[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58938-58955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23185]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2012-0065; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
RIN 1018-AY16


 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Species Status for the Grotto Sculpin (Cottus specus) 
Throughout Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered 
species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 
for the grotto sculpin, a species from Perry County, Missouri. The 
effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife/Plants.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 25, 2013.

[[Page 58939]]


ADDRESSES: This final rule and supplementary documents, such as 
comments received, are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2012-0065. Comments and 
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the 
preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park 
De Ville Dr., Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; telephone: 573-234-2132; 
facsimile: 573-234-2181.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Salveter, Field Supervisor, 
Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a 
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. We are listing the grotto sculpin (Cottus 
specus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 
as amended. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we finalize 
designation of critical habitat for the grotto sculpin under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we can 
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based 
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that there are 
current and ongoing threats to the grotto sculpin from habitat loss and 
degradation of aquatic resources due to improper waste disposal, 
contaminated groundwater, improper application and maintenance of 
vertical drains, and sedimentation. The species is found only in one 
county in Missouri and has a restricted distribution that is coincident 
with karst habitats.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our decision is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and 
information received during the comment period.

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    We first identified the grotto sculpin as a candidate species in a 
notice of review published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2002 (67 
FR 40657). Candidate species are assigned listing priority numbers 
(LPNs) based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as 
taxonomic status. The lower the LPN, the higher priority that species 
is for us to determine appropriate action using our available 
resources. The grotto sculpin was assigned an LPN of 2 due to imminent 
threats of a high magnitude. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition 
dated May 4, 2004, from The Center for Biological Diversity to list 225 
candidate species, including the grotto sculpin. From 2004 through 
2011, notices of review published in the Federal Register (69 FR 24876, 
70 FR 24870, 71 FR 53756, 72 FR 69034, 73 FR 75176, 74 FR 57804, 75 FR 
69222, 76 FR 66370) continued to maintain an LPN of 2 for the species. 
On September 27, 2012, the Service published in the Federal Register 
(77 FR 59488) a proposed rule to list the grotto sculpin as endangered 
under the Act and proposed to designate critical habitat. We published 
a notice of availability in the Federal Register (78 FR 26581) on May 
7, 2013, to make the public aware of the opportunity to review and 
provide comment on a draft economic analysis, the proposed rule, and 
the draft Perry County Community Conservation Plan. The comment period 
was reopened for 30 days (May 7 to June 6, 2013).

Species Information

    Our proposed rule summarized much of the current literature 
regarding the grotto sculpin's distribution, habitat requirements, and 
life history and should be reviewed for detailed information (77 FR 
59488; September 27, 2012). Below, we provide new information that we 
believe is relevant to understanding our analysis of the factors that 
are threats to the grotto sculpin.
Taxonomy and Species Description
    The grotto sculpin belongs to the family Cottidae (Pflieger 1997, 
p. 253) and was found to be a unique species (Cottus specus) by Adams 
et al. (2013, pp. 488-493). No other Cottus species overlap the 
geographic range of the grotto sculpin. The grotto sculpin is 
morphologically and genetically distinguished from all other Cottus 
species. Unique characteristics include differences in eye size and 
cephalic pore size (Adams et al. 2013, p. 490). Morphology of brain 
structures in hypogean (underground) individuals also differs 
significantly from that of epigean (aboveground) banded sculpin, 
including reduced optic and olfactory lobes and enlarged inferior lobe 
of the hypothalamus, eminentia granularis, and crista cerebellaris 
(Adams 2005, pp. 17-18).
    Adams et al. (2013, pp. 487-488) analyzed population genetics of 
Cottus sculpin in southeast Missouri through a study of sculpin from 
the Bois Brule drainage in Perry County, the Greasy Creek in Madison 
County, and the Current River in Ripley County. They identified unique 
evolutionary lineages for each of the three areas, based on distinct 
nuclear haplotypes--a single nuclear haplotype among sampled 
individuals throughout the Bois Brule drainage (Mystery Cave, Running 
Bull Cave, Rimstone River Cave, Crevice Cave, Moore Cave, and Cinque 
Hommes Creek), a second from Greasy Creek, and a third from the Current 
River.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 27, 2012 (77 FR 59488), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 13, 2012. The comment period was reopened from May 
7, 2013, to June 6, 2013 (78 FR 26581, May 7, 2013). We also contacted 
appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposal. We held a public meeting on October 30, 2012, and did 
not receive any requests for a public hearing. Newspaper notices 
inviting general public comment on the proposal and associated critical 
habitat documents were published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Cape 
Girardeau Southeast Missourian, and Perryville Republic Monitor.
    During the comment periods for the proposed rule, we received 364 
comment letters directly addressing the proposed listing of the grotto 
sculpin and proposed critical habitat. Of the 364 comments submitted, 8 
explicitly stated support for the listing, whereas 50 explicitly stated 
opposition to the listing. The remaining 306 comments provided 
information on historical and contemporary practices in Perry County

[[Page 58940]]

and posed a variety of questions including questions about the proposal 
process, information about the grotto sculpin, and implications of the 
listing to the citizens of Perry County. All substantive information 
provided during the comment periods has either been incorporated 
directly into this final determination or addressed below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the grotto sculpin, karst biota and habitats, biological needs of 
fishes, and threats. We received responses from two of the peer 
reviewers. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers 
for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the 
grotto sculpin. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods 
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, 
and suggestions to improve the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: What is the rate of grotto sculpin movement? The 
proposed rule indicated movements of 0-50 m, but is that per day, hour, 
or lifetime?
    Our Response: We reviewed our reference for this information and 
determined that Adams et al. (2008, pp. 6, 23) characterized movements 
by total distance moved from the beginning to the end of the 29-month 
study period. A total of 463 grotto sculpin were marked to allow for 
observations of movement during the study. During the 29-month study 
period, 311 individuals (67 percent) moved less than 50 m (164 ft), 40 
(9 percent) moved 51-100 m (167-328 ft), 49 (9 percent) moved 101-200 m 
(331-656 ft), and 63 (14 percent) moved greater than 201 m (659 ft).
    (2) Comment: Reword the statement ``We consider the geographic 
range of the grotto sculpin . . .'' to reflect that the range 
definition is based on scientific data.
    Our Response: We corrected this statement in the final rule to 
reflect that our range delineation is based on scientific studies.
    (3) Comment: How many grotto sculpins have been taken for 
scientific investigations?
    Our Response: Approximately 160 individuals have been taken for 
scientific research since 1991. This information is discussed under 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes in this rule.
    (4) Comment: Clarify information about recognition of the grotto 
sculpin as a distinct species.
    Our Response: Until the 2013 publication by Adams et al., the 
grotto sculpin had not been formally described as a species and, 
therefore, was not recognized by the scientific community as a distinct 
species. Without an official species description, the State of Missouri 
could not offer protection under the Missouri State Endangered Species 
Law (MO ST 252.240). The new information provided by the 2013 Adams et 
al. paper was incorporated into this final rule.
    (5) Comment: Clarify the apparent inconsistency in the statements 
about population size and distribution. Populations estimated in the 
thousands should not necessarily be characterized as ``small.'' Instead 
of estimated population size, the rule should address the restricted 
distribution of the species.
    Our Response: Because no data on the species are available prior to 
1991, characterizing the population as ``small'' is not fully supported 
because it is unclear what the pre-settlement population numbers were. 
We based our determination of status on the fact that there was 
documented mortality, populations are known to be isolated, and 
populations have distributions that are restricted to few cave systems. 
The final rule has been corrected to characterize the population as 
restricted instead of small.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public comments 
addressed funding and potential methods for recovery of the species, 
including propagation and translocation.
    Our Response: Recovery efforts for the grotto sculpin will be 
addressed in a Recovery Plan that will include potential funding 
sources, collaborations with partners, and specific recovery actions 
and benchmarks.
    (7) Comment: Even if some factors contributing to the imperiled 
status of the grotto sculpin were overestimated, the interactive 
effects of all the factors detailed in the proposal likely have not 
only an additive but a multiplying effect, so that the overall negative 
impact may be underestimated.
    Our Response: Although we lack definitive data to support this 
assertion, it is likely that effects of some factors may enhance the 
effects of other impacts. Because this interaction could contribute to 
the decline of the grotto sculpin, we have referenced synergistic 
effects under Cumulative Impacts.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to add the 
grotto sculpin to the list of threatened and endangered species are 
addressed below.
    (8) Comment: The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) supports 
the Service's action to list the grotto sculpin due to its confined 
range and threats to its continued existence.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges the MDC's support of the 
listing action and will continue to coordinate with appropriate staff 
on future conservation efforts for the species.

Federal Agency Comments

    We received no comments from Federal agencies on the proposal to 
list the grotto sculpin.

Public Comments

    (9) Comment: Numerous commenters provided information on the 
culture, society, and economy of Perry County. Commenters also 
submitted information on current and historical land use practices, 
primarily pertaining to agriculture and farming practices, but also 
including sinkhole management and stream management. Many more 
commenters posed questions regarding the biology, life history, and 
research of the grotto sculpin, as well as implications of the listing 
to agriculture, industry, and the local economy.
    Our Response: We thank all of the commenters for their interest in 
the conservation of this species and thank those commenters who 
provided information for our consideration in making this listing 
determination. For commenters posing questions about the biology, life 
history, and research of the grotto sculpin previously summarized in 
our proposed rule, we refer you to detailed information provided in the 
proposed rule. Some comments contained information that provided 
clarity but did not substantially change information already contained 
in the proposed rule. This information has been incorporated into this 
final rule, where appropriate. Some commenters posed questions outside 
of the scope of this listing action that were not addressed in our 
final rule.
    (10) Comment: The Service should work with the people of Perry 
County to

