Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66803

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–2846; MM Docket No. 00–173; RM–

9964, RM–10328]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Burgin

and Science Hill, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: At the request of Vernon R.

Baldwin this document allots Channel

290A to Burgin, Kentucky. At the

request of Pulaski County Broadcasting,

this document also allots Channel 291A

to Science Hill, Kentucky. See 65 FR

59164, published October 4, 2000. The

reference coordinates for the Channel

290A allotment at Burgin, Kentucky, are

37–48–37 and 84–41–30. The reference

coordinates for the Channel 291A

allotment at Science Hill, Kentucky, are

37–10–36 and 84–29–10.

DATES: Effective January 22, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202)

418–2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order in MM Docket No. 00–173,

adopted December 5, 2001, and released

December 7, 2001. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC’s Reference Information

Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, Qualex International,

Portals ll, 445 12th Street, SW., Room

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,

telephone 202–863–2893, facsimile

202–863–2898, or via e-mail

qualexint@aol.com

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio Broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Kentucky, is amended

by adding Burgin, Channel 290A and by

adding Science Hill, Channel 291A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–31830 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN: 1018–AI19

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Listing the Tumbling Creek

Cavesnail as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Emergency rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), exercise our authority

to emergency list the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) as

endangered under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

This species is known to occur in one

cave in Missouri. The distribution of

this species has decreased in Tumbling

Creek by 90 percent since 1974.

Although cavesnail numbers fluctuated

seasonally and annually between 1996

and 2000, the species was not found in

the monitored section of the cave stream

during five surveys in 2001. Because the

sudden population decline

demonstrates a significant and

imminent risk to the well-being of the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail, we find that

emergency listing is necessary to

provide Federal protection pursuant to

the Act for 240 days. A proposed rule

to list the Tumbling Creek cavesnail as

endangered is published concurrently

with this emergency rule, and can be

found in this issue of the Federal

Register in the proposed rules section.

DATES: This emergency rule becomes

effective December 27, 2001 and expires

August 26, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Columbia, Missouri Field

Office, 608 E. Cherry St., Room 200,

Columbia, Missouri 65201–7712.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

McKenzie, Ph.D., Columbia, Missouri

Field Office, at the address listed above

(telephone: 573–876–1911, ext. 107; email: paullmckenzie@fws.gov;

facsimile: 573–876–1914). Individuals

who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay

Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY

assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Tumbling Creek cavesnail

(Antrobia culveri) was described as a

new species by Hubricht (1971) from

specimens taken by David Culver,

Thomas Aley, and Leslie Hubricht in

1969 and 1970. Antrobia culveri is the

type species for the genus Antrobia, also

described new to science in 1971 by

Hubricht. Hershler and Hubricht (1988)

examined specimens of Antrobia culveri

and confirmed the taxonomic placement

of this species in the subfamily

Littoridininae of the Gastropod family

Hydrobiidae. They also noted the

apparent close relatedness of the genus

Antrobia to the genus Fontigens, which

contains cave-adapted snails found in

other Missouri caves and springs. The

Tumbling Creek cavesnail is a small,

white, blind, aquatic snail (height 2.3

millimeters (mm) (0.09 inches (in);

diameter 2.0 mm (0.08 in); aperture

height 1.2 mm (0.05 in); aperture

diameter 1.1 mm (0.04 in)) with a small,

conical, well-rounded, pale-yellow shell

containing about 3.5 whorls (Hubricht

1971). The Tumbling Creek cavesnail is

restricted to a single cave stream in

Tumbling Creek Cave in Taney County,

southwestern Missouri.

Greenlee (1974) provided the first

information on the habitat of the

species. He reported that the species

was found primarily on ‘‘3 inch gravel

substrate’’ (presumably meaning small

stones or cobble of 3-inch diameter),

with a few individuals observed using

the recesses of a solid rock stream

bottom. Greenlee (1974) did not note

whether the snails used the upper or

lower surface of the 3-inch gravel he

observed them on, or whether the

species was ever observed using larger

rocks within the cave stream.

Subsequent surveyors, however, have

failed to document Antrobia culveri

using a solid rock bottom, and the

species is usually observed on the

undersurface of rocks with a diameter

greater than 3 inches (Ashley 2000).

Additionally, Greenlee (1974) stated

that the Tumbling Creek cavesnail was

absent from areas of the stream that

contained bat guano. Subsequent

observers (McKenzie in litt. 1996;

Ashley 2000, 2001a, 2001b) have noted

Antrobia culveri in portions of

Tumbling Creek where bat guano

occurs. Finally, Greenlee (1974) and

subsequent observers have all noted that

the species appears to prefer areas of the

stream that lack silt.

66804 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Although little is known regarding the

life history of this cavesnail, Greenlee

(1974) postulated that the species feeds

on aquatic microfauna. Because

Tumbling Creek cavesnails have been

concentrated in sections of Tumbling

Creek Cave that are usually adjacent to

large deposits of bat guano, it has been

theorized that Antrobia culveri is

indirectly dependent upon these

deposits for food (Greenlee 1974). Other

life history aspects of this species,

including its reproductive behavior, are

unknown. Although little is known

about the longevity or movements of

this species, some limited information is

available on the frequency of shell sizes

within the population across different

seasons. Ashley (2000) examined shell

length data collected between 1996 and

2000 and noted that the average length

of Antrobia culveri shells exhibited a

slight peak during summer months but

further noted that the difference was not

statistically significant. Ashley (2000)

also analyzed the frequency distribution

of cavesnail shell lengths from fall data

collected between 1997 and 2000 and

noted a decrease in the frequency of

smaller shells over that period. Ashley

(2000) concluded that both fewer snails

and fewer snails in the younger age

classes were observed in the more

recent fall visits conducted from 1997

through 2000. This suggests that there

has been a reduction in recruitment of

younger age classes into the population

between 1997 and 2000.

Tumbling Creek Cave is a highly

diverse cave (Thomas Aley, Ozark

Underground Laboratory (OUL), in litt.

1978; Cecil Andrus, USDI, in litt. 1980).

