[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2076-2080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AW90


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Tumbling Creek Cavesnail

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the comment period on June 23, 2010, proposed designation 
of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also 
announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail and an amended required determinations section of the 
proposal. We are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days 
to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the items 
listed above. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and 
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will consider public comments we receive on or before 
February 11, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time 
on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing 
date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R3-
ES-2010-0042.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.

We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally 
means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see 
the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul McKenzie, Endangered Species 
Coordinator, Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 
Park DeVille Dr.; Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; telephone (573) 234-
2132; facsimile (573) 234-2181. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as 
accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or 
information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party during this

[[Page 2077]]

reopened comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat 
for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail published in the Federal Register on 
June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751), including the draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail and the amended required determinations provided in this 
document. We will consider information and recommendations from all 
interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of Tumbling Creek cavesnail 
habitat,
     What areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species we should include in the designation and 
why, and
     What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the 
time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and 
why.
    (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible effects on the proposed critical 
habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small 
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small 
government jurisdictions), and the benefits of including or excluding 
areas from the proposed designation that exhibit these impacts.
    (5) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences 
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation 
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (6) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or 
clarifying the primary constituent elements and the resulting physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the Tumbling 
Creek cavesnail.
    (7) How the proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined 
to more closely circumscribe the landscapes identified as essential.
    (8) Information on the potential effects of climate change on the 
Tumbling Creek cavesnail and its habitat.
    (9) Any foreseeable impacts on energy supplies, distribution, and 
use resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on electricity production, and the benefits of including or 
excluding any particular areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public 
concerns and comments.
    (11) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions 
regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that likely may 
occur if we designate proposed critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail.
    (12) Information on the accuracy of our methodology in the DEA for 
distinguishing baseline and incremental costs, and the assumptions 
underlying the methodology.
    (13) Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect 
on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result 
from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling 
Creek cavesnail.
    (14) Information on whether the proposed designation of critical 
habitat will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific 
areas or small businesses, including small businesses in the land 
development sector in Taney County.
    (15) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could 
result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
    (16) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (75 
FR 35751) during the initial comment period from June 23, 2010, to 
August 23, 2010, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them 
into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will 
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our 
final determination concerning critical habitat will take into 
consideration all written comments and any additional information we 
receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, 
we may, during the development of our final determination, find that 
areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed 
rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. If you submit a hard copy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive (and have received), as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and 
DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042), or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA by mail from the 
Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042), or on 
our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail in this document. For more information on previous Federal 
actions concerning the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, refer to the proposed 
designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on 
June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751). Additional information on the Tumbling 
Creek cavesnail may also be found in the final listing rule published 
in the Federal Register on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52879). These 
documents are available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered.

[[Page 2078]]

    On December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66803), we published an emergency rule 
to list the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, due to water degradation and a 
precipitous decline in the cavesnail populations. The species was 
subsequently listed as endangered on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52879). At 
the time, critical habitat was not designated in order to allow the 
Service to concentrate its resources on immediate protections needed 
for the conservation of the species. On August 11, 2008, the Institute 
for Wildlife Protection and Crystal Grace Rutherford filed a lawsuit 
against the Secretary of the Interior for our failure to timely 
designate critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail (Institute 
for Wildlife Protection et al. v. Kempthorne, (Case No. CV-07-01202-
CMP)). In a court-approved settlement agreement, we agreed to submit to 
the Federal Register a prudency determination, and if the designation 
was found to be prudent, a proposed designation of critical habitat, by 
June 30, 2010, and a final designation by June 30, 2011. On June 23, 
2010, we proposed to designate 25 acres of Tumbling Creek and 
associated springs as critical habitat.
    The Tumbling Creek cavesnail is a small, white, blind, aquatic 
snail, restricted to a single cave stream in Tumbling Creek Cave in 
Taney County, southwestern Missouri. Significant declines in the 
snail's population have been documented since 1996. 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 species may also be threatened with competition from limpets or 
from changes in the cave's normal hydrological cycles due to recent 
droughts.
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
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. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on 
the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.