[[Page 58941]]

address threats to the grotto sculpin by developing conservation 
strategies and best management practices and providing educational 
opportunities. Commenters suggested that implementation of additional 
practices should include incentives to landowners and contingency plans 
for unforeseen circumstances. One commenter asked how practices on 
private land would be enforced.
    Our Response: The Service is working with landowners, citizens, 
businesses, and organizations in Perry County under a conservation plan 
that addresses threats to the grotto sculpin and provides benefits to 
water quality in the surrounding watershed. The Perry County Community 
Conservation Plan (Plan) is a voluntary, proactive, and self-regulatory 
approach developed by the local community and supported by State and 
Federal agencies. The Plan includes an educational campaign, 
prioritization of threats, and best management practices to address the 
threats. Existing land conservation programs will be utilized where 
appropriate and can include financial incentives to program 
participants. Participation in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
conservation programs and use of best management practices on private 
land is voluntary. However, if a landowner elects to participate in a 
specific USDA program, practice standards must be met in order to 
remain in compliance with program guidelines. Administrators of such 
programs are responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement of 
practice standards on private land.
    (11) Comment: Commenters inquired about funding that would be 
available to Perry County residents for water sampling, monitoring, 
land remediation, landowner incentives, implementation of best 
management practices, underground mapping, and stormwater management.
    Our Response: Financial support for habitat restoration and 
enhancement can be acquired through participation in conservation 
programs sponsored by the USDA. Locally, those programs are 
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil 
and Water Conservation District (SWCD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and MDC Private Lands Division. 
The Service, MDC, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts provide 
landowners cost-share for projects that benefit Federal trust 
resources, state trust resources, and soil and water quality, which 
include but are not limited to sinkhole cleanouts, stream protection, 
and land restoration. Other competitive funding opportunities exist at 
state and national levels. For example, entities can apply for Clean 
Water Act Section 319 funds if a watershed plan has been developed and 
implemented.
    (12) Comment: Several commenters asked what has been done to date 
to protect and conserve the grotto sculpin and its habitat, including 
cooperative efforts with landowners, the length of time such efforts 
have been undertaken, and quantification of the effectiveness of those 
efforts.
    Our Response: The Service has cooperated with the MDC since 2010 to 
implement conservation efforts and studies to aid in the conservation 
and protection of the grotto sculpin. The Service provided $35,000 to 
be used for sinkhole cleanouts, access agreements for known grotto 
sculpin caves, fencing projects, and surveys. The Service also 
contributed $5,000 to the University of Central Arkansas to finalize 
and publish in a peer-reviewed journal the genetic analysis of the 
grotto sculpin. Additionally, the MDC collaborated with the Perry 
County Soil and Water District and the University of Central Arkansas 
in 2008-2009 to conduct preliminary water quality sampling and 
analysis. Using Service funds, the MDC has completed four cave access 
agreements, one stream exclusion fencing and spring development 
project, three sinkhole cleanouts, one dye-tracing study, four 
presence-absence studies for the grotto sculpin, and one landowner 
workshop. Studies to measure the efficacy of those implemented measures 
have not been undertaken by the Service or the State, but will be 
included in the recovery plan for the grotto sculpin.
    (13) Comment: Several commenters asked about monitoring and 
reporting requirements for water quality, grotto sculpin populations, 
and implemented practices. Specifically, how will the monitoring occur, 
who will conduct the monitoring and prepare reports, to whom will 
reports be submitted, and how will the Service track improvements or 
deteriorations?
    Our Response: Monitoring for the grotto sculpin will be conducted 
in coordination with the MDC, and water quality monitoring will be 
coordinated with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. No 
specific monitoring protocols or regimes have been established. During 
the recovery planning process, we will design and implement a 
monitoring plan in coordination with the MDC, Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources, and participants in the Perry County Community 
Conservation Plan. Monitoring data will provide the Service information 
on whether the threats are being adequately addressed and minimized.
    (14) Comment: Numerous commenters asked questions about how private 
land in Perry County will be affected, including any restrictions to 
land use or stream use, including watering of livestock, impacts to 
property value, loss of access to property or non-permitted access to 
private property by agency personnel, effects on planting and 
harvesting crops, and any potential impacts to farm subsidies.
    Our Response: According to section 9(a)(1) of the Act, is it 
unlawful to `take' a federally listed species. The term `take' means to 
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. An activity can 
be conducted on private land as long as that activity does not cause 
`take' of the grotto sculpin. Most current land and stream uses are 
compatible with the continued persistence and recovery of the grotto 
sculpin. Many activities will have no effect on the grotto sculpin, 
whereas others can be made compatible with the use of best management 
practices. If it is determined that a practice is incompatible with the 
continued existence of the grotto sculpin, meaning that even with 
implementation of best management practices the practice still causes 
threats to the species or its habitat, the Service will work closely 
with the Perry County Plan implementation committee and affected 
landowners to develop alternatives.
    One of the threats to the grotto sculpin identified in the proposed 
rule was the decline in water quality because of sedimentation and the 
presence of chemicals, some of which are of agricultural origin. 
Farming practices that include best management practices, such as 
vegetative filter strips around groundwater inputs, and application of 
chemicals according to directions on the label likely will not require 
modification. The Perry County Plan identifies a need to review select 
current farming practices to ensure they are not impacting water 
quality and the grotto sculpin. Recommendations for modification of 
farming practices likely would be initiated through the Plan 
implementation committee.
    Private landowners will not lose access to their property because a 
federally listed species is present on their property, farm subsidies 
will not be impacted, and, with the exception of law enforcement 
officials, no agency personnel or other private citizens are

[[Page 58942]]

allowed to access private property without the owners' permission.
    (15) Comment: Numerous commenters asked questions about impacts to 
private property value.
    Our Response: Listing decisions are made independently of economic 
considerations. However, an economic analysis considering the effects 
of critical habitat, including impacts on private property values, was 
completed and made available on May 7, 2013 (78 FR 26586).
    (16) Comment: A commenter asked how activities in Perry County with 
a Federal nexus (Federal permit requirements or use of Federal funds) 
will be affected.
    Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to consult with the Service to ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any listed species (referred to as the consultation process). 
Construction and development projects that involve Federal actions, 
permits, or funds require an environmental review that includes 
concurrence from the Service if Federal trust resources are present in 
the action area of the project. Addition of the grotto sculpin to the 
endangered species list is not anticipated to extend the review period 
for Federal projects beyond what already occurs. Conservation measures 
outlined in the Perry County Plan should avoid and minimize most 
potential impacts to the species. Projects will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if any additional measures are necessary to 
avoid take of the species.
    Meyer (1995, p. 16) reviewed the record of 18,211 endangered 
species consultations by the Service and National Marine Fisheries 
Service from 1987 to 1991 and found that only 11 percent (2,050) were 
handled under formal consultation, meaning the other 89 percent 
proceeded on schedule and without interference. Of the 2,050 formal 
consultations, 181 (less than 10 percent) concluded that the proposed 
projects were likely to pose a threat to an endangered plant or animal. 
Most of these 181 projects proceeded with some modification in design 
and construction. Ultimately, 99 percent of the projects reviewed under 
the Act eventually proceeded unhindered or with moderate additional 
time and costs.
    (17) Comment: Several commenters asked questions about various 
aspects of water quality. These comments generally centered on five 
subject areas and are addressed below.
    (17a) Comment: Commenters asked for information on water quality 
and chemicals. They requested information about any recent water 
sampling since the Fox et al. (2010) study, human or livestock health 
issues related to chemicals present in the water samples taken in 2008, 
the possible origin of those chemicals, and the location of data 
collected from the water quality study.
    Our Response: No large-scale water quality studies have been 
initiated since the Fox et al. (2010) study. Fox et al. (2010) noted 
that chemicals detected in water samples were from agricultural pest 
management activities. The authors of this study hold the data and 
results of the analysis. A copy of the Fox et al. (2010) manuscript was 
provided to the Perry County Plan committee and is available online and 
at the Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (17b) Comment: Commenters asked for information pertaining to 
agricultural chemicals, specifically if there will be restrictions on 
agricultural chemicals and if contract sprayers will be more 
accountable to apply pesticide in a more precise way.
    Our Response: Federal control of pesticides is provided under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). All 
pesticides used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Registration assures that 
pesticides will be properly labeled and that, if used in accordance 
with specifications on the label, will not cause unreasonable harm to 
the environment. By law, use of each registered pesticide must be 
consistent with use directions contained on the label or labeling.
    (17c) Comment: Commenters provided and asked for information 
pertaining to water quality and sewer systems. One commenter provided 
information on the annexation of a subdivision into the city of 
Perryville and subsequent inclusion into the city sewer system. Two 
other towns in Perry County developed a joint public sewer system. The 
Perry County Health Department has developed automated notification 
systems that inform new homeowners and businesses of sewage laws. 
Commenters inquired about any changes to the septic requirements for 
landowners owning more than 3 acres and whether or not current systems 
would have to be replaced.
    Our Response: We have included information provided about updates 
to sewer systems in this final rule. The Service is not aware of 
forthcoming changes to septic requirements for landowners who own more 
than 3 acres, and any changes that occur will be independent of this 
listing action. The Perry County Plan identifies the need to address 
potential problems with private septic systems. Recommendations for 
modification of private septic systems likely would be initiated 
through the Plan implementation committee.
    (17d) Comment: Commenters provided information and asked questions 
regarding water quality and municipal sinkhole management. Commenters 
wanted to know how the listing action would affect the City's ability 
to maintain sinkholes and about any potential methods for mitigating 
stormwater draining into caves.
    Our Response: The City of Perryville, Missouri is developing a 
sinkhole management policy as part of the Perry County Community 
Conservation Plan. This policy will address sinkhole stabilization, 
stormwater management, and water quality issues.
    (18) Comment: Commenters provided information and asked questions 
regarding vertical drains. Commenters wanted information about best 
management practices pertaining to vertical drains, cost-share used for 
installation and maintenance of vertical drains, and subsequent 
compliance with practice standards.
    Our Response: As outlined in the proposed rule, if landowners 
receive cost-share assistance from the NRCS, they must follow practice 
standards to remain in compliance with the conservation program. Those 
practice standards include vegetative buffers that act as filters for 
water before it enters the standpipe (NRCS 2006a, pp. 1-2; 2006b, pp. 
1-3). If landowners are self-funding the installation of vertical 
drains, they are not required to follow practice standards and, 
therefore, might not install vegetative filter strips. Improving 
compliance under current program standards and broader application of 
best management practices to landowners who do not participate in cost-
share programs were identified as action items in the Perry County 
Community Conservation Plan.
    (19) Comment: Numerous commenters provided information on the use 
of current practices that have less environmental impacts than prior 
historical practices, including information on improvements to 
historical soil and water conservation actions and improved sewage 
systems.
    Our Response: The Service has incorporated this information in this 
final rule, where appropriate.
    (20) Comment: Commenters asked if there were existing management 
plans

