upstream from the confluence with the Cape 
Fear River and east of the town of Boiling Spring Lakes. Unit 1 is 
composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:

Figure 1 for Magnificent Ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica) paragraph 
(4)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU23.000


[[Page 56489]]


    (5) Unit 2: Big Pond (Pleasant Oaks Pond); Brunswick County, North 
Carolina.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 51 ac (21 ha) in an impounded section of 
Sand Hill Creek in Brunswick County, North Carolina, near the 
confluence with the Cape Fear River across from Campbell Island. Unit 2 
is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (4)(ii) of this entry.
* * * * *

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17670 Filed 8-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P