In addition to species included in the

Missouri Department of Conservation’s

(MDC) Checklist of Species of

Conservation Concern (Missouri Natural

Heritage Program 2001) (e.g., a cave

millipede (Scoterpes dendropus)),

Antrobia culveri is associated with at

least three, possibly six, species that are

new to science but have not yet been

formally described: a millipede

(Chaetaspis sp.), a terrestrial isopod

(Caucasonethes sp.), an amphipod

(Stygobromus sp.), a dipluran

(Plusiocampa sp.), a phalangodid

harvestman (Phalangium sp.), and a

cave spider (Islandiana sp.). Tumbling

Creek Cave also provides habitat for a

large maternity colony of federally listed

gray bats (Myotis grisescens), with a

recent estimated breeding population of

12,400 in 1998 (Dr. William Elliott,

MDC, in litt. October 9, 2001).

Historically, the breeding population

included an estimated 50,000

individuals (MDC 1992, Missouri

Natural Heritage Program 2000). There

have also been historical observations of

a very small hibernating population of

the federally listed Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis). However, the Indiana bat has

not been documented at the site since

1989 (Missouri Natural Heritage

Program 2000). The Gray Bat Recovery

Plan lists Tumbling Creek Cave as a

‘‘Priority 1’’ cave. Priority 1 gray bat

caves have the highest level of

biological significance for a gray bat

maternity site (i.e., a cave deemed to be

‘‘absolutely essential’’ in preventing the

extinction of the endangered gray bat)

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982).

Tumbling Creek Cave is owned by

Tom and Cathy Aley of Protem,

Missouri. Because of its rich cave fauna,

the large maternity colony for the

endangered gray bat, and its diverse

physical features, Tumbling Creek Cave

was designated as a National Natural

Landmark and approved for inclusion

on the National Registry of Natural

Landmarks under the authority of the

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666;

16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (Cecil Andrus,

USDI, in litt., 1980; 48 FR 8693).

Tumbling Creek Cave and

approximately 395 acres surrounding

the cave were embodied in the

designation, including about 140 surface

acres owned by the Aleys and about 255

surface acres owned by two adjacent

property owners.

Status and Distribution

Antrobia culveri is known only from

Tumbling Creek Cave in Taney County,

southwestern Missouri. In an extensive

survey of publicly and privately owned

Missouri caves, no additional

populations of this cavesnail were

discovered (Gardner 1986). Recent

surveys conducted in nearby caves and

springs by Dr. David Ashley of Missouri

Western State College, St. Joseph,

Missouri, have also failed to locate this

species at any other sites (David Ashley,

in litt. November 2001). The fact that no

additional populations were found in

springs in close proximity to Tumbling

Creek Cave supports the long-held

contention that Tumbling Creek cave is

the only location where this species

occurs.

Antrobia culveri was historically

known from an estimated area of 1,016

square meters (m2) (10,900 square feet

(ft2) or 0.25 acres) (Greenlee 1974) of

Tumbling Creek along approximately

229 meters (m) (750 feet (ft)) of the

stream in the approximate middle onethird of the lower stream passage in

Tumbling Creek Cave (Greenlee 1974).

Based on a survey of approximately 630

m2 (6,800 ft2) of suitable habitat within

the 457 m (1,500 ft) of human-accessible

cave-stream habitat, Greenlee (1974)

estimated the population of Tumbling

Creek cavesnails at 15,118 individuals.

In 1995, we reviewed the status of the

species, including the survey

methodology originally established by

Greenlee (1974), and determined that an

inadequate description of the survey

methods made it difficult to determine

the number of plots taken. Our lack of

knowledge on the number of plots

sampled by Greenlee made it difficult to

interpret his population estimates and

impossible to duplicate his survey

methods. Therefore, we concluded that

a more rigorous statistical survey design

would be necessary to establish

population trends for the species.

Following meetings with Dr. Pam

Haverland of the U.S. Geological

Survey, Columbia Environmental

Research Center in Columbia, Missouri,

and Mr. Tom Aley, President of Ozark

Underground Laboratory (OUL) and

owner of Tumbling Creek Cave, a

sampling protocol was established

within an approximate 75 m (247 ft)

section of Tumbling Creek that was

known to be inhabited by Antrobia

culveri but that would minimize any

potential impacts to the federally

endangered gray and Indiana bats.

Following the establishment of

sampling stations within Tumbling

Creek Cave, and an initial September

1996 survey using those stations

(McKenzie, in litt. 1996), we contracted

Dr. David Ashley, of Missouri Western

State College, St. Joseph, Missouri, to

monitor population trends of the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail. Ashley

completed 16 separate monitoring trips

between September 3, 1997, and August

31, 2001 (Ashley 2000, 2001a, 2001b,

2001c). Ashley (2000, 2001a, 2001b,

2001c) determined that population

estimates of Antrobia culveri within the

monitoring stations fluctuated both

seasonally and annually, and ranged

from a high of 1,166 individuals on

September 3, 1997, to a low of 0

individuals on January 11, March 17,

May 8, July 16, and August 31, 2001.

Ashley statistically analyzed the data

and concluded that a significant

decrease in the numbers of cavesnails

had occurred between September 9,

1996, and August 31, 2001 (Ashley

2001c).

Although the 2001 surveys failed to

document the presence of any

cavesnails within the established

monitoring stations, 40 individuals were

discovered upstream of the sampling

stations in March 2001. During March

16–18, 2001, Ashley and others

surveyed the entire human-accessible

457 m (1,500 ft) of Tumbling Creek,

including a small tributary that has

approximately 9 additional meters (30

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66805

ft) of accessible habitat. A total of 39

person-hours was expended in

searching a total of 1,054 rocks in the

466 m (1,530 ft) of available habitat. A

total of 39 cavesnails were located in a

14-m (45-ft) section of the stream

upstream from the monitoring stations,

and another cavesnail was found in the

tributary (Ashley 2001a). Subsequent

surveys in May, July, and August 2001

documented the presence of cavesnails

only in this 14-m section upstream of

the established sampling stations. The

small tributary stream was not searched

during those subsequent surveys. A

more thorough search was not

conducted in either the tributary or the

area upstream from the sampling

stations in order to minimize

disturbance to cavesnails in those areas.