Possible Exclusions From Critical Habitat and Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or 
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine 
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species. We have not proposed to 
exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on 
whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data 
available at the time of the final designation, including information 
obtained during the comment period and information about the economic 
impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic 
analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation (DEA), 
which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).
    The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. The DEA quantifies the 
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Tumbling 
Creek cavesnail; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless 
of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical 
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical 
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, 
considering protections already in place for the species (for example, 
under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated and may include 
costs incurred in the future. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario 
describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental 
conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to 
occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In 
other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the 
designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; 
these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of 
critical habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline 
impacts incurred since we listed the species, and forecasts both 
baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail. For a further description of the methodology of the 
analysis, see Chapter 2, ``Framework for the Analysis,'' of the DEA.
    The current DEA estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 
cavesnail by identifying the potential resulting incremental costs. The 
DEA analyzed economic impacts of Tumbling Creek cavesnail conservation 
efforts on the following activities: Water management and other 
activities that may affect water quality such as road construction and 
maintenance; oil, gas, and utility easements; forest and pasture 
management; alteration of septic systems; and effluent discharges. It 
also assessed possible indirect impacts to economic activities as the 
result of possible applications of other State and local laws and 
regulatory uncertainty or delay. The DEA considers future baseline and 
incremental impacts over the next 20 years (2011 to 2030).
    The DEA estimates that minimal economic impacts are likely to 
result from the designation of critical habitat. The main reason for 
this conclusion is that the private landowners of all surface critical 
habitat areas and the Tumbling Creek Cave Foundation, which owns lands 
within much of the cave's recharge area, have been undertaking 
extensive restoration and conservation efforts for the benefit of the 
cavesnail. Those lands have recently been enrolled in a voluntary 
conservation program that encourages the landowners to undertake and 
continue additional conservation activities. These efforts are expected 
to continue after critical habitat designation.
    An additional reason that minimal economic impacts are likely to 
result from critical habitat designation is that, while cavesnails may 
not always be detected through surveys within critical habitat every 
year, the Service assumes the species is present within the entire area 
proposed for designation. Thus, we anticipate that Action agencies will 
initiate consultation regarding the cavesnail regardless of whether 
critical habitat is designated. Activities taking place outside of the 
proposed designation but within the recharge area for the cave may 
affect the cavesnail.

[[Page 2079]]

These projects may include road construction projects, U.S. Forest 
Service activities, or management changes at Bull Shoals reservoir. 
These types of projects are already subject to section 7 consultation 
under the jeopardy standard; therefore, the only incremental costs are 
those resulting from the additional administrative costs by the Service 
and action agency to include an adverse modification finding within the 
Biological Opinion and Biological Assessment as part of a formal 
consultation. As a result, the total incremental costs associated with 
this rule are estimated to be $4,420 annually over the next 20 years, 
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
    The DEA also discusses the potential benefits associated with the 
designation of critical habitat. The primary intended benefit of 
critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species, such as the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. However, 
economic benefits are not quantified or monetized in the DEA. As 
described in the DEA, designation of critical habitat is not 
anticipated to result in additional conservation efforts for the 
cavesnail. As a result, no changes in economic activity or land 
management are expected to result from critical habitat designation.
    The DEA considered both economic efficiency and distributional 
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects 
generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the 
commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures 
(e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land 
use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely 
to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, small entities, and the 
energy industry. We can use this information to assess whether the 
effects of the proposed designation might unduly burden a particular 
group or economic sector.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat, and our amended required 
determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or the economic 
analysis to incorporate or address information we receive during this 
public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from 
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the 
area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, 
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our proposed rule dated June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751), we 
indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with 
several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now 
made use of the DEA to make these determinations. In this document, we 
affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), 
E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the DEA 
data, we are also affirming our required determinations made in the 
proposed rule concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and 
E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use).

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 
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 
effect 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 an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed 
designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the 
proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we 
may revise this determination as part of a final rulemaking.
    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.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the Tumbling Creek cavesnail would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities, such as residential and 
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate 
for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the 
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered 
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where 
the species is present, Federal agencies already are required to 
consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, 
permit, or implement that may affect the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. If 
the proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, consultations 
to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In the DEA of the proposed designation of critical habitat, we 
evaluated the potential economic effects resulting from implementation 
of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical 
habitat.

[[Page 2080]]

Although the DEA forecasts approximately $50,100 in incremental impacts 
over the next 20 years, these impacts are expected to be borne by 
Federal and State agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and 
the Missouri Department of Transportation. Such agencies are not 
considered small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the 
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the 
reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information, 
we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 requires an agency to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. We implement this 
executive order using the Office of Management and Budget's guidance 
which outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant 
adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in 
chapter 3, the DEA finds that this proposed critical habitat 
designation is not expected to have any impacts on the energy industry. 
As a result, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Service 
makes the following findings:
    (a) 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. ``Federal private 
sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) as a condition of 
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    Critical habitat designation 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 do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 
or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal 
agency for an action that may affect designated critical habitat. 
However, 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 on to State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, we do not believe that this 
rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because 
it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in 
any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental 
impacts expected to result from the designation of critical habitat are 
limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse 
modification in section 7 consultation. In total, these impacts are 
estimated at $50,100 in present value terms over the next 20 years, or 
$4,420 on an annualized basis (discounted at seven percent). 
Consequently, we do not believe critical habitat designation would 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and 
in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042 or from the 
Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the 
Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 30, 2010.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-468 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P