[[Page 58943]]

or guidance for managing sinkholes and karst and if there were any 
special regulations regarding sinkholes.
    Our Response: The Service does not have any general guidance on 
managing sinkholes in karst areas. The MDC has developed best 
management practices for the Perry County Karst. As addressed in both 
the proposed listing rule and this final rule, State laws that apply to 
sinkholes, water quality, and waste management include the Missouri 
Clean Water Law of 1972 and the Missouri State Waste Management Law of 
1972. Regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 also would 
apply if a point-source for the pollution could be determined. County 
and municipal policies, such as the proposed Sinkhole Improvement Plan 
in Perryville, Missouri (Perry County 2013, pp. 14-16), also guide 
sinkhole management.
    (21) Comment: Commenters asked about the validity of comparing a 
karst sinkhole system and underground water supplies and how the 
Service plans to determine contributing water sources in the future.
    Our Response: In a karst system, the drainage system provided by 
sinkholes and underground streams are not always exclusive of each 
other and thus potential connections need to be considered. The study 
by Moss and Pobst (2010, pp. 146-160) delineated recharge areas for the 
known grotto sculpin cave systems. This information can be used to 
determine what surface waters contribute to the cave systems.
    (22) Comment: Commenters asked about best management practices 
(BMPs), including how they will be determined, implications for 
building and road construction, and implementation in rural areas of 
the sinkhole plain.
    Our Response: Best management practices have been developed for the 
federally threatened Ozark cavefish in Missouri. The BMPs being 
developed by the MDC and the Service in cooperation with the Perry 
County Plan will be similar, but tailored to the landscape and land use 
of Perry County as well as specific threats to the grotto sculpin and 
Perry County Karst. Best management practices for Perry County will 
include vegetated buffers around sinkholes and vertical drains--the 
ideal width is 50 ft (15 m), but the Service acknowledges that 
installation of a buffer of this width might not be feasible in all 
situations, such as urban areas with existing infrastructure. Standard 
methods of erosion control for building and road construction will 
continue to be recommended BMPs.
    (23) Comment: Commenters asked questions about the genetics and 
species status of the grotto sculpin and whether or not there were 
other federally listed species in the genus Cottus.
    Our Response: Adams et al. (2013, pp. 484-494) determined that the 
grotto sculpin (Cottus specus) was a unique species based on genetics 
and morphology. Other Cottus species that have been afforded special 
protections include three threatened Cottus species listed under the 
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and 
the federally threatened pygmy sculpin (C. paulus) in Calhoun County, 
Alabama.
    (24) Comment: Commenters asked questions about potential threats to 
the grotto sculpin and its habitat by caving and cavers and whether 
caving and spelunking will be affected by the listing.
    Our Response: The Service does not believe that caving and 
spelunking are incompatible with the continued existence of the grotto 
sculpin or that these activities are threats to the quality of its 
habitat, as long as cavers and spelunkers conduct these activities in a 
responsible manner. For example, minimize disturbance in known grotto 
sculpin caves during spawning periods and abide by a code of ethics for 
cavers, such as the Minimum Impact Caving Code that can be found at 
www.caves.org. Furthermore, the Service strongly encourages all cavers 
and spelunkers in Missouri to abide by the National White-Nose Syndrome 
Decontamination Protocol, which is readily available on the internet. 
Two federally listed species of bats are present in the caves of Perry 
County, and this protocol should be implemented to reduce the risk of 
transmission of the fungus to other bats and cave habitats. The Perry 
County Plan has included this recommendation for cavers and spelunkers 
in Perry County cave systems.
    (25) Comment: Several commenters asked about the process for 
delisting a species that has been added to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.
    Our Response: Recovery plans for listed species, developed by the 
Service in cooperation with stakeholders, identify delisting and 
downlisting goals. When a species achieves its delisting criteria, the 
Service considers removing it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Likewise, when a species achieves its 
downlisting criteria, the Service considers changing its status from 
endangered to threatened.
    To delist or downlist a species, we follow a process similar to 
when we consider a species for listing under the Act. We assess the 
population and its recovery achievements, the existing threats, and 
seek advice from a variety of species experts. To assess the existing 
threats, the Service must determine that the species is no longer 
threatened or endangered based on five factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    If the Service determines that the threats have been sufficiently 
reduced, then we may consider delisting or downlisting the species. 
When delisting or downlisting a species, we first propose the action in 
the Federal Register. At this time, we also seek comments from 
independent species experts, other Federal agencies, State biologists, 
and the public. After analyzing the comments received on the proposed 
rulemaking, we decide whether to complete the proposed action or 
maintain the species status as it is. Our final decision is announced 
in the Federal Register. The comments received and our response to them 
are addressed in the final rule.
    (26) Comment: Commenters asked questions about the inadequacy of 
existing laws and regulations, including issues with lack of 
enforcement instead of lack of regulation.
    Our Response: We agree that existing regulations suffer from lack 
of enforcement and lack of compliance, as opposed to the absence of 
laws and regulations. We have revised our discussion under Factor D, 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, in this final rule to 
reflect this.
    (27) Comment: Several commenters asked about the population size 
and population trajectory of the grotto sculpin, including any 
information on carrying capacity of the species' habitat, possible 
presence of more individuals in inaccessible areas of caves, and other 
federally listed cavefish.
    Our Response: Declining population trends are only one of many 
factors on which the Service bases decisions on listing determinations. 
In the case of the grotto sculpin, the Service did not base the 
proposed listing on a known decline in number of individuals, but 
rather a known set of current and ongoing threats, restricted 
population distribution, and known mortality events. The carrying 
capacity of Perry County karst habitats or similar habitats elsewhere 
is unknown, but caves are known to be energy-limited habitats and

[[Page 58944]]

most cave-obligate species do not occur in large numbers. It is 
probable that grotto sculpin occur in inaccessible parts of currently 
known occupied cave systems, as well as other cave systems in the Perry 
County Karst where we currently have no documented occurrences.
    One other federally listed cavefish species occurs in Missouri, the 
Ozark cavefish. This species similarly occurs in low densities in 
energy-limited cave habitats in southwest Missouri, Arkansas, and 
Oklahoma. The Ozark cavefish was designated as a federally threatened 
species in 1984 (49 FR 43965-43969, November 1, 1984).
    (28) Comment: Many commenters asked how Federal listing of a 
species could affect the economy and development activity in Perry 
County.
    Our Response: Listing decisions are made independently of economic 
considerations. However, an economic analysis considering the effects 
of critical habitat, including effects on Perry County, was completed 
and made available in the Federal Register on May 7, 2013 (78 FR 
26586).
    (29) Comment: One commenter questioned the need to federally list 
the grotto sculpin because the species was already designated as a 
species of conservation concern by the MDC and the agency had developed 
best management practices to improve water quality and habitat for the 
species.
    Our Response: Designating the grotto sculpin as a species of 
conservation concern by the MDC provides no requirement to implement 
any conservation measures through their agency regulations. While the 
Service lauds the development and implementation of best management 
practices for the grotto sculpin, we currently have insufficient 
evidence that the implementation of such measures have been adequate to 
reverse the degraded water quality and that poor water quality no 
longer presents a threat to this species.
    (30) Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to any 
conservation measures that included the need to increase and maintain 
vegetative buffers around vertical drains.
    Our Response: While the proper width of vegetative buffers around 
vertical drains is variable and can be considered further among various 
conservation partners, adequate vegetation around sinkhole openings is 
necessary to enhance water quality, especially in crop fields and 
pastures where silt, chemicals, and fertilizers can be directly 
deposited into underground karst through surface runoff.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    We fully considered comments from the public and peer reviewers on 
the proposed rule to develop this final listing of the grotto sculpin. 
We also considered the conservation benefits of the Perry County 
Community Conservation Plan in our final decision. This final rule 
incorporates changes to our proposed listing based on comments received 
that are discussed above and on newly available scientific and 
commercial information. We made some technical corrections and updated 
the formal recognition of the grotto sculpin as a unique species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    The grotto sculpin is a cave-adapted species that is endemic to 
karst habitats that provide consistent water flow, high organic input, 
and connection to surface streams, which allow for seasonal migrations 
to complete its life cycle. Nearly all of the land within the known 
range of the grotto sculpin is privately owned. Ball Mill Resurgence 
Natural Area (19.5 ac (7.9 ha)) and Keyhole Spring and Resurgence near 
Blue Spring Branch are owned by the L-A-D Foundation (a private 
foundation dedicated to sustainable forest management and protection of 
natural and cultural areas in Missouri (http://pioneerforest.org) that 
are managed by the MDC). The municipality of Perryville is in the 
Central Perryville Karst Area and is within the recharge area of 
Crevice Cave. Thirty-six percent (15.6 km\2\ (6.02 mi\2\)) of 
Perryville's total area of 43 km\2\ (16.6 mi\2\) lies within the karst 
area, whereas 24 percent (10.4 km\2\ (4.02 mi\2\)) lies within the 
southern portion of the recharge area of Crevice Cave (recharge area 
defined by Moss and Pobst 2010 pp. 151-152).
    The karst in Perry County is characterized by thousands of 
sinkholes (Vandike 1985, p. 1) and over 700 caves (Fox et al. 2009, p. 
5). Water quality in karst areas is highly vulnerable and can severely 
decline with rapid transmission of contaminants from the surface to the 
aquifer (Panno and Kelly 2004, p. 230). Moss and Pobst delineated 
recharge areas for known and potential grotto sculpin caves (2010, pp. 
146-160) and evaluated the vulnerability of groundwater in the recharge 
areas to contamination (2010, pp. 161-190). Because the grotto sculpin 
is dependent not only on caves, but uses surface habitat in addition to 
caves, Moss and Pobst (2010, p. 161) evaluated hazards within and 
adjacent to recharge areas to best characterize impairment of cave and 
surface streams. They found all the recharge areas to be highly 
vulnerable to contamination and contain hazards from historical 
sinkhole dumps, agricultural practices without universal application of 
best management practices, ineffective private septic systems, and 
roads with contaminated runoff (Burr et al. 2001, p. 294; Moss and 
Pobst 2010, p. 183). They noted additional hazards in the recharge area 
for Crevice Cave not found elsewhere, such as hazardous waste 
generators, wastewater outflows, stormwater outflows, and underground 
storage tanks for hazardous waste, that compound potential threats to 
groundwater and drinking water (Moss and Pobst 2010, p. 184). Impacts 
to groundwater are not proportional to the area impacted in such a 
highly vulnerable landscape--a localized pollution event can impact all 
aquatic habitats downstream.
    Based on data from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
(2010, unpaginated), the Service calculated that there are 
approximately 2 sinkholes per km\2\ (6 per mi\2\) in Perry County and 7 
sinkholes per km\2\ (17 per mi\2\) in the Central Perryville and 
Mystery-Rimstone karst areas. Recharge areas around grotto sculpin 
caves contain up to four times the number of sinkholes compared to 
other parts of the county or other karst areas. Cave recharge areas in 
the Central Perryville Karst contain an average of 8 sinkholes per 
km\2\ (22 per mi\2\), whereas those in the Mystery-Rimstone Karst 
contain an average of 4 per km\2\ (11 per mi\2\) (Missouri Department 
of Natural Resources 2010, unpaginated). Water flow in Perry