Observations between March and

August 2001 suggest that the numbers of

Antrobia culveri have declined

drastically from estimates obtained by

Greenlee (1974); however, differing

sampling methods make it impossible to

directly compare Ashley’s estimates

with those of Greenlee.

In addition to Greenlee’s 1974 survey

and the standardized surveys conducted

between 1996 and 2001, other attempts

have been made to monitor the species’

status and derive estimates of its

abundance. A June 1991 survey

conducted by Tom Aley, Paul McKenzie

(Service, Columbia, Missouri), and

Dennis Figg (MDC, Jefferson City,

Missouri) located 42 individuals after a

9 person-hour search (McKenzie, pers.

obs.). A June 1993 survey conducted by

Monty Holder (a high school biology

instructor) of Sedalia, Missouri, and

three assistants located 21 individuals

during 6 person-hours of search effort

(Tom Aley, in litt. 1993), but the number

of plots sampled is unknown. On

August 29, 1995, Paul McKenzie and

Cathy Aley searched for the species and

attempted to estimate the number of

cavesnails discovered per 0.3048 m2 (1

ft2) plot. This survey yielded 6

cavesnails in 22 plots or 0.27 cavesnails

per plot (McKenzie, unpubl. data). This

compares to an estimated 2.16

cavesnails per plot observed by

Greenlee (1974) when equivalent plot

sizes were calculated for analysis

purposes. Although it is impossible to

determine the exact number of plots

sampled by Greenlee (1974), he did

record the average number of snails per

plot, and this can be compared to the

same variable measured in 1995. A

decrease from 2.16 cavesnails per plot to

0.27 cavesnails per plot would represent

an approximate 88 percent decrease in

the species’ density over the 22-year

period between 1974 and 1995.

Previous Federal Action

On January 6, 1989, the Service

published an Animal Notice of Review

(54 FR 54554–54579) which included

the Tumbling Creek cavesnail as a

category 2 candidate species for possible

future listing as threatened or

endangered. Category 2 candidates were

those taxa for which information

contained in the Service’s files

indicated that listing may be

appropriate but for which additional

data were needed to support a listing

proposal. On November 21, 1991, the

Service published an Animal Candidate

Notice of Review (56 FR 58804–58836),

which elevated the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail to category 1 status. Category

1 candidates were those taxa for which

the Service had on file sufficient

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support preparation of

listing proposals. In the subsequent

February 28, 1996, Candidate Notice of

Review (61 FR 7596–7613), we

indicated that the category 2 candidate

species list was being discontinued, and

that henceforth the term ‘‘candidate

species’’ would be applied only to those

taxa that would have earlier fit the

definition of the former category 1

candidate taxa, that is, those species for

which we had on hand sufficient

information to support a listing

proposal. The Tumbling Creek cavesnail

has remained a candidate species until

now.

In 1996, we initiated a 5-year set of

standardized surveys designed to better

assess and quantify the decline in the

species’ population that was apparent

from the earlier data. In January 2001,

Ashley (pers. comm. January 14, 2001)

notified the Service that no cavesnails

were observed within the established

monitoring stations during the January

11 survey. He further reported that an

analysis of 5 years of data collected

between September 1996 and March

2001 indicated that population numbers

of the species had exhibited an alarming

decline (Ashley 2001b). Based on this

information, the Service determined

that it was necessary to more closely

monitor the species by having surveys

conducted once every two months.

Recognizing the need for prompt

additional conservation actions for the

species, on January 30, 2001, Region 3

of the Service recommended changing

the listing priority number for the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail from 7 to 1

based upon the mid-January monitoring

that failed to locate any cavesnails

(Service 2001). Region 3 also

recommended pursuing an emergency

listing of the species and

simultaneously publishing a proposal

for long-term listing as endangered

under the Act as soon as funding

became available. On October 30, 2001,

we published an updated Candidate

Species Notice of Review (66 FR 54808)

that formally changed the listing

priority number for Antrobia culveri

from 7 to 1, reflecting our increased

concern for the survival of the species.

On August 29, 2001, the U.S.

Department of the Interior reached an

agreement with several conservation

organizations regarding a number of

listing actions that had been delayed by

court-ordered critical habitat

designations and listing actions for

other species. That agreement was

subsequently approved by the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia. Under the agreement, the

Service and the organizations agreed to

significantly extend the existing courtapproved deadlines for the actions on

the other species, thereby making funds

available for a number of listing actions

judged to be higher priority by the

Service. Those higher priority listing

actions include the emergency listing of

the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined

that the Tumbling Creek cavesnail

warrants classification as an endangered

species. We followed procedures found

in section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)

and regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act. We may

determine a species to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1)

of the Act. These factors and their

application to the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) are as

follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.

Antrobia culveri has exhibited a

drastic decline in numbers since the

first estimate was made by Greenlee

(1974) (see Status and Distribution,

above). Systematic sampling conducted

at established stations between 1996

and 2001 revealed that a statistically

significant decline in population has

occurred over that period (McKenzie in

litt. 1996; Ashley 2000, 2001a, 2001b,

2001c). Additionally, no cavesnails have

been located at established monitoring

stations during the last five surveys

(Ashley 2001a, 2001b, 2001c).

We have also documented a dramatic

reduction in the portion of the cave

66806 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

stream occupied by the cavesnail.

Antrobia culveri was historically known

from an estimated 229 m (750 ft) of

Tumbling Creek (Greenlee 1974). The

229 m of occupied habitat in 1974

constituted 50 percent of the 457 m

(1,500 ft) of human-accessible cavestream habitat that is believed to be

suitable for the cavesnail. The entire

accessible 457 m (1,500 ft) of Tumbling

Creek, including a small tributary that

has approximately 9 additional meters

(30 ft) of accessible suitable habitat, was

surveyed in March 2001. Cavesnails

were found solely in one small (14-m)

(45-ft) section of the stream and in the

small tributary (Ashley 2001a).

Observations between March and

August 2001 suggest that Antrobia

culveri is now restricted to 23 m of

available stream habitat or

approximately 5 percent of the 457 m of

accessible suitable habitat. These figures

indicate that distribution of this species

in Tumbling Creek Cave has decreased

by 90 percent.

Species such as the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail, which spend part or all of

their life cycle in subterranean water

systems, are highly vulnerable to

changes in the quality and quantity of

that water. In turn, the quality and

quantity of the subsurface water is

highly dependent upon conditions and

human activities on the land surface

from which water feeds into losing

streams and sinkholes that drain into

underground karst conduits. Surface

water moves into the subsurface system

by a number of mechanisms, including

sinkholes, percolation through sandy or

gravelly soils and stream bottoms, and

seepage and flowage into crevices. As

water moves from the surface to the

subsurface system, it carries the

chemicals and particulate matter from

the surface. The land surface that feeds

water into a particular cave stream is

referred to as the ‘‘recharge area’’ for

that cave stream. Because recharge areas

may be large and may consist of all or

parts of several surface watersheds, it is

critically important to accurately

determine the boundaries of the

recharge area with reliable

hydrogeological methods. Only when

the recharge area is accurately

delineated can water quality threats be

successfully addressed (Aley and Aley

1991).

The recharge area that feeds water

into Tumbling Creek Cave has been

recently delineated by the cave owner,

Mr. Thomas Aley of the OUL, who is

also a recognized cave specialist and

expert karst hydrogeologist (Aley and

Aley 2001). Pending the results of

additional recharge delineation studies

currently being conducted by Aley on a

tract of land recently purchased by him

and Cathy Aley (Tom Aley, pers.

comm., September 24, 2001), he

estimated the recharge area to be

approximately 2,349 hectares (5,804

acres or 9.07 square miles). Land

ownership based on current data within

the recharge area is: (1) Tom and Cathy

Aley own approximately 1,550 acres, or

25 percent of the total; (2) employees of

Ozark Underground Laboratory and

other private individuals who manage

their property to protect water quality

and benefit the species own

approximately 1,268 acres or 22 percent;

(3) an estimated 1,300 acres or 23

percent is within Mark Twain National

Forest; (4) the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (CE) owns an estimated 100

acres or 2 percent; and (5) other private

landowners whose land use practices

and knowledge of the cavesnail are

currently unknown to us own

approximately 1,636 acres or 28 percent.

Thus, within the delineated recharge

area for Tumbling Creek Cave, roughly

4,168 acres or approximately 72 percent

is either in public or private ownership

by entities who can be expected to

manage their land to benefit the species.

This includes 920 acres recently

purchased by Tom and Cathy Aley, or

about 22 percent of the total

conservation ownership. However, most

of this recently purchased land was

subject to recent land use practices (e.g.,

over-grazing and removal of riparian

vegetation) that resulted in heavy soil

erosion that probably continues to

contribute to deteriorating water quality

in Tumbling Creek Cave. Remediation

and restoration of these lands are

planned and will require considerable

funds, effort, and time.

The Tumbling Creek cavesnail is

likely threatened by habitat degradation

through diminished water quality from

upstream locations within the

unprotected or improperly managed

areas within the cave’s delineated

recharge zone. The dramatic decrease in

the population and area occupied by

this species is probably attributable to

degraded water quality from these

sources. In recent years, there has been

a noticeable increase in water turbidity

in Tumbling Creek; the increased

turbidity has probably had an adverse

effect on the water quality in the cave’s

stream (Tom and Cathy Aley, pers.

comm., August 30, 2001). Increased silt

loads within Tumbling Creek could

adversely affect the cavesnail by

hampering reproduction and

recruitment by suffocating juvenile

cavesnails (Ashley 2000). Tom and

Cathy Aley have also observed that clay

particles within deposited silt have

settled between gravel and rocks and

cemented them together and to the

stream bottom (Tom and Cathy Aley,

pers. comm., August 2001). Such

cementing decreases habitat available to

cavesnails, because they are generally

restricted to the undersurface of gravel

and rocks. This hypothesis is supported,

in part, by the observations of Greenlee

(1974), who reported that cavesnails

occurred primarily on ‘‘3 inch gravel

substrate’’ rather than on the larger

rocks the species has been seen using

during more recent surveys.

Interestingly, Ashley’s (2000) results

revealed that some older individuals use

silt-covered substrates. This is different

from the observations made by Greenlee

(1974) who noted that cavesnails were

not observed in areas of the stream

where fine silt was deposited. Ashley’s

observations may be because of a

reduction in the amount of silt-free

substrates preferred by cavesnails which

could force the species to use less

favorable habitats. Although silt has

been a component of Tumbling Creek

since Greenlee’s initial survey in 1974,

it has apparently increased significantly

since that date (Tom and Cathy Aley,

pers. comm., August 2001). Additional

research is needed to determine the

degree of silt deposition within

Tumbling Creek and if the deposition of

silt into the cave is adversely impacting

the species, especially smaller and

younger individuals (Ashley 2000).

Potential sources of silt within the

cave’s recharge area have been

identified on the two tracts recently

purchased by Tom and Cathy Aley,

including an earthen dam that burst,

and severely degraded and eroded

pastureland due to overgrazing. In the

latter case, soil erosion has been

exacerbated in the last six years by the

removal of nearly all vegetation within

the riparian corridors of all semipermanent and intermittent streams on

one of those parcels. Harvey (1980)

concluded that ‘‘accelerated erosion and

sediment transport’’ was a problem

within drainage basins that have

‘‘excessive slopes,’’ and identified

‘‘timber cutting and land clearing for

raising livestock, extending urban

sprawl, and highway building’’ as

potential sources of ‘‘accelerated

erosion.’’ In addition to these sources,

the construction of fire lanes associated

with controlled burning on Forest

Service property within the recharge

area may increase the threat of soil

erosion with a resulting decrease in

water quality in Tumbling Creek.

Other factors within the recharge area

of Tumbling Creek Cave that could

contribute to the deterioration of the

water quality of Tumbling Creek

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66807

include: (1) increase in ammonia and

nitrate loads from livestock feedlots that

could lead to reductions in dissolved

oxygen levels, (2) chemicals used for

highway maintenance or from

accidental spills, and (3) contaminants

from different types of trash or

hazardous waste materials deposited

into sinkholes, ravines, and depressions.