[[Page 58945]]

County karst systems occurs by way of surface features, such as 
sinkholes and losing streams, as well as connectivity to the underlying 
aquifer (Aley 1976, p. 11; Fox et al. 2009, p. 5). Without adequate 
protection, sinkholes can funnel storm-runoff directly into cave 
systems in a short period of time (Aley 1976, p. 11; White 2002, p. 88; 
Fox et al. 2010, p. 8838).
Illegal Waste Disposal and Chemical Leaching
    At least half of the sinkholes in Perry County have been or are 
currently used as dump sites for anthropogenic waste (Burr et al. 2001, 
p. 294). Although it is illegal to dump waste in open sites in 
Missouri, the practice continues today--sinkholes continue to be used 
as dump sites for household wastes, tires, and occasionally dead 
livestock (http://dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/dumping/enf_instruct.htm; Pobst 
2012, pers. comm.). Moss and Pobst (2010, p. 169) observed that most 
historical farms in the sinkhole plain had at least one sinkhole that 
contained household and farm waste. Waste material found in sinkholes 
includes, but is not limited to, household chemicals, sewage, and 
pesticide and herbicide containers (Burr et al. 2001, p. 294). Fox et 
al. (2010, p. 8838) found that Perry County cave streams were 
contaminated by a mixture of organic pollutants that included both 
current-use and legacy-use pesticides and their degradation products. 
They found high concentrations of heptachlor epoxide and trans-
chlordane, which are degradation products of the legacy-use pesticides 
heptachlor and chlordane (Fox et al. 2010, p. 8839). Heptachlor and 
chlordane were banned in 1988, but can persist in the environment 
through storage in sediments above or below ground or leaking 
containers in sinkholes (ATSDR 1994a, unpaginated; ATSDR 2007a, 
unpaginated). In water, heptachlor readily undergoes hydrolysis to a 
compound, which is then readily processed by microorganisms into 
heptachlor epoxide (ATSDR 2007b, p. 98).
    Heptachlor and chlordane are highly persistent in soils, are almost 
insoluble in water, and will enter surface waters primarily though 
drift and surface runoff (ATSDR 1994a, unpaginated; ATSDR 2007a, 
unpaginated). Although not specifically tested on the grotto sculpin, 
both heptachlor and chlordane are highly toxic to most fish species 
tested, including warm-water species such as bluegill (Lepomis 
macrochirus) and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (Johnson and 
Finley 1980, pp. 19, 43-44). Heptachlor caused degenerative liver 
lesions, enlargement of the red blood cells, inhibited growth, and 
mortality in bluegill (Andrews et al. 1966, pp. 301-305). Heptachlor, 
heptachlor epoxide, and chlordane have been shown to bioaccumulate in 
aquatic organisms such as fish, mollusks, insects, plankton, and algae 
(ATSDR 1994b, p. 172; ATSDR 2007b, p. 89).
    Chemical leaching in sinkholes likely is a major contributor of 
legacy-use pesticides, such as dieldrin, in aquatic habitats (Fox et 
al. 2010, p. 8840). Dieldrin, a domestic pesticide used in the past to 
control corn pests and banned by the USDA in 1970 (ATSDR 2002, 
unpaginated), was found at levels that exceeded ambient water quality 
criterion by 17 times in Mertz Cave and Thunderhole Resurgence 
(Mystery-Rimstone Karst Area) (Fox et al., p. 8839). Dieldrin is a 
known endocrine disruptor that bioaccumulates in animal fats, 
especially those animals that eat other animals and, therefore, is a 
concern for the grotto sculpin because it is the top predator in its 
cave habitat (ATSDR 2002, unpaginated; Fox et al. 2010, p. 8839). The 
grotto sculpin feeds on several species of cave amphipods, including 
Gammarus sp. (Gerken 2007, pp. 16-17; Fox et al. 2010, p. 8839). 
Dieldrin has been detected in G. troglophilus through tissue bioassays 
(Taylor et al. 2000, p. 10). Tarzwell and Henderson (1957, pp. 253-255) 
found that dieldrin was toxic to fathead minnow, bluegill, and green 
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Whereas the species exhibited differences 
in susceptibility, individuals of all species tested ultimately 
experienced loss of equilibrium followed by death (Tarzwell and 
Henderson 1957, p. 255).
    Sinkholes have also been used as disposal sites for dead livestock 
(Fox et al. 2009, p. 6; Moss and Pobst 2010, p. 170). Animal carcasses 
dumped into sinkholes and cave entrances are potentially diseased and 
could carry pathogens that could be unintentionally introduced into the 
groundwater system. Decomposing animals in source water for cave 
streams also can lower the dissolved oxygen and negatively impact 
aquatic organisms.
Contaminated Water
    In cave streams sampled by Fox et al. (2010, p. 8838), time-
weighted average water concentrations of 20 chemicals were at levels 
above method detection limits; 16 of the 20 chemicals originated from 
agricultural pest management activities. Acetochlor, diethatyl-ethyl, 
atrazine, and desethylatrazine (DEA) were detected at all sites during 
both May and June sampling periods. Pyrene, metolachlor, DEET, and 
pentachloroanisole were detected at all sites during sampling periods 
(Fox et al. 2010, p. 8838). The list of potential impacts of these 
chemicals on fish is long, and includes reductions in olfactory 
sensitivity, immune function, and sex hormone concentrations; endocrine 
disruption; and increased predation and mortality due to adverse 
effects to behavior (Alvarez and Fuiman 2005, pp. 229, 239; Rohr and 
McCoy 2010, p. 30). The ubiquitous presence of current-use pesticides, 
such as atrazine, was not surprising based on the extensive 
agricultural land use in Perry County.
    Atrazine has been the most frequently detected herbicide in ground 
and surface waters in Perry County (Fox et al. 2010, p. 8838) and in a 
similar karst and agricultural landscape in Boone County, Missouri 
(Lerch 2011, p. 107); levels of corn production were similar in the two 
counties. Even at concentrations below EPA criteria for protection of 
aquatic life, atrazine has been shown to reduce egg production and 
cause gonadal abnormalities in fathead minnows (Tillitt et al. 2010, 
pp. 8-9). Sex steroid biosynthesis pathways and gonad development in 
male goldfish (Carassius auratus) were impacted by atrazine in 
concentrations as low as 1 nanogram per liter (ng/L) (Spano et al. 
2004, pp. 367-377). Concentrations of atrazine in Perry County ranged 
from 20 to 130 ng/L (Fox et al. 2010, p. 8838). Li et al. (2009, pp. 
90-92) showed that environmentally relevant concentrations of 
acetochlor can decrease circulating thyroid hormone levels, decrease 
expression of thyroid hormone-related genes, affect normal larval 
development, and affect normal brain development. Pyrene is known to 
cause anemia, neuronal cell death, and peripheral vascular defects in 
larval fish (Incardona et al. 2003, p. 191). Wan et al. (2006, pp. 57-
58) considered metolachlor to be slightly to moderately toxic to 
freshwater amphibians, crustaceans, and salmonid fishes. Wolf and Moore 
(2010, pp. 457, 464-465) demonstrated that sublethal concentrations of 
metolachlor adversely affected the chemosensory behavior of crayfish 
and likely impacted their ability to locate prey. These researchers 
also noted that this herbicide also caused physiological impairment 
that likely impacted locomotory behavior and predator avoidance 
responses. Due to the importance of chemosensory organs to the grotto 
sculpin, the presence of metolachlor in occupied streams may impact 
this fish's ability to locate prey.
    Additional potential adverse effects to grotto sculpin from 
contaminants include increased susceptibility to fish

[[Page 58946]]