Whether these factors are occurring on

the parts of the recharge area that are

outside of the current ‘‘conservation

ownership’’ remains to be determined.

Refer to Factor E for a discussion of

these potential threats.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Because access to Tumbling Creek

Cave is controlled by the cave owners,

all collection of and research on

Antrobia culveri is strictly controlled.

Consequently, there is no evidence of

overutilization of this species for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. There is also no

evidence that disturbance associated

with conducting regular surveys is

adversely affecting the species. Rocks

that are examined are carefully replaced

in the location from which they were

removed, any specimens discovered are

disturbed as little as possible and kept

moist to reduce stress, and only a small

percentage of the available habitat is

sampled during each survey.

C. Disease or Predation

The direct effect of disease on the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail is not known

and such risks to the species have not

been determined. Because the Tumbling

Creek cavesnail is known from a single

location, disease must be considered a

potential threat to the survival of the

species. Certain species of salamanders

have been shown to be adversely

impacted by the bacterium

Acinetobacter that flourished due to

increasing levels of nitrogen associated

with the overstocking of livestock

(Worthylake and Hovingh 1989).

Similarly, Lefcort et al. (1997) and

Kiesecker and Blaustein (1997) found

that amphibians exposed to high levels

of silt are susceptible to infection by

different species of water mold of the

genus Saprolegnia. Saprolegnia spp. are

widespread in natural waters and

commonly grow on dead organic

material (Wise et al. 1995). Speer (1995)

stated that some species of Saprolegnia

are parasitic on aquatic invertebrates

such as rotifers, nematodes, diatoms,

and arthropods. High nitrogen and silt

levels from overgrazing or other

agricultural or urban runoff may

increase the cavesnail’s susceptibility to

disease and act synergistically with

other risk factors (e.g., competition from

limpets, discussed below) to jeopardize

the survival of the remaining

individuals. Whether the Tumbling

Creek cavesnail is being adversely

affected by bacteria or water molds

associated with increased loads of

nitrogen or silt into Tumbling Creek is

unknown but warrants further

investigation.

During the December 6, 1997, survey,

a few individuals of an unknown

species of limpet (Ferrissia sp.) were

discovered for the first time on the same

substrates used by Antrobia culveri

within the established monitoring

stations (Ashley, pers. comm.,

September 10, 2001). Limpets were not

observed again until the January 11,

2001, survey, after which their numbers

began to increase. By the August 31,

2001, survey, limpet numbers had

increased explosively, and the presence

of many small limpets, as well as larger

limpets with visible, developing

embryos, indicated that reproduction

was taking place (Ashley, pers. comm.,

September 10, 2001; McKenzie pers.

obs.). The reasons why these organisms

have appeared and increased in

numbers within Tumbling Creek are

unknown; it is also unknown whether

they compete with the cavesnails for

food, breeding substrates, or other

necessary resources. Other cave

invertebrates (e.g., a troglobitic isopod,

Caecidota antricola.; a troglobitic

amphipod, Stygobromus sp.; and a

troglophilic amphipod, Gammarus sp.)

coexist with Antrobia culveri, often on

the same rocks, but it is unknown if

these species compete with the

cavesnail in any way. Additional

research is needed to determine if local

environmental changes have provided a

competitive advantage for one or more

of these species over the Tumbling

Creek cavesnail.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The primary cause of the decline of

the Tumbling Creek cavesnail is

unknown but is believed to be

associated with factors within the 2,349-

hectare (5,804-acre) delineated recharge

area that have adversely affected the

water quality of Tumbling Creek.

Federal, State, and local laws have not

been sufficient to prevent past and

ongoing impacts to areas within the

cave’s delineated recharge area.

Antrobia culveri is listed as critically

imperiled globally (G1) by The Nature

Conservancy, as well as critically

imperiled in the State (S1) on the

Missouri Species of Conservation

Concern Checklist (Missouri Natural

Heritage Program 2001). The

designation as G1/S1 on this checklist,

however, provides no legal authority,

but is simply utilized for planning and

communication purposes (Missouri

Natural Heritage Program 2001).

Nonetheless, the species currently

receives some protection under the

Wildlife Code of Missouri (Wildlife

Code) (Missouri Department of

Conservation 2001) as a ‘‘biological

diversity element’’ (Missouri Natural

Heritage Program 2001). ‘‘Biological

diversity elements’’ are protected under

the following general prohibitions of

chapter 4 of the Wildlife Code (3CSR10–

4.110): ‘‘(1) No bird, fish, amphibian,

reptile, mammal or other form of

wildlife, including their homes, dens,

nests and eggs in Missouri shall be

molested, pursued, taken, hunted,

trapped, tagged, marked, enticed,

poisoned, killed, transported, stored,

served, bought, imported, exported or

liberated to the wild in any manner,

number, part, parcel or quantity, at any

time, except as specifically permitted by

these rules and any laws consistent with

Article IV, sections 40–46 of the

Constitution of Missouri. (2) Except as

otherwise provided in this Code,

wildlife may be taken only by holders

of the prescribed permits and in

accordance with prescribed methods. (3)

No person, corporation, municipality,

county, business or other public or

private entity shall cause or allow any

deleterious substance to be placed, run

or drained into any of the waters of this

State in quantities sufficient to injure,

stupefy or kill fish or other wildlife

which may inhabit such waters.’’

Under the Section 6 Cooperative

Agreement between MDC and the

Service, if a species is listed as

endangered under the ESA, the

Conservation Commission of Missouri

shall list the species as State

endangered. The protection of all

species in Missouri is outlined in

Chapter 4 of the Wildlife Code and

regulations pertaining to endangered

species are listed in section 3CSR10–

4.111. Under the Wildlife Code, citizens

can possess (but not sell or purchase) up

to five individuals of any species

without a permit and when not

specifically protected elsewhere in the

code (3CSR10–9.110). However, when a

species is listed as endangered, citizens

cannot possess any individuals and can

not import, transport, purchase, take or

possess without a scientific collecting or

special use permit. Although the term

‘‘refuge’’ is not defined under the

Wildlife Code, there is also a provision

that enables MDC’s Director to establish

refuges not to exceed 1 square mile for

66808 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

not more than 60 days to provide

essential protection to endangered

species. Furthermore, the Wildlife Code

states that a species’ ‘‘home’’ is

protected. The term ‘‘home’’ is not

defined in this statute and may provide

limited or no protection for the

cavesnail’s habitat. For instance, the

creek where the cavesnail resides and

the cave’s recharge area would probably

not be considered a home and thus

receive no protection under the Wildlife

Code (Bob White, MDC, Protection

Division Chief, pers. comm., October 2,

2001).