diseases (Arkoosh et al. 1998, p. 188); increased immunosuppression 
(Arkoosh et al. 1998, p. 188); disruption of the nervous system by 
inhibition of cholinesterase (Hill 1995, p. 244); and an increase in 
acute or chronic stress resulting in reduced reproductive success, 
alterations in blood and tissue chemistry, diuresis, osmoregulatory 
dysfunction, and reduction in growth (Wedemeyer et al. 1990, pp. 452-
453). As a result, water contamination from various sources of point 
and non-point source pollution poses a significant, ongoing threat to 
the grotto sculpin.
Vertical Drains
    Contaminant problems with sinkholes are further exacerbated by the 
presence and continued installation of vertical drains across the 
agricultural landscape in Ste. Genevieve and Perry Counties (Perry 
County Soil and Water Conservation District (PCSWCD) 2012, 
unpaginated). Vertical drains, also known as stabilized sinkholes or 
agricultural drainage wells (ADWs), are defined by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as ``a 
well, pipe, pit, or bore in porous, underground strata into which 
drainage water can be discharged without contaminating groundwater 
resources'' (NRCS 2006a, p. 1). This conservation practice is meant to 
reduce erosion by facilitating drainage of surface or subsurface water 
and often result in more land available to the farmer. As of 2012, the 
recharge areas for known and likely grotto sculpin habitat in the 
Central Perryville and Mystery-Rimstone karst areas contained an 
average of 2.5 vertical drains per km\2\ (7 per mi\2\), with the 
highest concentrations in the recharge areas for Keyhole Spring, Ball 
Mill Spring, and Mystery Cave (PCSWCD 2012, unpaginated). New vertical 
drains continue to be installed at a rate consistent with the 
installation rate that occurred in the 1990s, with approximately 40 new 
vertical drains installed at 15 properties in Perry County in 2011 
(PCSWCD 2012, unpaginated).
    The NRCS (2006a, p. 2) noted that ``significant additions to 
subsurface water sources may raise local water tables or cause 
undesirable surface discharges down-gradient from the vertical drain.'' 
The impact of vertical drains on groundwater has been studied on a 
limited basis and studies have directly linked groundwater and drinking 
water contamination with vertical drains (EPA 1999, unpaginated). 
According to the conditions set by the NRCS, this practice can only be 
applied when it will not contaminate groundwater or affect instream 
habitat by reducing surface water flows (NRCS 2010, p. 1). The NRCS 
provides a cost-share of up to 75 percent for installation of vertical 
drains to stop erosion (NRCS 2010; 2011; 2012) and has conservation 
practice and construction standards that include secure placement of 
the standpipe, appropriate fill material around the drainage pipe, and 
a filter system around the drain (NRCS 2006a, pp. 1-2; 2006b, pp. 1-3). 
Although the USDA requires landowners to install a minimum of 7.6 m (25 
ft) of grassed buffer around vertical drains to minimize erosion and 
the migration of nutrients and contaminants into the groundwater 
system, this guideline is not strictly followed (Moss and Pobst 2010, 
p. 170). Because vertical drains are potential targets for illegal 
dumping of liquid hazardous wastes (Fox et al. 2010, p. 8839) and there 
is an absence of adequate buffers around some vertical drains, the 
migration of sediment and contaminants is easily facilitated (Moss and 
Pobst 2010, p. 171).
    Vertical drains allow contaminated water to flow directly into 
karst and groundwater systems without naturally occurring filtration 
(Pobst and Taylor 2007, p. 69) unless protective standards are 
implemented. Vertical drains act as conduits for all surface water, 
contaminants, and sediment directly from the surface through the 
bedrock into underground caves, streams, and karst voids (Pobst and 
Taylor 2007, p. 69). Such a scenario is supported by Fox et al.'s 
(2010, pp. 8835-8840) contaminant study in the karst region of Perry 
County. The long list of harmful chemicals detected in the Fox et al. 
(2010, pp. 8835-8840) study is likely due to the migration of these 
contaminants directly from surface fields into the underground karst 
system through vertical drains and sinkholes.
Urbanization and Development
    In addition to contamination from point sources of pollution and 
improper trash disposal, water quality of sculpin habitats is 
negatively impacted by urban growth of Perryville, located in the 
recharge area for Crevice Cave (Moss and Pobst 2010, p. 164). Crevice 
Cave had the lowest amount of cropland and grassland within its 
recharge and the most chemical detections. In contrast, Mystery Cave 
had the most cropland and grassland and fewest chemical detections (Fox 
et al. 2010, p. 8840). The only hazardous waste facility in the Central 
Perryville and Mystery-Rimstone karst areas is located in Perryville. 
The facility is permitted by the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources as a large-volume hazardous waste generator. Additional 
hazards in Perryville include four other hazardous waste generators; 
nine underground storage tanks that could leak petroleum products; two 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 
wastewater outfalls; and seven NPDES permits for stormwater discharge, 
leaking sewer lines, or lines that remain plumbed into the caves below 
(Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 2010, unpaginated).
    Most of the runoff water in areas that recharge aquatic habitats 
for the grotto sculpin moves quickly into the groundwater system with 
ineffective natural filtration, and the same is true for waste waters 
from septic systems (Aley 2012, pers. comm.). Contamination of 
groundwater by septic systems in karst areas has been documented on 
multiple occasions (Simon and Buikema 1997, pp. 387, 395; Panno et al. 
2006, p. 60) because septic tank systems are poorly suited to karst 
landscapes (Aley 1976, p. 12). Panno and Kelly (2004, p. 229) listed 
septic systems as potential contributors of excess nitrogen to streams 
in the karst region of southern Illinois. Septic systems in the 
sinkhole plain can be direct conduits for introduction of septic 
effluent directly into the shallow karst aquifer (Panno et al. 2001, p. 
114). In a karst area in southwest Missouri, poorly designed sewage 
treatment lagoons were allowing effluent from a small, rural school to 
seep into the only known location for the federally listed Tumbling 
Creek cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) (Aley 2003, unpaginated).
    Most of the rural residents in the Central Perryville and Mystery-
Rimstone karst areas use onsite septic systems (for example, in the 
Mystery Cave area) (Aley 1976, p. 12). The City of Perryville has a 
municipal sewer system and wastewater treatment plant. Perryville 
recently annexed a subdivision that previously was not tied into the 
wastewater treatment network and provided them with sufficient 
wastewater treatment. Septic system failures occur in karst areas of 
southeast Missouri, such as those in Perry County, but detections are 
problematic because most failures are not obvious from the surface, but 
instead occur underground into the groundwater system (Aley 2012, pers. 
comm.). One instance of a septic system failure was observed by Aley 
(1976, p. 12) near Mystery Cave. Sewage was discharged to a septic 
field within 100 ft (30.5 m) of the cave entrance and contaminated the 
waters of the Mystery Cave system. Water samples collected by the MDC 
within the range of the grotto sculpin indicated the presence of

[[Page 58947]]

the bacteria Escherichia coli at high levels, which might correspond to 
high inputs of phosphorus from septic systems (Pobst 2010, pers. 
comm.). Taylor et al. (2000, pp. 13-16) found that fecal contamination 
of karst groundwater is a serious problem in southeast Missouri. Among 
sampling locations in southeast Missouri, water samples were taken from 
streams and springs in Perry County that included sites within the 
range of the grotto sculpin (Mertz Cave, Running Bull Cave, Thunderhole 
Resurgence, and Cinque Hommes Creek) (Taylor et al. 2000, pp. 48-49). 
High fecal bacterial loads were found in the groundwater of grotto 
sculpin habitats and can be a combination of both human and animal 
wastes (Taylor et al. 2000, p. 14).
    No animal feeding operations or concentrated animal feeding 
operations are present in the recharge areas of grotto sculpin habitat 
(MDNR 2010), but there are smaller livestock feeding areas that are in 
sinkholes or near sinkhole drainage points (Aley 1976, p. 12; Moss and 
Pobst 2010, p. 166). Large amounts of manure can be flushed through 
sinkholes and carry associated bacteria and pathogens into cave 
streams. Waste from mammalian sources, including humans and livestock, 
can increase nutrient loads and lower dissolved oxygen in the 
groundwater (Simon and Buikema 1997, p. 395; Panno et al. 2006, p. 60). 
Hypoxia resulting from eutrophication due to increases in nutrient load 
(especially phosphorus) can lead to mortality and sublethal effects by 
reducing the availability of oxygen needed by fish for locomotion, 
growth, and reproduction (Kramer 1987, p. 82; Gould 1989-1990, p. 467). 
Barton and Taylor (1996, p. 361) reported that low dissolved oxygen 
levels can cause changes in cardiac function, increased respiratory and 
metabolic activity, alterations in blood chemistry, mobilization of 
anaerobic energy pathways, upset in acid-base balance, reduced growth, 
and decreased swimming capacity of fish.
Sedimentation
    Concerns with sedimentation (actual deposition of sediment, not the 
transport) and wash load (portion of the sediment in transport that is 
generally finer than the sediment) (as defined by Biedenharn et al. 
2006, pp. 2-6) relative to impacts to grotto sculpin habitat are 
primarily the transport of contaminants and the deposition of excessive 
amounts of sediment in cave streams. Soils in the Central Perryville 
and Mystery-Rimstone karst areas are dominated by highly erosive loess. 
Sediment transported into the karst groundwater can include 
agricultural chemicals that are bound to soil particles as evidenced by 
Fox et al.'s (2010, p. 8840) findings. Fox et al. (2010, p. 8840) 
determined that turbidity of streams in grotto sculpin caves in Perry 
County was positively correlated with total chemical and DEA 
concentrations. Additionally, Gerken and Adams (2007, p. 76) noted that 
siltation was a major problem in grotto sculpin sites and postulated 
that silt likely reduced habitat available to this fish.
    Excessive siltation in aquatic systems can be problematic for fish 
because it can change the overall structure of the habitat (Berkman and 
Rabeni 1986, pp. 291-292). Silt can fill voids in rock substrate that 
are integral components of habitat for reproduction and predator 
avoidance. The grotto sculpin occurs in habitats with some level of 
sediment deposition (Gerken 2007, pp. 16-17, 23-25). However, siltation 
beyond what occurred historically could limit the amount of suitable 
habitat available (Gerken 2007, pp. 27-28; Gerken and Adams 2007, p. 
76), and the threshold of siltation that renders cave habitat 
unsuitable for grotto sculpin has not yet been determined. Many farmers 
in Perry County employ soil conservation methods, such as no-till 
planting and removal of highly erodible land from production, to reduce 
erosion in agricultural areas.
Industrial Sand Mining
    Industrial sand is also known as ``silica,'' ``silica sand,'' and 
``quartz sand,'' and includes sands with high silicon dioxide content. 
Silica sand production in the United States was 29.3 million metric 
tons (Mt), an increase of 5.3 Mt from 2009 to 2010 (U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) 2012, p. 66.6). The Midwest leads the Nation in 
industrial sand and gravel production, accounting for 49 percent of the 
annual total (USGS 2012, p. 66.1). One end-use of silica sand is as a 
propping agent for hydraulic fracturing. Higher production of silica 
sand in 2010 was primarily attributable to an increasing demand for 
hydraulic fracturing sand because of continuing exploration and 
production of natural gas throughout the United States. Conventional 
natural gas sources have become less abundant, leading drilling 
companies to turn to deep natural gas and shale gas. Of the 29.3 Mt of 
silica sand sold or used in the United States, 12.1 Mt (41 percent) was 
used for hydraulic fracturing in the petroleum industry (USGS 2012, p. 
66.10). As of 2010, the price per ton for industrial silica sand was 
$45.24 in the United States (USGS 2012, p. 66.11). In addition to new 
facilities, existing hydraulic fracturing sand operations increased 
production capacity to meet the surging demand for sand.
    Mining for silica sand in Missouri occurs in the St. Peter 
Sandstone in Jefferson, Perry, and St. Louis Counties (USGS 2011, p. 
27.2). The St. Peter Sandstone formation is directly adjacent to (to 
the west) the Joachim Dolomite formation that forms the karst habitat 
for the grotto sculpin in Perry County. The interface between these two 
formations generally comprises the western borders of the Central 
Perryville and Mystery-Rimstone karst areas. Four companies in Missouri 
produced 0.9 Mt of high-purity sand from the St. Peter Sandstone 
formation (USGS 2011, p. 27.2). The existing operation in Perry County 
lies 5.6 km (3.5 mi) northwest of Perryville and involves open pit 
mining on 101 ha (250 acres). This producer specializes in 40 to 70 and 
70 to 140 size-grades that were used by the oil and gas well-servicing 
industry as a hydraulic fracture propping agent in shale formations 
(USGS 2010, p. 27.2).
    Sand mining is typically accomplished using open pit or dredging 
methods with standard mining equipment and without the use of 
chemicals. Sand can be mined from outcrops or by removing overburden to 
reach subsurface deposits. Environmental impacts of sand mining are 
primarily limited to disturbance of the immediate area. The current 
operation in Perry County is partially within the Joachim Dolomite 
formation and at the western edge of the sinkhole plain with 
approximately four sinkholes occurring in the immediate vicinity. 
Erosion of soil and disturbed overburden could occur and increase the 
sediment loads in adjacent surface waters and cave streams via runoff. 
For example, a portion of the existing mining operation is within the 
Bois Brule watershed. Sediment-laden runoff could enter Blue Spring 
Branch, one of the surface streams occupied by the grotto sculpin.
    As described above, sedimentation can change the structure of 
grotto sculpin habitat and negatively impact reproduction and predator 
avoidance. Presence of the current facility, only 0.5 km (0.3 mi) and 
1.6 km (1 mi) from the Central Perryville Karst and Crevice Cave 
recharge area, respectively, shows that such operations can and do 
occur in the Joachim Dolomite formation and immediately adjacent to 
grotto sculpin habitat. We currently are unaware of any plans for new 
facilities or expansions of current facilities. However, based on the 
presence of one existing operation, the occurrence of St. Peter 
Sandstone in Perry County, as

[[Page 58948]]

well as recent growth of the hydraulic fracturing industry and 
associated increased demand for silica sand, it is likely that 
increased sand mining activity will occur in the future in areas where 
the grotto sculpin occurs. We consider sand mining to be a potentially 
significant threat to the species in the future.
Summary of Factor A
    The threats to the grotto sculpin from habitat destruction and 
modification are occurring throughout the entire range of the species. 
All of the recharge areas for caves occupied by the grotto sculpin are 
highly vulnerable and contain hazards from historical sinkhole dumps, 
agricultural practices without universal application of best management 
practices, vertical drains, ineffective private septic systems, 
excessive sediment deposition in underground aquatic habitats, and 
degraded runoff from roads. Hazardous waste facilities, outfalls for 
waste and storm water, and underground storage tanks are found in the 
recharge area for Crevice Cave that are not found in other parts of the 
species' range. Water contamination from various sources of point and 
non-point source pollution poses a significant, ongoing threat to the 
grotto sculpin. Water flow in karst systems occurs by way of surface 
features, such as sinkholes and losing streams, as well as connectivity 
to the underlying aquifer. Sinkholes can funnel storm-runoff that 
carries contaminants directly into cave systems in a short period of 
time and severely degrades water quality. The population-level impacts 
from these activities are expected to continue into the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation, 
or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the 
species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American Tribes 
and organizations. Also, Federal, Tribal, State, and foreign recovery 
actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) and Federal consultation requirements (16 
U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation measures. In addition to 
identifying these efforts, under the Act and our policy implementing 
this provision, known as Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 
(68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), we must evaluate the certainty of an 
effort's effectiveness on the basis of whether the effort or plan 
establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the necessary 
steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes quantifiable 
performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and 
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; is 
likely to be implemented; and is likely to improve the species' 
viability at the time of the listing determination. In general, in 
order to meet these standards for the grotto sculpin, conservation 
efforts must, at a minimum, provide outreach and education to 
stakeholders, report data on water quality and existing populations, 
describe activities taken to improve water quality, describe activities 
taken toward conservation of the species, demonstrate either through 
data collection or best available science how these measures will 
alleviate threats, provide for a mechanism to integrate new information 
(adaptive management), and provide assurances of implementation (e.g., 
funding and staffing mechanisms).
    Below, we consider conservation measures that were discussed in 
documents submitted during the public comment period or known to us 
that could reduce threats under Factor A.
Perry County Community Conservation Plan
    Perry County submitted a conservation plan focused on addressing 
threats to the grotto sculpin through a comprehensive, collaborative, 
and voluntary effort. The Perry County Community Conservation Plan 
(Plan) (PCCEEC 2013, entire) was written by representatives of local 
government, organizations, and businesses, as well as representatives 
of private landowners. To date, 47 private entities and businesses, 6 
County and Municipal government entities, 5 State government entities, 
and 1 Federal agency are participating in the local conservation 
effort. Although the Plan has prioritized activities in known grotto 
sculpin habitat, the intention is that the activities outlined in the 
Plan will be implemented on a watershed scale to accomplish greater 
water quality protection and improvement. The mission statement of the 
Plan is to ``Improve water quality throughout the Perry County Karst 
Watershed and Perry County through outreach and education.'' The goal 
of the Plan is to initiate and implement good land stewardship to 
promote good water quality and a sustainable biota through continuing 
community outreach, educational efforts, civic engagement, and 
interagency support. The Plan was developed in close coordination with 
the Service and MDC.
    Environmental concerns addressed by the conservation efforts are 
to: (1) Minimize movement of surface chemicals to groundwater; (2) 
Review application of vertical drain practice and sinkhole 
stabilization or protection; (3) Improve vertical drain installation 
and maintenance; (4) Assure proper installation and function of septic 
tank or sewage lagoons; (5) Improve runoff control along roadways; (6) 
Improve management of wastewater outflows; (7) Improve management of 
stormwater outflows; (8) Ensure chemical spill plans are available; (9) 
Ensure proper installation and maintenance of storage tanks; (10) 
Improve animal waste management; (11) Minimize or avoid livestock waste 
in streams and sinkholes; (12) Dispose of animal carcasses properly; 
and (13) Minimize erosion and sediment transport to aquatic systems. 
The plan also includes a list of programs that are in place that will 
be continued, expanded, and improved.
    The community of Perry County is committed to, and invested in, 
implementing the Perry County Plan. Time and labor to create and 
implement the Plan in the first 90 days amounted to approximately 
$250,000. This is an ongoing investment of time and finances. The City 
of Perryville has allocated $62,000 annually in their budget for 
sinkhole cleanout, maintenance, and repair. The committee is working to 
identify additional state and national partners and resources to 
support the Plan.
    The Perry County Plan addresses threats to the grotto sculpin 
through education of County residents, specific on-the-ground actions, 
monitoring, and reporting, and set forth a long-term vision to improve 
and maintain high-quality water resources. As such, a permanent board, 
the Perry County Community Economic and Environmental Committee 
(Committee), was established to oversee implementation of the Plan and 
serve as the clearinghouse for records on activities and events related 
to water quality. The first step in implementation is the initiation of 
a comprehensive educational campaign for all residents from elementary 
students to adults. The Committee developed educational objectives and 
is expanding educational opportunities that correspond directly to 
environmental concerns. The Committee prioritized on-the-ground actions 
to improve water quality, including sinkhole management, solid waste 
management, stormwater management, and implementation of temporary and 
permanent best management practices in rural and

[[Page 58949]]

urban settings. Methods for monitoring grotto sculpin populations and 
water quality are being established in cooperation with the MDC and the 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
    Since November 2012, some of the actions outlined in the Plan have 
been implemented. More than 350 tires have been removed from sinkholes 
in cooperation with the MDC and local volunteers. Participants have 
registered for educational programs including a teacher's workshop for 
K-12 teachers called Project Wet, and an Envirothon was held with 
support from the local Soil and Water Conservation District that 
focused on education about soils, aquatic habitats, and the grotto 
sculpin. Upcoming events include County-wide refuse disposal efforts, 
karst-specific training for pesticide applicators, and a water testing 
clinic.
    We expect this partnership between local residents, City and County 
governments, and Federal and State agencies will improve water quality 
in the Perry County Karst and benefit the grotto sculpin in the future. 
Factors contributing to poor water quality were identified under Factor 
A as the greatest threat to the species and we anticipate that the 
voluntary actions taken by local residents will improve water quality 
and benefit the species. Furthermore, the actions in the Perry County 
Plan will have conservation benefits beyond those that could be 
accomplished through the section 7 consultation process alone, because 
nearly all grotto sculpin habitat occurs on private land and few 
activities will have a Federal nexus. The Plan provides evidence of 
past environmental stewardship, education to stakeholders, prioritized 
future activities to improve water quality and conserve the grotto 
sculpin and its karst habitat, mechanisms to alleviate threats through 
on-the-ground activities, an adaptive management approach that will 
facilitate incorporation of new information, and commitment of 
financial and staff resources to implement the Plan.
Berome Moore Cave System Management Plan
    The Missouri Caves and Karst Conservancy, Inc. (Conservancy) 
purchased 1 acre of land to form the Lloyd and Ethel Hoff Underground 
Nature Preserve, which includes the entrance to the Berome Moore Cave 
System. The Conservancy has agreed, via a Memorandum of Understanding, 
that the cave and property will be managed by Middle Mississippi Valley 
Grotto, Inc. (MMV), who have managed the cave since its discovery in 
1961. The MMV will continue to manage Berome Moore Cave in order that 
it will be available for scientific study and recreation by responsible 
cavers, while at the same time protecting the cave and its ecosystem 
for future generations of cavers. MMV will also manage the surface 
property to enhance the overall natural setting while protecting the 
subsurface resources. The responsibility for managing the cave system 
falls with the MMV Berome Board. The Board consists of the Berome Moore 
Project Director, the MMV Chair, a Property Manager, and a Cave 
Manager.
The Missouri Department of Conservation
    The MDC developed the Perry County Karst Project: Summary and 
Future Management Implications for the Grotto Sculpin. The plan 
includes goals to (1) educate and improve Perry County Karst 
stakeholders' awareness of groundwater movement and sources of inputs 
in the karst watershed; (2) improve soil stability near streams, 
sinkholes, and vertical drainpipes by implementing enhanced vegetative 
buffers; (3) improve water quality throughout the Perry County Karst 
watershed; and (4) maintain the abundance, diversity, and distribution 
of aquatic biota at or above current levels while improving the quality 
of the game fishery in the Perry County karst watershed. The MDC aims 
achieve these goals through a combination of outreach, workshops, and 
meetings to increase local awareness of available best management 
practices that can improve water quality, assistance with implementing 
best management practices, study water movement and recharge in the 
karst system, and conduct biological monitoring of the grotto sculpin 
and other cave biota.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Although approximately 160 specimens of the grotto sculpin have 
been taken for scientific investigations, we do not consider such 
collection activities to be at a level that poses a threat to the 
species. We do not have records of any individuals being taken for 
commercial or recreational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    Predation by invasive, epigean fish poses a threat to eggs, young-
of-year, and juvenile grotto sculpin. Farm ponds are human-made 
features, as opposed to natural aquatic habitats, that often are 
stocked with both native and nonnative fishes for recreational 
purposes. Fish from farm ponds enter cave systems through sinkholes 
when ponds are unexpectedly drained (Burr et al. 2001, p. 284) or after 
high-precipitation events. Predatory fish were documented in all of the 
caves occupied by the grotto sculpin, and include common carp (Cyprinus 
carpio), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), yellow bullhead 
(Ameiurus natalis), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill 
(Lepomis macrochirus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (Burr 
et al. 2001, p. 284).
    The migration and persistence of invasive, epigean fish species 
into cave environments poses an ongoing and pervasive threat to the 
grotto sculpin because of unnatural levels of predation on eggs, young-
of-year, and juveniles. Predation beyond what occurs naturally among 
adult and juvenile grotto sculpin may reduce population levels, 
potentially to an unsustainable level; however, no monitoring of 
invasive fish has been conducted to determine what level of effect 
their presence has on grotto sculpin populations.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The primary threats to the grotto sculpin are degradation of 
aquatic resources from illegal waste disposal in sinkhole dumps, 
pesticide runoff, chemical leaching, urban development, and 
sedimentation. Existing Federal, State, and local laws have not been 
able to prevent impacts to the grotto sculpin and its habitat largely 
because of noncompliance and inability to fully enforce existing laws.
Federal
    The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 
establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants 
into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards 
for surface waters. Under the CWA, the EPA implements pollution control 
programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry and for all 
contaminants in surface waters. Under the CWA, it is unlawful to 
discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, 
unless a permit is obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point 
sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or manmade ditches. 
Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic 
system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; 
however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain 
permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