The Federal Cave Resources

Protection Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 4301–

4309; 102 Stat. 4546) was passed to

‘‘secure, protect, and preserve

significant caves on Federal lands

***’’ and to ‘‘foster increased

cooperation and exchange of

information between governmental

authorities and those who utilize caves

located on Federal lands for scientific,

educational, or recreational purposes.’’

Although this statute and a final rule to

implement the Federal Cave Resources

Protection Act on Forest Service land

(59 FR 31152; June 17, 1994) provides

protection for caves located on property

owned by the Forest Service, they do

not provide protection for caves whose

recharge areas are within Forest Service

boundaries if the caves themselves are

under private lands, as is the case with

Tumbling Creek Cave.

The protection afforded Antrobia

culveri from the above-mentioned

statutes is limited, does not provide any

protections to its habitat, and includes

no provisions to protect areas within the

delineated recharge area for Tumbling

Creek Cave. Therefore, we conclude the

most likely threats to the species cannot

be addressed by existing regulatory

mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Several other potential factors,

including point and non-point

pollution, threats from residential and

commercial development, and recent

changes to the hydrological cycle within

the 2,349-hectare (5,804-acre) delineated

recharge area supporting Tumbling

Creek Cave may have negative effects on

the species. It is possible that the recent

decline in cavesnail numbers is

attributable to some yet to be identified

point or non-point source pollution

within the cave’s recharge area. Because

the Tumbling Creek cavesnail occupies

a permanent, flowing stream, it will

likely come in contact with any

deleterious chemical or other material

that enters the cave’s recharge system.

Silt deposition has been identified as a

potential problem, especially to younger

cohorts of the cavesnail’s population,

but additional research is needed to

determine if other contaminants are

potentially involved. (See Factor A

above.)

Non-point source pollution may be a

problem in a significant portion of the

recharge area that feeds Tumbling Creek

Cave. Potential sources of pollution

include the drainage of barnyard and

feedlot wastes and the discharge of

treated sewage into sinkholes and losing

streambeds within the cave’s recharge

area. The water quality of Tumbling

Creek is also threatened due to

accidental spills into sinkholes or losing

stream valleys feeding Tumbling Creek

Cave from State and county highways

passing through the recharge area. Such

sources of pollution have been

identified as potential problems for

ground water in the Springfield-Salem

Plateaus of southern Missouri

(including the watershed that

encompasses Tumbling Creek and its

identified recharge zone) (Harvey 1980).

The decline in numbers of the Tumbling

Creek cavesnail may be due to one or

several sources of pollution that have

resulted in a deterioration of water

quality within the recharge area for

Tumbling Creek as outlined in Factor A.

In comparing ground-water quality of

sites within the Ozark Plateaus

(including SW Missouri) with other

National Water-Quality Assessment

Program (NAWQA) sites, Petersen et al.

(1998) documented that: (1) nitrate

concentrations in parts of the

Springfield Plateau aquifer were higher

than in most other NAWQA drinkingwater aquifers, and (2) volatile organic

compounds were detected more

frequently in drinking-water aquifers

within the Ozark Plateaus than in most

other drinking-water aquifers. Tumbling

Creek Cave is within the NAWQA study

boundaries; consequently, the cavesnail

could be threatened from these

contaminants. Although no detailed

water analyses have yet been performed

on Tumbling Creek, an instrumentation

package to measure water quality

parameters will be installed in

Tumbling Creek cave during the fall of

2001.

Aley (pers. comm., Jan. 19, 2001)

postulated that the decline in cavesnail

numbers may actually be because of too

much gray bat guano that could deplete

oxygen levels in Tumbling Creek,

especially during periods of reduced

flows as occurred during 1999–2001.

What importance gray bat guano plays

in the life history requirements of the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail is yet to be

tested experimentally. The

instrumentation package mentioned

above will provide data on dissolved

oxygen levels once it is installed.

Tumbling Creek Cave is

approximately 25 to 30 miles southeast

of Branson, Missouri, which is one of

the most rapidly expanding areas in the

State due to tourism, outdoor recreation,

and entertainment developments. If

recent trends continue, it has been

projected that the number of visitors

attracted to this area would increase

from an estimated level of 6 million in

1992 to11 million by the year 2015. The

accompanying growth in entertainmentand recreation-related activities will

place even greater demands on this area

of the State (Mullen and Keith 1992).

Tumbling Creek Cave is 2 to 3 miles

northwest of Bull Shoals Lake which is

also undergoing additional real estate

development. Consequently, it is likely

that sections of the recharge zone for

Tumbling Creek Cave will be adversely

affected by real estate development and

related construction and land

management activities.

Another potential threat to the species

results from the close hydrologic

association of Tumbling Creek with

nearby Bull Shoals Lake. Occasional

high water levels in this CE reservoir are

believed to cause water to backup into

the cave stream, threatening roosting

bats and the cavesnail (Aley, pers.

comm., July 16, 2000). The CE is

considering raising the conservation

pool of the reservoir by 10 feet, which

will likely increase the frequency and

duration of the backup events in

Tumbling Creek Cave.