[[Page 58950]]

Based on documented levels of contaminants present in the cave streams 
of Perry County (Fox et al. 2010, pp. 8835-8841), current compliance 
with and enforcement of the Clean Water Act of 1972 is insufficient to 
prevent water degradation in grotto sculpin habitat.
    Federal control of pesticides is provided under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). All pesticides 
used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by the EPA. 
Registration assures that pesticides will be properly labeled and that, 
if used in accordance with specifications on the label, will not cause 
unreasonable harm to the environment. By law, use of each registered 
pesticide must be consistent with use directions contained on the label 
or labeling. Some commonly used pesticides, such as atrazine, require 
that the chemical not be applied within 50 ft (15 m) of a groundwater 
input. Noncompliance with label instructions could result in the 
pesticide entering aboveground and underground streams and harming 
aquatic life. Based on documented levels of pesticides present in the 
cave streams of Perry County (Fox et al. 2010, pp. 8835-8841), current 
compliance with and enforcement of FIFRA is insufficient to prevent 
water degradation in grotto sculpin habitat.
State
    Until its formal description as a distinct species in 2013, the 
grotto sculpin was not eligible for protection under the Missouri State 
Endangered Species Law (MO ST 252.240). The State of Missouri can 
consider adding the grotto sculpin to the State Endangered Species List 
now that the species designation has been formalized. While the grotto 
sculpin was a Candidate species, it was recognized by the MDC as a 
Missouri Species of Conservation Concern. All species in the State of 
Missouri are protected as biological diversity elements such that no 
harvest is permitted unless a method of legal harvest is described in 
the permissive Wildlife Code. No method of legal harvest is permitted 
for the grotto sculpin.
    The Missouri Department of Natural Resources establishes water 
quality and solid waste standards that are protective of aquatic life. 
The Missouri Clean Water Law of 1972 (MO ST 644.006-644.141) addresses 
pollution of the waters of the State to prevent threats to public 
health and welfare; wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life; and 
domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other legitimate 
uses of water. It is unlawful for any person: (1) To cause pollution of 
any waters of the State or to place or cause or permit to be placed any 
water contaminant in a location where it is reasonably certain to cause 
pollution of any waters of the State; (2) To discharge any water 
contaminants into any waters of the State that reduce the quality of 
such waters below the water quality standards established by the 
commission; or (3) To violate any regulations regarding pretreatment 
and toxic material control, or to discharge any water contaminants into 
any waters of the State that exceed effluent regulations or permit 
provisions as established by the commission or required by any Federal 
water pollution control act (MO ST 644.051). Based on documented levels 
of contaminants present in the cave streams of Perry County (Fox et al. 
2010, pp. 8835-8841), current compliance with and enforcement of the 
Missouri Clean Water Law of 1972 is insufficient to prevent water 
degradation in grotto sculpin habitat.
    According to the Missouri State Waste Management Law of 1972 (MO ST 
260.210), it is illegal to dump waste materials into sinkholes. 
Regulations under the CWA would apply if a point-source for the 
pollution could be determined. Discrete pollution events that impact 
cave systems are problematic even if a point-source can be determined 
because it can be extremely difficult to assess damages to natural 
resources such as troglobitic biota that live underground. Cave systems 
are recharged by surface water and groundwater that typically travels 
several miles before resurfacing from cave openings and spring heads 
(Vandike 1985, p. 3). Based on the presence of numerous sinkhole dumps 
in Perry County, current compliance with and enforcement of Missouri 
State Waste Management Law of 1972 is insufficient to address threats 
to the grotto sculpin and its habitat.
    Once a sinkhole has been modified or improved to function as a 
vertical drain (it accepts surface or subsurface drainage from 
agricultural activities), it qualifies as a Class V Injection Well 
(alternatively known as an ``agricultural drainage well'') (EPA 1999, 
p. 4). By definition, agricultural drainage wells receive fluids such 
as irrigation tailwaters or return flow, other field drainage (e.g., 
resulting from precipitation, snowmelt, floodwaters), animal yard 
runoff, feedlot runoff, or dairy runoff (EPA 1999, p. 4). In addition 
to threats from permitted injectants, agricultural drainage wells are 
vulnerable to spills from manure lagoons and direct discharge from 
septic tanks, as well as release of agricultural substances, such as 
motor oil and pesticides (EPA 1999, p. 28). Nitrates, total dissolved 
solids (TDS; e.g., solid salts, organometallic compounds, and other 
non-specific inorganic compounds that are dissolved in water), 
sediment, salts, and metals are the most common inorganic constituent 
in agricultural drainage well injectates (EPA, p. 12). The Safe 
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) and later 
amendments established the Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) 
Program. The State of Missouri has obtained primacy from the EPA for 
the UIC program, and the Class V Injection Well program derives its 
authorities from Missouri Clean Water Law (MO ST 644) (MDNR 2006, p. 
2). Even though Class V injection wells are covered under the Missouri 
Clean Water Law of 1972, compliance with and enforcement of the 
existing regulations do not prevent deposition of contaminants 
documented in occupied grotto sculpin habitats of Perry County.
    Agricultural drainage wells in Iowa are present in an agricultural 
landscape characterized by karst features that include solution 
channels and sinkholes (EPA 1999, p. 6). Nitrates are derived from 
oxidized nitrogen compounds that are applied to cropland to add 
nutrients and are highly mobile in ground water (EPA 1999, p. 12). Data 
from water sampling in Iowa indicate that nitrate is a primary 
constituent in ADW injectate and likely exceeds health standards (EPA 
1999, p. 13). Water quality sampling of agricultural drainage well 
injectate conducted in Iowa, Texas, and Idaho showed that other 
constituents also have exceeded primary or secondary drinking water 
standards or health advisory levels, and include boron, sulfate, 
coliforms, pesticides (cyanazine, atrazine, alachlor, aldicarb, 
carbofuran, 1,2-dichloropropane, and dibromochloropropane), TDSs, and 
chloride (EPA 1999, pp. 14-20).
Local Ordinances
    There are no water quality ordinances in effect in Perry County 
beyond minimum State standards in the Code of State Regulations (19 CSR 
20-3.015) and, therefore, no limitations for onsite septic construction 
as long as septic systems are built on properties greater than 1.2 ha 
(3 ac) and the system is at least 3 m (10 ft) from the property line. A 
more protective ordinance has been adopted in Monroe County, Illinois, 
where the soils and topography are very similar to Perry County (Monroe 
County Zoning Code 40-5-3, chapter 40-4-29). The ordinance in Monroe 
County prohibits placement of any substances

[[Page 58951]]

or objects in sinkholes, alteration of sinkholes, and development in 
sinkholes. The stated purpose of the ordinance is, ``to reduce the 
frequency of structural damage to public and private improvements by 
sinkhole collapse or subsidence and to protect, preserve and enhance 
sensitive and valuable potable groundwater resource areas of karst 
topography, thus protecting the public health, safety and welfare and 
insuring orderly development within the County.''
    Greene County, Missouri, also is in a sinkhole plain and has 
adopted special regulations relative to construction of onsite septic 
systems. They require that systems are constructed above the sinkhole 
flooding area, which is defined as ``the area below the elevation of 
the lowest point on the sinkhole rim or the areas inundated by runoff 
from a storm with an annual exceedance probability of 1 percent (100-
year storm) and a duration of 24 hours (8 inches of rain in Green 
County)'' (Green County 2003, pp. 3-9). Current compliance with and 
enforcement of minimum standards in the Code of State Regulations (19 
CSR 20-3.015) for water quality standards in Missouri are not 
protective enough to prevent the deposition of silt and contaminants 
into occupied grotto sculpin habitats, as reported by Gerken and Adams 
(2007, p. 76) and Fox et al. (2010, pp. 8835-8841).
Summary of Factor D
    Despite existing regulatory mechanisms that provide some protection 
for the grotto sculpin and its habitat, a wide array of factors (see 
Factors A, C, and E) remain threats to the grotto sculpin. Existing 
Federal and State water quality laws and State waste management law can 
be applied to protect water quality in surface and cave streams 
occupied by the grotto sculpin; however current compliance and 
enforcement of these laws have not been sufficient to prevent continued 
habitat degradation and mortality events. Although harvest of grotto 
sculpin is not permitted in the Missouri Wildlife Code, the species has 
not yet been protected under Missouri Endangered Species Law but is now 
eligible because it has been formally recognized as a distinct species. 
The existing regulatory mechanisms could provide protection of water 
quality in grotto sculpin habitat, which is the most significant threat 
to the species, and address threats to the species throughout its range 
if enforcement and compliance were improved.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence.