Climatic changes, especially recent

periods of drought, may also be a

contributing factor to the decline of the

cavesnail. The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)

Palmer Drought Severity Index provides

a widely recognized and accepted

standard measurement of moisture

conditions (NOAA 2001). The Index

varies roughly from -6.0 (extreme

drought) to +6.0 (extremely wet), with

–0.49 to 0.49 indicating near normal

conditions. Since the 1974 survey by

Greenlee, there have been 4 periods in

Southwest Missouri where the Index

was below normal for 6 months or

longer and exceeded an Index value of

–2.0 (moderate drought) for some part of

that period. These events occurred in 2-

year cycles: 1980–1981; 1991–1992;

1995–1996; and 1999–2000. The 1980–

1981 drought was the most prolonged

and severe, with the Index reaching –5.0

(extreme drought). We further analyzed

a 6-year period between 1995 and 2000,

which is the approximate period that

Ashley conducted his cavesnail

monitoring. The Index was below

normal for 6 months or more for 4 of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66809

these 6 years. The years, number of

months the Index was below normal,

and the averages for the negative indices

are: 1995, 6 months, average Index

–1.54; 1996, 7 months, average Index

–1.2; 1999, 6 months, average Index

–1.29; 2000, 10 months, average Index

–1.65. Preliminary data on NOAA’s

website indicate that below-normal

moisture (negative Palmer Index)

occurred in this region during the early

part of 2001 but precipitation levels are

now near normal levels.

According to this climatic data, in 2

recent periods (1995–1996 and 1999–

2000) precipitation within the recharge

area for Tumbling Creek Cave was

below normal for an extended period.

The direct or indirect impacts of these

droughts on the cavesnail are unknown.

Reduced flows in the cave stream,

especially when combined with other

threats, could hamper essential life

history requirements (e.g., reproduction,

food availability, water temperature);

decrease the flushing of silt, guano, and

harmful contaminants from the stream;

and create an environment more

favorable for competitors (e.g., limpets,

isopods, and amphipods).

The small population size and

endemism (i.e., restricted to a single

site) of Antrobia culveri makes it

vulnerable to extinction due to genetic

drift, inbreeding depression, and

random or chance changes to the

environment (Smith 1990) that can

significantly impact cavesnail habitat.

Inbreeding depression can result in

death, decreased fertility, smaller body

size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and

various chromosome abnormalities

(Smith 1990). Despite any evolutionary

adaptations for rarity, habitat loss and

degradation increase a species’

vulnerability to extinction (Noss and

Cooperrider 1994). Numerous authors

(e.g., Noss and Cooperrider 1994;

Thomas 1994) have indicated that the

probability of extinction increases with

decreasing habitat availability. Although

changes in the environment may cause

populations to fluctuate naturally, small

and low-density populations are more

likely to fluctuate below a minimum

viable population (i.e., the minimum or

threshold number of individuals needed

in a population to persist in a viable

state for a given interval; Gilpin and

Soule 1986; Shaffer 1981; Shaffer and

Samson 1985). Current threats to the

habitat of the Tumbling Creek cavesnail

may exacerbate potential problems

associated with its low population

numbers and increase the chances of

this species going extinct.

Reason for Emergency Determination

Under section 4(b)(7) of the Act and

regulations at 50 CFR 424.20, we may

emergency list a species if the threats to

the species constitute an emergency

posing a significant risk to its wellbeing. Such an emergency listing

expires 240 days following publication

in the Federal Register unless, during

this 240-day period, we list the species

following the normal listing procedures.

Below, we discuss reasons why

emergency listing the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail as endangered is necessary. In

accordance with the Act, if at any time

after we publish this emergency rule, we

determine that substantial evidence

does not exist to warrant such a rule, we

will withdraw it.

In making this determination, we

have carefully assessed the best

scientific and commercial information

available regarding the past, present,

and future threats faced by the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail. Antrobia

culveri is restricted to one cave and

population monitoring conducted

between 1996 and 2001 has indicated

that a significant and precipitous

decline in the population of the species

has occurred. This decline has

continued to the point that we are no

longer finding any cavesnails in a part

of the cave where they had always been

found prior to 2001 by using the same

monitoring methodology. From the

discussion under Factor D of this

section, it is clear that currently

applicable Federal, State, and local

laws, regulations and ordinances,

individually and collectively, do not

provide adequate protection for the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail or its habitat

or assure that the species will continue

to survive.

We believe that the survival of the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail now depends

on protecting the delineated recharge

area of Tumbling Creek Cave from

further degradation and restoring and

rehabilitating areas within the recharge

area to improve the water quality in

Tumbling Creek. The few remaining

individuals are vulnerable to extinction

from ongoing threats, as well as from

random natural or human-caused events

unless sufficient habitat is protected,

water quality improves, and the current

small population greatly increases in

size. The recent rapid population

decline makes it clear that this cavesnail

is on the brink of extinction. By this

emergency listing as an endangered

species, we believe the additional

protections, funding, and recognition

that immediately become available to

the species will greatly increase the

likelihood that it can be saved from

extinction and can ultimately be

recovered.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3,

paragraph 5(A), of the Act as: (i) The

specific areas within the geographical

area occupied by a species, at the time

it is listed in accordance with the Act,

on which are found those physical or

biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) that

may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical

area occupied by a species at the time

it is listed, upon a determination that

such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species.

‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of all

methods and procedures needed to

bring the species to the point at which

listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and our

implementing regulations (50 CFR

424.12) require that, to the maximum

extent prudent and determinable, we

designate critical habitat at the time the

species is determined to be endangered

or threatened. However, our budget for

listing and critical habitat activities is

currently insufficient to allow us to

immediately complete all of the listing

actions required by the Act. Listing

Antrobia culveri without designation of

critical habitat will allow us to

concentrate our limited resources on

other listing actions that must be

addressed, while allowing us to invoke

the protections needed for the

conservation of this species without

further delay. This is consistent with

section 4(b)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, which

states that final listing decisions may be

issued without critical habitat

designation when it is essential that

such determinations be promptly

published. If prudent and determinable,

we will prepare a proposed critical

habitat designation for A. culveri in the

future at such time as our available

resources and priorities allow.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, Tribal, State, and

local agencies, private organizations,

and individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the State and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

66810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against certain activities

involving listed species are discussed,

in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened, and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part

402. If a species is listed on an

emergency basis, or is listed under a

non-emergency listing proposal, section

7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize,

fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

such a species or to destroy or adversely

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

agency action may adversely affect a

listed species or adversely modify its

designated critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must initiate

formal consultation with the Service.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to confer with us on

any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed

species or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat. Federal agency actions

that may affect the Tumbling Creek

cavesnail and may require conference

and/or consultation with the Service

include, but are not limited to, those

within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest

Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Environmental Protection Agency, and

Federal Highway Administration.

The Act and its implementing

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all endangered

wildlife. These prohibitions, in part,

make it illegal for any person subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States to

take (including harass, harm, pursue,

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect; or attempt any such conduct),

import or export, ship in interstate or

foreign commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to Service agents and those of State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife under

certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50

CFR 17.22 and 17.23. For endangered

species, such permits are available for

scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species,

and for incidental take in connection

with otherwise lawful activities.

As published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), it is the

Service’s policy 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 the listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within

a species’ range.

We believe that, based on the best

available information, the following

actions are not likely to result in a

violation of section 9, provided these

actions are carried out in accordance

with any existing regulations and permit

requirements:

(1) Possession of a Tumbling Creek

cavesnail legally acquired prior to the

effective date of this rule;

(2) Actions that may affect the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail that are

authorized, funded, or carried out by a

Federal agency, when the action is

conducted in accordance with an

incidental take statement issued by the

Service under section 7 of the Act;

(3) Actions that may affect the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail that are not

authorized, funded, or carried out by a

Federal agency, when the action is

conducted in accordance with an

incidental take permit issued by the

Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Act. Applicants design a Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) and apply for

an incidental take permit. These HCPs

are developed for species listed under

section 4 of the Act and are designed to

minimize and mitigate impacts to the

species to the greatest extent

practicable; and

(4) Actions that may affect the

Tumbling Creek cavesnail that are

conducted in accordance with the

conditions of a section 10(a)(1)(A)

permit for scientific research or to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species.

We believe that the following actions

could result in a violation of section 9;

however, possible violations are not

limited to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized possession,

collecting, trapping, capturing, killing,

harassing, sale, delivery, or movement,

including interstate and foreign

commerce, or harming, or attempting

any of these actions, of Tumbling Creek

cavesnails without a permit (research

activities where cavesnails are collected

will require a permit under section

10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species

Act);

(2) Discharges or dumping of toxic

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants

(point source and non-point source

pollution) within the recharge area of

Tumbling Creek Cave that alters or

degrades the water quality of Tumbling

Creek to the point that it results in death

or injury to individuals of the species or

results in degradation of cavesnail

occupied habitat; and

(3) Release of exotic species

(including, but not limited to, fish and

crayfish) into Tumbling Creek that

adversely affect the cavesnail.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Columbia, Missouri

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed species and inquiries

regarding prohibitions and permits may

be addressed to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species

Permits, Bishop Whipple Federal

Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling,

MN 55111–4056 (612/713–5343,

facsimile 612/713–5292).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an

Environmental Assessment, as defined

under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need

not be prepared in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act, as amended. The Service

published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR

49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any

collections of information that require

additional Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An information collection

related to the rule pertaining to permits

for endangered and threatened species

has OMB approval and is assigned

clearance number 1018–0094. This rule

does not alter that information

collection requirement. An agency may

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is

not required to respond to, a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. For

additional information concerning

permits and associated requirements for

endangered wildlife, see 50 CFR 17.21

and 17.22.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this rulemaking is available upon

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66811

request from the Field Supervisor,

Columbia, Missouri Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed

rule is Paul M. McKenzie, Ph.D., U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia,

Missouri Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble,

we amend part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

SNAILS, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic

range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

StatusWhen

listed

Critical

habitat

Special

Common name Scientific name rules

*******

SNAILS

*******

Cavesnail, ............................ Antrobia .............................. U.S.A. ........................ NA ...................................... E ... 719 NA NA

Tumbling Creek ................... culveri ................................. (MO).

* * * * *

Dated: December 10, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31305 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 011218302–1302–01; 120601A]

RIN: 0648–AP00

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic

Species Fisheries; Annual

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final harvest guideline.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the annual

harvest guideline for Pacific sardine in

the exclusive economic zone off the

Pacific coast for the fishing season

January 1, 2002, through December 31,

2002. This harvest guideline has been

calculated according to the regulations

implementing the Coastal Pelagic

Species Fishery Management Plan

(FMP), and establishes allowable

harvest levels for Pacific sardine off the

Pacific coast.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2002,

through December 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The report Stock

Assessment of Pacific Sardine with

Management Recommendations for

2002 is available from Rodney R.

McInnis, Acting Administrator,

Southwest Region, (Regional

Administrator), NMFS, 501 West Ocean

Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA

90802–4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James J. Morgan, Southwest Region,

NMFS, 562–980–4036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP

divides managed species into two

categories: actively managed and

monitored. Harvest guidelines for

actively managed species (Pacific

sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based

on formulas applied to current biomass

estimates. Harvest guidelines for

monitored species (jack mackerel,

northern anchovy, and market squid),

which are underutilized or under the

jurisdiction of the State of California,

are not based on current biomass

estimates, although a constant allowable

biological catch (ABC) for each species

is based on the long-term yield of each

species. If an ABC for a monitored

species is reached, it would be

designated an actively managed species;

at that time, the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council)would

review the condition of the resource and

recommend management action.

At a public meeting each year, the

biomass for each actively managed

species is presented at a public meeting

held by the Council’s Coastal Pelagic

Species Management Team (Team). At

that time, the biomass, the harvest

guideline, and the status of the fishery

is reviewed. Following review and

recommendations by the Council, and

after hearing all public comments,

NMFS publishes the annual harvest

guideline in the Federal Register before

the beginning of the fishing season.

On October 10, 2001, in accordance

with the procedures of the FMP, the

biomass report and harvest guideline for

Pacific sardine were reviewed at a

public meeting of the Team at the

offices of the California Department of

Fish and Game in Los Alamitos,

California. A public meeting between

the Team and the Council’s Coastal

Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel was

held in the same location that afternoon.

The Council reviewed the report at its

meeting on November 1, 2001, and

heard comments from its advisory

bodies and the public. No significant

comments on the biomass estimate were

received; therefore, the Council

recommended to NMFS that the

biomass and harvest guideline be

published as presented.

The sardine population was estimated

using a modified version of the

integrated stock assessment model

called Catch at Age Analysis of Sardine–

Two Area Model (CANSAR–TAM).

CANSAR–TAM is a forward-casting,