Restricted Range and Isolated Populations
    The grotto sculpin has a restricted range that is confined to five 
cave systems and two short stream reaches in two watersheds. Results of 
genetic analysis indicate isolation of grotto sculpin populations. 
Adams et al. (2013, p. 488) documented genetic isolation between 
northern sample locations (Moore Cave, Crevice Cave, Mertz Cave, Blue 
Spring Branch, and Cinque Hommes Creek) and southern sample locations 
(Mystery Cave, Running Bull Cave, Rimstone River Cave, and Thunderhole 
Resurgence). The grotto sculpin's isolated populations are each 
susceptible to local extirpation from a single catastrophic event, such 
as a toxic chemical spill or storm event that destroys its habitat. 
Local extirpation of one or more of the existing five populations would 
reduce the ability to recover from the cumulative effects of smaller 
chronic impacts to the population and habitat such as progressive 
degradation from water contamination.
    Environmental stressors, such as habitat loss and degradation, 
exacerbate problems associated with the species' endemism and 
isolation, increasing the species' vulnerability to localized or 
rangewide extinction (Crnokrak and Roff 1999, p. 262; Hedrick and 
Kalinowski 1999, pp. 142-146). The isolation of populations of the 
grotto sculpin make it vulnerable to extinction and loss of genetic 
diversity caused by genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and 
stochastic events (Willis and Brown 1985, p. 316). Small, isolated 
populations are more susceptible to genetic drift, possibly leading to 
fixation where all except one allele is lost, and population 
bottlenecks leading to inbreeding (Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 178-187). 
Inbreeding depression can result in death, decreased fertility, smaller 
body size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, various chromosome 
abnormalities, and reduced resistance to disease (Hedrick and 
Kalinowski 1999, pp. 139-142).
    Even though some populations fluctuate naturally, small and low-
density populations are more likely to fluctuate below a minimum viable 
population (the minimum or threshold number of individuals needed in a 
population to persist in a viable state for a given interval) if they 
are influenced by stressors beyond those under which they have evolved 
(Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Shaffer and Samson 1985, pp. 148-150; Gilpin and 
Soule 1986, pp. 25-33). For example, grotto sculpin in Running Bull 
Cave exhibit the most distinct morphological adaptations to the cave 
environment and are the only individuals in the Cinque Hommes Creek 
drainage to have a rare genetic haplotype (Adams 2005, p. 49). One of 
the two known mass mortalities caused by a pollution event occurred in 
Running Bull Cave and temporarily eliminated grotto sculpin from the 
site. Grotto sculpin eventually recolonized the cave, but 
recolonization did not necessarily occur through local recruitment, but 
possibly through immigration by individuals from connected population 
segments within the same cave system. Unknown subterranean connections 
via inaccessible and currently unsurveyed portions of some grotto 
sculpin caves could provide a means of connecting populations between 
or among caves. For example, Running Bull Cave might serve as a primary 
site of population connectivity and act as a connecting stream between 
Mystery and Rimstone River Caves (Day 2008, p. 52).
    Even though haplotype diversity post-extirpation was comparable to 
that previously measured (Day 2008, p. 54), it is possible that 
previously undocumented haplotypes were lost and will not be recovered. 
Day (2008, p. 54) notes that extirpation events of longer duration or 
greater severity could negatively impact overall genetic diversity. 
Furthermore, this scenario is illustrative of the potential for 
extirpation of entire populations and the cascading effects on 
connected populations.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different 
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical 
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also 
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers 
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of 
climate (for example, temperature or precipitation) that persists for 
an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is 
due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). 
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects 
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and 
they may change over time, depending on the species and other

[[Page 58952]]

relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate 
with other variables (for example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change. As is the case with all stressors 
that we assess, even if we conclude that a species is currently 
affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more 
climate-related impacts, it does not necessarily follow that the 
species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' under the Act. If a species is listed as an 
endangered or threatened species, knowledge regarding the vulnerability 
of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, climate-
associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help 
devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    The impact of climate change on the grotto sculpin is uncertain. 
The species is dependent on an adequate water supply and has specific 
habitat requirements (water depth and connectivity of caves and surface 
sites); we expect that climate change could significantly alter the 
quantity and quality of grotto sculpin habitat and thus impact the 
species in the future. This species relies on surface water for energy 
input into the cave system, recharge of groundwater, and availability 
of surface streams. Potential adverse effects from climate change 
include increased frequency and duration of droughts (Rind et al. 1990, 
p. 9983; Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184; Rahel and Olden 2008, p. 
526) and changes in water temperature, which likely serves as a cue for 
reproduction in grotto sculpin (Adams 2005, pp. 10-11). Climate warming 
might also decrease groundwater levels (Schindler 2001, p. 22) or 
significantly reduce annual stream flows (Moore et al. 1997, p. 925; Hu 
et al. 2005, p. 9). In the Missouri Ozarks, it is projected that stream 
basin discharges may be significantly impacted by synergistic effects 
of changes in land cover and climate change (Hu et al. 2005, p. 9), and 
similar impacts are anticipated in the karst regions of Perry County, 
Missouri. Grotto sculpin require deep pools in caves, which could 
decrease in availability under drought conditions. Overall, shallower 
water or reduced flows could further concentrate contaminants present 
and lower dissolved oxygen in cave habitats.
Summary of Factor E
    The restricted nature and isolation of grotto sculpin populations 
makes it more vulnerable to decline or loss of populations from 
stochastic events. Such losses could have detrimental effects to the 
genetic diversity and long-term genetic viability of the species. The 
symptom of climate change most likely to have detrimental effects on 
the grotto sculpin is increased frequency and severity of drought, but 
the extent and intensity of impacts are known. Because the grotto 
sculpin is dependent on connectivity among underground aquatic habitats 
and connectivity between underground and aboveground aquatic habitats, 
sustained decreases in water levels could cut off migratory routes and 
make recolonization impossible should a population-limiting situation 
occur. Low pool levels also could concentrate any chemicals present in 
the water and magnify the impacts of those contaminants. However, it is 
the combination of Factor E with other threats to the species 
(primarily water quality degradation), not Factor E alone, that poses 
the greatest threat to the grotto sculpin. Therefore, we find that 
other natural or manmade factors alone do not pose a significant threat 
to the continued existence of the grotto sculpin now or into the 
future.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
    Some of the threats discussed in this finding could work in concert 
with one another to cumulatively create situations that potentially 
impact the grotto sculpin beyond the scope of the combined threats that 
we have already analyzed. The restricted nature and isolation of grotto 
sculpin populations, loss of genetic diversity, and effects from 
climate change could exacerbate other factors negatively affecting the 
species. These factors are particularly detrimental when combined with 
other factors, such as habitat and water quality degradation and 
predation by invasive fish, and have a greater cumulative impact than 
would any of those factors acting independently. For example, 
compromised health from poor water quality might increase predation 
risk or extended periods of drought can reduce connectivity among 
subpopulations, impeding recolonization following a catastrophic event 
that extirpates a population.
Summary of Factors
    The primary threat to the grotto sculpin is the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range. Water contamination from various sources of point and non-point 
source pollution poses a significant, ongoing threat to the grotto 
sculpin. Water flow in karst systems occurs by way of surface features, 
such as sinkholes and losing streams, as well as connectivity to the 
underlying aquifer. Sinkholes can funnel storm-runoff that carries 
contaminants directly into cave systems in a short period of time and 
severely degrades water quality. These factors are ongoing and thus 
pose current threats to the species.

Determination

    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats to the grotto sculpin. Numerous major 
threats, acting individually or synergistically, continue today (see 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The most substantial threats 
to the species come from the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat (Factor A). Although no 
clear estimates of historical population numbers for the grotto sculpin 
exist in order to determine whether or not dramatic population declines 
have occurred in the past, two mass mortalities have been documented 
since the early 2000s. Both mortality events are thought to have been 
caused by point-source pollution of surface waters that recharge cave 
streams occupied by the grotto sculpin.
    The known factors negatively affecting the grotto sculpin have 
continued to impact the species' habitat since it was elevated to 
candidate status in 2002 (67 FR 40657; June 13, 2002). All of the 
recharge areas for known grotto sculpin habitat are considered 
vulnerable. It is believed that the primary threats to the species are 
habitat destruction and modification from water quality degradation and 
siltation. In particular, documentation that a suite of chemicals and 
other contaminants is continuously entering the groundwater above 
levels that can be harmful to aquatic life is especially concerning. 
Potential sources and vehicles for introduction of pollution likely are 
industrialization, contaminated agricultural runoff, sinkhole dumps, 
and

[[Page 58953]]

vertical drains installed without appropriate best management 
practices.
    A variety of current- and legacy-use pesticides from agricultural 
runoff and sinkhole leaching, evidence of human waste from ineffective 
septic systems, and animal waste from livestock operations have been 
detected in grotto sculpin streams. These not only negatively affect 
the grotto sculpin directly but also the aquatic ecosystems and aquifer 
underlying the Perry County sinkhole plain.
    Siltation beyond historical levels affects the grotto sculpin in a 
variety of ways, such as eliminating suitable habitat for all life 
stages, reducing dissolved oxygen levels, increasing contaminants (that 
bind to sediments), and reducing prey populations. Predation on eggs, 
larvae, and juveniles by nonnative epigean fish can further reduce 
population numbers and will be a more prominent threat if siltation 
continues to degrade cave habitats to the point where refugia from 
predatory fish are no longer available to the grotto sculpin.
    The grotto sculpin's endemism and isolated populations make it 
particularly susceptible to multiple, continuing threats and stochastic 
events that could cause substantial population declines, loss of 
genetic diversity, or multiple extirpations, leading ultimately to 
extinction of the species. Temporary extirpations of two of five known 
populations have occurred in the recent past. Recolonization after such 
mortality events is dependent on the presence and accessibility of 
source populations. Continued threats to the species not only impact 
individual populations, but also decrease the viability of source 
populations, and the likelihood that areas where the species has been 
extirpated will be recolonized. Furthermore, existing regulatory 
mechanisms provide little direct protection of water quality in grotto 
sculpin habitat, which is the most significant threat to the species. 
In addition to the individual threats, primarily those discussed under 
Factor A, which is sufficient to warrant the species' listing, the 
cumulative effect of Factors A, C, and E is such that the influence of 
threats on the grotto sculpin are significant throughout its entire 
range.
    Overall, impacts from increasing threats, operating singly or in 
combination, are likely to result in the extinction of the species. 
Because these threats are placing the species in danger of extinction 
now and not only at some point in the foreseeable future, we determined 
it is endangered and not threatened. Therefore, on the basis of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing 
the grotto sculpin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Missouri will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the grotto sculpin. Information on our 
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found 
at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Section 7(a) of the Act 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 designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its

[[Page 58954]]

critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal 
consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of 
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; 
construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-
way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.

Required Determinations

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. 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 OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Data Quality Act

    In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the 
Field Supervisor, Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this document is staff from the Columbia 
Missouri Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Sculpin, grotto'' to 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order 
under Fishes to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Fishes
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sculpin, grotto..................  Cottus specus.......  U.S.A. (MO)........  Entire.............  E                       823     17.95(e)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 58955]]

    Dated: September 9, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23185 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P